| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably won't end alignment arguments, but I figure this quote describes good and evil well enough to be a good fit for everyone, make evil playable, and do so without changing the alignment mechanics.
This is a quote from the Goblins comic,
The good will be quick to help others in need. They do this without hesitation, without first requiring proof that the need is genuine, but before they condemn the accused, before they bring harm to others, no matter how justified it may seem, they hesitate. They demand proof.Evil will often believe they're fighting for good, but when others are in need, they'll become reluctant, withholding compassion until they see proof of that need. And yet, evil is quick to condemn, vilify, and attack others. For evil, proof isn't needed to bring harm, only a mantra that they fight for peace and righteousness.
I think it works quite well,
Good, quick to help without proof of need, requires proof of guilt to hurt.Evil, requires proof of need to help, but will hurt without proof, or based on non-proofs (I.E. it's a goblin, of course it deserves to die! That's all the proof required.).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing will end alignment arguments. The thing is, most people can agree on definitions of good and evil that work perfectly fine, but the edge cases are always tricky. This is why philosophers have wrestled over the definition of good and evil since the beginning. Throw Law vs Chaos into the mix and all bets are off, because aside from all problems of definition, for most believable characters there is little practical difference in their behavior.
And glib definitions basing good and evil on "proof" aren't that helpful considering how subjective "proof" really is. One man's proof is another man's coincidence, or proof in the opposite direction. And who is to define what constitutes proof and non-proof? Presumably, each side of a conflict claims their proof as legitimate proof while the opposite side's is non-proof.
This is a quote from the Goblins comic
The melodrama alone in that series makes it hard for me to take anything that guy says seriously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, is that really what people think Goblins is like?
Anyways, back to proof, I don't think it really matters what counts as proof here, only that in some cases, one requires a significant effort to determine truth along some metric, while in other cases, no such effort is required. The exact metrics used are irrelevant to whether that effort is required or not. In this case, the only non-proofs, are those not requiring investigation.
Wow, is that really what people think Goblins is like?
Anyways, back to proof, I don't think it really matters what counts as proof here, only that in some cases, one requires a significant effort to determine truth along some metric, while in other cases, no such effort is required. The exact metrics used are irrelevant to whether that effort is required or not. In this case, the only non-proofs, are those not requiring investigation.
I like the Goblins comics, but this argument has problems. Not because it's a poor argument, or because of the literal and exacting words chosen, but because of how those words will clearly impact pretty much everyone who reads them.
Nothing will end alignment arguments. The thing is, most people can agree on definitions of good and evil that work perfectly fine, but the edge cases are always tricky. This is why philosophers have wrestled over the definition of good and evil since the beginning. Throw Law vs Chaos into the mix and all bets are off, because aside from all problems of definition, for most believable characters there is little practical difference in their behavior.
And glib definitions basing good and evil on "proof" aren't that helpful considering how subjective "proof" really is. One man's proof is another man's coincidence, or proof in the opposite direction. And who is to define what constitutes proof and non-proof? Presumably, each side of a conflict claims their proof as legitimate proof while the opposite side's is non-proof.
Basically, this.
This was my problem with the Goblins' definition - while more-or-less moderately accurate, it ignores pretty much everything in its attempt to boil things down; simultaneously, it doesn't really bring up anything new (per se), as it just kind of puts an interesting spin on the already-known definitions.
It ignores (off the top of my head): context, prioritization, rational thought, the definition of "proof" (and subjective experiences), among other things.
Now, to be fair, all of this is attempted to be lumped under "proof" - but again, it depends on what "proof" we're talking about.
As a for-instance:
The good will be quick to help others in need. They do this without hesitation, without first requiring proof that the need is genuine, but before they condemn the accused, before they bring harm to others, no matter how justified it may seem, they hesitate. They demand proof.
Here are the problems:
What about demons? Does being a demon qualify?
To those who point out the ur-example of redeemed demons, allow me to counter with: literally all of the other ones.
