| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's that 'LG' alignment for you, interfering with alien cynicism since the dawn of creation.
==AelryinthWell Good does not have to be Nice.
And personifications of ideals can be hostile to mortal fickleness, but I digress.
FF13 had a nice concept with the godlike Fal'Cie and their servants L'Cie, who would gain immense power to complete a task, or be reduced to mindless beasts if they tried to forsake the task. And the prize for doing said task? Become just a rock for your hard work.Even if you did something noble as save the world.
THe fal'cie were LN extremists. They valued the humans under them like ants, they were basically sentient constructs who had to do a job and who ended up really hating their creators for giving humans free will and all that, to the extent they planned events to destroy everything just to get rid of the humans they were supposed to be taking care of.
Definitely not LG!
==Aelryinth
Some Gods might give you what you want, Envall, but Iomedae was a human being only a relatively short time ago. She's the least likely deity to be at all like what you describe (well, her and Cayden Cailean are anyway).
Yeah I get that.
Also I will also concede that gods should not be perfect personifications of ideals since they are still entities, somewhat persons.Maybe I just like to rebel against a common thought that pops up among people I talk to that like to think gods are the pinnacle of Good or Evil. I always liked to think that they are merely higher manifestation of those ideas and that allows them to still remain relatively "humane" to mortals.
Pure Good might be just as hostile to mortals as Pure Evil. The way Positive plane and Negative planes work.
Pure Good would only be hostile to Evil mortals. If it's hostile towards mortal life, or any life for existing, then it's not Good.
Life, or rather to "not be dead" is not the endgame of this problem.
Pure Good is smothering. "Necessary Evil" is a fun term to use this time because mortals need Evil. Pure Good is fangless, it is the mind numbing utopia of still peace and stagnant action. When mortals are asked to give up their vices for the "Greater Good", the response is always rebellion. And they are right to rebel, Evil is necessary for mortal life.
Because Pure Good would ask us to forsake the raw impulses of the core sins to truly fit into the world Pure Good wants to create. Even Good Deities cannot truly fit into that world, because they are not (thank god because that makes it all more interesting) completely without flaws. Io loves to see loving, righterous kings, but having a ruler will always create, no matter how kind and just, some seeds of envy.
Extreme ideals are always hostile to mortal life.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pure Good would only be hostile to Evil mortals. If it's hostile towards mortal life, or any life for existing, then it's not Good.Life, or rather to "not be dead" is not the endgame of this problem.
Pure Good is smothering. "Necessary Evil" is a fun term to use this time because mortals need Evil. Pure Good is fangless, it is the mind numbing utopia of still peace and stagnant action. When mortals are asked to give up their vices for the "Greater Good", the response is always rebellion. And they are right to rebel, Evil is necessary for mortal life.
Because Pure Good would ask us to forsake the raw impulses of the core sins to truly fit into the world Pure Good wants to create. Even Good Deities cannot truly fit into that world, because they are not (thank god because that makes it all more interesting) completely without flaws. Io loves to see loving, righterous kings, but having a ruler will always create, no matter how kind and just, some seeds of envy.
Extreme ideals are always hostile to mortal life.
...
... okkkkkaaaaaaaayyyyy, you are running on a completely different assumption and expectations of Good and Evil (yours are much, much closer to Law and Chaos actually) than most everyone else.
... okkkkkaaaaaaaayyyyy, you are running on a completely different assumption and expectations of Good and Evil (yours are much, much closer to Law and Chaos actually) than most everyone else.
I base my ideas on the different gods of the setting and how each of their ideals are reflected by their alignment.
Also to me Law Chaos axis is more about authoritarianism vs anarchism
Law - Chaos asks "how should we govern ourselves?"
while Good - Evil is more moral axis, about individualism vs collectivism. In less pretentious terms, Me vs Us.
Tammy has vices.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... okkkkkaaaaaaaayyyyy, you are running on a completely different assumption and expectations of Good and Evil (yours are much, much closer to Law and Chaos actually) than most everyone else.
I base my ideas on the different gods of the setting and how each of their ideals are reflected by their alignment.
