When The Moral Compass Goes Haywire
When I first began playing Dungeons & Dragons at the tender age of eight, I was fascinated by the alignment chart in the blue Basic Set rulebook. I did not understand it. I asked my father to explain it to me, but not being a gamer, he was unable to shed much illumination on the subject. Now, a little over twenty-four years later, I find I still have not received an explanation of the D&D alignment system to entirely satisfy my curiosity.
The Trouble With D&D Alignments
When I first began playing Dungeons & Dragons at the tender age of eight, I was fascinated by the alignment chart in the blue Basic Set rulebook. I did not understand it. I asked my father to explain it to me, but not being a gamer, he was unable to shed much illumination on the subject. Now, a little over twenty-four years later, I find I still have not received an explanation of the D&D alignment system to entirely satisfy my curiosity.
I have spoken to many people and have had many discussions and arguments on the subject. What frustrates me most about the D&D alignment system is that experienced gamers seem to have no better handle on it than the greenest newbies.
I read Scorpio's "Alignment Refinement" article, and I found myself shaking my head in disagreement. The same thing happened when I read the alignment archetypes in Aeon Michaels' "Which Star Wars Character Do You Role-Play?" article. Now, both of these guys have been playing D&D about as long as I have. They both seem to be intelligent and educated individuals. Is it possible the three of us have come to three different conclusions about the nature of D&D alignments because we're forcing misguided interpretations on the source material? Is the problem they're both wrong somehow and I've got the "most legitimate" interpretation of the system? Or that one of them is right and the other two of us are wildly off base? I don't think any of these interpretations is accurate. I think the problem is that the source material is fundamentally flawed.
I hate the D&D alignment system. I don't think it works very well, and I'm amazed it has survived with relatively few changes through edition after edition of D&D. It is maddeningly ambiguous, and is conducive to certain very mindless forms of role-play. The d20 system managed to streamline D&D's saving throws, classes, spells, and initiative rolls. These are important mechanics, and they should be interpretable in the same way by different observers, so two people who have never met before might sit down at a table and play an enjoyable game with the same understanding of the rules. That I have yet to meet two D&D gamers with exactly the same perception of a mechanic as fundamental as character alignment says to me that the system has a serious problem.
The Rules Understate The Importance Of Alignment
Part of the problem seems to be the 3rd Edition designers undervalued the importance of alignment as a core mechanic. Both the 3rd Edition and 3.5 Player's Handbooks contain the following passage: "Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character."
This attitude is short-sighted, and the statement is misleading. Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Monks, and Paladins all suffer some kind of penalty for switching to prohibited alignments. That's over half the classes in the game! In some cases, such as the Cleric and the Paladin, alignment changes can result in the loss of all class-related skills. Clearly, alignment as a game mechanic is more important than just "a tool for developing your character's identity." In a very explicit sense, your character's alignment determines what he can or cannot do.
The creators of AD&D acknowledged this. The AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide penalized alignment-changing characters with the loss of a full level of experience. In addition, involuntary alignment changes required massive atonements to rectify, whereas the negative effects of voluntary alignment changes could not be mitigated at all. Gygax writes, "Although it is possible for a character to allow himself or herself to be blown by the winds as far as alignment is concerned, he or she will pay a penalty which will effectively damn the character to oblivion."
That's strong language. Even though the d20 rules have toned down the penalties associated with switching alignment, such penalties still exist for the majority of all character classes. Strangely, the two-page description of alignment in the most recent versions of the Player's Handbook makes no mention of these penalties at all, nor does the passage on changing alignments in the most recent Dungeon Master's Guides.
Furthermore, there are a slew of alignment-specific spells and magic items that target specific alignments. Powerful spells such as Shield of Law and Dictum can make a player's choice of alignment very significant indeed. Being told alignment is not a straitjacket is cold comfort when your character could be killed without a saving throw.
Alignment is not a minor mechanic to be shunted to the Description chapter with eye-color and favored food. No matter what your choice of alignment, the decision is likely to affect your character in some important way.
Alignments Aren't Tied to Specific Behaviors
In the section titled "Changing Alignment," both of the recent (3rd Edition and 3.5) versions of the Dungeon Master's Guide contain this passage: "If a player says, 'My neutral good character becomes chaotic good,' the appropriate answer is 'prove it.'" In my opinion, the appropriate player response to such a question is, "how?" There are no hard and fast guidelines for D&D alignments.
This is the crux of the problem with D&D alignments: the system gives us insufficient data with regard to what behaviors are associated with specific alignments. "Good," the Player's Handbook tells us, "implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." But it doesn't tell us what kind of sacrifices, or how often they should be made. Where does a DM draw the line between a good character and a neutral one? The choice is arbitrary.
On the other hand, "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." But good characters can certainly hurt, oppress, and kill evil ones. Or can they? Perhaps the difference is, as the Player's Handbook continues, that "Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms. . . others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." But when you consider a paladin is often expected to kill evil creatures out of duty to some good deity or master, the moral lines start to become muddied. How far can a holy warrior's holy war go? A paladin cannot resort to evil means, or she will no longer be a paladin. We need a strict definition of what makes evil creatures evil, and we just don't have one.
To cite an example that has plagued me in numerous D&D campaigns, can good creatures torture evil ones? The Player's Handbook is ominously silent on this matter. Or let's say a paladin slays the warriors of an evil tribe of goblins guarding an unholy shrine, and then discovers the goblin women and children cowering behind a tapestry. These creatures detect evil (because the Monster Manual says they do!), but are unarmed and helpless. What does the paladin do in this situation? Does he slaughter them all because they're evil, or must he let them go because they're helpless non-combatants? D&D has led us into the Bermuda Triangle of moral behavior, and our compass has gone haywire.
Furthermore, the Player's Handbook tells us neutral characters have compunctions against the killing of innocents. Leaving the problematic definition of "an innocent" to one side, what about harming innocents? The Player's Handbook doesn't say anything about that. How often, and how severely, can a neutral character harm innocents before she becomes evil?
In AD&D, only evil characters were allowed to use poison. Though 3rd Edition has dropped this prohibition, it illustrates my point: what one observer sees as evil by definition may not be evil at all to another. Though I wonder why AD&D forbade good and neutral characters to use poison (it's ok to hack someone to death with a sword but not ok to poison him?), I am not amused that 3rd Edition removed one of the only specific definitions of evil behavior from the game and did not bother to replace it.
In the movie Unforgiven, Clint Eastwood's character William Munny walks into a saloon where his dead friend Ned Logan lies on display outside the door. Munny asks to know the owner of the bar. When Skinny, the proprietor, identifies himself, Munny shoots him dead. Gene Hackman's character, the Sheriff Little Bill, calls Munny a coward and observes, "You've just shot an unarmed man." Munny replies: "He should've armed himself if he's gonna go decorating his saloon with my friend." Here's a question for all you DMs out there: was Munny's action evil (Skinny was arguably an 'innocent' because he had no weapon and never harmed anyone directly), neutral (Munny is avenging the desecration of his friend's body), or even good (Skinny treats the prostitutes who work for him as his property, and arguably represents the forces of corruption in the town that led to the un-avenged disfigurement of one of the prostitutes and the death by torture of Ned Logan)? My crystal ball tells me different DMs will judge the same action in different ways.
The designers' double use of the word "implies" is significant. The D&D alignment system relies so heavily on implicit information that the arbiter of alignment change can only be the DM. Players have no chance of governing this change unless they know exactly what the DM's interpretation of each alignment is. If the players have merely read the rules, and have never discussed alignment with their DM, they're likely to encounter a difference of opinion when it comes time to judge their characters on the basis of their actions. In any such difference of opinion, it's usually the DM whose interpretation prevails.
Ambiguity Causes Confusion and Dissent
As a player, the ambiguity of the alignment system can be maddening. If one DM allows good characters to torture evil creatures for information and another DM interprets the act of torture as evil enough to cause a change in alignment, players moving between the two are bound to feel frustrated and confused.
In an example from my recent experience, I have a player who prefers to play Chaotic Neutrals. I told her a Chaotic Neutral character was pretty much free to do as she chose. She asked me, "Can I attack other party members if they annoy me?" I said, "Yes, but don't make a habit of it. If you kill another party member without a good reason, I'll shift you over to Chaotic Evil." She accepted this interpretation and played with the group without any disruptive incidents, excepting one time when she threw a fireball at a highly fire-resistant character because he was annoying her. He took no damage, and everybody laughed about it and moved on. Recently, this player and I have joined another campaign as players. The DM has told her flat-out his interpretation of Chaotic Neutral does not allow her to attack another party member under any but the most justified of circumstances (they're under enemy control, they attack her first, etc). The consequence is that she thinks his interpretation of alignment is limp-wristed, and she feels she is not being allowed to play the character she wants to play.
I've encountered similar problems myself. As a DM with a very strict interpretation of what constitutes Good behavior, I take good alignments very seriously when I am a player. Once I joined a game of hack'n'slashers as a Chaotic Good rogue. When I constantly wanted to rescue the prisoners we found and nearly came to blows with a "neutral good" character over whether or not to torture a captive goblin for information, the other players accused me of being more of a goody-two-shoes than the party paladin. The sad thing is that they were right: my rogue was by far the most scrupulous member of the group. Their DM was used to letting them get away with murder (literally!), so they couldn't understand my character's motivations at all.
When Detected Alignment Replaces Moral Choice
In the comments section of my own "How Typical is Stereotypical?" article, Memehunter reminded me of a very annoying and silly phenomenon that arises from the D&D alignment system: the "radar gamer." In her example, good-aligned characters used the Detect Evil spell and paladin ability as a moral litmus test. Whenever an NPC tested positive for evil, they killed him on the spot.
This is the worst kind of systemic exploitation I can imagine, and I'm sad to say it is quite common in my experience. Rather than think about how their characters should behave, many players default to character powers and alignment preconceptions to do their thinking for them.
Does every evil person deserve to die? Clearly, our society doesn't think so, or the concepts of criminal rehabilitation and "not guilty by reason of insanity" would not exist. Moreover, is the honorable but ruthless assassin of the slayer's guild deserving of the same fate as the psychopathic, serial killer priest of the god of murder? D&D characters don't tend to think in these terms. We can attribute part of their mentality to the quasi-medieval setting of high fantasy, but the Player's Handbook must share the blame. I quote from the description of Lawful Good: "A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and who protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good." When players read phrases such as "hates to see the guilty go unpunished" and "fights evil without mercy," what are they supposed to think? The Player's Handbook doesn't supply any specifics or clarification of these phrases, so many players feel quite justified in pursuing a high fantasy brand of instant justice.
What Can Be Done?
