Jump to content

Alignment Issues


Omnigames

Recommended Posts

Re: Alignment Issues

 

What I meant was' date=' that there were plenty of laws that positively mandated a lack of respect.[/quote']

 

Such as shunning?

 

Isn't this discussion about how to adjudicate an alignment system modelled on that of D&D?

 

Since we've involved such worlds as Moorcock's and Zelazny's, though, I think we're looking for a somewhat more comprehensive definition of alignment?

 

I mean they were less restricted because they were less organised.

 

I find it interesting that, although military commanders studied past battles to improve their ability to adapt to new situations on the field, every maneveur and every strategy had to be invented "for the first time" once. In other words, modifications of past ideas could only be taken so far; ultimately, in order to innovate and thus to win, Lawful military organizations had to rely on putting a Chaotic individual in charge of their forces (or, at least, placing them in an advisory position, though this might be less than effective when the leader was afraid of trying new things in desperate situations).

 

They could still win with the same old ideas, of course. It just wouldn't last forever, especially if their core group of ideas was extremely limited.

 

Actually I was speaking of D&D. However if alignment doesn't represent something about the character above and beyond what they happen to be doing at a particular moment, then of course alignment doesn't really matter.

 

If actions, not intentions, are the measure of alignment, then the bumbling fool who wants to be Good but is not wise enough to tell the difference, consistently making Evil decisions instead (evil actions, "for the greater good" as mistakenly perceived), would be Evil.

 

Of course, the same applies in reverse - someone who tried to be Evil, but whose actions were only Good, would logically be classified under Good.

 

Partial successes (or failures) is defined by Law as "Chaos that aspires to be Lawful", even a single failure violates integrity and means the individual is able to set aside their own principles.

 

Hitler was driven by hatred and envy

 

Small correction: hatred and contempt.

 

By and large that's the pattern I'd expect a stable Chaotic Good society to take but Chaotics who weren't so good could just as easily form a gigantic marauding barbarian horde. And of course a Chaotic of any persuasion could and would live in a predominantly Lawful society. He could be a

 

General? :D

 

The empire must expand to maintain stability, and to bring order to the world: thus, a gigantic marauding civilized horde :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 247
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: Alignment Issues

 

I find it interesting that, although military commanders studied past battles to improve their ability to adapt to new situations on the field, every maneveur and every strategy had to be invented "for the first time" once. In other words, modifications of past ideas could only be taken so far; ultimately, in order to innovate and thus to win, Lawful military organizations had to rely on putting a Chaotic individual in charge of their forces (or, at least, placing them in an advisory position, though this might be less than effective when the leader was afraid of trying new things in desperate situations).

 

Has someone forgotten that there's a middle ground between Law and Chaos? Apart from that of course, while being attached to tradition is (often) a Lawful trait, being Lawfully aligned doesn't mean being Lawful every day in every way. Perfection is not expected.

 

Since we've involved such worlds as Moorcock's and Zelazny's, though, I think we're looking for a somewhat more comprehensive definition of alignment?

 

No such definition exists. Different authors have used those labels to refer to different kinds of opposing forces. In Three Hearts and Three Lions, Law and Chaos really were just different names for good and evil. In Marvel comics, they are opposite but complementing forces who usually work together to keep the universe running and when they fall into conflict the universe suffers. In DC comics (now) they are tyrants versus anarchists, both equally contemptible opponents of the heros. In another series I can't recall the name of, they are just different kinds of magic, one which destroys and one which preserves, but the practitioners of each really get on the other's nerves.

 

It's interesting to note how Champions has treated the four alignments of D&D already. Holy, unholy, chaos and law exist as special effects for your power. _Usually_ someone with unholy powers will be a monster, but there are exceptions, people who rebel against their unholy nature. (Thanks to the Marvel horror heroes boom in the 70s) This is a constant struggle for them to defy their own nature of course. Presumably the same might apply to chaos and law so in theory we might see people with chaos powers struggling to impose discipline on themselves and order on the world or people with law powers who struggle to stay sloppy and disorganised. For some reason my mind seems to balk at the idea of people with holy powers deliberately turning to evil and still remaining holy and we don't see any examples of it in the source material. However of course most people don't have such a special effect, or for that matter any supernatural powers on which to have a special effect and hence are unaligned no matter what their personality is.

 

We can see an example of Law (Champions style) in Horror Hero in the "Lord of Law" who, posing as an elderly woman, is secretly abducting heros and villains, stealing their powers and memories and transforming them into children because she just doesn't like how improbable and plagued by unlikely coincidence superheroes and supervillains are and how disruptive their activities are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Alignment Issues

 

It was also David's - "government is there to protect the people from violence' date=' death and the loss of freedom and nothing else". Since this position is legitimate in a [i']Chaotic[/i] society, your point can't be reserved for Law alone.

My point was that in a chaotic society, leadership does not require anything but power (usually in the form of military might, or some means of enforcing one's will upon the people). And that position of leadership lasts only until someone else overcomes the current leader's power. David said that power itself is a form of competence. That's true, but no other form of competence, such as the ability to make wise decisions about non-military matters, is required.

 

You might want to look back at your arguments thus far, a lot of which use "but Chaotic would..." assumptions, and very narrowly at that.

Based on the definition of chaotic that I was using. Am I not allowed to draw any conclusions from alignment?

 

I'll delve into this more deeply later tonight, but essentially, you are defining Chaos as the opposite of Law; only a Lawful society would always be "Chaotic", true Chaos by nature would not be limited to "must".

This makes even less sense than what you said before. Of course Chaos is the opposite of Law! It's not just me saying it. David said it, D&D says it, and as far as I can tell Moorcock and Zelazny say it. And from your own definitions, as far as I can tell, even you say it. "A Lawful society would always be Chaotic"? WTF?

 

David argued that Chaotic Good would be the proper alignment; you were the only one who argued for evil.

No, I didn't. This is getting tiresome. I offered Robin Hood as an example of a Chaotic Good character. David said that if he had simply stolen out of greed, for his own benefit, he would be Chaotic Neutral. I replied that stealing for greed and one's own benefit is Evil, not Neutral. And in David's last post, he states that he doesn't believe stealing is Evil. That's an area where we strongly disagree!