Also to me Law Chaos axis is more about authoritarianism vs anarchism
Law - Chaos asks "how should we govern ourselves?"
while Good - Evil is more moral axis, about individualism vs collectivism. In less pretentious terms, Me vs Us.
Yeah, no.
Yeah, no.... okkkkkaaaaaaaayyyyy, you are running on a completely different assumption and expectations of Good and Evil (yours are much, much closer to Law and Chaos actually) than most everyone else.
I base my ideas on the different gods of the setting and how each of their ideals are reflected by their alignment.
Also to me Law Chaos axis is more about authoritarianism vs anarchism
Law - Chaos asks "how should we govern ourselves?"
while Good - Evil is more moral axis, about individualism vs collectivism. In less pretentious terms, Me vs Us.
That is how it plays out.
How does it seem to you then?
Pure Good would only be hostile to Evil mortals. If it's hostile towards mortal life, or any life for existing, then it's not Good.Life, or rather to "not be dead" is not the endgame of this problem.
Pure Good is smothering. "Necessary Evil" is a fun term to use this time because mortals need Evil. Pure Good is fangless, it is the mind numbing utopia of still peace and stagnant action. When mortals are asked to give up their vices for the "Greater Good", the response is always rebellion. And they are right to rebel, Evil is necessary for mortal life.
Because Pure Good would ask us to forsake the raw impulses of the core sins to truly fit into the world Pure Good wants to create. Even Good Deities cannot truly fit into that world, because they are not (thank god because that makes it all more interesting) completely without flaws. Io loves to see loving, righterous kings, but having a ruler will always create, no matter how kind and just, some seeds of envy.
Extreme ideals are always hostile to mortal life.
The funny thing to notice is that you're arguing that Pure Good is Evil and having some Evil is actually Good.
Which... Makes the entire point contradictory.
Of course, this is going from the Aristotelian definition of Good.
|
|
Yeah, no.... okkkkkaaaaaaaayyyyy, you are running on a completely different assumption and expectations of Good and Evil (yours are much, much closer to Law and Chaos actually) than most everyone else.
I base my ideas on the different gods of the setting and how each of their ideals are reflected by their alignment.
Also to me Law Chaos axis is more about authoritarianism vs anarchism
Law - Chaos asks "how should we govern ourselves?"
while Good - Evil is more moral axis, about individualism vs collectivism. In less pretentious terms, Me vs Us.
That is how it plays out.
How does it seem to you then?
In some not bizarre analogy of Me vs Us that is alien to the current alignment system not a case of Free Will vs Hive Mind/Group Think.
Law is Discipline.
Chaos is Freedom.
Authoritarianism and Anarchism are descended from that, they are not the collective whole of the alignment of which they might be linked.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, no.... okkkkkaaaaaaaayyyyy, you are running on a completely different assumption and expectations of Good and Evil (yours are much, much closer to Law and Chaos actually) than most everyone else.
I base my ideas on the different gods of the setting and how each of their ideals are reflected by their alignment.
Also to me Law Chaos axis is more about authoritarianism vs anarchism
Law - Chaos asks "how should we govern ourselves?"
while Good - Evil is more moral axis, about individualism vs collectivism. In less pretentious terms, Me vs Us.
That is how it plays out.
How does it seem to you then?
I agree entirely with Rysky. That is not how it plays out. Individualism vs. Collectivism is another aspect of Law vs. Chaos (Collectivism is Law, just to be clear).
Good vs. Evil is about how you treat others, yes, but treating others nicely is not inherently a collectivist idea at all. I'm a Libertarian, by all the Gods, and find collectivism in most contexts unpleasant at best. I'm also friendly, helpful, and come out solidly Good on every Alignment test I've ever had. I'm NG or CG, mind you, but still Good.
Good is about altruism not collectivism. The two are not the same thing at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pure Good would only be hostile to Evil mortals. If it's hostile towards mortal life, or any life for existing, then it's not Good.Life, or rather to "not be dead" is not the endgame of this problem.