If you agree the D&D alignment system is too ambiguous to be useful, you need not despair. After all, the concept of fantasy role-play as made popular by D&D has brought many hours of entertainment to me and countless others over the decades. There are a number of possible solutions to the problem.
Use a different system. This is a painful thing for me to suggest, and many fans of d20 and dyed-in-the-wool D&D players will not seriously consider it. But if D&D is all you know, I encourage you to explore systems that describe behavior in different ways. Some systems, such as the admittedly flawed Palladium system, attempt to solve the problem by providing specific guidelines for each alignment. Other systems, such as GURPS and Call of Cthulhu, ignore the question of player character alignment entirely. GURPS compensates by using character disadvantages that can be assembled in many ways to represent such diverse human characteristics such as truthfulness, codes of honor, intolerance, sadism, and insanity.
Abolish alignments. Why not? If alignment is truly a tool for developing character identity, and not a straitjacket, as the Player's Handbook claims, then it is not necessary to enjoyment of the game. If you abolish alignments, however, you will need to revise the spell and magic items lists and do a little preparation for paladins and clerics. For paladins, take fifteen minutes to write out a "paladin's oath" that specifically outlines the behavioral requirements of the class. For clerics, you must communicate to any cleric PC what her sect expects of her. Where the spell list is concerned, you can simply remove all alignment-specific spells. However, you might want to modify certain spells such as Protection from Evil to become Protection from Outsiders, so they will still function against demons and the like. Alignment-specific magic items can similarly be altered to "bane"-type items affecting specific races or classes.
Use a different alignment system or associate alignments with specific behavior. I have always preferred the Palladium alignment system to the D&D alignment system, for the simple reason that Palladium explicitly states what kinds of behavior are appropriate to each alignment. Though it is not entirely consistent, the Palladium system at least seems headed in the right direction, and is far less prone to abuse and disparate interpretation. To provide a basis of comparison, let me quote the entirety of the Lawful Good entry from the Player's Handbook as well as the Principled alignment from Palladium. These two alignments are more or less equivalent in spirit, but have different applications to actual game mechanics because one is vague and the other specific.
D&D: "Lawful Good, 'Crusader': A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and who protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion."
Palladium: "Principled (good). Principled characters are generally the strong moral character[s]. Superman is of a principled alignment with the highest regard for others' lives, well being, truth, and honor. Principled characters will...
1. Always keep [their] word.
2. Avoid lies.
3. Never kill or attack an unarmed foe.
4. Never harm an innocent.
5. Never torture for any reason.
6. Never kill for pleasure.
7. Always help others.
8. Work well in a group.
9. Respect authority, law, self-discipline, and honor.
10. Never betray a friend."
If you don't want to adopt another alignment system wholesale (possibly because of the changes you might have to make to the spell and magic items lists), try using the Palladium example to draw up specific lists of behavior for each of the nine D&D alignments. It would only take an hour or two all told, and would be a small investment to keep your campaign free of ambiguity and frustration.
Limit the use of alignment detection. If your campaign is plagued by "radar gamers" who are using player powers in conjunction with alignment archetypes instead of using their brains, you can interdict the player powers in several ways. First, try increasing the number of alignment concealing devices used by NPCs. There are several items in the Dungeon Master's Guide to suit this purpose, and the Spymaster prestige class actually specializes in it. Second, try having detection-happy players encounter overwhelming signals. For example, if the paladin in your group is driving you mad by detecting evil every sixty feet, have him detect evil so strongly that he becomes ill. If his own power renders him incapacitated a time or two, he won't be so prone to abusing it. Third, enforce the law. The chances are good that the characters are inflicting frontier justice on inhabitants of civilized realms. As a GURPS supplement points out, the King may not understand why you killed the Necromancer in his basement if the Necromancer was a loyal, tax-paying subject. Clap your PCs in irons, and see if that doesn't inform them not everyone shares their interpretation of "justice."
In conclusion, I realize not everyone will share my perspectives on D&D alignments. However, I believe a reduction in the ambiguity level of the Player's Handbook can only have the result of improving the quality of your games and the moods of your players.
- Login to post comments
You mean... You DON'T fart on one another's heads as a favourite past time in Canada?
But what about that whole war you had with the USA, because of a movie with foul language in it, which was eventually stopped by the Satanic wishes of a anorak-wearing eight year old?
Wazzat ! sweetness and light breaking out ! Gotta stop this quick:
'I like Goblin babies, but I don't think I could eat a whole one.'
NOOOOOOOOOO! LEAVE 'EM ALONE, YOU MONSTER!
(Snatches baby goblin away, cuddles it paternally)
It's OK, Grubb, that bad man won't hurt you, I won't let him...
*sigh*
I just realized why I frequent this site...
I...am a dork.
Paladins: Considering they're based on Knights of the Crusades, yes they will slaughter evil Goblin women and children (and looking at historical acccounts from the Middle East, will also eat the children if they're Hungry). If your God (or your God's representative) says it's OK, that's all there is to it. Period.
Generally. abolish alignments - a historical legacy that is not needed and much abused.
Says Paul the Satanist.
Paul's got a point.
Since throughout the dark ages, religion was used primarily as a means to control and instill FEAR into people, rather than bring hope and positive energy...
Actually in Quebec it was till much later than that.
The catholic church sold the french canadian to the british (by that I mean collaborated with the occupation forces and declared that opposing the invaders was opposing god's will) in exange we got to remain catholic! Woopdy doo!
Church held a tight grasp around education and politics all the way into the 60's till we said. That's enough and raised a collective finger towards Vatican.
It's taken 40 years for the yourger generations to forgive (or forget) the church and see it as something other than a tool for those in power to control the people.
Getting back on topic now.
Paul:
Actually the knights of the crusades were not devout paladins for the greater majority.
They were either:
1 - Glory seekers.
2 - Greedy bastards in search of richess to pillage.
3 - Black sheep or rivals, their families wanted to be rid of but couldn't murder.
4 - Small nobles fearing the loss of their title or excommunion if they didn't join.
Most people joined the crusades by self interest, not for spiritual or religious reasons.
Paladins are not based on the Knights of the Crusades, they are based on the "White Knight in Shining Armour" from fairie tales and have almost no historical basis (besides their name and supposed powers over evil).
In D&D if your religious leader orders you to slaughter innocents (a direct violation of the paladin's code) then by all means you should refuse (I'd also use my detect evil on him to make sure he's not an impostor or possessed or something) if you blindingly accept hand over your character sheet you're now a black guard my friend.
Not to start the whole Bush debate again. But he, Saddam, Ben Ladden and many other leaders who commit their people to war often quote scripture and implore divine right or whatever religious nonsense to convince people to jump in and get killed to help them meet their ambitions.
Religion like anything that has a hold on our psyche can help others manipulate us (be it for our own good or theirs). In many ways the dark ages are back I find and exactly for the reasons Mystic mentioned.
Sometimes I feel like politicians and the media are so focussed on fear, hatred and violence that they leave very little room for hope and positive energy.
A truly Lawfull Good person in our society would probably be called a lunatic unless he or she went Mother Theresa's way.
Sam said:
"Paladins are not based on the Knights of the Crusades, they are based on the "White Knight in Shining Armour" from fairie tales and have almost no historical basis (besides their name and supposed powers over evil)."
This is essentially true, but I take exception with a few of your details. While there have probably never been any truly just and noble holy warriors, the paladin class is based on the knights of Charlemagne.
I would agree with you that the exploits of Charlemagne's knights were exaggerated and lionized by their chroniclers. They were probably no more virtuous than the primitive Briton king who inspired the Arthurian legend. But there is a historical basis for paladins, even if it is a tenuous one.
History has a reputation for going to war, and then having the winners write the history as to just who the good guys and the bad guys were. Almost always, the heroic good guys were the winners and the despicable bad guys are the losers.
In recent times, however, this has gone back to front. We empathise with the people we are at war with, whilst we no longer support our own governments in anything, because we feel we 'can't trust them'. We voted for the bloody people, surely we should be able to trust them.
Sorry about this, this isn't about politics, but my own view is that we should support our own, not our enemies.
Olly said:
"In recent times, however, this has gone back to front. We empathise with the people we are at war with, whilst we no longer support our own governments in anything, because we feel we 'can't trust them'."
Well, I don't know about you, but I don't trust my government for doodly-squat.
It really hacks me off when some people want to speak out about something that's bothering them - say it's a war they think is stupid or poorly justified, for example - and people who are in favor of whatever the protesters are against say, "These people are traitors. They want to give comfort to our enemies. Go to Iraq if you don't like it here!"
It's not so wrong to speak your mind. In my country, it's supposedly one of the founding principles of the whole deal. What's really going back to front is these jerks saying, oh, we've got to take your liberties away because these other people are out to get us.
Just because you think a governmental policy is a bad one doesn't make you a traitor. In my book, it makes you a patriot. Isn't a patriot someone who cares for what his country stands for? Isn't a patriot somebody brave enough to stand up and say, "hey, this isn't what we're supposed to be about"?
Frankly, I empathize with our troops just fine. They're getting shot at! That's going to suck, no matter how you slice it. Just because I also empathize with the 11-year-old kids who get "smart bombs" dropped on their houses or hospitals doesn't mean I don't care about our lads, too. It's a war zone. It's crap for everybody.
And it's worse if you're one of the ones who said they shouldn't even be there. Now they're just getting shot at, and there's nothing you can do about it.
And then some bozo or garden variety fascist comes along and tells you that you should shut up and "trust the government." Sure. I trust them. I trust them to get our lads killed for strange reasons, far from home.
Olly said:
"We voted for the bloody people, surely we should be able to trust them."
In this case, I didn't vote for the bastards. And I intend to volunteer for the guys running against them, on the off-chance that one more person will make a difference. Because I don't believe in lying down and taking it when somebody tramples all over everything that matters to me.
Sorry about the rant, Olly, but your post showed up in my mailbox because I'm the author of the thread. As you can see, it touched a nerve.
^^^^^
Sorry about that, anyone who happens across it. We now return you to our regularly scheduled discussion of alignments...
WAIT! WAIT! I haven't gone yet! My turn...my turn!
*a-hem*
With regards to the whole "protesting/anti-protesting* thing...
Protestors say... "Don't send American Troops to war!"
But US Troops are saying... "Its our duty to go, shutup you bunch of pussies!"
I can understand a war protest for political reasons. But a large percentage of "anti's" are greatly mis-informed and don't have any reasons behind their protesting, other than "war is bad."
The world isn't perfect and THAT is why war is sometimes necessary. Once the human race evolves BEYOND greed and hatred, then...well...by then I'm sure the aliens will be invading...so...
*glances upward*
...humans suck...bring on the invasion...
Ahem.
Politics suck.
Especially in the US.
Olly said:
"We voted for the bloody people, surely we should be able to trust them."
