|
"Heroes" are a dying breed these days, with the rise of the antihero and the like. Who wants to be Captain America when you can be Wolverine?Yea, there's too many of these new-fangled anti-heroes like Gilgamesh, Achilles, Odysseus, Herakles, Aeneas, King Arthur, and Lancelot. Why can't we just go back to the traditional, old-fashioned heroes like...um...uh...
Percival?
I think it's officially safe to say that how one views alignment depends on how grimdark or happy-rainbow-kittens your view on human's natural predilections on morals are.
That's actually an indirect reason I got rid of alignment. I am into Pathfinder for the escapism, and I like my escapism more optimistic. To the point where I would live in my worlds. That doesn't facilitate interesting adventuring. What does provide conflict in such a world is the government forces who relentlessly pursue the monsters and evil mages, keeping them under control so that the everyday citizen doesn't have to constantly fear them. As a wise man once said, "People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." This pushes the game very deep into Lawful Good territory, though, and I didn't want an alignment system for a game that focuses on specific moral themes. It's much better to describe the themes of courage, service, honor, duty, and sacrifice that to start banning alignments that clash, because the first doesn't come off as negative and the second can.
So, I don't have alignment because I have happy-rainbow-kittens everywhere. Who exist because a few PCs brave the grimdark.
All right, who said what while I was doing finals and watching Chinese war movies?
That's actually an indirect reason I got rid of alignment. I am into Pathfinder for the escapism, and I like my escapism more optimistic.
You mean, you treat Pathfinder like a Saturday afternoon diversion, and you think the absolute last thing such an activity needs is the impetus for a knock-down, drag-out, philosophical war?
Say it isn't so... ;)
{. . .}
Enforce slavery - world is f+@*ed and only through sheer perseverance can the race survive to make it to the next time the planet will be good. Any wasted energy will simply cause many people to die. so, at birth 3/10 people are labeled slaves. Any action the slaves take to resist will injure thousands and probably themselves making it an evil action, and thus by the stopping of evil actions being innately good, the enforcement of slavery is a net good action.
{. . .}
Necessity does not make Good. Any society that has to enforce slavery to survive is so inherently evil that it does not deserve to survive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's actually an indirect reason I got rid of alignment. I am into Pathfinder for the escapism, and I like my escapism more optimistic.You mean, you treat Pathfinder like a Saturday afternoon diversion, and you think the absolute last thing such an activity needs is the impetus for a knock-down, drag-out, philosophical war?
Say it isn't so... ;)
I get into rough themes sometimes, and I do take the game seriously. I just that I really like designing cities that are cool (I'm an urban planning student. I tend to use PF to do all the stuff in my dreams.). If the city is kind of a hellhole, it doesn't appeal to me. At the same time, I like gothic horror elements, and dark, gruesome stories. I just like the heroes to have something nice to go home to afterwards (Incidentally, this is why I couldn't get into Midnight or Lovecraft. I like the dark elements, but they lack hope.). I find the best way to reconcile that is to have a world that is a really nice place to live largely because people like the PCs go into the grimdark parts of the world and keep them in check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just going to toss in that rules and mechanics are supposed to help resolve things.
Look how well that is working. :D
I feel this is relevant
I <3 that video so much. ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
1) What you choose to eat can have a definite effect on your alignment. Food is not immune from choice. You can be a Humanitarian!
2)They are the same thing, one on the micro level, one on the macro level.
3) You're twisting the meaning of it to one-offs.
Evil can undertake pretty much any action, even a externally good one, and have it still be an evil action because of why it was done. It's what Evil Masterminds DO.
There are whole slews of actions that Good people cannot take and call them Good actions. They will NEVER be good. They might be Necessary, but they will not be Good. Taking those actions does not make them more of a Good person, whereas the obverse with Evil people taking Good actions can very well make them even more sinister.
Or not, it's indeed their choice! And this freedom of choice is one of the great lures of Evil.
4)Indeed, same as #3.