Pure Good is smothering. "Necessary Evil" is a fun term to use this time because mortals need Evil. Pure Good is fangless, it is the mind numbing utopia of still peace and stagnant action. When mortals are asked to give up their vices for the "Greater Good", the response is always rebellion. And they are right to rebel, Evil is necessary for mortal life.
Because Pure Good would ask us to forsake the raw impulses of the core sins to truly fit into the world Pure Good wants to create. Even Good Deities cannot truly fit into that world, because they are not (thank god because that makes it all more interesting) completely without flaws. Io loves to see loving, righterous kings, but having a ruler will always create, no matter how kind and just, some seeds of envy.
Extreme ideals are always hostile to mortal life.
Statements bolded are those I wish to rebut:
1. This is an opinion, for the sake of debate please focus on in-world evidence.
2. Elysium (the CG plane) would disagree. Gorum, Calistria, Desna, and Cayden Cailean all make their home there, and stagnation is something they all despise. The first two are CN, but the others are CG. Milani is a CG goddess of uprisings, though she lives in Axis.
3. Anuli, detailed in Distant Shores, has a Concordance with the Empyreal Lords (all Good aligned) but they face a stagnation issue. The planar powers didn't send evil forces to solve it, they sent Chaotic ones as displayed by the rise in chaos cults.
4. Good doesn't demand abstinence, just moderation. There are Good deities devoted to lust, battle, feasting, vanity, desire, wealth, and laziness.
5. The extreme ideal that Good is based off of is the sanctity of mortal life. They protect and encourage it, taking it only as an absolute last resort. The paladin codes of both Saerenrae and Shelyn say that peace is always plan A through Y. Archon generals will always favor the least deadly stratagems. Angel diplomats will always choose the benevolent compromise. Azata entertainers will always inspire and enchant kind folk, and try to sway those who have strayed to wickedness. If they choose not to do these things they are no longer good, and fall from grace.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And saying Good is stagnant is idiotic.
Good can be competitive. It will simply draw bounds on the competition. The Olympics are one of the Great Goods of the modern world, and they are all about the spirit of competition, substituting fair, non-lethal contests for war. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be the best, and with the way Good shares, and Evil hoards, Good tends to win that competition over time.
Good is opposed to Evil. What are 'vices'? There's this thing called 'moderation' which exists. Vices are basically Good things taken to excessive extremes. LAW is the alignment that brings down the banhammer and thinks it will solve problems. Good tries to treat the addiction, not ban alcohol.
==Aelryinth
It's not healthy to devote your life entirely to others and never concern yourself with what you want. A little bit of selfishness now and then is a necessity for maintaining your mental balance.
The last thing Chaotic Good does is concern itself with what other people want all the time. It's all about me, as long as it's not done to extreme excess and doesn't harm others.
Neutral good goes for balance between the two. Nothing wrong with furthering self with the intention of being able to help others if needed.
Extreme LG might go for that kind of selflessness, but that's hardly the only kind of Good out there.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It bears mentioning that this thread is under the Pathfinder Campaign Setting forum. Future arguments should focus on ethical/moral positions within the setting. Discussion about real-world ethics and morals would fit better in a different forum.
On a related note, it is difficult to approach the objective morals/ethics present in the setting while we ourselves come from a subjective morals/ethics existence. The setting assumes that Good is Good no matter what, and anything that isn't Good is either Neutral, Lawful, Chaotic, or Evil.
Envall actually touched on something when mentioning the Positive and Negative energy planes. Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, are all detectable, quantifiable, and qualifiable energies within the setting. Outsiders are a single entity, they don't have a body and soul like mortals do. It would be more accurate to say they are the respective energies of their plane given form. Here is a metaphor for example: If water were Neutral, adding Heat (Good energy) turns the water into steam (which is the "good" form of water for the sake of the metaphor.) whereas cold (evil) turns the water to ice (the evil form for the sake of the metaphor.)
When mortals in the setting perform specific acts, their soul (again with the heat vs cold metaphor) becomes either hotter or colder. They are, by virtue of their actions, controlling the temperature of their soul. A soul that is mostly steam will ascend to the good aligned planes, whereas a a soul that is mostly ice will (the metaphor has some difficulty here, bear with me) turn into Ice-9 (ice that can't melt) and form massive super dense glaciers that sink into the evil planes.