 

To use a modern example - Political Correctness: if I believe that you are oppressing me, is it still oppression? Is there an objective measurement of such things? If that "objective" measurement is backed up by your opinion, what makes your opinion any more qualified than mine?

And again, IMO, what you *believe* is not what determines alignment, but what *is*. IMO, there are objective measurements of most things, but we really don't have to argue about that. It's certainly the case in a game, where there's a GM who can settle such matters.

 

We're getting dangerously close to subjectivist ethics here.

I'd say we're getting dangerously close to utter nonsense here.

 

In other words, if you don't feel that they are - or should be - important, have them disqualified?

 

Again, we're but a short step here from subjectivist ethics.

And... we're there! So would you add a Yankee/Dodgers axis to the alignment chart? Why not?

 

So - your comparison to a Chaotic society weakens.

I think we're speaking two different languages at this point. And your next post, in which you supply your "definitions" of Law and Chaos confirms it. We're talking about very different things here. What you, and apparently David, have been talking about this whole time is not what I originally thought. It is something far less interesting to me, so I will be dropping out of this conversation. What you seem to be saying is that because a Lawful society's law that one must bow to the king doesn't change the laws of physics so that people can't help but bow to the king, then the society isn't really lawful. This makes no sense to me. I was never talking about laws of physics or nature. I was talking about morals, ethics, laws of society, social constructs, etc.

 

Would you agree, then, that - when playing one yourself - only your beliefs about Good and Evil, about Law and Chaos, would be relevant?

No.

 

If you are not arguing merely in theory, then commit to your beliefs - not just a hypothetical situation where you will accept what is necessary for the sake of argument, but a realistic situation where your beliefs alone are applicable, and they are needed to determine what will happen: you are playing a character. It is your character. How would you play its alignment?

I'm not agruing for my beliefs at all. I'm trying to find definitions, meanings. How many more times do I have to say it? But nevermind, because we're talking about very different contexts for those definitions.

 

Emphasis mine. You're going in circles now - they "are" evil, however that was determined, therefore killing them isn't. In much the same way, Darth Vader was not evil when killing the rebels, because they were demonstratably Chaotic; they were seeking to overthrow the established order.

If I'm going in circles, it's because I was trying to follow you. Does evil not mean anything to you? Is it just a stat on a character sheet that means, it's OK for Paladins to kill them? Your asserting that if you kill Chaotic people then you're not Evil has no basis. You may be Evil, or not. I suppose I should have seen the warning signs earlier when you said Darth Vader was Good. Oh, well.

 

I could probably make a good case for the rebels being Evil, too.

I doubt it. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "a good case".

 

A rock has a very high MTBF

I'm afraid to ask, but what's MTBF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Alignment Issues

 

But weren't you having trouble figuring out what did have something to do with the law/chaos axis?

Yes, but that doesn't mean I have to accept anything someone asserts as having to do with it. I already have my own ideas on the subject, and have explained them. To give a broad and fairly open summary, a person's Alignment has to do with:

 

Their ethics/morals

Their views on society and its structures (and how they behave in regards to them)

How they behave toward other people

 

It has nothing to do with:

 

Personality

Combat tactics/techniques/skills

Their intelligence, their ability to correctly determine their own best interests and how to achieve them

Species (assuming multiple sentient species with free will)

Their personal "turn-ons" and "turn-offs"

Their favorite flavor of ice cream

 

What about disputes between individuals?

What about them?

...

...

But a lot of the things a Lawful person would see as necessary to run a society properly, a Chaotic person would regard as superfluous

Which goes back to my original point that a Chaotic leader needs no competence other than the ability to stay in power.

 

What I meant was, that there were plenty of laws that positively mandated a lack of respect.[/Quote]

Same thing. Mandating respect for these people, or mandating disrespect for those people are both laws stating what respect is due to whom.

 

Isn't this discussion about how to adjudicate an alignment system modelled on that of D&D?

That isn't what *I* was trying to discuss. From my earliest posts in this thread, I expressed my dislike of D&D's alignment model.

 

No I mean they were less restricted because they were less organised.[/Quote]

I don't think you're even following your own argument anymore. I no longer have enough interest to unravel it.

 

Actually I was speaking of D&D.

Well, I wasn't. If that was the intent of D&D, then it's just one more reason why I find their alignment system silly.

 

If attitude doesn't matter, on basis can you characterise anyone as "evil" if they aren't doing anything bad at this moment?

Past actions. Is that not obvious?

 

No, he really didn't. Hitler was driven by hatred and envy and didn't care who he hurt to get what he wanted.

OK, I guess "attitude" was the wrong word to use. How about "intentions"? He believed he was doing something positive for the world.

 

So obviously you don't hate it that much.

You don't know me. You have no basis to say that. Emotions and behavior are not the same thing.

 

What I was talking about was someone who, say, faced with filling out a form in order to be allowed to drive a car, would instead crumple up the form, toss it away and drive anyway.

No. That's not a chaotic person, or even a non-lawful person. That would be a stupid person. In this society, such a person is setting themselves up for a lot of trouble.

 

So you don't consider stealing to be an evil act?

No, not really.

Wow.

 

By and large that's the pattern I'd expect a stable Chaotic Good society to take but Chaotics who weren't so good could just as easily form a gigantic marauding barbarian horde. And of course a Chaotic of any persuasion could and would live in a predominantly Lawful society. He could be a criminal, a revolutionary, an agitator for greater civil liberties, or he could just be someone who lived on the fringes of socity not bothering to participate. The "small close-knit community" I mentioned was just a way to make a Chaotic society work without being oppressive.

True. I agree with this entire paragraph. And I'd also point out that even a CG society could grow to be very large as long as there was something to keep them Good. Thomas Jefferson said (something like), "If men were angels, there would be no need of laws or government." A society of angels (inherently Good people) could grow to any size and still be Chaotic, and remain stable.

