I have that question...what is the avarage alignement for a human in the midieval age or in the dark ages?
I think is Neutral Evil, cause they could be kill a guy for some gold points... so... what do you think?...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful Neutral would be the best fit for the "average guy".
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Neutral.
The average alignment for most civilized peoples is Neutral.
They just wanna go about their business. They don't care about the laws, except how they affect them. They follow the law because it's easier to do so than not.
They won't go out of their way to hurt you, not because of any big moral reason, but because it simply requires more effort to accost you than let you go on your way, but aren't necessarily disinclined to help a person in need either.
They follow the law because it's easier to do so than not.
Now, isn't someone who follows the law out of self-interest (or simply fear) lawful as well? From a Pathfinder alignment perspective, I mean.
i believe in the basic goodness of all humans so i say CG (we all just want to be free after all:)
Robots on the other hand are evil as shit!!! NE for them:)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Rynjin said.
You might get societies that have people that tend toward Law, or Chaos, or even Good or Evil (though those two are rarer)...but individuals who do so are a lot rarer than a society doing so. They're more common in such societies (ie: a LG nation produces more LG citizens and fewer CE ones than a CN one), but for most societies the Alignment in question is a function of how the governmental system functions and what beliefs the people espouse rather than the actual Alignment of the man on the street, who's likely too ambivalent about putting such things into practice to not be some variety of Neutral, and probably tending toward True Neutral.
People are mostly just people. They live their lives, go to work, are usually pretty nice to their families and friends, and might even throw some money to beggars on the street if they have some to spare...but they don't go running to help when they hear screaming, don't run after someone to return the money they dropped, don't really care if people's children are being murdered in some country they've never been to, and so on and so forth. They might be prejudiced or unpleasant in some other way, but wouldn't go out of their way to form a lynch mob or anything. They might commit a crime of passion, or small crimes they think they won't get caught at, but they don't make a habit of it for the most part. And there are some moral lines they wouldn't even dream of crossing (rape, murder, cannibalism, a few other things like that)...but probably would anyway if their life was at stake.
In short, they're just people. And very much Neutral for the most part.
Average : true neutral because they are well spread among all alignments. (Ninja'd). Don't think lawfull is really an avegare, seeing how many people hate cops and politicians.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't think lawfull is really a avegare, seeing how many people hate cops and politicians.
Those two sentences are unrelated; one does not imply the other in any way.
Also note that the OP asked about the middle/dark ages, not the present.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neutral good.
Most people don't like others to suffer and will actively work to prevent that (even if it costs them).
The law/chaos axis depends far too much on the individual group/DM's interpretation to easily talk about it, in my view. Irrespective, all the expositions I've heard involve far too much hi falutin philosophy for the average joe blow to care about.
|
|
They follow the law because it's easier to do so than not.Now, isn't someone who follows the law out of self-interest (or simply fear) lawful as well? From a Pathfinder alignment perspective, I mean.
Someone who breaks the law whenever it's convenient and they're sure they can get away with it isn't Lawful at all. Heck, obeying the law isn't inherently Lawful, for that matter. Lawful Alignment is about discipline and an unwavering code of behavior, not 'laws' as such (though you could certainly have 'obey the law' as your consistent code of behavior).
Intent matters; if your intent in obeying a law is 'not going to jail', that's not especially Lawful. If you obey the law due to a philosophical position that laws are important, or just a love of order, structure, and rules, then you're Lawful...but that's not the typical guy oon the street in most societies.
|
|
Most people don't like others to suffer and will actively work to prevent that (even if it costs them).
I so desperately wish this were true.
Most people don't do this, though, not with strangers and it's going to actually cost them anything of value. Some certainly do...but most? Not in my experience.
1, Resenting authority doesn't seem lawful to me.
2, You are right, but I used people in general because I don't know many people in the dark ages. Can't tell if this changed much.
1, Resenting authority doesn't seem lawful to me.
Doesn't matter if you resent it, only if you obey it. Alignment is about actions, not emotions/feelings.