5)Rampant slaughter without discernible rhyme or reason is indeed CE. It's insane behavior on its face.
Actually Chaotic Good believes that individuals must take responsibility for their actions. That means if the Law won't do what's right, it's up to the individual to do so. You are responsible for your actions, you can't protect yourself with the law, and I have as much right to punish you for your wicked ways as you had the choice to do them in the first place. Take your lumps! This is why your earlier example of a CG killing the LN king is not an Evil action...the king's is responsible for the actions of those who act in his name, and even if his personal hands are clean, he is responsible. The CG guy is holding him to account for his laws and evil actions of his minions. Granted, he's also going to go after those minions, too, but the king doesn't get a free pass just because he's turning a blind eye to things.
As an example, there's plenty of jihadists who would happily kill Obama for the things America has done in the Middle East, and it's a given that Obama doesn't know everything that goes on there, doesn't really want to be there, and has little to no involvement in the day to day activities of the conflict. He's still ultimately responsible, and they would feel totally justified in popping him and striking a blow at America.
Where's this Damning thousands to die coming from? Society choosing to kill thousands of people because one man won't kowtow to them is Tyranny in its finest form. Put the blame where it belongs. This is exactly akin to the standard no-win situation contrived to make a Paladin Fall: Save the baby or save the town. Either way, innocents die, your choice doomed them, and you Fall. That is an outright lie by the party that contrived the situation in the first place, and where the blame truly lies.
Damning thousands to perpetual, invioble slavery is also Evil. You've a classic case of the lesser of two Evils, not good.
By your judgment there, any war is evil, when war is specifically seen as neutral and oppressing everyone equally. Choosing not to save someone is Evil, because it damns them, be it from accident, natural disaster, starvation, weather, or their own stupidity...even if you don't have the power to save them! Woot!
You see, the only way you could work LG into your example is to remove slavery and institute voluntary this or that labor. If the people in your example want to work without pay or recompense, that's LG, and nobody, not even CG, is going to foreswear that. It's the highest level of community and civic responsibility. However, the problem is that the non-volunteers will rapidly exploit them. Free helpful labor is much better then paid helpful labor and better then unhelpful unpaid labor, after all!
By IMPOSING slavery, regardless of choice, by any methods or means, you've moved this to Tyranny of the Majority, a Lawful stance. By imposing it on the unwilling, you've made it Evil.
And if the subjugated choose to rise up, and die fighting instead of die of starvation or 'damning', that's not Evil in the slightest. Your only Good way around this is to let them go, or to find another way.
The motivation that 'the race as a whole could survive' is a smokescreen to justify tyranny. You've removed the option to say 'no'. Cloaking yourself in shiny colors doesn't make it a Good decision in the slightest. It's still cruel and draconian. There's tons of examples of this very trope you are talking about and trying to call 'good', for the very same reasons, and when you peel it back, you see it's evil on its face, and only gets worse with time.
Your extremely borderline scenario does not work, Band.
As for the draft...you have a choice not to live in a country that imposes a draft. If you choose to live there, it's a responsibility of yours to fight for your country when they call on you, part of the implied social contract. A modern draft is also fairer and equal, drawing from all portions of society, instead of from the lowest orders as was done in the past (the rich paid their way out).
You also have the right to be a conscientious objector and possibly be assigned to support duties, and/or you have the right to go to jail if you choose not to fight. My dad actually knows a guy in the Vietnam War who would fire over the heads of the enemy. He was wounded in combat and got sent home, never having taken an honest shot at the Viet Cong.
Drafts are definitely Lawful Neutral, and not Good. You see LG when people volunteer to serve in their military, and that is always far and away the preferred method to gain soldiers. Just ask long time commanders the difference between volunteers and draft/conscripts in their ranks (like, Iraqi line soldiers and American line soldiers). There is a world of difference in morale and competency.
What your example is imposing is worse then a draft. It's SLAVERY. It will simply never be Good, regardless of the reasons why you are doing it.