 

Yes and no. In the game sense, they are not alignments because there are no "Detect Yankee fan" spells and no magic bats that burn the hands of Dodgers fans, unless you are playing a very bizarre game. But if there were, then those would be alignments.[/Quote]

I guess this is still in the D&D mode. To say that an alignment must have a detect spell for it is a condition that I don't grant, and if that's what's required in D&D then it's one more example of silliness.

 

So the world becomes less comfortable and less survivable if "Chaos" wins.

For you, probably.

Oh, so I was meant to take your comment personally?

No, really I mean humanity in general. You, me, people like us.

So all of humanity suffers if the "chaos" side wins. How is that not Evil? That was my original question. So what happens if the Law side wins? If it's just a different flavor of suffering and death, then we're back to an arbitrary distinction.

 

In that particular fictional universe, what would happen is that natural laws would become more like suggestions.

So the two sides are essentially fighting to establish their preferred laws of nature/physics. That might be interesting, but it really isn't what I was trying to discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Godwin's Law, or is that Godwin's Chaos?

 

If I am just working on the site and lose my reply as you did' date=' I log in then hit the “back” button a few times. This takes me back to my “lost” post and this time, when I hit “submit” it goes through because I just logged in.[/quote']

I tried that. It's worked before, but not this time.

 

Well, so much for this conversation. It’s over now.

Probably, and not a moment too soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Has someone forgotten that there's a middle ground between Law and Chaos?

 

I'm not sure I would consider that as being neither Lawful nor Chaotic, but having elements of both. So, while the Neutral general might be Lawful, they would also be Chaotic.

 

Apart from that of course, while being attached to tradition is (often) a Lawful trait, being Lawfully aligned doesn't mean being Lawful every day in every way. Perfection is not expected.

 

I think Law, by nature, does demand that sort of conformity; it's not just "be Lawful most of the time, and be whatever you want the rest of it", because that would be Chaotic; you don't let people choose when they want to obey the laws, and when they just don't have to.

 

Isn't this discussion about how to adjudicate an alignment system modelled on that of D&D?
Since we've involved such worlds as Moorcock's and Zelazny's, though, I think we're looking for a somewhat more comprehensive definition of alignment?

 

No such definition exists.

 

No definition exists that is more comprehensive than D&D's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Godwin's Law, or is that Godwin's Chaos?

 

Irrelevant in that people seem to be confusing "law" - meaning a system of judicial rules' date=' with "law" as it is used in the Moorcock stories (which is where Gygax lifted the concept from) which refers to the state of the universe.[/quote']

 

Which was what my comment regarding confusion of "libertarian" and "statist" with the metaphysical "chaos" and "law" a couple of pages back was about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Supplemental history for my next reply. A history of the exchanges about Robin Hood.

 

 

 

PhilFleischmann:

A classic example of Chaotic Good vs Lawful Evil would be the story of Robin Hood. But even here, Robin isn't specifically trying to be chaotic. He goes against the law because it's currently being used for evil. It's the evil that he objects to, not the lawfulness. The Sheriff of Nottingham fights against him, not because he's breaking the law, but because his actions thwart his evil purposes.

 

David Johnston:

A classic example of Chaotic Good vs Lawful Evil would be the story of Robin Hood. But even here, Robin isn't specifically trying to be chaotic. He goes against the law because it's currently being used for evil. It's the evil that he objects to, not the lawfulness.

 

Because he's Chaotic Good. If he was Chaotic Neutral he'd steal just because he wanted the money and didn't respect authority. Note that the earliest versions of Robin DID steal just because he didn't respect authority and wanted the money. But a Lawful person wouldn't generally stake out a piece of turf and then just start robbing people as a response to an evil administration. Consider the Camber series by Katherine Kurtz for how Lawful Good types respond to an Evil King. Do they start a series of robberies and random guerilla attacks against the Evil guys? Not hardly. They look for a survivor from the previous dynasty who might be considered more legitimate and then they pull off a coup d'etat which is as bloodless as possible to install a new and better King. It's a difference in philosophy, and one that can create real conflicts when a hypothetical Ivanhoe runs into a hypothetical Robin Hood.

 

The Sheriff of Nottingham fights against him, not because he's breaking the law, but because his actions thwart his evil purposes.

 

You can't imagine the Sheriff not having any evil purposes but just doing his job as it was assigned to him by his boss?

 

Robyn:

The Sheriff of Nottingham fights against him' date=' not because he's breaking the law, but because his actions thwart his evil purposes.[/b']

 

You can't imagine the Sheriff not having any evil purposes but just doing his job as it was assigned to him by his boss?

 

Or, even recognizing that Robin Hood was battling for Good, holding Lawful to be more important than Good?

 

PhilFleischmann:

Because he's Chaotic Good. If he was Chaotic Neutral he'd steal just because he wanted the money and didn't respect authority.

 

I'd say that would make him Chaotic Evil.

 

Note that the earliest versions of Robin DID steal just because he didn't respect authority and wanted the money. But a Lawful person wouldn't generally stake out a piece of turf and then just start robbing people as a response to an evil administration. Consider the Camber series by Katherine Kurtz for how Lawful Good types respond to an Evil King. Do they start a series of robberies and random guerilla attacks against the Evil guys? Not hardly. They look for a survivor from the previous dynasty who might be considered more legitimate and then they pull off a coup d'etat which is as bloodless as possible to install a new and better King. It's a difference in philosophy, and one that can create real conflicts when a hypothetical Ivanhoe runs into a hypothetical Robin Hood.

 

I've never heard of these "earliest versions," but everything else you say here seems to agree with my point. Lawful Good tends to work within the law to remove corruption. Chaotic Good goes outside of the law to remove the corruption.

 

You can't imagine the Sheriff not having any evil purposes but just doing his job as it was assigned to him by his boss?

 

Sure, I can. I can imagine lots of things. Doesn't make his purposes any less evil. The Nuremburg defense, "I was only following orders," doesn't change the morality of your actions.

 

David Johnston:

Quote:

Because he's Chaotic Good. If he was Chaotic Neutral he'd steal just because he wanted the money and didn't respect authority.

I'd say that would make him Chaotic Evil.

 

All he's doing is stealing. A Chaotic Evil Robin Hood would probably be murdering the men and raping the women.