We can think of Law-Chaos as the water's pH. A more basic (lawful) water will go to a lawfully aligned plane when it rises or sinks, and then a more acidic (chaos) water will go to one of the chaotic planes when it rises/sinks.
The last thing Chaotic Good does is concern itself with what other people want all the time. It's all about me, as long as it's not done to extreme excess and doesn't harm others.
Neutral good goes for balance between the two. Nothing wrong with furthering self with the intention of being able to help others if needed.
Extreme LG might go for that kind of selflessness, but that's hardly the only kind of Good out there.==Aelryinth
that's strange. Chaotic good loves freedom and wants others to have it, even if it means open and ugly rebellion. All about me leans more towards chaotic neutral.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It bears mentioning that this thread is under the Pathfinder Campaign Setting forum. Future arguments should focus on ethical/moral positions within the setting. Discussion about real-world ethics and morals would fit better in a different forum.
On a related note, it is difficult to approach the objective morals/ethics present in the setting while we ourselves come from a subjective morals/ethics existence. The setting assumes that Good is Good no matter what, and anything that isn't Good is either Neutral, Lawful, Chaotic, or Evil.
Envall actually touched on something when mentioning the Positive and Negative energy planes. Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, are all detectable, quantifiable, and qualifiable energies within the setting. Outsiders are a single entity, they don't have a body and soul like mortals do. It would be more accurate to say they are the respective energies of their plane given form. Here is a metaphor for example: If water were Neutral, adding Heat (Good energy) turns the water into steam (which is the "good" form of water for the sake of the metaphor.) whereas cold (evil) turns the water to ice (the evil form for the sake of the metaphor.)
When mortals in the setting perform specific acts, their soul (again with the heat vs cold metaphor) becomes either hotter or colder. They are, by virtue of their actions, controlling the temperature of their soul. A soul that is mostly steam will ascend to the good aligned planes, whereas a a soul that is mostly ice will (the metaphor has some difficulty here, bear with me) turn into Ice-9 (ice that can't melt) and form massive super dense glaciers that sink into the evil planes.
We can think of Law-Chaos as the water's pH. A more basic (lawful) water will go to a lawfully aligned plane when it rises or sinks, and then a more acidic (chaos) water will go to one of the chaotic planes when it rises/sinks.
Temperatures of Our Souls would be a great band name. Just sayin'.
|
|
It's not healthy to devote your life entirely to others and never concern yourself with what you want. A little bit of selfishness now and then is a necessity for maintaining your mental balance.
This is true. For human beings anyway. And is a good way to make something 'too Good'. Of course, such a being definitionally wouldn't force others to do as it did.
Which makes it rather different from what Envall was talking about.
that's strange. Chaotic good loves freedom and wants others to have it, even if it means open and ugly rebellion. All about me leans more towards chaotic neutral.The last thing Chaotic Good does is concern itself with what other people want all the time. It's all about me, as long as it's not done to extreme excess and doesn't harm others.
Neutral good goes for balance between the two. Nothing wrong with furthering self with the intention of being able to help others if needed.
Extreme LG might go for that kind of selflessness, but that's hardly the only kind of Good out there.==Aelryinth
Chaotic Good does indeed want to be free, and let others have that choice. Seeing that choice removed from others means those same people want to remove that choice from ME, which they INEVITABLY try to do. Eff them.
I'll fight 'em, and I'll rally others to fight them. Better to die free then live a slave!...but I'm not going to MAKE you join me. If you want to die a slave, i'll just think you're a pathetic wretch and leave you to it.And no, war's not pretty. They should have thought of that when they thought taking away someone's freedom was going to be all tea and crumpets for those on top.
A Chaotic Good nation is perfectly capable of existing alongside a slave-holding nation. However, they are very unlikely to return escaped slaves, individuals inside the country will act to help slaves escape based on personal beliefs, and that slave holding nation is always going to be looking for more slaves, with slave traders being famously uncaring of where they get the people. At some point, they are going to snatch people from the CG nation, those people will have friends and family who will take action and damn international relations, and off we go.