I say:
We didn't vote for George W. Bush but he's president anyway. And what does he do? The great American tradition. Go into a weaker country and tell them how they are going to do things. He has done it twice now. First with Afghanistan and then with Iraq.
But I am NOT going to get into a rant about American politics.
And Olly, how the hell do you vote for Queen? Isn't she like there anyway?
Now we return you to your regularly scheduled discussion on the wanton slaughter of goblin babies.
BABIES ON SPIKES!! BABIES ON SPIKES!!
The queen is a powerless head of state, Eater. She lost her powers to govern years ago, and England's affairs are now run by our prime minister.
Our queen doesn't do anything any more. She just sits there, growing fat on our income, with all her inbred kin. (If the Queen is reading this, "I'm sorry, Ma'am, I was just joking. I hope this won't in any way affect my knighthood, will it?")
I think if the queen wants to be loved by the British people, she has to start acting like a real monarch. You know; beheading, demanding tribute from travelling aristocrats, and most of all, leading our armies into war.
Becuase, I think if the queen lead our armies into war, we would win every war we fought, because the enemy wouldn't be able to get through the police barriers, so we'd just mop 'em up!
I don't want to offend anyone by saying this, but it seems to me that voting for George W. Bush in America is a bit like voting Conservative in the UK. Lots of people do it must do it, but nobody will admit to it.
*New British National Anthem*
God attack the queen
Send big dogs after her
That bite her bum
Let them chase after her
And rip her knickers off...
Sorry I have sent this discussion the wrong way haven't I, so sorry. Olly thank god for the UK you're not their minister of defense. If british tacticians had been as clever as you... French would still be the international language... but then custommer service wouldn't exist, bureaucracies would be even less efficient and movies would all have weird endings that make no sense.
Back to paladins and alignments. I totally agree that while Charlemagne and his paladins are as unrealistically portrayed as king Arthur and his knights, there is some historical basis.
But, the D&D Knightly characters are based on the romantic version of these two famous knightly orders not the historical facts. Just as swashbucklers are based on romance novel musketeers and the likes, not the real duelists of the... 17th? century. Anywho.
But I think I've found a glitch in this discussion. It seems to me that some people find that alignments should "dictate" what how a certain character should be played while others think alignments should reflect how a character acts and thinks.
Hum... I'm not really sure where I stand on this.
What do you guys think.
Sam sayeth:
'Olly thank god for the UK you're not their minister of defense. If british tacticians had been as clever as you... French would still be the international language... but then custommer service wouldn't exist, bureaucracies would be even less efficient and movies would all have weird endings that make no sense.'
Up spake our hero, bold, righteous and handsome Olly, the slayer of sensibility:
But on the plus side, everything we said would sound sexy, and we'd have fit women in berets walking around, and we'd wear onions around our necks. And they're be less pollution because we'd all ride bicylces everywhere. We'd have a rather ugly countryside resembling a patchwork quilt of farms and wineyards, but on the plus side, we'd have beautiful cities with towers and suchlike... How many other slightly racist stereotypes can I work into this?
Oh, and in England, Sam, we don't have a Ministry of Defense. We've got a Ministry Of Defence, though.
Ah, the subtle joys of making fun of non-English spelling!
Maudit anglais!
Yelleth the french canadian in barely contained anger.
By the way folks happy holidays, it's great the way discussions on this site, while volatile at times remain civilised and intelligent.
Oh and you have to see Return of the King, Orlando does such a better job than Olly could ever had.
Olly? let go of that wrench man! I was just yanking your chain! Noooooo! thump.
Hmmm... I love political debate... but I restrain myself to keep within subject.
Anyway, we know that Olly is not interested in goblin babies. Hes really after the Goblin women. Cause they look better than the females he usually drugs, sorry I meant dates.
I think this subject has been done to death. I'm sure that we have several threads open on alignment.
When we L/G muslims take over the world, we'll take all you C/E DEMON-WORSHIPPING D&D players, load you into a catupult and fire you into the firmanent as a testament to our holiness and piety.
Not the women of course. They go straight into my personal harem. Thus the world will become a better place for me at least.
Oh crap who am I kidding. My wife wont let me have a harem, even a small one. Women are so insecure.
Merry christmas and a happy new year.
Sam said:
"It seems to me that some people find that alignments should 'dictate' what how a certain character should be played while others think alignments should reflect how a character acts and thinks."
I'll recapitulate my position on this for the sake of a little conversational focus.
As I said in the article, and as Xplo restated nicely a few posts above, the PHB makes an unconvincing claim that alignment is not a straitjacket. Why is it unconvincing? Because some classes (such as the Paladin) lose their special powers if they change alignment, and the bulk of the rest do not permit characters to continue advancing in the class if they have changed to prohibited alignments.
In my campaigns, alignment more or less dictates how a character should behave. There is some leeway: I agree with the sentiment that a Lawful Good character does not *always* have to behave in a Lawful Good fashion. However, if a character consistently deviates from the alignment, or if she commits an act radically out of keeping with her chosen alignment, I will change that character's alignment to reflect her behavior.
Mo, you say the goblin women thing like it's bad. I like the green skin and warts.
And, thank you Olly for the amusing mental image I got of Elizabeth riding command of a British tank collumn doing that stupid little wave thing.
As I said waaaay the hell up there ^
"They should be viewed as GUIDELINES of common behavior of an individual. They should NOT be viewed as rules or limitations of one's actions. They should give a players an IDEA of what CAN (not MUST) be expected of them."
To add to this, there are certain character classes (Cocytus' post) that require and/or enforce adherance to the alignment descriptions. In these situations the player should follow the rules...OR discuss options with the GM before playing. AND USE COMMON SENSE!
e.g. - Ferron the Holy Priest of Kindness will NOT sedate and sodomize goblin babies...are we clear?
If alignments are just guidelines, they aren't necessary. If I thought alignment was just a tool for developing characters, I'd have abolished it.
As another year of one's reign comes to an end, Phileeep and oneself would like to say to all enemies of our realm...
EAT HOT DEATH, SCUM!
(Fires cannon!)
And, I think Cocytus has hit it right on the head here... If I may quote Capt. Barbossa from the excellent movie, Pirates Of The Caribbean...
The [alignment] code isn't so much rules, as it is guidelines!
Olly, READ BETTER!
I hit the nail! I OWN THE NAIL!
I AM A HAMMERING FOO'
Ass said:
"Ferron the Holy Priest of Kindness will NOT sedate and sodomize goblin babies...are we clear?"
I said:
Can we really take the chance and allow our goblin chidrean to be altar boys of this so called 'Preist of Kindness'? The last time he had legal action brought against him for molestation he was cleared but I said no way was I gonna let my little goblin go back to be an altar boy at his so called 'Church of Kindness'.
Yeah...I made my point.
I made my point without even saying that Ferron was catholic...
*snickers*
Were I not now an eclectic I would be offended by that comment about Catholic priests. Come on, it's as bad for them as any other... faction? of the church.
Apparently, in the Church of Satan, you get kicked out for NOT buggering the chior boys.
Well, I'm pagan so I can make fun of whoever I want.
Oh, and I can bugger whoever I want too.
::slides up between Olly and Ass::
Hey guys. Wanna go somewhere a little more private.
wink, wink
nudge, nudge
knowwhatimean, knowwhatimean
no...
I'M AN EXHIBITIONIST!!
*jumps both Olly and Eater's bones*
*pauses*
WAIT! Only if you tell me that I am serving God by doing so...
Just close you're eyes, lay back and think of England, Ass, (or in your case, South Africa) it'll be OK.
Well, there's egg and bacon; egg, sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg, bacon and spam; egg, bacon, sausage and spam; spam, bacon, sausage and spam; spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam; spam, sausage, spam, spam, spam, bacon, spam, tomato and spam; spam, spam, spam, egg and spam; (Vikings start singing in background) spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, spam and spam.
*looking around*
wait...what'd I miss?
It is God's wish that we do so. Truly, he told me so himself.
Oh, I'll have the spam, spam, sausage and spam, but cna I sustitute the sausage for spam?
No wonder the alignment system is so damned screwed up, if people like all of you are interpretting it. I think I've become stupider just by reading this comment sheet. You're all madmen. Or women. Or whatever.
Well Anonymous, I agree. I feel stupider for having joined in.
And we are mad, but we've gotten better about being on topic.
Blast! I did it again!
Topic! Topic! Alignment, right. Alignment sucks, go White Wolf!
I started an article basically in direct response to this that addresses most of the points (in my estimation) quite elegantly.
To be honest, I'm rather perplexed that you are so perplexed by the definition of good and evil. It is by no means a rigid definition, which is why the term "implies" is used.
I made a preliminary post of my article (mistakenly) under the heading of Scorpio's article, but I can address some major points here.
I think it is biggest strength of the D&D alignment system that it is _not_ tied to specific behaviors. ANY act can be evil with the right intentions and the right context, whether it be to heal a child (that will later grow up to become a violent warlord) or tell the truth (that you tell for personal gain, at the cost of someone else's happiness).
Palladium's definition actually falls prey to the same problems you bring up. So, is it evil for a good person to kill an unarmed foe who they have sufficient evidence to believe will later kill an innocent? If the only way to save the village is to torture the Orc king, is the good person not allowed to, even though more stand to suffer from the Orc king _not_ being tortured?
No, I am not convinced that listing out specific behaviors associated with an alignment isn't all that useful; it's good for getting a general idea, but the minute any sort of ambiguity crops up, you have to toss it aside.
Let's see...
I thought it would be pretty obvious that the Paladin should not kill the goblin women and children; they are completely at his mercy and pose no threat to him. Killing is more or less irrevocable; resurrection (which is costly and damaging to the resurrectee, but that is beside the point) aside, killing is not something to be done lightly, especially if you value life (and someone who is good does tend to value life).
Clint Eastwood's character's act was neutral. He probably knew that the guy he was shooting was evil and did bad things, and so the man's death would have a good result. However, your description implies to me that he was not the main reason why he killed this guy, although it may have factored into his decision. First and foremost, he killed the man out of vengeance, and in cold blood. The fact that the overall result of his actions is probably good cancels out the fact that it was a pretty evil thing to shoot an unarmed guy who is completely at his mercy.
I like that example,t hough, because it illustrates that playing alignment hard and fast is a silly idea, and relies a lot more on role-playing than you would first suspect.
My article will attempt to address the various ways you can ease up on alignment and make it more of a role-playing tool than a system mechanic, so if you're interested, stay tuned... or check out what I have so far on the other comment board, keeping in mind that it is a rough draft. :)
Anonymous: no thanks at all for one of the least constructive comments I've ever seen on this site. Perhaps you don't give a name because you lack the courage of your convictions. Perhaps you don't provide any arguments because you don't have any, only insults and an unsubstantiated opinion. Either way, I don't have to listen to the likes of you.