Let's compare: say there was a toxic waste dump somewhere. That toxic waste dump somehow became able to produce (questionably defined) "life" from itself by taking its toxic waste, shoving it into robit-like constructs, and sending said constructs abroad. At first, good people permit some few to do their stuff. You know, give 'em a chance, and all that. After the first 10,000 or so universally begin ruining life for everyone else by making everything a toxic dump, intentionally, and being entirely unwilling to find habitats unique to themselves (instead seeking to ruin everyone else's) I'm reasonably sure that the "proof" is in the actions of the race as a whole. Individualism is all very well and good, but if you've got constructs killing the environment on purpose, many of which lie about what they're doing, ("Oh, this? No, it's not toxic waste! It's just... uh... bug repellent!") the only reasonable action to take is to destroy them all.
The comparison to demons from the abyss (or devils, or daemons, or anything else) more or less write themselves, so I'll leave that there.
The problem is that, in Golarion, and some similar places, Goblins may not be inherently evil, but as a whole are more-or-less identical to the toxic constructs up above. They move in, wreck other peoples' stuff (and kill and eat the people), despoil nature, and cause ruin and devastation. This, fundamentally, seems like all the proof most should need to determine, "Goblins bad; destroy them good." Heck, there are entire villages that have been wiped out by the menaces - menaces known to be sneaky and deceptive (all in service to a good murdering, of course). Considering them all monsters in need of wiping out of existence isn't unjustified. "Proof" has been gathered in plenty.
And yet, as the comic points out, this doesn't have to be a universal truism. Perhaps bands or groups of them gather for benevolent or good purposes, or seek out heroism. But who can tell those from the ones that will literally sneak into your bedroom and murder everyone so they can eat their faces? Who can discern the liars from the honest? Especially when some of those sneaky murderers lie about their own intent?
As a result...
Evil will often believe they're fighting for good, but when others are in need, they'll become reluctant, withholding compassion until they see proof of that need. And yet, evil is quick to condemn, vilify, and attack others. For evil, proof isn't needed to bring harm, only a mantra that they fight for peace and righteousness.
... has some problems.
See, this is a clearly a condemnation against fantasy racism. And, to be clear, real-life racism is terrible and should be shunned and mocked (at best).
The issue is, "they fight for peace and righteousness." can be literally true. Fantasy racism isn't inherently wrong.
"But individualism..." yeah, that's fair and fine. For some campaign settings and tables. But it's not a universal axiom, and it becomes really complicated really quickly when you start getting into various peoples' definitions of sentience, sapience, and so on.
Further, clinging to a false narrative of self-righteousness, ("But it wasn't my fault - I thought they were good...") is morally suspect at best when you are dealing with a host of creatures that have, demonstrably, been evil in the past, as a universal known history.
I mean, I'd rather accept that Nazism is evil because experts and historians and moral agents I trust say so, than allow avowed Nazis to act freely and promote their rhetoric. To that end, I will oppose them (though, unless they've militarized, not with violence).
ALL THAT SAID:
- 1) the definition is a great one (for the most part) in the Goblins comic's universe, and deserves to be treated as a valid argument therein; sufficient "proof" is going to be required for individuals on different levels
-2) it's not even a technically flawed argument outside of its own world, and it can find application in many - perhaps most - instances; it's just not as persuasive as it seems like it should be when variance in accounting for "proof" is taken into effect
The melodrama alone in that series makes it hard for me to take anything that guy says seriously.
That is the most nonsensical parody of that comic I've ever seen. It clearly has no idea what, exactly, the comic is about, or the actual content thereof, or, if the author/artist does know, it's incredibly poorly communicated.
Not caring for melodrama's fine, though. Everyone's got different tastes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
End to arguments
HA! Hahahahahahahahah!
I think you are encompassing too much into your alignment.
As a game mechanic with mechanical results (such as "detect" and "protection from" alignment spells), there is a need for alignments that are brutally clear about which alignment a character has, while also respecting various alignment artifacts (such animals always being neutral, presumably because they act on instinct and need but not belief), preferably such alignment shoukd also be flexible enough for unique moral perspectives.
