Alignments

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


I once read a DC comic where Lex Luthor and The Joker were discussing on who had the worst enemy. Lex argued that Superman was much worse than Batman since, besides kryptonite, he was practically indestructible. The Joker argued that Superman, while indestructible, he was totally predictable, a boy scout, but Batman was a total "psycho" and hence, unpredictable, and while a well-placed bullet could off him in one second, his unpredictabilty made him all the more dangerous.

[LoneWolf23k]

I'm still trying to figure out what Picard is supposed to be. Chicken, or turkey? Or maybe buzzard? They'd all fit...

A Bald Eagle, obviously.

[LoneWolf23k]

Personally, I don't accept "neutral" as a legitimate alignment. There's no such thing as someone who is neither good nor evil. True neutrality is impossible--- either your actions foment good or evil. And self-centredness--- refusal to align with any system of law, any code of morality--- is not a font of good.

My Interpretation on D&D Alignments actually has the polar alignments (LG, NG, CE, LN, etc) as being extremes of behavior, actually. People who actually believe so strongly in Good, Law, Evil or Chaos that they shape their lives accordingly. These are people who go out of their way to fulfill their Alignment: firefighters, heroic individuals like Mother Theresa, cruel despots like Saddam Hussein, etc.

Meanwhile, while the average peasant might have a strong leaning towards good, and will occasionally do a noble act of self-sacrifice now and then, beyond anything else, he'll be concerned about himself and his loved ones. He'll obey the local laws out of social habit or fear of punishment, but he might occasionally lapse when he sees opportunity or feels desperation. The poor farmer who poaches a rabbit on the lord's lands to feed his starving family is performing a chaotic act, even if the rest of the year he's the most loyal subject ever.

It's only when you performing Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic acts so often that people actually begin to NOTICE it that your alignment shifts in those directions. The farmer who always helps out his neighbors, is always generous to the local poor, is a faithful churchman and even once walked 20 miles in the snow one winter to go tend to his sick friend, will be Good. Other, less remarkable farmers will be Neutral.

In any case, I've seen more then enough arguments concerning Alignments on other message boards, that I, amongst many others, consider Arbitrary Alignments to be one of D&D's limitations. I much prefer systems with seperate psychological flaws.

[Ray_D]

Agree that alignment can be a little restrictive. But can also be something of a guideline, unsure what the heck to do in a situation, check your alignment, go for the sterotype.

But an alignment is more a general tendancy than a steel cage. Just beacuse someone is 'good' doesn't mean they never do an evil act. Nor does an 'evil' person kick every puppy they see.

I also tend to see it more a matter of motovation than of action. Say, on average, quarter of people are born evil, remained equally neutral and good; just for example. Now, a kid born evil might want to kick puppies and hurt people. But, he's in a 'good' society. Knows perfectly well if he does that, he'll get punished. But, if he shares his toys, stops to help people with their groceries, and nauseating crap like that, he'll be rewarded for his actions. He's not doing this stuff because he gives a damn about the people he's helping, he just want ths reward.
The fuzzy happy feeling you get inside is a reward. Would someone still do nice things if doing them didn't make them feel good? Are they actually an evil person? ...right, sorry, own little soapbox on the nature of ethics...

And for me, Neutral-Neutral means not evil enough to be evil, not good enough to be good, so neutral. If you're chaotic or lawful, no one questions this. Not chaotic enough to be chaotic, not lawful enough to be lawful, so neutral. Were you good or evil, again, no one would question this. But just happen to be center of the road in both cases, people get iffy.

True Neutral, is a sub-set of NN. Not only are you middle of the road, but you specifically remain ther to help preserve 'The Balance'. Big cosmic thingy that keeps it all evened out. But it's perfectly possible to be middle of the road neutral neutral, and not give a damn about The Balance.

Finally, I also tend to think of 'driven' people as neutral neutral. The goal is what's important. Not if the goal is good, evil, of law or chaos, all that's important is... finding thier long lost brother, building a working airship, being rich enough to move out of the ghetto... whatever the goal is.