As for Chaotic Neutral, that's all about me WITHOUT REGARD for others. If I oppress them, so be it. If I don't, nobody cares. No maliciousness, I just don't care about the consequences of my actions to that extent.
===Aelryinth
|
|
...
As for Chaotic Neutral, that's all about me WITHOUT REGARD for others. If I oppress them, so be it. If I don't, nobody cares. No maliciousness, I just don't care about the consequences of my actions to that...
Actually this would be closer to CE than CN. Champions of Corruption says selfishness (especially to the point where the perpetrator doesn't care about the consequences) is an evil characteristic.
CN is often portrayed as either a lunatic or deadpool-esque antihero. Those are both sufficient, but not the only options.
In fact there's a sidebar in Champions of Balance addressing this very idea:
CHAOTIC NEUTRAL ISN'T EVIL
Players and GM soften confuse the actions of a Chaotic Neutral character with those of a neutral evil or chaotic evil one. After all, it can be easy to mix up the self-determined acts of chaotic neutral with the self-centered principles of evil. But embracing your chaotic neutral nature isn't an excuse to do whatever you want. A chaotic neutral character can (and probably should, sometimes) freely choose to support others-even sacrifice for others, something that is anathema to evil characters. Many chaotic-leaning societies, such as the Ulfen of the north and the pirates of the Shackles, place a high premium on lavish interpersonal generosity, willingness to do what needs doing, and honoring one's word even at great personal cost-they see such acts as expressions of exceptional individuality rather than blind conformity to predetermined standards. A code of personal honor is entirely compatible with a chaotic alignment, provided this code is simple, serves to limit the constraints on yourself (and possibly others). And springs from a fierce internal conviction. Your sense of obligation is personal, not imposed by rules and structure; indeed, determinedly self-sufficient souls often feel their obligations more keenly than others around them. Further, successful chaotic communities often see unfettered selfishness as allowing oneself to be ruled by one's passions and possessions, which makes for a poor neighbor, as well as one who is easily manipulated. A chaotic neutral character needn't always act randomly, On the moment's whim, or without regard for history, context, and the effect of her actions on others (and their likely responses.) Similarly, chaotic can just as easily mean impulsive generosity, grand gestures, and astonishing insight as it can thoughtless hedonism or careless indifference.
that's strange. Chaotic good loves freedom and wants others to have it, even if it means open and ugly rebellion. All about me leans more towards chaotic neutral.The last thing Chaotic Good does is concern itself with what other people want all the time. It's all about me, as long as it's not done to extreme excess and doesn't harm others.
Neutral good goes for balance between the two. Nothing wrong with furthering self with the intention of being able to help others if needed.
Extreme LG might go for that kind of selflessness, but that's hardly the only kind of Good out there.==Aelryinth
Chaotic Good does indeed want to be free, and let others have that choice. Seeing that choice removed from others means those same people want to remove that choice from ME, which they INEVITABLY try to do. Eff them.
I'll fight 'em, and I'll rally others to fight them. Better to die free then live a slave!...but I'm not going to MAKE you join me. If you want to die a slave, i'll just think you're a pathetic wretch and leave you to it.As for Chaotic Neutral, that's all about me WITHOUT REGARD for others. If I oppress them, so be it. If I don't, nobody cares. No maliciousness, I just don't care about the consequences of my actions to that...
I think you are one step behind in the Good scale, there. What you call CG is CN at best, and what you call CN is definitely CE.
I think you are one step behind in the Good scale, there. What you call CG is CN at best, and what you call CN is definitely CE.that's strange. Chaotic good loves freedom and wants others to have it, even if it means open and ugly rebellion. All about me leans more towards chaotic neutral.The last thing Chaotic Good does is concern itself with what other people want all the time. It's all about me, as long as it's not done to extreme excess and doesn't harm others.
Neutral good goes for balance between the two. Nothing wrong with furthering self with the intention of being able to help others if needed.