I think this does a good job of that, it operates on a minimum of values, allows a clear answer as to which alignment a being is, respects animal's neutrality, fits the generally described behaviour of alignment bound outsiders, and allows broad and deep variety in moral perspectives.
It certainly isn't my favorite, but it does a great job as an alignment mechanic.
To contrast, the "real alignments" found here,
http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html
It is a nice, deep, flexible, and detailed alignment system that certainly helps flesh out characters, but it is not so good at giving a definitive answer on the subject of what alignment a character has. Additionally, animals could often be described as non-neutral.
So despite being a great look at alignment, it isn't so great at being a mechanic.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What benefit does this concept bring that is better then the one from the CRB?
Two factors that come up in Alignment debates/discussions that I don't think this will really help at all with are that people have different ideas about what Good or Evil mean when it comes to specifics, but also when circumstances are involved. The other is that people try to apply modern or political standards to a system that is more a guideline, but is also meant to be universal, (not allowing for individual interpretation, regional variance, etc. . .).
The other big issue I see is that this actually seems to muddy the waters, especially if, as you say the intent is to codify how things like Detect Good or Smite Evil work. Is someone that volunteers quickly to "help" others so that they can get into a good position to murder them when the time comes or to fool people into trusting them Good? By this measure, yes, or worst case scenario, maybe. But a person that just, completely selfishly just wants to appear as benevolent, someone people can trust, and to get support, while not having any particularly evil intentions, except to get wealthy and powerful. That person, in this system should absolutely beam Good for spell detection. Right?
Having not read Goblins, I just don't really see what the benefit of this as a system is?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
is this alignment thread again ?
I mean, it's right there in the title....
Everyone is the hero (protagonist) of their own story.
Good and Evil for me has everything to do with intention. Actions are not good nor evil, but the intentions behind them are.
As far as Good and Evil natured entities (outsiders), as pathfinder describes them (my read on it) and their respective planes, their intentions boil down to Creativity and Destruction, with Law and Chaos being orderly and disorderly (organized and disorganized) respectively. There seem to be spectrums in place as well, from creativity to simply preservation, to destruction to complete annihilation.
Of course there us so much murk and rarely is anything clear cut.
I also find these sorts of conversations are best had in RP (what is the right course of action? Every character will come at this from a different angle, its the stuff good RP is made from)
Alternatively, a good natured person believes that the world is an inherently good place, and behaves thusly, while an evil natured person believes the world is an inherently evil place and behaves thusly.
No, Im honestly curious. In medical, we have a concept called triage, essentially a way to help the most people, based on needs and resources.
The Goblins Alignment shows that as clearly Evil, as far as I can tell.
I don't understand your rationale. I see triage as attempting to maximise goodness as per the definition given in the opening post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alternatively, a good natured person believes that the world is an inherently good place, and behaves thusly, while an evil natured person believes the world is an inherently evil place and behaves thusly.
Counterpoint: Are there good people who believe that the world is not inherently good but strive to make it so? Are there evil people who believe that the world is inherently good and choose to exploit it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A version of the Law/Chaos axis that I find interesting goes like this:
Lawful interprets the greater whole, the community, organization, nation, etc, as being above the individual. Society functions when people subvert their concept of right and wrong to the orderly and smooth functioning of society. Lawful Good wants the individual to be respected, but it is the whole that is more important. One way to judge the whole is by how it treats individuals, but you still have to hold the view that the whole is important to judge. On the Lawful Evil side you have those who still view the whole as more important than the individual, but you are allowed to pursue your own ends within that constraint. The mafia don who murders you and your family after you betray him in order to make an example to others and maintain the integrity of the organization. Being Lawful means you place community above the individual, and you gain your morality from the community around you.