 

Quote:

You can't imagine the Sheriff not having any evil purposes but just doing his job as it was assigned to him by his boss?

Sure, I can. I can imagine lots of things. Doesn't make his purposes any less evil.

 

How is capturing a thief evil?

(In re Moorcock)

 

Robyn:

Sure, I can. I can imagine lots of things. Doesn't make his purposes any less evil. The Nuremburg defense, "I was only following orders," doesn't change the morality of your actions.

So if you were playing a paladin, you'd essentially be a pacifist? (Can't slaughter those orcs, even if they are evil, even if your church ordered you to do it; that would be murder, just like Darth Vader did to those rebels.)

 

Robyn:

All he's doing is stealing. A Chaotic Evil Robin Hood would probably be murdering the men and raping the women.

 

Careful - but for that "probably", you're falling into the habit of doing exactly what Phil did, stereotyping alignments without regard to their personal interest.

 

A thought - if Robin Hood were Lawful Evil, he would probably have listened to society while growing up, heard that people like him (evil) were murderers and rapists, respected that, and become a murderer and rapist! But if he were Chaotic Evil, he would have heard what society said, and then another factor would have entered the equation: his own, personal, desires (if he wasn't interested in those, he wouldn't have felt compelled to engage in them anyway).

 

David Johnston:

Careful - but for that "probably", you're falling into the habit of doing exactly what Phil did, stereotyping alignments without regard to their personal interest.

 

But it would be in his personal interest. Robin Hood is the leader of a group of bandits. A Chaotic Evil version of the Merry Men needs the raping to stay merry. And as for the murders, it's a heck of a lot easier to be a robber if you aren't careful to minimise casualties.

 

PhilFleischmann:

All he's doing is stealing. A Chaotic Evil Robin Hood would probably be murdering the men and raping the women.

 

So you don't consider stealing to be an evil act? Sure, if he were also raping and murdering, he'd be even more evil. But stealing is already evil enough.

 

How is capturing a thief evil?

 

It isn't. But oppressing the poor is.

 

PhilFleischmann:

So if you were playing a paladin, you'd essentially be a pacifist? (Can't slaughter those orcs, even if they are evil, even if your church ordered you to do it; that would be murder, just like Darth Vader did to those rebels.)

 

Huh? I don't see the logic behind this, nor the need for making personal assumptions about me.

 

Careful - but for that "probably", you're falling into the habit of doing exactly what Phil did, stereotyping alignments without regard to their personal interest.

 

I'm not "stereotyping" alignments. I'm trying to find the definitions for them. And who's personal interest are you talking about? Fictitious characters in games and fiction? I'm sorry if I've offended Robin Hood, or Darth Vader or your D&D character.

 

Robyn:

So you don't consider stealing to be an evil act? Sure, if he were also raping and murdering, he'd be even more evil. But stealing is already evil enough.

 

So, if someone steals money, it then rightfully belongs to them? Anyone who tries to take it back is now the thief, and can be punished as such?

 

Robin Hood believed that the taxes were unfair; they essentially constituted of stealing from the poor. He pursued justice in taking that money away from the tax collectors.

 

It isn't. But oppressing the poor is.

 

If the sheriff saw the poor as deserving their lot in life, he might not see what he did as oppression.

 

Additionally, didn't the Church teach a rather ascetic "hardship strengthens the soul, temptation leads to damnation" morality then? If the poor sheriff really fell for that line (and who wouldn't, seeing the rewards of wallowing in sin so that no one else would have to?), he might actually believe that he was doing the peasants a favor. To preserve their souls for heaven would be the ultimate grace, an act of Good.

 

Robyn:

Huh? I don't see the logic behind this, nor the need for making personal assumptions about me.

 

Are you just debating the theory of this, with no relation to your personal beliefs, or inclination to - as the saying goes - "practice what you preach"?

 

You said it yourself: the "Nuremburg defense", or "I was just following orders!", is no excuse for evil. Deliberately setting out to cold-bloodedly murder someone (or several someones!) is evil; or would you disagree?

 

Perhaps you would disagree. They are, after all, orcs; creatures inherently evil! Besides, it is your holy duty as a paladin to seek out and destroy evil.

 

As you said in your last post - "One kills evil people, decreasing the amount of evil in the world."

 

I'm not "stereotyping" alignments. I'm trying to find the definitions for them. And who's personal interest are you talking about? Fictitious characters in games and fiction? I'm sorry if I've offended Robin Hood, or Darth Vader or your D&D character.

 

See above for "defining Chaos according to the preconceptions of Law". My caution to David was about the "slippery slope" fallacy; just because Robin Hood stole, didn't mean he would support rape and murder as well!

 

David pointed out that it would be necessary to support the "Chaotic Evil band of Merry Men", who would insist on the rape; and that murder would be easiest for them. I'm still doubtful, though:

  • Just because their leader is Chaotic Evil, doesn't mean (all) the followers are. Aside from Neutral, there could be Chaotic Good people following him because they believe that Law/Chaos supersedes Good/Evil; it is best, for society, to throw their lot in with the Evil so as to overthrow the sheriff and his Lawful lackeys.
  • By adding people, the chances that at least one of them will be motivated to rape would be increased, but you'd need many to overcome any opposition (disapproval) from the Good followers.
  • They were called the Merry "Men", but back then peasant females were encouraged to dress as androgenously as possible, so that nobility passing by did not see them and take them. It is entirely possible that females would be counted among these followers, and they might perceive it as being in their own best interest to discourage rape (lest they be subject to it themselves).

 

PhilFleischmann:

So, if someone steals money, it then rightfully belongs to them? Anyone who tries to take it back is now the thief, and can be punished as such?

 

Robin Hood believed that the taxes were unfair; they essentially constituted of stealing from the poor. He pursued justice in taking that money away from the tax collectors.

 

I think you've missed what was said. I was responding to David's alternate hypothetical Robin Hood who steals for his own profit.

 

If the sheriff saw the poor as deserving their lot in life, he might not see what he did as oppression.

 

It doesn't matter what he sees it as. If he's actively contributing to their oppression (which he was), that's evil.

 

Additionally, didn't the Church teach ... If the poor sheriff really fell for that line ... he might actually believe that he was doing the peasants a favor.