Most people don't like others to suffer and will actively work to prevent that (even if it costs them).I so desperately wish this were true.
Most people don't do this, though, not with strangers and it's going to actually cost them anything of value. Some certainly do...but most? Not in my experience.
It's not my field, but I believe the research is that most of us are quite altruistic. (Although strangers are definitely rated far, far below our friends and family, that's true).
One confounding statistic (with reasonable evolutionary justification, if you like that kind of thing in your psychology) is that we tend to remember selfish acts done by others more than their altruistic ones and we tend to report them more.
1, Resenting authority doesn't seem lawful to me.Doesn't matter if you resent it, only if you obey it. Alignment is about actions, not emotions/feelings.
No I agree with Dead Man Walking here, see post above.
|
|
It's not my field, but I believe the research is that most of us are quite altruistic. (Although strangers are definitely rated far, far below our friends and family, that's true).
One confounding statistic (with reasonable evolutionary justification, if you like that kind of thing in your psychology) is that we tend to remember selfish acts done by others more than their altruistic ones and we tend to report them more.
It depends on what you define as 'altruistic'. A lot of studies put donating money into this category. They're even right...but if you have enough money to live on comfortably, donating what remains doesn't actually cost you very much in any meaningful sense. Making it the kind of altruism that one can do risk-free and for minimal cost...like the giving money to beggars example I use above. That kind of easy altruism is indeed pretty common.
It's when you start having to actually risk yourself or donate a lot of time or effort into the altruistic behavior that a lot of people just aren't willing to put the time, effort, or risk in...at least not for strangers.
I don't think giving money to charity when you've got some extra is sufficient altruism for a Good alignment, basically. It can be if combined with other Good qualities, and certainly is a lot better than not doing so...but it's not sufficient on its own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neutral.
This. All humans* have consciences, and like to believe the best of themselves, but the fact is that most people don't act on their ideals often enough to leave Neutral territory. Most people want to help others and be selfless, but for various logistical and psychological reasons, end up reserving the vast majority of their helpfulness for their close friends and family. Most people will say that they believe in a faith, or the rule of law, or some ideal or other, but never end up paying more than lip service.
Neutral.
*Except maybe corner cases like sociopaths.
1, Resenting authority doesn't seem lawful to me.
Only if you find the authority legitimate. There's plenty of authorities that themselves resent other authorities. You're not chaotic because you dislike nazi germany.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1, Resenting authority doesn't seem lawful to me.Doesn't matter if you resent it, only if you obey it. Alignment is about actions, not emotions/feelings.
Wrong, motive counts. I can set up orphanages all day long and still be LE because i have very bad plans for them in the future even if i am taking very good care of them for years first
Wrong, motive counts. I can set up orphanages all day long and still be LE because i have very bad plans for them in the future even if i am taking very good care of them for years first1, Resenting authority doesn't seem lawful to me.Doesn't matter if you resent it, only if you obey it. Alignment is about actions, not emotions/feelings.
And I would name you LE only if you carried out those plans, or were committing other LE acts on the side.
|
1, Resenting authority doesn't seem lawful to me.
What if I strictly resent all legal authority due to my personal disbelief in the legal structure, and I instead follow my own personal rules and laws and completely disrespect and disregard all laws that aren't on my own personal code, am I chaotic because I don't like authority?
The average human is unaligned, because back in the medieval times we didn't have none of your fancy dungeons and dragons. They had dungeons! Just no dragons. Or at least none I remember... They're dungeons had less loot and xp too probably. We've come a long way.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Motive is important to the extent that it describes how far you need to be pushed by situational factors to act in ways typical of a certain alignment. Everyone's actions are affected by the situation, but alignment reflects your "default" position and how hard it is to shift you from that default.
A chaotic character who resents authority but obeys laws out of fear of punishment will break the law in an instant if they think they can get away with it. A lawful character who respects authority and obeys laws because they think laws are important will not break the law even if they can get away with it. A neutral person might fudge a little bit (eg littering but not graffiti, jaywalking but not driving through red lights) or might break laws when they see others breaking them.