Extreme LG might go for that kind of selflessness, but that's hardly the only kind of Good out there.==Aelryinth
Chaotic Good does indeed want to be free, and let others have that choice. Seeing that choice removed from others means those same people want to remove that choice from ME, which they INEVITABLY try to do. Eff them.
I'll fight 'em, and I'll rally others to fight them. Better to die free then live a slave!...but I'm not going to MAKE you join me. If you want to die a slave, i'll just think you're a pathetic wretch and leave you to it.As for Chaotic Neutral, that's all about me WITHOUT REGARD for others. If I oppress them, so be it. If I don't, nobody cares. No maliciousness, I just don't care about the consequences of my actions to that...
it's funny. I was about to say the same of you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing Tammy cares about is making sure the world feels her pain. Slowly and dramatically if at all possible.
And Wiggles, Tammy misses Wiggles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing Tammy cares about is making sure the world feels her pain. Slowly and dramatically if at all possible.
And Wiggles, Tammy misses Wiggles.
Arf!
*wags ectoplasmic tail*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes Wiggles, Tammy prepared Explode Head today. Just like she does every day. It's important to have those LOL moments in life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whoof!*
*Yay!
Yes Wiggles, Tammy prepared Explode Head today. Just like she does every day. It's important to have those LOL moments in life.
Wait, how the hell did Explode Head get on the Ranger Spell list?!
Or do I even want to know...|
|
Yes Wiggles, Tammy prepared Explode Head today. Just like she does every day. It's important to have those LOL moments in life.Wait, how the hell did Explode Head get on the Ranger Spell list?!
Or do I even want to know...
Druids help nature by tending to it.
Rangers help nature by taking care of its problems.
Namely, the people problem.
And the Dwarf problem.
And the Elf problem.
Tammy's a psychic, call it a story revision.
I consider CE to be self-interest that is actively and unneedingly malicious towards others. You know, evil.
Chaotic Neutral wouldn't much care what you think one way or another. they do their own thing, without the innate malice of an evil person. As that nice write-up posited, that doesn't mean being an a!&~~*&...it means they don't have to or want to conform to what other people think or do. They can be great friends with immense personal codes of honor...but that code will have everything to do with what they think is important, and not what some organization or law says is important.
as for CG...hey, tough love is tough love. They don't drag people up out of the sewers if that's where they want to stay. They respect people's choices, even if they are bad ones, and will leave them to it. CG can seem quite cold at times...being Good doesn't mean being nicey-dicey lovey dovey bard types. The hardened ranger who lives alone at the edge of civilization guarding against threats out there is CG, but can't really stand being around people and has major issues with authority figures. He won't ignore a problem in front of him, but he's not at all obligated to pack it up and go take care of someone else's problem/war/battle/pet project that doesn't have something in it of interest to him, and trying to guilt him into it could get a ferocious response.
===Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I consider CE to be self-interest that is actively and unneedingly malicious towards others. You know, evil.
Chaotic Neutral wouldn't much care what you think one way or another. they do their own thing, without the innate malice of an evil person. As that nice write-up posited, that doesn't mean being an a@$&!%%...it means they don't have to or want to conform to what other people think or do. They can be great friends with immense personal codes of honor...but that code will have everything to do with what they think is important, and not what some organization or law says is important.
as for CG...hey, tough love is tough love. They don't drag people up out of the sewers if that's where they want to stay. They respect people's choices, even if they are bad ones, and will leave them to it. CG can seem quite cold at times...being Good doesn't mean being nicey-dicey lovey dovey bard types. The hardened ranger who lives alone at the edge of civilization guarding against threats out there is CG, but can't really stand being around people and has major issues with authority figures. He won't ignore a problem in front of him, but he's not at all obligated to pack it up and go take care of someone else's problem/war/battle/pet project that doesn't have something in it of interest to him, and trying to guilt him into it could get a ferocious response.
===Aelryinth
that really doesn't sound like CG to me, and more like CN. Your CN sounds more like just N.
He seems to be focusing on "tough love" too much.
No, you're focusing too much on the negative. CG CAN be lovey dovey dancing bard types, too. It just doesn't HAVE to be.
A TN person will wrap himself in friends and family, they are likely his most powerful influences. He doesn't really have higher causes like Good folk do.