Tra'Hari said:
"My article will attempt to address the various ways you can ease up on alignment and make it more of a role-playing tool than a system mechanic..."
I read both your posts, and I found them interesting. But you're missing the key point: alignment *is* a system mechanic, whether anyone wants it to be or not. The spells and effects listed make it so. The PHB's curious insistence that it is not a straitjacket is muddle-headed at best.
Xplo summed up my position very well a number of posts back. If I may, I'll just re-paste what he said here.
Xplo said:
"... unfortunately, they are explicitly viewed as rules and limitations. Some classes have alignment restrictions, and the penalties for breaking them can be severe. Some spells and magic items only work for (or on!) creatures of certain alignments.
Suppose my GM feels that I'm not playing my paladin "good" enough, and strips his powers. I disagree, claiming that his behavior is appropriate for a LG character. Huge fight ensues.. or at least, I feel cheated for being punished although I've done nothing wrong.
In short, alignment and game mechanics don't mix, yet they are inseparable."
Tra'Hari, you say that the Palladium system falls prey to the same problems faced by the D&D one. Within the bounds you establish, you might be right. But my experience has been that, by establishing more explicit guidelines, the Palladium system has to be chucked aside far less often than the D&D one. In the years I used it, I never once argued about it with a player.
Tra'Hari said:
"So, is it evil for a good person to kill an unarmed foe who they have sufficient evidence to believe will later kill an innocent?"
In the Palladium system, the answer is a simple "yes". It is evil. Period. This, I would argue, is the same reason Batman never kills the Joker and Superman never kills Lex Luthor. When fighting evil, to become what you behold is to have failed.
"If the only way to save the village is to torture the Orc king, is the good person not allowed to, even though more stand to suffer from the Orc king _not_ being tortured?"
If the *only* way to save the village is to torture the orc king, then you have either a bad DM or an unimaginative crew of players. ;) But taking this question on its face, again the answer is "No, the principled person is not allowed to torture the orc king." Notice I don't say the "good" person because Principled is the only alignment in Palladium that can never engage in torture under any circumstances.
This is why I prefer the Palladium system: there's not much ambiguity. Player expectations and DM expectations of alignment behavior are the same. When using the Palladium alignment system, the only argument is whether the rules are just or not: the argument is *not* over what the rules say.
The _Unforgiven_ example, in my estimation, illustrates only how silly the D&D alignment system is. In Palladium, I can describe William Munny's alignment behavior precisely, and with little room for debate. In D&D, I'm just at a loss...even if I come up with a good, well-reasoned interpretation, someone else will be able to come up with equally good reasons why my interpretation is wrong.
I look forward to your article, but I still think the D&D alignment system is terrible. As of this writing, I do not plan ever to use it again in a role-playing campaign.
Here's a little preface: one of my motivations behind writing an article on this topic is, in part, giving players and GMs the knowledge to think outside of the small guidelines given either by the Palladium system or by the 3rd Edition alignment system. Rather than look at the book for a list, I think it is a better establish a really basic notion of good and evil, and go from there. If everyone can get on the same page, then the bickering is minimized, and there are fewer people complaining about system effects (especially if you use your imagination when it comes to alignment detection / affecting spells).
I don't exactly expect to revolutionize gaming or cure cancer, but it'd be nice if some people thought a little more about this topic as a result of reading my humble article.
That said, we proceed to my (lengthy!) response!
To be frank, I think stripping a Paladin's alignment in that fashion is a rather hamfisted and draconic way of addressing the situation, and bespeaks a fundamental difference of approach in how I think alignment should be handled, and how I imagine a great deal many people handle it. I suspect that this is the source of a lot of our disagreements.
The image of the DM evoked by Xplo reminds me of someone who would also make a player stick to a mistake that a given character would not make, but a player _would_ make based on information that they didn't hear or misinterpreted. ("The spikes fall from the ceiling and kill you." "What? Spikes?" "Yes, I described them a minute ago." "I didn't hear you say that! Everyone else was still arguing! If I'd known that, I would've searched for traps. My _character_ certainly would have seen them and acted accordingly." "Nope, it's too late now; you already said you walked into the room, so now you're dead. Roll up a new character.")
In the latter case, I would (of course) let the character search for traps. However, if he still set them off, I wouldn't let him "redo" just because he approached it the wrong way; even if he tried to argue "Well, I wouldn't have approached it in that way which is why I failed," I wouldn't allow it, because he already had a fair chance.
In the former example, I would say that a Paladin committing an evil act doesn't happen in a void (or at least, it shouldn't). Does the character know he's about to commit an evil act? What is her rationale for doing so? Does the player think it is acceptable within the constraints of her character's ethos and alignment? How does her character feel about it? Obtaining the answers to those questions should make it easy to get to the meat of whether or not the Paladin has done something wrong.
A more subtle point here is that if your DM isn't open to any discussion at all, he's a jerk; rule zero of being a DM is listening to your players. If a player thinks someone is unfair, and there is _any_ merit to his claim, then something is up. This is just common sense, and at the risk of sounding even more snobbish than I will later, it's illogical to fault a system because of someone who is an inferior DM.
This is not meant to imply that I am an accompished DM or anything of the sort (I am far from it), but I do think that matters as fundamental as a character's central set of abilites and powers merits a little more discussion than "Whoops, that's evil! Sorry!" Any prospect of alignment change is something that should take place in the context of a discussion between player and DM so that the DM can get a good idea of where the player and the character are coming from. For any character class whose alignment is central to their character, this is _should_ be a no-brainer... but I suspect that this approach falls more into the role-playing heavy approach to gaming that a large portion of the D&D playing population does not subscribe to. (By no means is that a veiled accusation; I am merely speaking in general.)
This ties in with what I read in your post: I think I see part of our differences, especially why you prefer Palladium over D&D (in terms of alignment), and why I do not.
The Palladium system works right out of the box, with no discussion. That is to say, it's extremely easy for a DM and a player to agree on what does and does not fall under the rubric (oh, man... I can't believe I used that word) of a given alignment because, well, it's on a list. There's not much room for discussion, as the rules are rather black and white in this regard, consisting of a set of distinct behaviors associated with an alignment.
That is precisely why I don't like it. It seems that Palladium reduces alignment to an enumerative system where X, X, and X all run counter to this alignment, A, A, and A all run counter to this alignment, and so on. The richness of a system with more leeway is completely absent here. Instead of your character examining his conscience for his intent and for what he really believes in, you run down a list and check off points to make sure you're not evil. It's so formulaic as to be implausible; _everyone_ following this alignment shares these hard and fast beliefs? That reminds me of D&D 2nd's completely arbitrary rules that I came to loathe and mock. ("Nope, despite the fact that nature is central to their way of life, Elves _can't_ be Druids. Also, only Humans can be Paladins.")
The fact that it's enumerative is also not terribly exciting for me, as it undercuts the notion of moral ambiguity, which (as I may have mentioned before) is something that I think is a great role-playing opportunity for characters to whom alignment is central to their concept or class. Sure, they can wonder about whether or not torture in the name of a good cause is all _that_ bad, but everyone at the gaming table knows what happens when the character breaks that rule. In D&D, a Lawful Good character can still torture people, as torture is not explicitly prohibited ("He is an Orc, and he holds the key to the safey of our village. It is regrettable, but it is a small sacrifice for the lives of all of those women and children.").
The trouble of arguments over acceptable behavior is also only slightly mitigated. Give a bad player a set of rules, and they will follow them to the letter, not the spirit. (Prohibition on killing the unarmed? "What? He had a sword, so he wasn't defenseless! It's not _my_ fault I'm 20th level and he's not!" Gotta work well in a group? "I may be the healer, but he insulted me, and he's too far away anyway.").
The potential result here is that even though the player believes that killing someone who couldn't possibly defend themselves (despite being armed) is okay, the DM might not. Thus, your GM can just as easily slap you down as he can in D&D for a reason that _you_ think is unjustified. (Or, he might _not_ slap that player down despite the fact that they're being an ass!)
What's the distinction between killing someone who is armed and helpless before you as opposed to simply unarmed before you? I don't think there is one, but according to the rules set down for alignment, there's room for one. This problem has a simple answer, of course: the player in question is a twit, and of course they're violating their principles. But it's still a potential sticking point.
Or, for a meatier example, in the case of an enemy who is unlikely to be able to defend themselves against you, are you obligated to level the playing field (i.e., challenge them to a duel, where they pick the standards by which you will both be judged)? After all, a 3rd level evil Aristocrat has no chance of beating a 10th level Paladin, so he's functionally defenseless. That example is not so clear, as the Paladin has what could be considered a hugely unfair advantage, with his training and experience. The honorable thing to do would be to level the playing field so that the Paladin is proven the better man, but how much is required? The DM is forced to make an arbitration that may differ from the player's conception of the rule.
Finally, I'm assuming that if you don't find an alignment that suits you, you have to make one up or alter an existing one. That could (depending on whether or not Palladium has the capacity for that) lead to other game balance issues, with people just making up their own alignments, which defeats the purpose of a common set of rules. The DM now has to chase after the players to provide him with the guidelines of their alignments, either making them write them down (and now he has four or five more things to keep track of). He must also make sure they are clear enough: "Never torture another unless it is necessary." What does _that_ mean?
I'm afraid I'll sound like a snob when I bring this up, but honestly, I think Palladium's alignment system caters to inferior role-playing. That is not meant to be self-aggrandizing, and I offer my humbles apologies if it seems so. What I mean by that is, in general, I think there should be a very fluid give and take in between player and DM: players shouldn't try to abuse or cheese out the rules, and DMs should always be open to discussion about their game. If you assume neither of those, then Palladium's system works beautifully. If you assume both, D&D's alignment system also works beautifully.
(Of course, it always pays to use the right tools; I must say that you've convinced me that Palladium's alignments are the best thing for a group of players notorious for trying to use and abuse systems. In a situation like that, I would do what you suggest, and try to cross-reference Palladium alignments as best I could and hold players to those principles.)
But, it does not escape my noticed that I am probably in the minority on this issue. My gaming background has probably been fairly exceptional; I've had the privilege of participating in numerous discussions about alignment with my gaming group (and zero arguments). Through these discussions, we all reached the same conclusions, and a lot of my conclusions that I discuss here stemmed from these discussions.
(Also, I'm sure it does not help that Mage, with its extremely loose definitions of the Spheres, for example, is by far my favorite game.) (Mmm, Mage.)