 

It doesn't matter what you believe, or what you were taught. To go back to what I've always considered the most obvious example. Hitler believe the Jews deserved to die. He believed he was doing good by eliminating them. Distinguishing Good from Evil is not always easy. Many teach Evil, and call it Good. You have to watch out for that.

 

The rest of this is included because having the whole Robin Hood discussion collected in one place might be useful for other purposes. Only the preceding, however, is relevant for the point I was trying to make.

 

PhilFleischmann:

Are you just debating the theory of this, with no relation to your personal beliefs, or inclination to - as the saying goes - "practice what you preach"?

 

Just to be clear: I am neither a Paladin, nor a Chaotic Evil Marauder. I am not "preaching" anything. I am not trying to tell anyone how to be a paladin or a marauder. I wouldn't even say that I'm debating theory. I'm just trying to arrive at some meaningful definitions.

 

You said it yourself: the "Nuremburg defense", or "I was just following orders!", is no excuse for evil. Deliberately setting out to cold-bloodedly murder someone (or several someones!) is evil; or would you disagree?

 

Yes, of course. But that isn't the example you gave. If you're at war with evil orcs, or if you're simply trying to remove the threat that evil orcs pose, killing them is not murder. Please let's not get onto yet another tangent about whether orcs are "inherently" evil. We've done that before.

 

Robyn:

I think you've missed what was said. I was responding to David's alternate hypothetical Robin Hood who steals for his own profit.

 

David argued that Chaotic Good would be the proper alignment; you were the only one who argued for evil.

 

So, my question remains - if stealing is evil, does it not matter that the "victim" of a theft only possessed that property because they stole it from the rightful owners? Did their theft make them the rightful owners?

 

It doesn't matter what he sees it as. If he's actively contributing to their oppression (which he was), that's evil.

 

To use a modern example - Political Correctness: if I believe that you are oppressing me, is it still oppression? Is there an objective measurement of such things? If that "objective" measurement is backed up by your opinion, what makes your opinion any more qualified than mine?

 

We're getting dangerously close to subjectivist ethics here.

 

Robyn:

Just to be clear: I am neither a Paladin, nor a Chaotic Evil Marauder. I am not "preaching" anything. I am not trying to tell anyone how to be a paladin or a marauder. I wouldn't even say that I'm debating theory.

 

Would you agree, then, that - when playing one yourself - only your beliefs about Good and Evil, about Law and Chaos, would be relevant?

 

If you are not arguing merely in theory, then commit to your beliefs - not just a hypothetical situation where you will accept what is necessary for the sake of argument, but a realistic situation where your beliefs alone are applicable, and they are needed to determine what will happen: you are playing a character. It is your character. How would you play its alignment?

 

Yes, of course. But that isn't the example you gave. If you're at war with evil orcs, or if you're simply trying to remove the threat that evil orcs pose, killing them is not murder.

 

Emphasis mine. You're going in circles now - they "are" evil, however that was determined, therefore killing them isn't. In much the same way, Darth Vader was not evil when killing the rebels, because they were demonstratably Chaotic; they were seeking to overthrow the established order.

 

I could probably make a good case for the rebels being Evil, too. Detonating the Death Star - did they make any effort to prevent civilian casualties before doing that? Or was it "necessary"? The ends justify the means? You can't make an omulet without breaking a few eggs? Smaller evils are outweighed when counted against the greater good?

 

David Johnston:

Quote:

All he's doing is stealing. A Chaotic Evil Robin Hood would probably be murdering the men and raping the women.

So you don't consider stealing to be an evil act?

 

No, not really. It's not a very nice thing to do, but evil as I see it, is a good deal more than just "not very nice". More importantly in this context, however, is that it doesn't (generally) match the criteria for the Evil alignment.

 

PhilFleischmann:

David argued that Chaotic Good would be the proper alignment; you were the only one who argued for evil.

 

No, I didn't. This is getting tiresome. I offered Robin Hood as an example of a Chaotic Good character. David said that if he had simply stolen out of greed, for his own benefit, he would be Chaotic Neutral. I replied that stealing for greed and one's own benefit is Evil, not Neutral. And in David's last post, he states that he doesn't believe stealing is Evil. That's an area where we strongly disagree!

 

To use a modern example - Political Correctness: if I believe that you are oppressing me, is it still oppression? Is there an objective measurement of such things? If that "objective" measurement is backed up by your opinion, what makes your opinion any more qualified than mine?

 

And again, IMO, what you *believe* is not what determines alignment, but what *is*. IMO, there are objective measurements of most things, but we really don't have to argue about that. It's certainly the case in a game, where there's a GM who can settle such matters.

 

PhilFleischmann:

Would you agree, then, that - when playing one yourself - only your beliefs about Good and Evil, about Law and Chaos, would be relevant?

 

No.

 

If you are not arguing merely in theory, then commit to your beliefs - not just a hypothetical situation where you will accept what is necessary for the sake of argument, but a realistic situation where your beliefs alone are applicable, and they are needed to determine what will happen: you are playing a character. It is your character. How would you play its alignment?

 

I'm not agruing for my beliefs at all. I'm trying to find definitions, meanings. How many more times do I have to say it? But nevermind, because we're talking about very different contexts for those definitions.

 

Emphasis mine. You're going in circles now - they "are" evil, however that was determined, therefore killing them isn't. In much the same way, Darth Vader was not evil when killing the rebels, because they were demonstratably Chaotic; they were seeking to overthrow the established order.

 

If I'm going in circles, it's because I was trying to follow you. Does evil not mean anything to you? Is it just a stat on a character sheet that means, it's OK for Paladins to kill them? Your asserting that if you kill Chaotic people then you're not Evil has no basis. You may be Evil, or not. I suppose I should have seen the warning signs earlier when you said Darth Vader was Good. Oh, well.

 

I could probably make a good case for the rebels being Evil, too.

 

I doubt it. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "a good case".

 

PhilFleischmann:

So you don't consider stealing to be an evil act?

 

No, not really.

 

Wow.