[Mjolnir]

Personall, the best system I've seen for detremining how a character should act is the Personality Traits in Pendragon. You have a list of diametrically opposed traits and your scores in them total up to 20. For example, one set is Prudent/Reckless. If you've got a 10 in each, you're middle of the road. If you've got 15/5, though, you tend to think more before you act. Of course, if you do a check (as is sometimes required) and either succeed or fail spectacualrly, you'll move a point one way or another. Also, if you've got a Prudent of 18 and charge inot the dragon's cave without looking first, you move more towards the Reckless side.

I recommend Pendragon for those that want a really good RP experience. It doesn't bog you down with stats like Int, Wis or Chr. That's up to the player. It does give you a good, sound character sheet with a level playing field as far as skills go, though.

- Mjolnir

[Maxgoof]

Personally, I don't accept "neutral" as a legitimate alignment. There's no such thing as someone who is neither good nor evil. True neutrality is impossible--- either your actions foment good or evil. And self-centredness--- refusal to align with any system of law, any code of morality--- is not a font of good.

I tend to agree, that an any one moment, one cannot be neither good nor evil unless one is dead, but...

If a person consistantly does about as many good things as he does bad things, such as, say, a philanthropist who sleeps around every chance he gets...

[Maxgoof]

It should also be remembered that the alignment chart is a chart, not nine boxes.

A person could, for example, be neutral good, but occasionally does a bad or selfish thing, thus pulling him towards neutrality a bit, but he tends to obey the law, even if it doesn't make sense.

[Dragoon The Griffin]

Personally, I don't accept "neutral" as a legitimate alignment. There's no such thing as someone who is neither good nor evil. True neutrality is impossible--- either your actions foment good or evil. And self-centredness--- refusal to align with any system of law, any code of morality--- is not a font of good.

I tend to agree, that an any one moment, one cannot be neither good nor evil unless one is dead, but...

If a person consistantly does about as many good things as he does bad things, such as, say, a philanthropist who sleeps around every chance he gets...

Meh, I'd call that person Chaotic Good. Hedonism is chaotic, it can exist anywhere on the good-evil axis. He serves the greater good, but doesn't have the strict moral code oft assotiated with good.

And if all actions lead towards good or evil, then how can you have CN and LN? Being lawfull or chaotic has nothing to do with being good or evil. You are right self-centerdness isn't good, that's the point, it's also not evil. Looking out for yourself rather than sacrificing yourself for those you don't know but at the same time wishing no ill to those you don't know is neutral on the goodvs evil axis. Someone neutral does good or evil for reasons of pay, reward, threat, or because it lines up with another part of their alignment.

Law and Chaos are neither good nor evil. CG is no less good than LG, and LE is no less evil than CE.

[SirBob]

Another point to bear in mind is that "Lawful" doesn't necessarily imply strict adherence to the laws of whatever country you happen to be in at the moment. If that were the case, a Lawful character could potentially flip-flop between alignments whenever they crossed a border. You can reject a particular law as nonsensical or morally abhorrent and still be "Lawful".

[Dragoon The Griffin]

Another point to bear in mind is that "Lawful" doesn't necessarily imply strict adherence to the laws of whatever country you happen to be in at the moment. If that were the case, a Lawful character could potentially flip-flop between alignments whenever they crossed a border. You can reject a particular law as nonsensical or morally abhorrent and still be "Lawful".

This brings up a point, that is particularly true of Lawfull Good and Evil. Lawfull is not necessarily following regional laws, but following a strict code of conduct and ethics. Lawfull tends to be the type who values a fair fight, they genrally gon't wander for wanderings sake, and do other things which would be chaotic. Of course, always following the local laws is a type of lawfull (worshipers of St. Clubert). Another type of lawfull is total obedience to a particular authority figure; this type of lawfull is they type of Samauri.

[Maxgoof]

This brings up a point, that is particularly true of Lawfull Good and Evil. Lawfull is not necessarily following regional laws, but following a strict code of conduct and ethics.

Which is why I used a scenario of giving an oath. A lawful person will always keep his word.

Which is why you can bind a demon to an oath. If they give it, they will keep it....not always the way you expect, but they will keep it.