Chaotic interprets the individual as greater than the community. Society is a necessary function in order achieve more than you might on your own, but in the end it is something that exists to serve the individual. Chaotic Good sees freedom and liberty as the ultimate goal. A person who is free to pursue their dreams will be a greater benefit to those around them than one who is constrained by the demands of society. Chaotic Evil sees the individual as the only thing that matters. What I want matters and I can pursue any means necessary to achieve it regardless of the cost to others. Being Chaotic means you place the individual above the community, and you gain your morality from wherever you choose.
An interesting thing with this interpretation of Law/Chaos is that the archetypal tribal warrior that the Barbarian is supposed to represent can easily be interpreted as Lawful. There are a lot of examples of this character that would still be Chaotic, but those who pledge themselves to defend a tribe, honoring their ancestors, or generally safe-guarding their community would tend to be Lawful.
I find the community/individual dichotomy to be a much more useful distinction that provides greater clarity to law/chaos.
@DM Beckett
This concept is better because it is far less vague and more understandable without shoehorning everyone into having fully fleshed out specific ideas on morality.
@Irontruth
I also prefer community vs individual, but not as lawful vs chaotic. I'm still working on the exact definitions right now, but for lawful vs chaotic I see as two normally paired things, 1) dedicated and deliberate vs carefree and acts on whim, and 2) the difference between a concert violinist that is rigid in her studies and practice (doing scales and perfecting technique) vs the fiddler who simply plays for enjoyment and gets good from simply enjoying themselves.
This is really one concept I see everywhere, people who always need everything to be just right, who take command of their lives, while others simply accept things the way they are and just go with the flow. It is kind of hard to codify that really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alternatively, a good natured person believes that the world is an inherently good place, and behaves thusly, while an evil natured person believes the world is an inherently evil place and behaves thusly.Counterpoint: Are there good people who believe that the world is not inherently good but strive to make it so? Are there evil people who believe that the world is inherently good and choose to exploit it?
Yes. To both questions. I happen to believe that the world (real world) is not an inherently good place and that for Good to thrive, it has to be encouraged, practiced, disciplined, and taught. Evil just happens when these things are not done.
I think much of the commotion about alignment issues boils down to people not liking how this alignment system judges their own real world values. No one likes being told that "According to this scale, you would be evil in real life." Then again, that is my own opinion and my own experience.
This is really one concept I see everywhere, people who always need everything to be just right, who take command of their lives, while others simply accept things the way they are and just go with the flow. It is kind of hard to codify that really.
Popularly codified as Type A and Type B personalities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Popularly codified as Type A and Type B personalities.
This is really one concept I see everywhere, people who always need everything to be just right, who take command of their lives, while others simply accept things the way they are and just go with the flow. It is kind of hard to codify that really.
Ugh. Those terms are as much flamebait as D&D alignments.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would seem an OP seeking an end to debate over a controversial topic has indeed begun an argument. Who could have known? ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The last time our group discussed the law vs chaos axis of alignments ended like this -
I'm not so sure, it seems rather like a discussion to me. :)
A Paladin of Ragathiel does not require a proof of guilt, detect evil is enough to start peanut butter flaming chainsaw deathkill obedience time.
But Detect Evil gives absolutely correct results. Not much proof can be more concrete than Detect Evil.
You can be evil without having (yet at least) performed any evil acts/crimes deserving of a paladin going medieval on you.
Perhaps, but given that simply being evil promotes hell in a real and tangible way (even if a bit removed from the material realm), it is perfectly valid to remove evil where ever it is found.
Morality is not simply a difference of perspective, it has actual effects on the nature of the world.
Thus killing someone for being evil is far more valid in the game than it is in the real world (because in the real world, it is nothing more than philosophy.).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know J Crocks with socks? that seems like a smite-able offense to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would seem an OP seeking an end to debate over a controversial topic has indeed begun an argument. Who could have known? ;)
Well, you know how it is..
I'm not so sure, it seems rather like a discussion to me. :)
Suuuure...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would seem an OP seeking an end to debate over a controversial topic has indeed begun an argument. Who could have known? ;)Well, you know how it is..
Indeed!