 

 

 

I advise clicking on the "#234" link in the upper right of this post, if you're planning on opening the spoiler box. That way, you can close it when you're done and won't have to reload this page of the thread to reset the spoiler effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Alignment Issues

 

...I think we're looking for a somewhat more comprehensive definition of alignment?

 

No such definition exists. Different authors have used those labels to refer to different kinds of opposing forces.

 

Has anyone considered the ancient Babylonian concept of Chaos? (And Law being the reverse, though I'm not sure Law was formally recognized as other than "not-chaos") It seems to have aspects of both the Andersonian and Moorcockian approaches, as well as the Marvel comics version. Perhaps the primal archetype for all Law/Chaos systems? Not to mention being a real bona-fide mythology...

 

I'm no expert, but here's a summary: Chaos was represented by Tiamat, who was either the Ocean or a Dragon. Marduk slew Tiamat and created the world from her corpse, establishing Law. Civilization was lawful, ruled by Kings and Priests who were the representatives of the Gods; Chaos was seen in nature as flood, famine, drought, wild beasts, the unpredictable sea, the barbarians beyond the borders. Chaos was apparently feminine and Law masculine. Chaos was held at bay only by human ingenuity [irrigation, medicine, sorcery], organized cooperation [civilization], and the goodwill of the gods [religion].

 

Anyway more wood for the fire... :ugly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Alignment Issues

 

My point was that in a chaotic society' date=' leadership does not require anything but power (usually in the form of military might, or some means of enforcing one's will upon the people). And that position of leadership lasts only until someone else overcomes the current leader's power.[/quote']

 

So, a chaotic society is a meritocracy?

 

David said that power itself is a form of competence. That's true, but no other form of competence, such as the ability to make wise decisions about non-military matters, is required.

 

Unless their power/competence makes them a "leader" in the decision-making sense, of course. There can be more than one "leader", depending on what aspect of society they are "leading"; no single leader counts as "absolute dictator", and if one tries to exceed their influence then they will be subject to appropriate repercussions.

 

Any leader in a chaotic society has exactly as much power as each and every other individual agrees that they have. It's like a democracy, only without the majority. The leader governs only by the consent of the governed, either through respect or fear. If the former, cooperation is beneficial, and they will protect this leader; if the latter, cooperation is still beneficial, but with each other to replace the leader with a better one, or perhaps a group.

 

Based on the definition of chaotic that I was using. Am I not allowed to draw any conclusions from alignment?

 

Allowed to? I'm not trying to negate the arguments you did make, just prevent you from continuing to make so many of them in the future. Pointing out a common flaw should hopefully bring you to realize the error in your logic. Considering that many of the arguments you made from this error were subsequently abandoned as David or I challenged them, these posts would probably see considerable shortening if you discontinued such arguments in the first place.

 

This makes even less sense than what you said before. Of course Chaos is the opposite of Law! It's not just me saying it. David said it, D&D says it, and as far as I can tell Moorcock and Zelazny say it. And from your own definitions, as far as I can tell, even you say it.

 

That's under propaganda. The distinction is that Law says that about Chaos.

 

"A Lawful society would always be Chaotic"? WTF?

 

Take a set of behaviors which are "Chaotic"; tell every single person that they must adhere to this behavioral pattern.

 

You now have a Lawful society.

 

A society of people who cannot deviate, but must always adhere to a strict set of approved actions, have no free will. They cannot choose. They are not Chaotic.

 

No, I didn't.

 

You were the only one who argued for evil. I've assembled the full exchange above (in my preceding post). Both myself and David only discussed Robin Hood in the context of pointing out why he wasn't Evil.

 

This is getting tiresome. I offered Robin Hood as an example of a Chaotic Good character. David said that if he had simply stolen out of greed, for his own benefit, he would be Chaotic Neutral.

 

I've re-examined the exchange using the compilation I put together, and I can see what you're saying now. The "alternate hypothetical Robin Hood" I see now, so I concede that point.

 

I still plan to argue, though, that stealing isn't - in this context - evil.

 

I replied that stealing for greed and one's own benefit is Evil, not Neutral. And in David's last post, he states that he doesn't believe stealing is Evil. That's an area where we strongly disagree!

 

We now find ourselves within the realm of subjectivist ethics: to offer a hypothetical (not (necessarily) representative of my actual beliefs), I believe that taxes should be voluntary. But the government says that they can't protect just the people who pay their taxes, they have to protect the community as a whole; and expenses scale with people and land, whether taxes are paid or not; and they're not going to charge everyone else more, but I'm receiving the benefit of their protection so I will pay taxes.

 

To their perspective, taxation isn't a matter of voluntary participation.

 

To my perspective, they are stealing this money from me; I'm quite willing to take care of myself, and if my capability isn't as adequate as I thought, well, it's my place in evolution to die, making room for more deserving individuals.

 

Now - from my perspective, I'm simply reclaiming what is mine, or refusing to hand it over. But from the government's perspective, I'm stealing their money, or being a leech on their budget.

 

Who is Evil here?

 

And again, IMO, what you *believe* is not what determines alignment, but what *is*.

 

Exactly! And the same goes for your beliefs!

 

IMO, there are objective measurements of most things, but we really don't have to argue about that.

 

Since your own arguments revolve around dismissal of our beliefs, we really do - you can't call your own beliefs "objective" and expect us to accept that for no greater reason than we would assert our own to be.

 

So would you add a Yankee/Dodgers axis to the alignment chart? Why not?

 

I agree with you that a Yankee/Dodgers axis would not be appropriate - but then, is our agreement at all meaningful? In an objective sense? Does alignment exist only by consensus? If so, it is nothing more than a social construct, an illusion of the mind held by any minds which care to believe in it - and is thus, objectively, absolutely meaningless.

 

But (additional) axes weren't what I was talking about. The point was general, abstract; certainly, Yankee/Dodgers is one concrete example of how the principle can be applied, but would you disqualify any other "alignment" claimant simply because you felt that they weren't (or shouldn't be) important?

 

If you can do that, what stops me (or David) from, under the subjectivist logic of ethics, disqualifying theft from "having anything to do with alignment", simply because we don't feel that it is - or should be - important?