Or, put another way, I'm sure there are a lot of people that would rather skip any debate about alignment entirely. In this context, it's easy to see the the appeal of Palladium's system: it gives everyone a list of lists of moral behavior to choose from, providing a common reference that removes any room for discussion (or, perhaps more cynically, argument). Everyone knows where they stand, with no room for debate. To that I say: fair enough.
I'm not sure whether or not I addressed your point with regards to it being a function of the system whether we like it or not. My attitude is to accept that, and integrate it with role-playing tightly enough that the problem is minimized, if not eliminated altogether. There are practical approaches to some of the other system problems, such as radar characters, but that is slightly off base.
I think I'll wrap this up by saying that I am indebted to you for your _Unforgiven_ example, as it is a fantastic illustration of a neutral act, and of the analysis led to that conclusion (which I believe to be simple and intuitive, but perhaps you should be the judge). I will note that I have not seen the movie, but that is not what is important here; what is important is the methodology.
The biggest problem with your various rationale of how it could be considered good, neutral, and/or evil all rest on contradictory premises. On the one hand, you say it might be evil because Skinny wasn't _really_ hurting anyone, but then your rationale for "good" says that he probably _was_ hurting people. Which is it? You're the DM, after all, so there is no need for qualifiers such as "arguably"; _you_ determine the tone and the consequences in your game, so if this were to take place in a game, you don't need to guess at what happens. You _determine_ it.
So, let's apply my rules.
Skinny didn't care about his prostitutes' well-being (callous disregard for life), and he let an innocent man die through wilful negligence (callous again, and compliant to murder). If I am understanding you correctly, not only did these acts/events serve his interests in some fashion or another, but he profited by these (which just compounds the last two points). That sounds like cut and dried evil to me, so, Skinny is evil.
Munny, on the other hand, sounds like he was new to town, so he couldn't have known all that much about Skinny and his activities in town; did Munny have sufficient reason to believe that Skinny was not coerced? Or that he was even responsible? It's far more likely that Munny saw his dead friend, was outraged, and shot what he knew to be an unarmed man. Someone who is unarmed is not necessarily an innocent (is a murderer without a gun innocent?), but shooting someone in cold blood demonstrates a callous disregard for other life, something that is definitely more evil than good. Finally, vengeance in the form of violence is pretty sketchy, especially in such a cold-blooded fashion. It may or may not be premeditated, but Munny knew exactly what he was doing, and probably took some manner of pleasure in what he did.
However! Before we pass judgement on Munny, let's look at the "good" in this situation.
We've already established that Skinny was evil, and as the DM, you can assume that it was unlikely that he'd change. Therefore, a lot of good might come to the town with his removal. Furthermore, as the DM, you can say that he _did_ contribute to the corruption of the town, and contributing to the degradation of morals is evil (it causes a ripple effect of pain/destruction). Finally, I'll bet Munny was no idiot, and was aware of at least some of this; while his friend may've been what was on his mind, I'm sure he knew he'd be ridding the world of a scumbag (and it's reasonable to say that that is good).
So, this isn't really a question of math or connect the dots, but from there, it's simple. A good man kills an evil man in a rather evil way, with mixed intent, and good result. The act is certainly not good, as good strives to do the least harm, but it's certainly not evil because Munny is reasonably sure the guy is a waste product, and as the DM, you _know_ that the village stands to benefit from Skinny's death. Munny probably believes this, too, and fundamentally, we can assume he's a pretty good guy.
We've got a mixed bag here, and good and evil don't really come out on top. Hence, neutral. (And moral ambiguity! Awesome!)
Now, what happens if Skinny is replaced by someone worse (say, Fathead)? In general, a non-evil character would recognize that they are responsible for Fathead's rise to power, and would try to address it. A neutral character might be able to get away with not doing anything ("It's just one more evil guy in a town full of them."). Whether or not _that_ is evil depends on whether or not the character has sufficient reason to believe that they could do something about it... if the character knows it's as simple as sending a letter, then it's evil not to do anything because addressing the problem involves minimal risk and effort on the part of the character.
However, if the character has sufficient reason to believe that Fathead is causing a lot more harm than Skinny ever could have, a non-evil character is obligated to do something about it since they are indirectly responsible for his rise to power: non-evil characters care more about others than non-evil, and it would be irresponsible not to clean up your own mess. I would say that a Paladin would be _obligated_ to right that, but whether or not a Lawful Good character would be obligated depends on the character.
If, on the other hand, someone _else_ kills Skinny, and Fathead rises to power, it's a little different. The neutral character from the previous example would have no responsibility for Fathead's status. It would not be evil not to take up arms against Fathead, but if there are some small ways the player could help, it would probably be evil to turn them away. The example of the letter still holds as stated, as if he has sufficient reason to believe evil is taking place, and he could put an end to it with minimal effort and personal risk, it would be evil not to commit such a simple act. Unless he had more pressing concerns, a Paladin would be obligated to do something about it. Not to do so would be sketchy, at the very least.
It would also be evil to ignore or turn away someone asking for simple aid that was hurt by Fathead (such as medical supplies and staying the night), as long as it was reasonably within the means of the character to do so (and all things being equal, those are fairly reasonable).
However, if they run the risk of angering Fathead as a result of providing shelter and medical supplies, _not_ to provide either would be on the evil side (not even a single bandage?!), and to provide both would be very good (you're taking a personal risk to help someone else). An adept role-player would be able to find some compromise, with the obvious solution being to provide them with medical supplies but not allowing them to stay the night. That would be neutral, as you acknowledge their needs and you give them _some_ aid, though that aid that costs you next to nothing or causes no personal risk.
(FWIW, a situation where time is of the essence is a good example where you have to make a choice between two alternatives, regardless of how imaginative the DM or players are. So, if the entire village was to die in a three hours, it's a day's ride for any external assistance, and you've used up your resources from the previous battle, maybe torturing the Orc king isn't such a bad idea. Admittedly, since we're speaking theoretically, we have the luxury of being able to craft the example however we like, but sometimes it's very dramatic to provide the players with a situation that- if nothing else- _appears_ unwinnable. Great loves and kingdoms have risen and fallen on the backs of such choices.)
Of course, if you're a 20th level character and Fathead's just a weenie by comparison, to not offer any aid or do something about him would be fairly evil, since you could _probably_ make him wet his pants merely by speaking with him firmly. :)
That's a fantastic post, Tra'Hari, and I will give it the attention it deserves when I have the time to do so.
For the time being, I wish only to say that I agree with you that Munny's execution of Skinny was a neutral act. That's how it felt to me in the movie, and that's how it feels upon reflection. My point in using it was to say that I think arguments can be made about the goodness, evil, or neutrality of it. In the end, it comes down to a matter of opinion.
More to come, of course, but...have I mentioned how much I like _Unforgiven_? Did I say I think it's the best Western of contemporary cinema? If not, consider it said.
And see it. If you are not completely satisfied, your wasted time will be refunded.
Thank you! I appreciate the compliment!
I feel that I may have been a bit harsh towards Palladium. I could not bear a system with which I am not familiar any ill will. I could definitely see myself using its alignment with a less than ideal group of gamers. That is not meant to damn by faint praise, either; I don't know much about Palladium, and I will give it as fair a shake as any other system.
IMHO, every system has its strengths and weaknesses, and D&D's certainly got its fair share of both (I guess evil gods just don't go for that whole Paladin thing... oh, wait... there's a prestige class with silly requirements!).
I think I shall definitely add _Unforgiven_ to my list of movies to see... the next time we go out for a rental, I'll go for it. I'll probably use _Unforgiven_ in my article, too, so I must thank you again.
Oh, and if you like, we could move this to e-mail, if you prefer. I don't mean to deluge you with long-ness, and I'm not sure if other people are particularly enamored of it, either. (I'm still sick, so I spent the entire afternoon and early evening on that post. ;)
Are we still talking about alignments?
*looks up*
Oh yeah, that's what the article is about...
Okay then. Palladium does have its problems with regards to being too long and drawn out when it comes to...well...everything. The books are generally huge and the rules and procedures therein are equally gartantuate (try reading the 'Hardware PC' section in the HEROES book...yawn).
I guess the boys at Palladium felt they should address every single detail and every possible scenario with much detail. And considering the many different dice rolls that takes place during battle (a 10-second battle in-game usually takes about 3 hours to roll): This may just be the reason why the Palladium series are not as popular among gamers as they should be...
Cap'n
My biggest beef with Palladium, stupid system aside, is the need a goddamn editor. Every book is a royal pain to try and decypher, then none of them have an index so finding anything quickly is neigh impossible.
I hate Palladium.
To avoid another rant about how much they suck I will get back on topic. I dislike allignment in any incarnation, I believe that the basis of good and evil are so blurry that it is impossible to define them in any kind of world veiw and come away with anything that defines a character. It is for this reason that the games I write have no allignment.
So to sum up my point. I hate Palladium. Allignments and all.
Tra'Hari, great reading you. I have only one problem with your analysis of Munny's shooting of Skinny ad here it is.
You seem to indicate that intent and awareness of your actions' possible results shouldn't reflect on your alignment.
I strongly dissagree.
Munny's shooting of Skinny is neutral, as it shows a total disregard for life, but isn't overly cruel. Now if he had kept on shooting the corpse, had impaled him in front of the bar or replaced his friend's corpse with his that would have crossed the line to evil.
That he unwittingly had good effects on the local populace is inconsequential, his intent was vengeance, period.
To illustrate my point better, let's say a mass murderer had lived in Berlin at the begining of the century and had unwittingly tortured and killed young Adolf Hitler while he was still building the Nazi party. One could argue he would have done humanity a great favour and prevented the rise of a horrible regime.
Still the act of killing someone for no better reason than personnal gratification is something evil, since the motive behind the action is destructive for the victim and aims only at personnal gain.
By that same token, someone who continually breaks the law (for what ever reason) can't be all that lawfull (at best he is neutral) unless he actually works by a code of conduct that opposes the generally accepted rules.
I think intent is what defines the alignment of a person and while good intention can still lead you to damnation (read harm to you and others) they can never lead you to becoming evil, especially if you try to fix what mistakes you make in good intention.
Here ends my long reply.
Oh one more hitting of the nail:
Would you say that Charles Manson's murderous actions would have been less evil if he had commited them on pimps? drug dealers? because while pimps and drug dealers usually don't think they are doing what they do for the common good I some people who whould say that murdering arbotionnists, gays, liberals, jews, palestinians, afghanis, gamers, communists, hippies, baby boomers or whatever group would be a lesser evil too. And that is the danger of the premise that you propose (if it is taken too far).
Murder is wrong, period, even the cold blooded murder of murderers is wrong.
Any act that knowingly leads to the suffering or destruction of someone else is evil.
Any act that knowingly aims to lead to the betterment of someone else's life (while avoiding inflicting suffering on others) is good.
All the rest is an area of shades of grey.