The best example I can think of for you is the Warhammer 40k universe, aptly described as 'grimdark crapsack.' Despite the total ruthlessness and amorality of the Empire, it considers itself Good and Just, mainly because all the alternatives are so very, very much worse. It isn't, by any stretch of the imagination (just start reading about it), but there is indeed little recourse.
==Aelryinth
{. . .}
Enforce slavery - world is f+@*ed and only through sheer perseverance can the race survive to make it to the next time the planet will be good. Any wasted energy will simply cause many people to die. so, at birth 3/10 people are labeled slaves. Any action the slaves take to resist will injure thousands and probably themselves making it an evil action, and thus by the stopping of evil actions being innately good, the enforcement of slavery is a net good action.
{. . .}Necessity does not make Good. Any society that has to enforce slavery to survive is so inherently evil that it does not deserve to survive.
then any nation that still has a legal draft must be inherently evil, because when you are drafted, you don't get a choice in what you're going to be doing for the next few years in a war. you;re also treated as property and can be moved around to other divisions as easily as they want.
stuff3) You're twisting the meaning of it to one-offs.
Evil can undertake pretty much any action, even a externally good one, and have it still be an evil action because of why it was done. It's what Evil Masterminds DO.
There are whole slews of actions that Good people cannot take and call them Good actions. They will NEVER be good. They might be Necessary, but they will not be Good. Taking those actions does not make them more of a Good person, whereas the obverse with Evil people taking Good actions can very well make them even more sinister.
Or not, it's indeed their choice! And this freedom of choice is one of the great lures of Evil.
Eating human flesh isn't inherently evil, killing them to eat the flesh however is.
and No once again, they cannot call saving a helpless living creature for no reason, in any way shape or form good. helping random people with no benefit to your own will eventually make you turn neutral.
you're the one that said that we weren't talking about multiple actions changing their alignment. A good person can totally do an evil action once and a while and still be by and large good. an evil person can still do good action once and a while and be by and large evil, but neither can keep doing these actions exclusively and remain their alignment.
an evil person donating to charity that they have no connections to, does not make them a more sinister person, it makes them a person with some moral compass saying they need to make up for the evil they do, or simply someone who's filled with whimsy. He is not going to be able to look at the alignments of pathfinder and call them evil, he simply cannot.
I'm stepping away from the slavery argument because you cannot see that enslavement is a lawful action and not one fed by evil, or that chaos is the alignment that favors freedom and liberty(and thus cares about people being unwilling or not).(which is why i really hate that chaostic evil just uses the reckless part, and lawful evil just uses the more calculated parts of the law-chaos scale.) you're also constantly putting words in the mouth of the authority which is completely and fully motivated by lawful good motivations. I imagined it as a council of religious and military leaders coming up with the plan.
also, on the moving somewhere else to avoid a draft, that's only really true if you have the money, if you're born in a country and aren't that great money wise or never went to college, you're basically stuck there, without illegal immigration. countries don't allow people to move into them when ever they want, and yes the social contract is a HUGE lawful idea, showing that slavery in all it's forms is a lawful action and not inherently evil unless it's only objective is profit. and yes, my point was this whole time that slavery was a LN action, so thanks for agreeing with me at the end.
Actually, come to think of it, in terms of the draft. Pretty much every country has a draft program.
Just be happy you aren't in Egypt, or a few of the other countries whose names escape me. There you HAVE to enter the military and serve for a predetermined amount of time as soon as you hit a certain age if you're male.
Edit: When it comes to slavery, my fiance has a wonderful conundrum of a question.
"What if you are approached by a person who, being naturally submissive, desires to be your slave. Would you be evil then for agreeing to what they want? If so, wouldn't denying them be evil as well as you are denying them part of who they are?"
This question has been brought to you by a pair of lifestylers.
I believe several countries including Switzerland have Mandatory Military Service.