[Shyal_malkes]

I thought about the idea of offing the nutral between good and evil and adding "religeous" and "selfish"

it'd go something like

LG, LR, LS, LE

NG, NR, NS, NE

CG, CR, CS, CE

eh, just me thinking out loud.

[Dragoon The Griffin]

I thought about the idea of offing the nutral between good and evil and adding "religeous" and "selfish"

it'd go something like

LG, LR, LS, LE

NG, NR, NS, NE

CG, CR, CS, CE

eh, just me thinking out loud.

Being religious is not an alignment, all dieties, even the chaotic evil ones, have thier worshipers. The most virtuous paladin and the most crazed homicidal maniac can both be deeply religious. Beign religious and selfish are not mutually exclusive, particularly in D&D-land where there dieties who promote selfish behavior.

[Shyal_malkes]

yeah, I know it wasn't really well stated when I tried it, I meant religious as being loosely based on religion and/or family and/or tradition

I remade the chart (I mean once I got started I found it hard to stop reworking it even if nothing comes of it.)

I got this idea.

lawfull
balanced
chaotic
obsessed

these four work in opposites, (lawful vs chaotic and balanced vs obsessed)

and then
good
tradition (previously religious)
evil
selfish

these four also work in opposites, (good verses evil and tradition verses selfish)

I got way too much time on my hands.

[Sun tzu]

yeah, I know it wasn't really well stated when I tried it, I meant religious as being loosely based on religion and/or family and/or tradition

I remade the chart (I mean once I got started I found it hard to stop reworking it even if nothing comes of it.)

I got this idea.

lawfull
balanced
chaotic
obsessed

these four work in opposites, (lawful vs chaotic and balanced vs obsessed)

and then
good
tradition (previously religious)
evil
selfish

these four also work in opposites, (good verses evil and tradition verses selfish)

I got way too much time on my hands.

Tradition and selfishness are opposite forces?
...
I don't get it.

[Timtitan]

maybe Duty vs Selfishness?

[Shyal_malkes]

it is more the idea of selfishness being centered around yourself (look otu for numero uno)

and tradition (or a batter word uf any can come up with one (duty does sound better)) is following a path someone else made, either religious or familial or just traditional.

like someone who joins the mafia for no other reason then it's in their family. it's not being selfish (though they'll provavly end up committing somewhat evil acts) but it is following a path that some selfish people follow. the important part is WHY they're going that way that will determine what they'll do in the future

someone who joins teh mafia out of selfishness can't be trusted enarly as much as someone who does it out of traditional and familial values.

or I could be totally wrong.

at least it's something to talk about.

[Sun tzu]

it is more the idea of selfishness being centered around yourself (look otu for numero uno)

and tradition (or a batter word uf any can come up with one (duty does sound better)) is following a path someone else made, either religious or familial or just traditional.

like someone who joins the mafia for no other reason then it's in their family. it's not being selfish (though they'll provavly end up committing somewhat evil acts) but it is following a path that some selfish people follow. the important part is WHY they're going that way that will determine what they'll do in the future

someone who joins teh mafia out of selfishness can't be trusted enarly as much as someone who does it out of traditional and familial values.

or I could be totally wrong.

at least it's something to talk about.

I see what you mean...It's your choice of words that I'd flaw. What you described isn't "traditional vs selfish" as much as "conformist vs non-conformist" (with traditionalism being a specific brand of conformism). I think.
Which is close to Lawful vs Chaotic, but not exactly the same.

[Wayfarer]

Alternately, one could make the opposition "self-interest" vs. "duty" or maybe "altruism." Conformism and non-conformism don't necessarily replace the element of where one's own interests rank in relation to those of others, IMO, and that seems to be what shyal is getting at (or so it seemed to me).

Unless, of course, this would blend directly into the "good" and "evil" categories. I wouldn't know, as I have no experience with these types of games.

[Sun tzu]

Self-interest vs altruism sounds a lot like evil vs good to me...
Then again, I think there could be particular situations where following your duty is the wrong thing to do, and following your self-interest the right thing (ugh...That sounded too much like Ayn Rand.)