But that is in my book, I don't intend for all people to live by it (although it would simplify my existence somewhat).
Sam, are psychotic serial killers evil? Sure they usually do horrid things, but they do them often unknowingly, in a sense, of the real meaning of their actions.
If a mobster kills another mobster, you say he is doing evil by murdering someone. Since it's illegal, it's neutral or chaotic, not lawful. But maybe it was lawful as he was killing a killer, eye for an eye, which is an instinctive ideal of law. Is it evil to kill another in vengeance for the death of someone you cared about? Neutral, I think. If it was in a turfwar, then evil, for sure. If it was a matter of justice, such as because he killed innocent people, or because he was assaulting his wife, and the other mobster couldn't stand it, then possibly a good action?
This is why alingment truly sucks. It doesn't work in the real world. I would be a good evil neutral chaotic. People are just not static enough for it to work.
Mohammed, you said somewhere around here (can't find it with all of this trash in pipes) that people were neutral chaotic. I think evil chaotic is more fitting, because humans act mostly out of selfishness and greed (evil), and don't naturally work logically, or stick to their own rules to do so(chaotic).
Also Sam, If Charles Manson came to my house and killed my mom, would I be justified in shooting him? I don't know whether or not it would be right, but probably would have shot him. Just as well we never met, I suppose.
In truth, human morality doesn't make good game mechanics. I suppose we have the following as options:
1. Abolish alignment altogether and/or replace alignment with polarity or some other such thing. maybe Deity-related alignment-based spells instead work on servants of rival deities? Or maybe use elemental polarity within deitie's specified ideals?
2. Turn alignment into a hot/cold concept. Create degrees of alignment and allow it to affect spells/ abilities.
3. Ignore the severe flaws in the alignment system and just get on with the game.
Chaotically evilly yours but with the best of intentions,
Theophenes
Theo said:
"In truth, human morality doesn't make good game mechanics."
That about sums up my entire feeling on the subject.
To Sam, and I suppose Theo too, Munny's killing of Skinny is neutral as it was done out of vengance and not for a greater good. So I pose this question to you, and to whoever feels like answering not that I need to give you permission. If fengance for vengance's sake is neutral what would the killing done by a vigilante killer fall under? Take a character like the Punisher. He kills those he sees are a detriment to society, mobsters, drug dealers, etc. So would his killings be considered evil as they are premeditated murder or would they be considered neutral as they show a disregard for life in general or would they be considered good as they are intended to better society as a whole?
Normally I follow Theo's third school fo thought, it sucks but just go with it.
Now for my view on Frank Castle. If I had to I would consider him Neutral Good. He is a killer, plain and simple but he kills to better society outside of a system that is at best unable to deal with the problem effectively and at worst is part of the problem itself. He is still a hero in my considerstion.
Ordinarily, I don't think the result would factor in to a discussion on morality, and it's good that you raised those points, sam. I included that in my analysis as a concession to D&D, where there are such things as objective evil, but if I made it sound like that was a major factor in categorizing it as neutral, then that was a mistake. Result has some effect in some cases, but I agree that intent and knowledge are by far the most important.
I'd say the Punisher is neutral. He does it because he believes he is doing some good, but as you mention, there's a lot of evil there, too.
As long as you don't get carried away with obsessing over it as a mechanic, alignment systems are okay. Of course, I do prefer systems that don't have alignment, but in an epic fantasy world, there is a necessity for objective categorizations of good and evil.
All right, ya bums, listen up; Alignment isn't so much an integral part of game mechanics, as it is an easy way of figuring out just who's side somebody's on... Characters can be roughly lumped together in groups of alignment by how they behave. I will now demonstrate the correct way to use alignment...
Lawful good: Tells the truth, fights fairly, if at all, doesn't take drugs, does the right thing. Examples: Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ghandi, The Pope, Gandalf the White, Most Disney heroes and heroines. Very few people behave like this in real life.
Lawful nuetral: Does what is best for both parties involved, doesn't take sides, may believe 'certain' things are wrong or immoral but others are not, does the honest thing. Examples: God, Spock, The Jedi
Lawful evil: The cunning planners, people who may think about doing evil and terrible things, but rarely carry them out. Backstabbers, betrayers, but generally cerebral and non-violent, unless the situation is best served otherwise. Does what is best for themselves, and generally covers their tracks after doing something they consider reprehensible. Usually extraordinarily arrogant, and will usually reveal their evil plan to the hero just before he dies. Example: Hamlet, Any villainous character portrayed by Alan Rickman, Guildmaster Xilus from the D&D Movie, Edmund Blackadder, Dorian Gray, Gollum, Jack the Ripper
Chaotic good: People who wish to uphold goodness, but do so in an unorthodox way. They may not think things through as much as lawful good, but they will ultimately strive for goodness in the world. They are more relaxed in their attitudes than others though, allowing people to have one or two small flaws or vices. Examples: Conan the Barbarian, Nelson Mandela, Homer Simpson
Chaotic nuetral: I think that this has been wrongly labelled 'the lunatic's alignment'. I use it for most of the characters I role-play (Draw from that whatever conclusions you will). Chaotic nuetral means you're fully aware of the concepts of good and evil in the world, but you don't strongly sway to either one, or even consider that they exist in the world at all. A chaotic nuetral character will do what best suits him, to his own interests, but at the same time, may help others, if it benefits his pursuits. Examples: Wolverine, Capt. Jack Sparrow, The Cheshire Cat, The Invisible Man
Chaotic evil: Psychotic killers usually. People who simply delight in wickedness for wickedness' sake. They do not usually bother to cover their tracks, or conceal what they have done for they exalt in it. Examples include: Satan, (In my own opinion) Osama Bin Laden, Hannibal Lecter, Charles Manson.
Parallels can be drawn between a few of them, and doubtless, some will believe that some should be in different categories, but the way I see it, alignment should not be treated as hard and fast rules, just a quick, at-a-glance way to see who's wearing the white cape and who's wearing the black cape.
Frank Castle is Lawful Neutral. He kills, it's personnal and he enjoys it. He doesn't just do it for society but also for vengeance so he isn't good, but he takes care not to harm the innocents, so he's clearly not evil. If one used the hot/cold system of Monty Cook he would be considered neutral but would cross the line every few "adventures".
While he breaks the law, he does believe in rules and follows a strict code of conduct, actually in his own mind he the system no longer follows its own laws and he's decided to enforce them as he sees they should be to wage war upon those who prey on the helpless. Oh boy bad case of run on sentence here, sorry.
Theo
I think there is a difference between a psychotic and a psychopath. While some people are clearly not aware of their own actions (psychotics) and shouldn't be held responsible some just don't have the capacity to care and lack any degree of empathy (psychopaths). While I'm sure my former humanist teachers would be appaled by what I say, psychopaths are evil, the are amoral people with total disregard for other beings.
That being said, I do also agree (in RPGs and in life) that most people can be redeemed and healed given the chance and the right help (be it spiritual, medicinal or psychological).
Many of my players play exalted characters and try to redeem evil doers in my game, I find it very interesting to see them give it a try. I encourage them (at times) because I think such acts of nobility are clearly as heroic, though not as flashy, as charging the evil hordes and gutting the necromancers. It also makes for a much more interesting role playing experience when the players and their characters consider their oponents as sentient beings capable of free will, the moral compass tends not to go too hay wire then.
The trouble is that the terms psychopath, psychotic, and sociopath all refer to the same category of psychological illness, antisocial personality disorder (or AsPD).
I'd object to your simple categorization of sociopaths as evil because AsPD is no less a mental illness than schizophrenia; one of them just tends to be functional and have a better capacity for maintaining the appearance of rationality. So, while sociopaths are amoral individuals with an utter lack of regard for human life and just about anything else (fitting the D&D definition of evil quite nicely!), the fact that sociopathy is a mental illness means that it's, quite simply, not their fault: they were born that way, and by the very definition of their psychosis, they _can't_ change on their own.
Of course, in games like D&D, where it's typically good versus evil, this distinction is purely academic; who gives a crap if the necromancer was born that way? He's making an army of the undead! He's gotta be stopped, and if it means killing him, then so be it. Sociopathy may as well be put down as "really evil," since [a] as far as D&D is concerned, they're functionally the same, and [b] D&D doesn't work well with the notion that something really evil is somehow completely irresponsible for its actions. After all, if evil isn't responsible for its actions, then our Paladin friend is hamstrung.
Now widderslainte Nephandi, on the other hand? I'm sure these particular Nephandi try their best to play up this notion of a lack of culpability for in-born mental illness, as modern psychology would be rather kind to them.
And so, once they accept the fact that of course you aren't responsible for your actions, you were born this way, you never received treatment, and instead fell in with those who encouraged you to be evil... the fun begins!
Well it's pretty obvious that we are not among your every day game nerds here. Pshychology as it refers to D&D alignemnt. I love it. That's why I come here.
Alighnment is not a needed part of any game. However, if we look at the origins of D&D, we all know it' was created to be used with Minitures in a wargame type atmosphere. So, it's east to say.." that goblin is chaotic evil" and spells work on it as they do.
But as a roleplaying aid or addition to roleplaying... No. leave it aside. the basics of roleplaying and character development are that the player gets to mold his character and act the characters part.
Wrapping it up; A good roleplayer will have a character story/background, wants and ambitions, defects and more built into who that character is, and will roleplay it. A roleplayer who doesn't needs a mentor. A game system that is bound by alighnment, needs to be left on the shelf.
Thoughts on D&D alighnment;
Simple. Use it for NPC's and only for PC's in the arena of clerics and paliduns. it's really pointless to shift alighnment, but roleplay it if you want to or have to.
I just have to say a few words about the ambiguity of the alignments and Paladins. The Paladin as a class is fascinating, but alignment generally causes trouble if you wish to play one. Good and evil are rather hard to deal with even on their own, but you've also got law and chaos.
The slay-all-evil-Paladins would be crippling society if they slaughtered all the LE people, wouldn't they? Those people only exploit the rules, they support the community otherwise. They'll do exactly as required by law, in the way that benefits them the most. LE is generally not a mortal danger to anyone, and usually handle important functions in a community.
CG people, on the other hand.. These are dangerous. They'll break any rule they find unreasonable and also slaughter people they think need to die. Yet the slay-all-evil-Paladin can't touch them, since they're Good.
The real confusion comes from combining Good-Evil with Law-Chaos. Unfortunately it doesn't work, as upholding one component of your alignment may demand you ignore the other. I find the scale in Warhammer FRPG is much more useful while causing less trouble. Law-Good-Neutral-Evil-Chaos, with most ordinary people being Neutral. Not above taking advantage of situations as long as no one is hurt, positive to reasonable rules and peace. Good actively works for helping people even without personal gain, while Law want's to impose ORDER on everything for the betterment of society. Evil works for personal gain at the expense of others, while Chaos refuses to follow anyone's rules even if it means destroying society.