It depends on why you accept him to be your slave or why not. If your offering him on your side of things housing and food in exchange for work(and maybe even making it clear after a while that if they want to leave you can give them some money), as that might just be what he wants, that's not really evil. (nor is it really slavery)
If you deny them simply on the grounds that you don't want to baby sit or try to deal with him, that's more on the evil side, but i wouldn't call it an evil action per say just neutral hued evil I suppose.
It ultimately depends on what happens to him if you reject his offer, and any knowledge you have about that, the worse both psychologically and physically(maybe he doesn't know how to get work normally and will have to beg for food or work) he'll be without a master I think matter a lot in that situation.
When it comes to slavery, my fiance has a wonderful conundrum of a question.
"What if you are approached by a person who, being naturally submissive, desires to be your slave. Would you be evil then for agreeing to what they want? If so, wouldn't denying them be evil as well as you are denying them part of who they are?"
This question has been brought to you by a pair of lifestylers.
BDSM isn't really the same thing as actual literal slavery. You can call it that all you want, but as far as my understanding of said lifestyle as one looking from the outside, should said submissive individual change their mind at any point, they can leave. Real slaves don't have that option.
@Bandw2: More or less. Just further proves the point that not everything is straight up black & white.
@thegreenteagamer: As someone on the inside... Depends on the contract and how deep you want to go really. I know a pair that work the "Total 24/7" in pretty much exactly the way "real" slavery works.
--
To further expand... Say said slave wouldn't accept money, or if you did, they'd just turn around and spend it on you in any case. Simply put, for them to survive, mentally and physically, they need to be owned. Yes, there are people like this, I know a few, so don't scream "CORNER CASE!" at me.
To pull an example or two from Star Wars... There're the Twi'lek, who sell their daughters (and sometimes sons I recall) into slavery because they would have a better life as a slave, than struggling to survive on their home planet.
@thegreenteagamer: As someone on the inside... Depends on the contract and how deep you want to go really. I know a pair that work the "Total 24/7" in pretty much exactly the way "real" slavery works.
I severely doubt that a contract that pretty much says "I'll do what you want when you want how you want with nothing in exchange and no means of me ending this in any way shape or form" is going to hold up in court if the "slave" were adamant enough to try to get out of it.
But then, I'm not a lawyer, so hey, I might be wrong.
Of course, a defining characteristic of slavery is it being involuntary. Even if there were an iron-clad contract that one knowingly signed their way into, that would be indentured servitude, not slavery. A subtle difference, but a certain one.
Another defining characteristic is that of a slave being property, subject to be bought or sold at a whim. I mean, literally five minutes after picking up a new slave you could "flip him" to another party, who could do the same again.
Again, not living it myself, but I've read a few things, and isn't that a big no-no?
Again, not living it myself, but I've read a few things, and isn't that a big no-no?
Depends on the person. I know of a person who did that and by all accounts quite consented and enjoyed it. No money was exchanged for legal reasons, but it was basically a transfer.
Depends on the person. I know of a person who did that and by all accounts quite consented and enjoyed it. No money was exchanged for legal reasons, but it was basically a transfer.
Again, not living it myself, but I've read a few things, and isn't that a big no-no?
The minute consent comes online it's no longer slavery, though.
Submission, sure, but not slavery.
Depends on the person. I know of a person who did that and by all accounts quite consented and enjoyed it. No money was exchanged for legal reasons, but it was basically a transfer.
Again, not living it myself, but I've read a few things, and isn't that a big no-no?The minute consent comes online it's no longer slavery, though.
Submission, sure, but not slavery.
Not slavery, but there was "flipping" between people referred to as owners.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The greatest enemy to freedom is happy slaves."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The greatest enemy to freedom is happy slaves."
2deep4me
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who would identify as Lawful Good IRL, I must be the first to admit that order can come at a price, and I hate bad laws (literally laws that do more to harm than help society and/or people). But rebellion comes when people become discontent with their lack of freedom but if you keep them "happy" where they feel safer, secure, and like they have good lives then rebellion is unlikely. In truth, sometimes you are doing just that. Not every form of conformity to rule is a tyrannical oppression but it is conformity to the will of another (which isn't innately a bad thing, really it isn't, because it means you are capable of putting others before yourself or at least willing to play by the same rules).