 

What you seem to be saying is that because a Lawful society's law that one must bow to the king doesn't change the laws of physics so that people can't help but bow to the king, then the society isn't really lawful.

 

I specifically identified that as a stereotype of Lawful societies. But commonly held assumptions are not always true ;)

 

The sort of inflexibility you are thinking of only applies for the metaphysical perspective. I distinguished this from the individual and social perspective because neither people nor society are directly bound to follow these metaphysical imperatives.

 

No.

 

In that case, my use of "you" to try placing the situation in an immediate context for you has failed. The importance of doing so is to prevent you from arguing based on beliefs which you don't actually support; by confining the discussion to your beliefs, any answers you give can assuredly be related back to the main debate then, without the chance that you will disavow them and claim no contradiction with your other arguments.

 

I'm not agruing for my beliefs at all.

 

I encourage you to do so, then; or, at least, to respond to the paladin scenario based on your beliefs.

 

Does evil not mean anything to you?

 

It does mean something to me; what it means will be posted later on.

 

Is it just a stat on a character sheet that means, it's OK for Paladins to kill them?

 

I could very well ask the same of you!

 

You didn't say "if you're simply trying to remove the threat that orcs pose, killing them is not evil".

 

You said "if you're simply trying to remove the threat that evil orcs post, killing them is not evil".

 

You clearly and explicitly identified them as evil, but gave no indication of why you evaluated them to be evil.

 

How, exactly, were they evil? Refusing to pay their taxes?

 

Your asserting that if you kill Chaotic people then you're not Evil has no basis. You may be Evil, or not.

 

The same goes for your assertion that if you deliberately set out to cold-bloodedly kill people who pose a threat, you're not Evil yourself. Which is to say: they have exactly the same basis.

 

I doubt it. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "a good case".

 

Well, nothing having to do with Good as an alignment, if that's what you're wondering :)

 

I'm afraid to ask, but what's MTBF?

 

It's an acronym for Mean Time Between Failures; computer hardware tends to fail early or late, so there's a long stretch in between where, for most of that MTBF, you can count on it working perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Alignment Issues

 

No I mean they were less restricted because they were less organised.

I don't think you're even following your own argument anymore. I no longer have enough interest to unravel it.

 

I think - not sure - that he's saying the Gauls had more freedom because they did not restrict their lives with regulations and rules.

 

To take a modern example, there are certain traffic laws that are meant to ensure the safety of pedestrians. Those laws do not exist just for "dangerous drivers", they may not be ignored simply because they were implemented for people "not like us". If we accept those laws, we are no longer free to drive (or cross the street) in certain ways. With freedom, it would still be possible to avoid accidents, but a higher level of caution would be necessary for some of those involved (not everyone, though, which is an advantage of freedom).

 

No. That's not a chaotic person, or even a non-lawful person. That would be a stupid person. In this society, such a person is setting themselves up for a lot of trouble.

 

Not if they don't get caught. If they drive perfectly, who's going to pull them over? If they drive perfectly, why bother with going through the motions to prove it? Besides, a test doesn't really "prove" much; plenty of people who get in accidents passed their license exams.

 

I'd also point out that even a CG society could grow to be very large as long as there was something to keep them Good.

 

Peer pressure?

 

A theory of "enlightened self-interest" was advanced by Ayn Rand, who thought that a free-market economy would lead to a stable social structure; she said that no sane man would take any action without taking into account its far-reaching repercussions, in the larger context; thus, if an obvious madman wanted a gun, noone but another lunatic would sell it to him, since wise traders would see the price in not just dollars but disruption to society as well. Those who were not wise, she believed, would fall to the process of natural selection, including enforcement by other customers who enacted punishment by not shopping there anymore. Thus would intelligence be rewarded and stupidity punished.

 

A society of angels (inherently Good people) could grow to any size and still be Chaotic, and remain stable.

 

A society of mostly Good people could remain stable, dealing internally with any disruptions.

 

So all of humanity suffers if the "chaos" side wins. How is that not Evil? That was my original question. So what happens if the Law side wins? If it's just a different flavor of suffering and death, then we're back to an arbitrary distinction.

 

According to the Good/Evil perspective, yes. To the proponents of Law and Chaos, however, the difference would be just as important as "suffering and death" would be to the proponents of Good and Evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Alignment Issues

 

 

 

 

I think Law, by nature, does demand that sort of conformity; it's not just "be Lawful most of the time, and be whatever you want the rest of it", because that would be Chaotic; you don't let people choose when they want to obey the laws, and when they just don't have to.

 

 

You just defined Law out of existence. Since nothing is perfect, if you are only Lawful when you are perfectly conformist, then you can't be Lawful under any circumstances.

 

No definition exists that is more comprehensive than D&D's?

 

If it was more comprehensive than D&D's current (as opposed to just being different) then it would be so vague as to be meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Alignment Issues

 

You just defined Law out of existence.

 

I did include multiple perspectives in each definition for a reason. Context matters.

 

Since nothing is perfect' date=' if you are only Lawful when you are perfectly conformist,[/quote']

 

You're mixing your terms now, and you weren't before. Conformity is not the same as perfection; being Lawful every day in every way is the conformity; "perfect conformity" is either identical to conformity (already included in the definition), in which case it's meaningless as a distinction, or it is a reference to perfection, which has nothing to do with intent (where the conformity is measured), only success - or failure.

 

Weren't you arguing just a short while ago that alignment does look at intent and not just actions?

 

No definition exists that is more comprehensive than D&D's?

 

If it was more comprehensive than D&D's current (as opposed to just being different) then it would be so vague as to be meaningless.

 

Aren't "comprehensive" and "vague" on opposite ends of the spectrum?

 

I meant "comprehensive" as in "thoroughly detailed", not "vague". Increasing detail, and covering more specifics, tends to move away from vagueness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Alignment Issues

 

In another series I can't recall the name of, they are just different kinds of magic, one which destroys and one which preserves, but the practitioners of each really get on the other's nerves.

 

 

L. E. Modesitt Jr.'s Saga of Recluce series, most likely. The continual ongoing conflict between Order & Chaos are core to the entire series, and both are seen as being parts of an overall balance, and are more or less a "fantasy" protrayl of fundemantal forces (Strong Nuclear Force, Gravity, Magnetisim, Vacuum Energy, Therodynamic Entropy, and stuff with a Quantum in it..) as magic.