I could see Paladins as agents of Law or Good, not both.
What else? Priest, yes. They're supposed to uphold the dictates of their deity, not engage in philosophical discussion about why the thing they did was good or evil. If one of the ten commandments say you shall not kill there's really no excuse, is there?
The priest of a war god can't promote peace, no matter how Good he is. A bold threat of war can bring about a peaceful settlement - or result in war. Minimizing the casualties should be allowed, as long as the deity isn't Evil (and why does he have a Good priest then?). Peace is only the period between wars, the time when you build equipment and train troops.
Well while one can agree that pathologies limit to which one can exert his/her free will, this must not serve as an excuse to absolve everyone of his/her faults.
Only the most chronic cases of antisocial behaviours result from serious mental illness, most are just people who made a long series of bad life choices that made it harder and harder for them to act in acceptable ways.
Yes Chaotic Good people are the most troublesome people around. They are social activists, revolutionnaries and all those pesky free spirited people who are against globalisation and the New World Order. They are those who can't work for CNN or any other state controlled media. They get criminal records or get flagged by the FBI or RCMP or whatever for protesting against wars, polution, child labour, partheid, etc. While the Lawfull Evil banker who helps helps the mafia launder its money and helps the rich get richer by finding loopholes in the tax system gets a slap on the hand if he gets caught event though the banker costs billions a year while the anarchist might cost thousands.
But Chaotic Good people will not slaughter people, not unless their life depends on it. Slaugther is evil, so good and neutral people don't commit these actions unless they are backed into a corner.
While a priest of a god of war might not promote peace at all costs, they will not encourage needless slaughter and carnage (if good). They will encourage decisive and prompt military action as the solution to most problems, but the priests of Clageddin will not encourage a clan of dwarves to go to war against their allied neigbours for the fun of it, although they might strongly encourage them to lend a hand to their allies should any of them need help against bandits, marauders, invaders or whatever.
Speaking of the ten commandments: Thou shall not kill! Yeah right, except if it is to burn a witch, fight the moslems, the indians, the protestants, the Nazi, the Vietkong, the Soviets, etc. I think it is the one commandment the christian and jew church has least followed and had made the most excuses to bend the rules. Even killing yourself in the name of god is wrong (except when a fanatical leader asks you in which case you go straight to heaven). Yeah and the alignment system makes no sense... riiight.
An evil deity can't have good priests. But a neutral one can have good and evil priests (Kelemvor, God of Death, for example is Lawfull neutral. So he can have Lawfull (Good, Neutral and Evil) and True Neutral priests.
Worshippers are another matter altogether.
Well, at least you agree that the alignment system is open to interpretation :-)
The LE/CG part comes from the games I've seen and played. The LE characters are usually much better team members than the CG ones. Keep their word, do their part etc. The CG is just an excuse for doing as you want while keeping the option of saying you're "good". These people WILL kill stuff if they think it's needed. A paladin will try to remove the evil tyrant by lawful means, even challenging him to single combat if possible. The CG ranger will just kill the tyrant and move on. If people can't see that it was right, that's their problem.
Religion is another thing I think is funny in games. Gods that grant spells and withhold magic if you don't follow the rules means there's less room for perverting the tenets of the faith. At least as the rule books describe it. Yet players often stray with their priest characters and get away with it.
I'll just dive right in here and tell you a bit how stuff like this is (or isnt) handled in my current fave RPG, Eon (currently only available in swedish, sad but true. An English version [i]might[/i] become available sometime in the future.).
In Eon, attributes are generated with 3d6, just like in D&D. They are pretty much the same as in D&D, with the exception of the attributes Education, Sight and Hearing (and possibly more exotic senses like Infravision or Spiritsight, depending on your race.). What Eon also has, is are something called Character Traits. These too are gauged at a scale from 3-18 where 3 and 18 represent the extremes of their trait.
The traits are as follows: Loyalty, Honour, Amore (lacking a good translation), Aggression, Faith and Generosity.
These could be set out in any way the player desires or generated with 3d6, just like the attributes. The advantage with the latter method, is that you can by randomizing the traits perhaps inspire yourself to what kind of character you'd like to play. I usually roll them up for starters and fudge them a bit from there.
Now... how do they affect play? Well, usually they dont, apart from acting as guidelines, but if the player feels insecure about what would be the most in character, you can easily roll a character check (works just the same way as an ability check) and let the dice decide, or at least inspire. Or if there is a conflict between to character traits, for instance: someone tries to bribe a greedy, but loyal character to betray his friends. The player feels ambiguos about what to do, and rolls for both character traits (Loyalty and generosity in this case) with whateverever level of difficulty he thinks is appropriate (lifelong friends would make the check for loyalty very easy, and a large bribe would make the roll for generosity very diffucult) and compares the results. If he suceeds his loyalty check with a greater margin than he fails his generosity test, he might feel tempted by the money, but value his friends higher. If he actually makes his Generosity check as well as his loyalty check, he isnt really interested in the paltry sum anyway. Should he fail both rolls, he might not feel that selling his friends out woould be so bad... you can always buy new friends, or decides that his newly aquired wealth would be more beneficial to his friends, or their common cause than his treason would be harmful. And finally, say he makes his loyalty check just barely while failing his generosity test with a large margin, he decides that the money is too good for such small a favour, but will most likely try to help his friends later out of guilt, or something like that.
Then again he could just take the money and NOT betray his friends. Thats where Honour comes in. Or the player decides to make a faith check to decide wether the character thinks the dilemma is his god testing him... The possibilities are endless.
But I should stress this point again. 90% of the time, theyre just guidelines.
And it's always the players choice to roll, and wether to respect the outcome of the dice (there are of course a few exception, like going into berserk rage and such).
One houserule we use quite liberally is that (with the dm's) approval a character trait can be swapped for an attribute under certain circumstances. Like for instance, when the character above is tortured to reveal his comrades' whearabouts. Normally a willpower check would be appropriate, but due to the situation the dm judges that the player may roll for the characters loyalty instead of willpower, since even though the character is fairly weakwilled, he is fiercely loyal. Or perhaps Amore, if his true love are among those he protects.
All in all, it's a great tool to promote character play, especially for new players.
This shouldnt be too hard to implement in D&D?
Now, I'm really curious to hear what you think about this way of dealing with it. Feel free to ask questions if theres anything I need to clarify.
/Pen
Pendragon
Amore is romance or capacity to love, if my latin is still any good after all these years.
But it seems this system leaves much of the behavioural part of the game to "roll playing" instead of role playing. Though I guess if you rolled these psychological traits which gave you guideline on how to roleplay and affected some social skill rolls...
They only make the game in swedish, no other language?
Your Latin's just fine, Sam. All the same, I think a better one-word translation would be "passion".
I dunno - Pendragon's Swedish system seems ok to me; from the sound of it, it serves more to inspire than to dictate. It doesn't become "roll-playing" unless the players depend on it to decide their every internal conflict.
I like the fact that the players are allowed to set up the character traits however they please. But I do wonder how much having statistical character traits adds to the game: if it results in better character descriptions and stronger character concepts, then it is good. Otherwise, it seems like window dressing.
Oh...dang. I owe Tra'Hari a reply or two...I swear I'll get to it soon...
Sam - Yes, only in swedish at the moment, unfortunatly. A translation has been rumored for quite a while now though.
As for "roll-playing" well, yes and now. Even if you decide to roll it a lot, it's still up to you to interpret the result with roleplaying. And do remember it's completely optional both to roll and wether to give a damn to pay heed to the result to roll. It's purely advisory.
Cocytus - One of Eon's strengths is its character generation system, since pretty much the entire character (including background) can be randomized. Of course this might occasionally lead to bizarre combinations. Now, in my opinion this is great if you really can't come up with a good character concept, and the you smooth over any irregularities with the GM.
Then again, if you have a character concept in mind, you should probably loose the randomization process and pretty much select the options in agreement with the GM.
/pen
Sam - Yes, only in swedish at the moment, unfortunatly. A translation has been rumored for quite a while now though.
As for "roll-playing" well, yes and now. Even if you decide to roll it a lot, it's still up to you to interpret the result with roleplaying. And do remember it's completely optional both to roll and wether to give a damn to pay heed to the result to roll. It's purely advisory.
Cocytus - One of Eon's strengths is its character generation system, since pretty much the entire character (including background) can be randomized. Of course this might occasionally lead to bizarre combinations. Now, in my opinion this is great if you really can't come up with a good character concept, and the you smooth over any irregularities with the GM.
Then again, if you have a character concept in mind, you should probably loose the randomization process and pretty much select the options in agreement with the GM.
/pen
Who gives a shit about Law and Chaos, anyway? What does it mean? If I detect Evil and it registers, it means kill 'em! If I detect Law, uhhhhhhh...well If I detect Chaos.......well if someone's Chaotic and Evil, then he must be a madman, and if someone's Chaotic Good then there a violent vigilante! No, that's just an Elf, and a kid at that. How can an entire culture be chaotic like the Elves or the Orcs anyway? I don't get it! You can't rebel against the tyranny of opposing tyranny, can you!?
And oh! silly me how can you be good if you try to destroy the current order ALL THE TIME in an attempt to be chaotic forever and never lose your divine spells or the ability to rage?
So, chaos is shot. At least a "racial" concept. But without an actual textbook chaotic outlook (as it can't be both textbook and chaotic) how can we define law? Does every paladin have to plan out every second of his day, so that he remains lawful!? Or maybe he has to be loyal to some master, but what if he IS the master? Are all commanders lawful? Then what about chaotic racial dieties?
In conclusion, Law and Chaos make no sense, and PEOPLE COULDN'T CARE LESS!
Hum...
Will ever tried decaf? It does wonders for one's temper and still has the same great taste as regular cofee.
Jokes aside, I'm with you on racial alignments. But the ancient greeks especially the Athenians were a relatively chaotic people (as far as state affairs and marital traditions were concerned). So maybe it is possible for a working society to be somewhat chaotic.
Hey there would be no lawyers and accountants...
; )
Chill Will. S'cool bro.
I know some latin:
'Crappulanem Sum !' I think that means 'I'm wasted'
umm...... (rereads his on post).
First of all, I'd like to say that post was the result of trying to make heads or tails of how conqurering, DOMINATING villains could be CE in an example from the BoVD and coming up with FIVE different ways of trying to explain the ethical alignments with no luck.
Also, what specifically makes all lawyers and accountants lawful? And why were the Athenians chaotic, just because they were democratic and tolerant? Wow, Chaotic Good people aren't the problem after all, its bigotted, "rock and roll is of the Devil", self-righteous, elitist Lawful Good's we have to watch out for.