For example, if I have authority and instate a law that says you shall not kill other people, those that abide by the will of that law are conforming to it and thus giving up their freedom to act out lethal violence against one-another, but most people are fine with this because it makes them feel safer and they're fine with set punishments for breaking this law. It's a denial of freedom, an act of enslavement, but it's one that most will accept willingly and that's okay because it serves its purpose for the good of everyone. It's a brighter side of a beast that can be very monstrous if pointed in a different direction.
In D&D, Lawful Good people are very much capable of rebellion. However it usually is going to require more to stir them than it would for a Chaotic Good character since the process of law is usually going to become unacceptable more rapidly for a chaotic character who might be willing to tolerate or even love the law as long as it doesn't remove too many freedoms or infringe upon the rights of individuals. They might disagree on the needed course of action when dealing with Lawful Good allies and vehemently oppose those pushing a more Lawful Evil agenda (where order is being used for hurting, oppressing, or killing others, especially for personal gain or amusement).
Since people don't rebel when they are happy and are willing to give up their individual freedoms when things are going well in their lives in spite of or because of the order imposed on them, their happiness equates to compliance with the enslavement and they may even come to love the laws that govern what they may and may not do and how much say they have in their own lives or the lives of others.
And when people are happy being enslaved there is no push for freedom. The funny thing is, I could probably present several forms of slavery from a D&D perspective than people in this very thread would be willing to live with or even enjoy. They would only be opposed to such things either by principal alone or because it eventually leads to them being unhappy with their situation and thus leading them towards rebellion.
My two cents. Here's how my group uses alignment. We all build our characters and backstories and then strap an alignment to it. Very early on each pc get's know alignment on the other pc's so we can kind of guess certain things. When the player does something really out of character that is when we question alignment. Not as a straight jacket but as a simple "That's really out of character, if you continue there will be questions and a chance for you to tell your flavorful backstory." We also strap know alignment spells to certain kinds of actions. Mostly out of combat kind of stuff because we've played with each other for so long. Kind of as a detection system against mind control. It's not perfect, but it works for the group I'm in.
Artemis: BDSM has nothing to do with slavery. Difficult? Maybe. The thing is, BDSM relationships are about TRUST. They are entered into willingly. They are intimate relationships, where both parties care deeply for one another. Slavery, by contrast, is forced on someone by someone who doesn't care on a personal level for the slave.
Do not confuse the two, and most especially do not imagine that tolerance and acceptance for BDSM relationships would EVER equate to support of slavery. You would in all likelihood find nobody who would oppose slavery as staunchly as people in the BDSM scene. That person who begs you to own them is MAKING A CHOICE. You are fine to take him or her in and treat them according to their wishes... But once they no longer want to be owned, you violate the basic tenets of BDSM if you prevent them from leaving. Whether you consider SSC or RACK your requirements for such relations, those Cs (for consensual) should tell you something.
BDSM is something beautiful people share. Slavery is a true horror.
{. . .}
I'm stepping away from the slavery argument because you cannot see that enslavement is a lawful action and not one fed by evil, or that chaos is the alignment that favors freedom and liberty(and thus cares about people being unwilling or not). {. . .}
No, enslavement is not necessarily Lawful. It often shapes the law for its own ends, but it is also perfectly capable (demonstrated in actual history, including US history) of operating with no more regard for law than necessary to keep from getting caught. Lawless tyrants are just as morally capable of enslaving people as Lawful tyrants, although the latter tend to be able to organize it on a larger scale. And the whole point of slavery IS for profit (often but not always monetary), so it is exploitation of slaves for the aggrandizement of the master. So slavery is by default Neutral Evil; it can swing to Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil as pushed by circumstances and/or the inclinations of the slavemasters, but it is always Evil.
And although Chaos CAN be associated with liberty, this is not always the case. In the worse cases (which are actually quite common, including on Earth), Chaos is the freedom that enables tyranny: Those who are inclined to enslave others will do so when they have no fear of repercussions, legal, social, or otherwise.