Edit: have you ever seen the Jedec standard?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets not go jumping a gift shark in the mouth. at this point it is still just a discussion.
now with time it may grow to be a flame war.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HRNGH!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been doing a lot of speed work at the gym.
It would seem an OP seeking an end to debate over a controversial topic has indeed begun an argument. Who could have known? ;)Well, you know how it is..
Now if only everyone coukd be made to follow one standard.
Oh no, I'm sounding like Anakin Skywalker!
I must be stopped! Quick create a bunch of competeing standards!
:)
Nothing will end alignment argumentsremoving alignment might
Unless it is an official removal (which would involve a massive rewrite of nearly everything), removing alignment will only cause more arguments.
Also, I happen to be of the opinion that you can't just go around smiting evil (or rather just attacking someone) just because the person is evil (outsiders excluded). The Paladin is Lawful as well, and follows a code. Protect the innocent. Innocent doesn't just mean good.
Either way, you don't play at my table, so we don't have to worry about disagreements there.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Detect Evil can be also actively tricked by Misdirection (which can give an unwilling and completely innocent target the aura of an evil cleric), infernal healing, and certain other effects. A LG infiltrator inquisitor trying to infiltrate a demon-worshipping cult may very well detect as CE.
I don't understand your rationale. I see triage as attempting to maximise goodness as per the definition given in the opening post.No, Im honestly curious. In medical, we have a concept called triage, essentially a way to help the most people, based on needs and resources.
The Goblins Alignment shows that as clearly Evil, as far as I can tell.
The issue with triage is that in order to maximize the amount of helping you do, you have to require proof not just that the person asking you for help actually needs it, but that they are the most efficient target of your help at that time.
Non-life threatening injury? Someone else needs the help more.
Difficult injury? Sorry, I'm going to leave you to die so that I can save two other lives.
I don't think Goblins intended to condemn paramedics for using triage. A major theme of the comics is confronting prejudice, so this quote is probably about people who think they are doing good because they are "fighting evil," particularly when their idea of what is "evil" is informed by prejudice rather than actual evidence and particularly when they are more concerned with "fighting evil" than doing actual good.
But as DM Beckett's comment points out, the definition does also invoke a common feeling that compassionate people can't take a calculating approach to helping others - that trying to be efficient is "heartless."
Ugh. Those terms are as much flamebait as D&D alignments.This is really one concept I see everywhere, people who always need everything to be just right, who take command of their lives, while others simply accept things the way they are and just go with the flow. It is kind of hard to codify that really.Popularly codified as Type A and Type B personalities.
What about Jungian Judging vs Perceiving preferences?
The problem is that, in Golarion, and some similar places, Goblins may not be inherently evil, but as a whole are more-or-less identical to the toxic constructs up above. They move in, wreck other peoples' stuff (and kill and eat the people), despoil nature, and cause ruin and devastation. This, fundamentally, seems like all the proof most should need to determine, "Goblins bad; destroy them good." Heck, there are entire villages that have been wiped out by the menaces - menaces known to be sneaky and deceptive (all in service to a good murdering, of course). Considering them all monsters in need of wiping out of existence isn't unjustified. "Proof" has been gathered in plenty.
And yet, as the comic points out, this doesn't have to be a universal truism. Perhaps bands or groups of them gather for benevolent or good purposes, or seek out heroism. But who can tell those from the ones that will literally sneak into your bedroom and murder everyone so they can eat their faces? Who can discern the liars from the honest? Especially when some of those sneaky murderers lie about their own intent?
I would never sneak into your bedroom and murder everyone so I can eat their faces. :(
Might raid your pantry, though. Got any sausages?
You wouldn't?! MY LIFE IS A LIE!! Q.Q
... also, no, I have no sausages. I do have freezer chicken, though, if you want some of that.
Oh, and hot dogs, but make sure to take the weiners, not the beef ones. The kids like the beef ones.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Paladin of Ragathiel does not require a proof of guilt, detect evil is enough to start peanut butter flaming chainsaw deathkill obedience time.