As a matter of fact, is someone who clearly does evil things in the name of good, good? What about someone who beleives he is evil, (and basks in the pride of that fact) but repeatly does good acts in spite of his beliefs (ie. Laharl from the game Disgaea: Hour of Darkness) still evil? Are they both neutral? I once said the Hypocrit was Lawful for seeking public acceptance, and Laharl was Chaotic, seeking noterity, as one of my 5 definitions of Enthics. Problem here is that I'm not sure how sure concepts really work with Outsiders. I mean, Modrons have no personality, and it would be stupid to say that Eladrins tried to be evil in spite of there "dripping with goodness." And Lawful Evil Devils! What a headache. Can anyone try taking a stab at Law and Chaos? The above article and posts had enough about the moral alignments, so I thought I could do a bit on disproving Law and Chaos.
I'd really like to see what other people think.
possible Comprehensions thus far:
1. Lawful: over-schedulers, clean geeks. "Gold" people Chaotic: random, spontaneous folk who are unlikely to keep tidy. "Orange" people.
2. Lawful: seeks fame. Chaotic: seek noteriety.
3. Lawful: Inflexible, fundamentalist, unlying. Chaotic: compulsive liers, artistic, tolerant.
4. Lawful: Pro-Central Government. Chaotic: Pro-Confederacy
5. Lawful: Fights fair, but prejudice(witholding rights and not harming) against women and children. Chaotic: Treats everyone the same, but uses any means neccisary to win.
All valid examples of aligned behaviour, but by no means do all like aligned people act in such narrow ways.
Why were Athenians chaotic, because the believed in a lose confederacy, had flexible laws that aimed at protecting the individual not the institutions, etc.
And athenian democracy is kind of a neutral good concept (a good compromise between order (necessary to run things efficiently) and personnal freedom of choice (chose those who will chose for you for the next x years)).
My 2 cents
I'm N/G.
Thats me, and the characters I play, which are basically me anyway.
Will; I agree. The matters of law and chaos, are severly neglected.
I boil it down to my beliefs. I believe that life is the result of random chance. Existance would never have happened were it not for the whims of chaos. Chaos existed first. Long before any beings of intelligence existed (of course you would have to believe that existance existed before intelligent beings existed). I can say this because law was created by sentient, willful beings. Law is a compilation of what intelligent races believe they should do, what codes they should follow, and how your society is governed. Therefore law is a flawed idea of an intelligent creature (or mass of intelligent creatures). Law had to have stemmed from chaos. There is no doubt in my mind.
Chaos is just that. Chaotic. Unpredictable. What if chaos (the embodiment of it, not a chaotic person), wanted to control pieces of itself? Maybe it was undulating in a way that another piece of it didn't like, or appreciate. So it would try to control it. That goes against the "laws of chaos," though. Chaos is opposed to restraint. In that paradox is where law would come from, and would explain that an intelligent being would gain the insight required to grasp the concept of law.
Were you living in an existance of sheer chaos, and were intelligent enough to realize that... You might find yourself wanting to rebel against chaos, and bring about order, that you might come to a better understanding of the world, and how to survive in it.
So in conclusion... I would say that to truely make sense of, and understand law and chaos, you would have to have a belief of their origins. Enjoy =)
(I just want to say one more thing... What I mean by "intelligent" is _not_ IQ. I mean the ability to ponder, and consider your existance. So I mean no offense to anyone.)
--Duke Bekea.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I really hate the alignment system.
I thought I posted here recently...
I think I backed out when I realized everyone was in a heated "essay-a-thon"
Even Olly had a go at it. Anyway, the reason alignments are not good is that they raise TOO MUCH DISCUSSION!
Duke Bekea,
I know what it is old man, you've caught a chill. What you need to do is get inside, have a warm drink and sleep it off. You'll see things differently in the morning.
I owe Tra'Hari a post from the beginning of the year. I've thought about it, and re-read his (?) post above, and this is what I have to say:
The point of having a rule is for it to be a rule, not a guideline. Because alignments don't describe hard-and-fast rules very well, but rather provide guidelines, it is my opinion that they have no business being in the rules, where they can have an impact on such things as a character's ability to advance in her class.
You say you like moral ambiguity? Fine. So do I. Let's leave it out of the rules. Toss the whole alignment schema, and you've got an immensely rich field for role-play: your players can behave in *whatever manner they deem most appropriate*. Follow their consciences? Check. Have their own interpretations of right and wrong? Check. There's no need for a silly, arbitrary marriage of idealized conceptions such as "Law" and "Chaos" with "Good" and "Evil" to provide them a framework. They're people: they've seen much of the spectrum of behavior in sentient creatures.
The Palladium system is admittedly imperfect. I even call it "flawed." I provide it as a suggestion for those who want to keep alignment in the rules, but who are frustrated (as I have been) with the damnable ambiguities of the D&D alignment system. My preference is to abolish alignment entirely. Since writing this article I have run every game without using alignment, and I must say that I and my players have never been happier.
Duke Bekea said:
"So in conclusion... I would say that to truely make sense of, and understand law and chaos, you would have to have a belief of their origins."
I'm assuming you are talking about role-playing games here. Does that mean that you must also believe in dragons, elves, and vampires for them to work for you?
Personally, I'm not that keen on broad alignment systems that govern your behavior AND that designate your access to certain abilities. Such is the case in D&D, and not so much in Earthdawn, as I recall.
That said, I'm willing to suspend disbelief in that for the sake of the game, and imagine evil and good as real, palpable forces exerting their will. I enjoyed Star Wars, after all - I'm sure I can make it work in my own games.
I've found that trying to take subjective concepts, such as morality & ethics, and shove them into an objective framework (in this case rules) doesn't really work that well. In real life, "good" and "evil" is generally just "us" and "them".
I mean, it's roleplaying, not a class on comparative morality/ethics. It's one thing if you specifically want to have a "good vs evil" or similar campaign, but another thing entirely if morality/ethics isn't the main issue in your campain.
As far as alignments for use as roleplaying aids - give me the World of Darkness's nature and demeanor system, or a varient thereof any day.
(there was going to be more, but it's 4am, and i should have been asleep a LONG time ago...)
Tra'Hari,
I have to disagree with your idea of the Punisher. Sure, I mean in THEORY, he's Super-nuetral. But really, Adolf Hitler believed he was doing "the right thing" himself. He thought that there would be a war between different peoples, and the Aryans would eventually defeat the lower Jewish race (and all those other people too.) This theory was based on years of crackpot Social Darwinism and Propaganda. Hitler was the most brainwashed mind in all of Europe! He saw his attempts at genocide probably (like I can ever confirm this) as saving the sons of the Master Race from dying at the hands of those they MUST eventually face by killing them now. Their was no Isreal, no offically Jewish nation at this time. They were just a scattered people in most nations.
This is not (much of) a defense of the "greatest monster in history," but if you just label him as "evil," you dehumanitize him. EVERYONE KNOWS its a horrible crime to kill another human being, but what about "a rebel?" A traitor? A criminal? A murderer? An orc? A terrorist? A nazi? A jew? "Oh, ITS just a(n) rebel/traitor/criminal/murderer/orc/terrorist/nazi/jew, its just the same as any other mistake God made." Dehumaning is ESSENTIAL for war, murder, etc. I'd be surprised to find anyone who wouldn't have trouble with the possibility that Hitler might not be burning in Hell for all eternity like the sinful, genocidal MONSTER he is.
In short, Hitler was a lot like the punisher, he was just doing things differently and looking for a different type of threat. He wasn't out for revenge, but revenge is actually a defense, more of an emotional comfinsation, if you will. And that's all Hitler convinced himself he was doing. A defense.
War is a defense of the polical powers' interests, Greed is a defense against future poverty, Petty Murder is usually a defense of the ego (which actually needs low or false self-esteem than too much, see "How to Have Confidence and Power in Dealing with People" by Les Giblin, look for it at amazon.com!) hunting animals is defense against hunger/your current quality of life/boredom/even your manihood (all depending on the nature of your motives for hunting). ANY TURMOIL IN THE WORLD IS CAUSED BY A DEFENSE. Scientists don't refree to a spider's venom as a "special attack," its a natural defense.
Hooray ! we're off subject and in a political debate. Or maybe we're on subject because Morality and Ethics and politics are sure interlinked. Anyway I'm going to enjoy this:
(1) Theres a lot been said about one game alignment system over another, and the fact that you can do without one for players altogether. I agree for players, but for the game as a whole, its essential to have an alignment system as an aid to the DM. As a DM I can define a NPC as N/G and know 90% of his behaviour without having to flesh out his character. I'm not concerned which system I choose as long as its flexible and simple. I think the D&D system is fine for my use.
(2) Nekomusume said " it's roleplaying, not a class on comparative morality/ethics." I disagree . Roleplaying and life in general is exactly that "a class on comparative morality/ethics." because otherwise its nothing but "eat, shit, sleep, what does it mean?"
(3) Will Coleman said a lot of things that made sense. Especially about the general lack of morality in politics, the dehumanising of opponents. However, I would hate for you to all take away the message that All politicians are stupid, greedy and corrupt, or that it is impossible to act in a moral way as a leader. To the contrary, there are a few, a very few examples of exemplary morality in politics. I give two examples:
(3.1) The peaceful protest by Ghandi and followers that led to the succession of India and Pakistan from the British Empire. Note this extended throughout the 2nd world war, where Ghandi refused to rebel against the British because they were engaged in a struggle against the Nazis.
(3.2) The struggle by the ANC to liberate South Africa from white minority rule. Here the ANC tried nonviolent protest until it was repressed savagely. Then they went to an armed struggle but carefully targeted to avoid civilians (this is not to say that civilians never sufferred, but the ANC tried their best to avoid civilian deaths). Finally, when they achieved a bloodless succession, rather than take revenge on the previous power, they set up a "truth nad Reconcilliation" system and included all south africans in the political process.
Please note, that in both cases the Moral response was also the response that was more logical. It led to less bloodshed, and less long term conflict. No-one really lost except that one ruling elite was replaced by another. Things generally got better.
Off the subject?? But that never happens around here.
Wait. Strike that.
Okay, well at least Ass and I didn't have anything to do with it this time.
As far as the current debate I refuse to comment as it will send me off on a rant that is not geared for this forum. This is about games, if I remember correctly.
Games ? Schmames !
Rant ! Rant ! Rave ! Gibber !
This is Therapy for the wage slave.
"This is Therapy for the wage slave."
Didn't we have another thread along those lines?
well, i've just finished reading this LOOOOOOONG thread from top to bottom and have quite a few things to say...supposing anyone is still reading this other than myself.
I'll think about it and come back
- have mercy on the newbie -