{. . .}
I'm stepping away from the slavery argument because you cannot see that enslavement is a lawful action and not one fed by evil, or that chaos is the alignment that favors freedom and liberty(and thus cares about people being unwilling or not). {. . .}No, enslavement is not necessarily Lawful. It often shapes the law for its own ends, but it is also perfectly capable (demonstrated in actual history, including US history) of operating with no more regard for law than necessary to keep from getting caught. Lawless tyrants are just as morally capable of enslaving people as Lawful tyrants, although the latter tend to be able to organize it on a larger scale. And the whole point of slavery IS for profit (often but not always monetary), so it is exploitation of slaves for the aggrandizement of the master. So slavery is by default Neutral Evil; it can swing to Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil as pushed by circumstances and/or the inclinations of the slavemasters, but it is always Evil.
And although Chaos CAN be associated with liberty, this is not always the case. In the worse cases (which are actually quite common, including on Earth), Chaos is the freedom that enables tyranny: Those who are inclined to enslave others will do so when they have no fear of repercussions, legal, social, or otherwise.
as a leader, Law is getting people to do exactly what you want them to do, an extreme form of this is slavery. but once again the scenario i provided is state sponsored slavery (so more like the Russian gulag if anything) and not the economic model.
also, chaos as in pathfinder alignment is not the same was the normal word chaos.
^Law is not the only way of getting people to do exactly what you want them to do, just the use of a consistently organized way of doing so. Chaos instead does it by personal loyalty, fear, or some combinatino thereof. Chaotic types are even canonically described as having slaves in some cases (for instance, Drow society and demons).
Ive never really gotten alignment that much to begin with. Since so many things are dictated by society. So many things are considered evil just because its not normal or accepted in that community. Another thing that seems to dictate most peoples view of good and evil is religion.
I think for me i have a tendency to look at the society and dictate what is good and evil there. Not what i deem good and evil since how do you know what is actually good and what is evil. Its changed so much from the past.
Just like certain things one can do. Ive heard many times that Canablism is evil yet in certain societies it wasn't seen as that. When you think of the catholic and christian religion. Technically during mass your eating the body of christ and drinking his blood.
Still putting that aside would you consider someone evil if they were forced to consume the flesh of another thru necesity. Like lets say you fall into a shaft with no food. Your friend dies and you eat them to survive. You didn't kill them so what about consuming their flesh is evil if they were already dead? its no different then eating an animal. Tho we do kill the animals.
Its just my thought and tho i know one part of what i said is a touchy part. It was nothing but on observation and why i dont really get alignment to begin with.
Oh before i forget what Aelryinth said on evil spells turning you evil. I dont get that really. You as a player would know its evil cause of the word but would your character know its evil? Something i thought id ask if your character doesn't know the spell is evil would that still turn them evil and if yes how so?
Good and Evil are nothing more than labels someone uses when they're trying to sell you something...
How's that old saying go? "He who wins writes the history"?
|
Technically during mass your eating the body of christ and drinking his blood.
That is not what you're technically doing. It is an analogy Jesus gave to the people and His Disciples, saying that we are looking for the wrong things in life in order to fulfill us, and that we should actually be looking to Him for our fulfillment (see John 6:26-27 to see what it was He said).
|
|
i dont really get alignment
I think that you're over thinking alignment, but that's just my opinion; you of course are obviously free to run your games as you see fit, as there is no wrong way to play the game.
For me, I feel that the classic trope of good vs. evil should transcend real life morality; that there should be a crystal clear image of who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.
That's not to say I don't enjoy the occasional situation of moral ambiguity, I just do not think that should represent the norm in my game worlds... There are other game systems that I play for that type of experience. :-)
Anyway, that's just my two coppers...
The problem is when it portrays real world people as a "Crystal clear image" of people doing evil things due to this obsession with imposing the devs' morals on everyone else.
Like the cannibalism thing.