Likewise, a good person needs a strong reason to hurt someone (typically defense of self or another), while an evil person needs a strong reason to help someone (typically benefit to themselves).
What if I hypothetically strictly resent all legal authority due to my personal disbelief in the legal structure, and I instead follow my own personal rules and laws and completely disrespect and disregard all laws that aren't on my own personal code, am I chaotic because I don't like authority?
Depends on whether your personal rules and laws form an orderly system of behavior or are more a set of guidelines describing your values - and whether your think legal structures are inherently bad or whether you just dislike the particular legal structure in your government.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The average human is unaligned, because back in the medieval times we didn't have none of your fancy dungeons and dragons. They had dungeons! Just no dragons. Or at least none I remember... They're dungeons had less loot and xp too probably. We've come a long way.
Well, since the largest number of people in the medieval were surf's, that came with the piece of property they farmed, and failing to follow the laws of the "Laird of the Manor" or the parish priest was punishable with many interesting and painful methods of discipline, Lawful Neural.
Now, if you want to play a Mercenary, nan-at-arms, Petit Sergeant, Sergeant at arms, Knight errant, Knight, Baron, Duke, or Prince, that would be different. They were soldiers, and once you reach Petit Sergeant, they held enough land to maintain a horse (for war) and equipment. The Barons, or lesser nobility, all owed fealty to some higher lord. They would be Lawful. An independent lord that held his own lands, like Count Palatine or Marquis, Duke, or Prince they would tend to Neutral or even Chaotic. Once a lord owned his own lands and didn't owe Jack to anyone, it was an out for myself.
If you want to kill someone for their gold, you are playing a Robber Baron or some more common criminal, that preys on whoever he comes across.
Many years ago I played a game named Chivalry & Sorcery, that was set in the medieval ages. Because the lesser nobles, greater nobles, and royalty almost all owed fealty and loyalty to some higher noble, they all tended to be lawful. Individual characters, however, varied form the average.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They follow the law because it's easier to do so than not.Now, isn't someone who follows the law out of self-interest (or simply fear) lawful as well? From a Pathfinder alignment perspective, I mean.Someone who breaks the law whenever it's convenient and they're sure they can get away with it isn't Lawful at all. Heck, obeying the law isn't inherently Lawful, for that matter. Lawful Alignment is about discipline and an unwavering code of behavior, not 'laws' as such (though you could certainly have 'obey the law' as your consistent code of behavior).
Intent matters; if your intent in obeying a law is 'not going to jail', that's not especially Lawful. If you obey the law due to a philosophical position that laws are important, or just a love of order, structure, and rules, then you're Lawful...but that's not the typical guy oon the street in most societies.
Yeah, a lot of people seem to believe that the only way to not be Lawful-aligned is to go into all-out Chaotic-Stupid territory. You met a city guard and didn't stab him, just because he was part of a patrol that would have you outnumbered ten to one? Lawful. Anyone Neutral or Chaotic would've stabbed him, no matter how suicidally stupid it was.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, since the largest number of people in the medieval were surf's, that came with the piece of property they farmed, and failing to follow the laws of the "Laird of the Manor" or the parish priest was punishable with many interesting and painful methods of discipline, Lawful Neural.
Wise man once say, it is not about following the rules, but knowing when you can get away with it. There is something to be said of people under great distress and without a feeling of constant surveillance that makes them capable of breaking laws.
I should probably add that your post has a logic of "well there are laws and punishment, therefore people are lawful! and people who didn't need to follow those laws instantly turned chaotic!" but... that's not quiet how it works because people tend to have personalities. Similarly, the fact there are or aren't laws may affect your opinion of things, but whether you like those laws and how you would prefer things may vary greatly. In a time with less philosophy lessons, this may feel like the choice between anarchy/banditry and what is already there. [/blahblahblahphilosophicalconjecture]
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I would name you LE only if you carried out those plans, or were committing other LE acts on the side.Wrong, motive counts. I can set up orphanages all day long and still be LE because i have very bad plans for them in the future even if i am taking very good care of them for years first1, Resenting authority doesn't seem lawful to me.Doesn't matter if you resent it, only if you obey it. Alignment is about actions, not emotions/feelings.