A CN person stands on his own, with his own code of honor he makes for himself.
==Aelryinth
LG will, because drunken brawling is unacceptable public behavior, and if let go the problem will spread.
CG will be totally up to the character. If the guy looks like he had it coming, not a problem. It's just a drunken brawl. If it elevates to murder, then he might do something, as that's exceeding the threshold of doing no harm.
Yeah, N would weigh good relations with his neighbor against him getting his just deserts, and juggle whether getting owed for saving him is worth the risk of being beat up as well. No profit, no family, not a friend...won't care.
==Aelryinth
|
|
[A N character] doesn't really have higher causes like Good folk do.
==Aelryinth
This isn't always accurate. Certainly many civilians refuse to involve themselves in the affairs of others, but Neutral characters can definitely have large aspirations.
Druids are a great example. They wish to preserve nature, both the adorable bunny wabbits and the hawks that eat them. If a city encroaches on their territory they will defend it to the last combatant, all while remaining Neutral.
Another example would be the agent of balance. People like this would do everything in their power to stop the influence of Outsider (and possibly deific) meddling in the mortal world. They would smite angels as well as demons, devils and azata, inevitables and proteans, all so the mortals can do their own thing. They would balance themselves so that they could balance the multiverse.
LG will, because drunken brawling is unacceptable public behavior, and if let go the problem will spread.
CG will be totally up to the character. If the guy looks like he had it coming, not a problem. It's just a drunken brawl. If it elevates to murder, then he might do something, as that's exceeding the threshold of doing no harm.
Yeah, N would weigh good relations with his neighbor against him getting his just deserts, and juggle whether getting owed for saving him is worth the risk of being beat up as well. No profit, no family, not a friend...won't care.
==Aelryinth
We should be careful about getting too specific. Any of the alignments can incorporate countless motivations and character personalities. A CG character could choose to help or avoid the situation at any point, it would depend on their personality and the factors at play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[A N character] doesn't really have higher causes like Good folk do.
==AelryinthThis isn't always accurate. Certainly many civilians refuse to involve themselves in the affairs of others, but Neutral characters can definitely have large aspirations.
Druids are a great example. They wish to preserve nature, both the adorable bunny wabbits and the hawks that eat them. If a city encroaches on their territory they will defend it to the last combatant, all while remaining Neutral.
Another example would be the agent of balance. People like this would do everything in their power to stop the influence of Outsider (and possibly deific) meddling in the mortal world. They would smite angels as well as demons, devils and azata, inevitables and proteans, all so the mortals can do their own thing. They would balance themselves so that they could balance the multiverse.
This
Mordenkainen and the Circle of Eight, if memory serves me right, were exactly like this.
Mmm, let me redefine that. Neutral in general doesn't have higher causes. EVERYONE can have religion or a philosophy. But the majority of the Neutrals out there are False Neutrals, survivors, getting by from one day to the next and looking out for themselves, family and friends. Their faiths and their philosophies are going to follow those beliefs.
But Druids and the TN advanced philosophies are pretty much aberrants and outlier exceptions, esp in Golarion. There is very, very little idea of 'balance', or 'nature' as a universal or cosmological whole. PF druids worship and prefer elementalish aspects of nature, not a universal balance. The God of magic is essentially crazy, torn between creative and destructive impulses, and his followers specialize in aspects of magic, not the great balance. The outsiders that try to maintain the great balance have no mortal servants and are basically considered alien by even most other outsiders.
The variety of how druids approach the world in their storybooks, from active involvement to being above the fray to essentially being not human in mindset anymore, is quite amusing.
And it's worth noting that even in Greyhawk, for all their lofty sentiments, even Gygax had the Lords of Neutrality basically standing against Evil, essentially providing a motivating force not bound by lofty scruples that could unite them against darker forces. The Circle of Eight had Good members, but no Evil ones.
I always like to say Greyhawk City was all about having neighbors that were nicer kingdoms then it was, and they made war on the ones that were not.