 

One of my all time favorites. Great books, and one of the most consistent approaches to the whole Order/Chaos paradigm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Alignment Issues

 

You're mixing your terms now, and you weren't before. Conformity is not the same as perfection;

 

If it was, then the words "perfectly conformist" would be redundant.

 

being Lawful every day in every way is the conformity

 

I do not understand those words.

 

n which case it's meaningless as a distinction, or it is a reference to perfection, which has nothing to do with intent (where the conformity is measured), only success - or failure.

 

Weren't you arguing just a short while ago that alignment does look at intent and not just actions?

 

Yes. And I still think that to be the case. Alignment is which side you prefer. If you prefer your life, world and society to be as stable, predictable and consistent as possible then you are Lawfully aligned. But sometimes you have to compromise your preferences when the alternative is death, or worse, a society which is unstable and unpredictable. That being the case, you might find yourself introducing the occasional innovation in your methods when the old ones are failing because the critical caveat is as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Personally Alighnment to me is just a psych limitation. Its a characters outlook on live which would fall in that catagory. The degree moderate/total is the commitment to the alighnment the character has

 

In DnD, though, it was very much more than that. Pick up the Unholy Thinggummybob of Whosis and if you're Lawful Good, it may blow your arm off - even if you had no idea what it was.

 

In that setting, alignment has a significant physical component - it governs how certain articles affect you - in some places, it even affects how the world itself affects you. It affects the way you can do magic, the powers available to you, etc.

 

I'd never thought of it specifically, but I suppose you could model it as a *physical lim.* Probably worth 0 points in a DnD type setting though, like NCM in a heroic game, unless it's something you actively choose, since all people will have an alignment.

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Alignment Issues

 

In DnD, though, it was very much more than that. Pick up the Unholy Thinggummybob of Whosis and if you're Lawful Good, it may blow your arm off - even if you had no idea what it was.

 

In that setting, alignment has a significant physical component - it governs how certain articles affect you - in some places, it even affects how the world itself affects you. It affects the way you can do magic, the powers available to you, etc.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I've always felt that it's the item, not the believes of the character that causes the damage. No differentthan a dragon slaying sword or a sword doing double damage vs reptiles.

 

The alighnment itself governs how a character interacts with the world around them. If they would stop a fight or start one. Kill someone for looking at them worng, help a blind person. That's the characters outlook on live, not physical. Read any write up on alighnment you care to and its only talking about an outlook on life, it seems to me.

 

This actually make alighnment even better in the Hero System. One character could worry about it where another doesn't, in D&D your stuck with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Alignment Issues

 

In DnD' date=' though, it was very much more than that. Pick up the Unholy Thinggummybob of Whosis and if you're Lawful Good, it may blow your arm off - even if you had no idea what it was.[/quote']

I'm not an expert on this, but I think this may have changed slightly in the 3/3.5 edition. Opposed-aligned items impose some penalty on you (negative level) for as long as you hold/touch the item, but go away when you let go. This was something that always seemed a little wierd to me with D&D alignments: that picking up an inanimate object (that you don't even know is magical, let alone opposed to your alignment) is considered a punishable act.

 

I've always felt that it's the item' date=' not the believes of the character that causes the damage. No differentthan a dragon slaying sword or a sword doing double damage vs reptiles.[/quote']

It is a little different. After all, a lizardman can pick up and use a reptile-killing sword without penalty. It's only the pointy end that does damage. I minor point.

 

And speaking of D&D alignments, they just came out with a new, official book, "Complete Scoundrel" in which they give specific examples of characters from fiction/mythology/etc. as being "scoundrels" of various alignments. How you can be a Lawful Good scoundrel is something of a mystery, but it wouldn't be the first time D&D has taken a well known word and given it a completely different meaning.

 

According to this new official book:

Batman, Dick Tracy, and Indiana Jones are all Lawful Good scoundrels.

James Bond and Odysseus are Lawful Neutral scoundrels.

Boba Fett and Magneto are Lawful Evil scoundrels.

Zorro and Spiderman are Neutral Good scoundrels.

Han Solo (at the beginning of the movie) is a Neutral scoundrel.

Mystique is a Neutral Evil scoundrel.

Robin Hood and Starbuck (Battlestar Galactica) are Chaotic Good scoundrels.

Jack Sparrow is a Chaotic Neutral scoundrel.

 

Note:

There were a few other examples that I wasn't familiar with.

Harrison Ford gets to be on there twice.

Robin Hood is CG, as I had said earlier.

I'm surprized they couldn't come up with less obscure examples, especially for the evil alignments. Where would Wormtongue or Gollum fall?

Only four of the examples I recognized are even peripherally in the fantasy genre. For a D&D book, you'd think they'd include more than that. Why not Wormtongue and Gollum, or other well-known fantasy characters?

I can certainly buy Jack Sparrow as a CN scoundrel, but by that definition, what CN character wouldn't be a scoundrel? And the same question for many of the other alignments.

 

I just happened to see this book in a bookstore, flipped though it, and found this info that was relevant to the discussion. FYI, only. The above characterizations are the statements of the people responsible for D&D, and do not necessarily reflect my opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Alignment Issues

 

I'm not an expert on this, but I think this may have changed slightly in the 3/3.5 edition. Opposed-aligned items impose some penalty on you (negative level) for as long as you hold/touch the item, but go away when you let go. This was something that always seemed a little wierd to me with D&D alignments: that picking up an inanimate object (that you don't even know is magical, let alone opposed to your alignment) is considered a punishable act.

 

It isn't. You aren't being punished any more than you are punished for touching heated glass without knowing what it is. It's just something that you react negatively to. It makes you feel sick or it burns your hand or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Alignment Issues

 

It's part of that whole role-playing paranoia that is Gygax's legacy. Any random thing you touch can hurt you, even something that would normally be completely harmless. Yes, heated glass can hurt if you touch it, but a book heated that much will be on fire, and you can see it burn and know in advance that it will hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...