What he said. If you haven't DONE anything evil, then you aren't evil. Otherwise, we get into 'killing orc babies is fine' or 'I had the best of intentions slaughtering six million Jews'.
Yes, I Godwinned. Deal with it.
Godwin's Law wasn't meant to suggest that anyone using Hitler in a discussion was wrong. It was meant to point out that using him as a metric cheapens the Holocaust.
"Stone libertarians were ready to label any government regulation as incipient Nazism. And, invariably, the comparisons trivialized the horror of the Holocaust and the social pathology of the Nazis. It was a trivialization I found both illogical ... and offensive."
What if the only reason you don't commit said acts is because of fear?
i.e.: "I really, really want to kill my neighbor, and I would, if I had the chance, but I'm afraid the police will catch me!"
If alignments is about morals, not history, then just having a sufficiently dark heart would be enough to ping evil, but not necessarily mean the person is guilty of anything.
Man, that makes Paladins' jobs even more difficult...
EDIT: Oh f*+@! I posted on an alignment thread! Sarenrae forgive me!!!
EDIT: Oh f~@*! I posted on an alignment thread! Sarenrae forgive me!!!
Saranrae forgives...
I don't!
|
|
And I would name you LE only if you carried out those plans, or were committing other LE acts on the side.Wrong, motive counts. I can set up orphanages all day long and still be LE because i have very bad plans for them in the future even if i am taking very good care of them for years first1, Resenting authority doesn't seem lawful to me.Doesn't matter if you resent it, only if you obey it. Alignment is about actions, not emotions/feelings.What he said. If you haven't DONE anything evil, then you aren't evil. Otherwise, we get into 'killing orc babies is fine' or 'I had the best of intentions slaughtering six million Jews'.
Yes, I Godwinned. Deal with it.
So setting up a 10 year plan to slaughter a bunch of people as a sacrifice to Asmodeus is not evil until you pull the trigger? I think your alignment system might be a bit off. Alignment is who you are not some sliding gauge of what acts you have recently done. You can be an evil coward that enjoys the suffering of others but do not act to do it yourself out of fear or good in a land where you have never had the opportunity to give of yourself to help others
EDIT: Oh f~@*! I posted on an alignment thread! Sarenrae forgive me!!!Saranrae forgives...
I don't!
Here is hoping that you're not proficient with scimitars...
I usually avoid alignment threads (especially if they are about Paladins), I have no idea why I decided to check this one out... Boredom, most likely.
I'm leaving now, before someone comes around with some insta-fall scenario that makes me wonder how little can a GM care for their players' fun.
*throws smoke bomb into the ground and disappears*
So setting up a 10 year plan to slaughter a bunch of people as a sacrifice to Asmodeus is not evil until you pull the trigger? I think your alignment system might be a bit off. Alignment is who you are not some sliding gauge of what acts you have recently done. You can be an evil coward that enjoys the suffering of others but do not act to do it yourself out of fear or good in a land where you have never had the opportunity to give of yourself to help others.
I agree. Even the best actions can be twisted to further the goals of evil and vice versa.
If I fund an orphanage so I can indoctrinate kids into becoming my loyal assassins then that's pretty evil despite doing something good: giving shelter and food to orphans.
If I steal a bunch of gold from a rich man or a church to feed a starving village then I've done something good despite doing something evil: stealing what is rightfully someone else's.
I think what it really boils down to is "Morality and Ethics are complicated subjects that balance a wide variety of factors, and trying to boil it down to two or three simple bullet points never works."
I consider most humans to be both lawful and good. I expect that people haven't changed since the middle ages, so they would have been lawful and good then as well.
Obviously, not all are, and very few don't occasionally act in other ways some of the time, but mostly people are pretty good and work together to create organized functioning societies. If that wasn't true, we would have killed ourselves off long ago.