=Aelryinth
|
|
Mmm, let me redefine that. Neutral in general doesn't have higher causes. EVERYONE can have religion or a philosophy. 1. But the majority of the Neutrals out there are False Neutrals, survivors, getting by from one day to the next and looking out for themselves, family and friends. Their faiths and their philosophies are going to follow those beliefs.
But Druids and the TN advanced philosophies are pretty much aberrants and outlier exceptions, esp in Golarion. 2. There is very, very little idea of 'balance', or 'nature' as a universal or cosmological whole. 3. PF druids worship and prefer elementalish aspects of nature, not a universal balance.4. The God of magic is essentially crazy, torn between creative and destructive impulses, and his followers specialize in aspects of magic, not the great balance. The outsiders that try to maintain the great balance have no mortal servants and are basically considered alien by even most other outsiders.
5. The variety of how druids approach the world in their storybooks, from active involvement to being above the fray to essentially being not human in mindset anymore, is quite amusing.And it's worth noting that even in Greyhawk, for all their lofty sentiments, even Gygax had the Lords of Neutrality basically standing against Evil, essentially providing a motivating force not bound by lofty scruples that could unite them against darker forces. The Circle of Eight had Good members, but no Evil ones.
I always like to say Greyhawk City was all about having neighbors that were nicer kingdoms then it was, and they made war on the ones that were not.
=Aelryinth
1. I am unsure what you mean by "False Neutral." The behavior you describe is in itself a philosophy held by many mortal sentient beings. It is a simple one, quite similar to animal instincts (and untampered animals as a rule are always Neutral.)
2. Bestiary 2 mentions a philosophy/metaphysical phenomenon among Aeons called the Monad, which is both an ideal and literal existential state of all things being connected. The Aeons as a species work to balance themselves, and then the universe. If other aligned forces stopped meddling, they'd have it too.
3. The Green Faith, a quasi religious philosophy, unites Druids across Golarion. The event that led to its formation was in fact, four Archdruids putting aside their elemental favoritism and coming together under the understanding that all of nature was connected.
4. This statement is true, however Nethys is not the end-all be-all of existence. The closest thing the setting has to that would probably be Pharasma who judges all souls from every plane and every moment of time, past present and future.
5. While most Druids are assumed to be Neutral the leniency in allowing them to be any of the five neutrals (LN CN NG NE and N) does allow for character variation while not overriding the base assumption. If anything not being "human" in their mindset speaks better to their adherence to the ideas they espouse.
1) Even the writers of Neutrality acknowledge there's a difference between animal/plant Neutral and philosophical Neutral of sentients.
'False Neutral' is what I call animal/survivor-mindset neutral. There's no overarching philosophy or deep thought to it. You survive, you get by, you take care of yourself, family and friends.
'True Neutral' would be a high-falootin mindset about balance and/or Nature among certain people. A Neutral priest or druid would be True Neutral, as it is more a 'choice' of alignment rather then just a natural pattern of behavior.
2) The other alignments are there to expand themselves, not obey the aeons. They are likely the only real agents of balance in existence, and VERY different from a druid faith, or the 'river of souls' faith of pharasma.
3) Yes, but Druids worship aspects of nature, much like a LG priest worships aspects of LG, not ALL of it. i.e. they might acknowledge the picture is bigger then their concerns, but their concerns are front and center primary.
4)I'm contrasting him to Boccob of Greyhawk, who is famously True neutral, concerned only about magic and The Balance, and literally above everything else.
5) Yes, but this is 'order' variation, i.e. whole groups of druids acting VERY differently, and definitely not united in philosophy or behavior. The overarching unity isn't visible, more like a background acknowledgement by name, and they go about their own business.
And yes, the Green Faith is there mostly to STOP druids from fighting one another to prove the superiority of their beliefs. Basically, it exists because whatever force empowers Nature was getting annoyed with druids beating up one another to prove their viewpoint was 'best and correct'. So, yeah, Druids can have VERY different viewpoints on the world, and overall 'balance' isn't really part of the faith.
It's very different from Greyhawk, where ALL druids are part of the same faith, and the Heirophants and Great/GRand druids ruled over ALL of them, everywhere.
==Aelryinth