Actually, this is factually untrue. To quote Ragathiel's Obedience:
Slay a proven wrongdoer in Ragathiel's name. It is not enough for the sacrifice to have an evil heart or evil intentions; the sacrifice must have committed evil or unlawful deeds.
Emphasis added.
I would also strongly argue that an Evil Alignment is insufficient evidence of death-worthy offenses just in general. Even leaving aside all the ways that spell can be spoofed or just flat-out mistaken.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps, but given that simply being evil promotes hell in a real and tangible way (even if a bit removed from the material realm), it is perfectly valid to remove evil where ever it is found.
Morality is not simply a difference of perspective, it has actual effects on the nature of the world.
Thus killing someone for being evil is far more valid in the game than it is in the real world (because in the real world, it is nothing more than philosophy.).
For someone who has read Goblins and arguing for an alignment construct done in their favor you sure seem to be in favor of Kore's morality here. The good require proof, alignment checking into murder without supporting evidence is more than enough for a Paladin to fall in most settings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To step back and look at this from another angle, I think there are two basic causes of alignment arguments/confusion:
1) The Law/Chaos axis is incredibly muddy and people can't seem to agree on all but the most clear-cut things here.
2) There is a tension between "good" as an objective metaphysical notion and "good" in the common sense application of "that which is most desirable."
The first one, I suspect, won't ever be resolved. Since a Lawful character choosing not to follow those laws she deems "unjust" or a Chaotic character choosing to follow all of the laws for purposes of expediency are sticky wickets.
The latter, though, is what I think the OP is getting at. Everybody, even the most vicious of villains, chooses to do those things which they think will cause the most desirable outcomes; everyone is the hero in their own story. Villains who do what they do "FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF EVIL!" just ring hollow to me. Moreover characters on the ground trying to figure out what to do tend to rely more on some sort of naive utilitarianism than any sort of planar metaphysical reasoning. The practical resolution is just to use alignment in your game however best suits the purposes of the game. But since different tables have different priorities, this means that there will never be a resolution to alignment arguments.
The solution I suppose is just to not take them too seriously. That "good" is a metaphysical quantity in the game is a vast oversimplification intended to easily enable a heroic narrative, after all.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Detect Evil gives absolutely correct results. Not much proof can be more concrete than Detect Evil.
Incorrect. The target may have less than 5 hitdice or may be under various spells explicitly designed to foil detect evil.
As written, Smite Evil is, I believe, 100% accurate. Albeit a little hard to apply in all situations :-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You wouldn't?! MY LIFE IS A LIE!! Q.Q
... also, no, I have no sausages. I do have freezer chicken, though, if you want some of that.
Oh, and hot dogs, but make sure to take the weiners, not the beef ones. The kids like the beef ones.
Acceptable. Your childrens' favourite hot dogs will be spared.
It would seem an OP seeking an end to debate over a controversial topic has indeed begun an argument. Who could have known? ;)Well, you know how it is..Now if only everyone coukd be made to follow one standard.
Oh no, I'm sounding like Anakin Skywalker!
I must be stopped! Quick create a bunch of competeing standards!
:)
Ya'll realize you just added another standard, right?
For someone who has read Goblins and arguing for an alignment construct done in their favor you sure seem to be in favor of Kore's morality here. The good require proof, alignment checking into murder without supporting evidence is more than enough for a Paladin to fall in most settings.Perhaps, but given that simply being evil promotes hell in a real and tangible way (even if a bit removed from the material realm), it is perfectly valid to remove evil where ever it is found.
Morality is not simply a difference of perspective, it has actual effects on the nature of the world.
Thus killing someone for being evil is far more valid in the game than it is in the real world (because in the real world, it is nothing more than philosophy.).
On the contrary, I was simply playing devil's advocate. I don't think it is a good idea, I just that the idea has a more valid foundation than than in the real world, though that applies more to Golarion specifically.
Also, Kore kills potential evil, which is beyond the scope I mentioned.
Besides, technically, anything that has the capacity to be non-neutral is potential evil.