Alignment makes perfect sense

[Narf the Mouse]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/8386-Check-for-Traps-All-About-Alignment

 

Alignment explained using real-world philosophy.

[Vondy]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

Which of course presumes the average person has a clearly developed philosophy they live by rather than a hotch-potch of deeply ingrained, conflicting notions of right and wrong.

 

Most people would be "Alignment: None" or "Alignment: Mostly X."

 

"That's against your alignment."

"No its not."

"It says right here. Your lawful good."

"Its what I learned in kindergarten. So shut up!"

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

Which of course presumes the average person has a clearly developed philosophy they live by rather than a hotch-potch of deeply ingrained, conflicting notions of right and wrong.

 

Most people would be "Alignment: None" or "Alignment: Mostly X."

 

"That's against your alignment."

"No its not."

"It says right here. Your lawful good."

"Its what I learned in kindergarten. So shut up!"

Even though a person may not have examined their personal philosophy, they probably have one. Lack of introspection does not mean a lack of intro to spect.

 

And following rules for reason of them being what you learned is Deontological, or Lawful.

[Darbor]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

I like that there are concepts of good and evil, and lawful and chaotic, to use as tools to help give motivations, tendencies and color to characters; but I have never liked the idea of them being labels to be pasted on a character that confines it. The guy who plays the Paladin in our Hero campaign uses lawful good as guidelines albeit very strong ones, rather than absolute limiting rules.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

The explanation given for each facet of alignment seems a bit easier to grok than lawful/chaotic, good/evil. If I were to use alignment in a fantasy campaign, I suspect this terminology would ensure everyone was "on the same page". Heck, I just figured out that most of my characters should have been "neutral good".

 

Good find, Narf the Mouse! Repped.

[Old Man]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

Yeah, that's probably the best discussion of alignment I've ever come across since I first encountered the damned system thirty years ago. Repped also.

[Vondy]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

Even though a person may not have examined their personal philosophy' date=' they probably have one. Lack of introspection does not mean a lack of intro to spect.[/quote']

 

The point was, without a deeply considered philosophical foundation for life, people tend to be inconsistent when it comes to real life situations. They may tend to follow a pattern of behavior dictated by the fuzzy ethical notions they picked up along the way, but they will still have opinions, or make choices, wildly at odds with that baseline for the very simple fact that those notions are, for them, fuzzy at best. Even people who have spent years thinking about morality and working out ethical quandries will be inconsistent to some degree - we're flesh and blood - but the deviation tends to be much less dramatic.

 

But when we look at "alignment" we're looking at a clearly wrought philosophical construct with no deviation or nuance. It may fit what a black and white fanatic should do in a perfectly conformist world, but such worlds don't exist and such people are caricatures rather than characters. The system, whatever its apologists want to say about it, is neither realistic or useful. Actually knowing what the religons and philosophies in a game world believe would lead to more realistic, three-dimensional worlds and characters.

 

What's more, when GMs start levying penalties for not playing according to alighnment, they're saying: all player characters are undeviating archetypes that must be played as two dimensional constructs. Trying to justify a stupid system leads to ridiculous rhetorical gymnastics. And trying to create a three dimensional character with a two-dimensional worldview is... the reason most games have since jettisoned the concept.

 

And following rules for reason of them being what you learned is Deontological' date=' or Lawful.[/quote']

 

What?!

 

Deontological: based on adherence to a set of moral obligations or duties.

 

Lawfulness: Being within the law; allowed by law.

 

Law can be consequentialist or strictly amoral and utilitarian in form.

 

In other words, unconcerned with moral-ethical obligations and duties.

 

What one learned may well be based on a different ethical system.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics - "Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"; and -λογία, -logia) is an approach to ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. Deontologists look at rules[1] and duties."

[Manic Typist]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

His understanding of Nietzsche, as presented here, is laughable.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

His understanding of Nietzsche' date=' as presented here, is laughable.[/quote']

Feel free to explain why.

[Lucius]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

His understanding of Nietzsche' date=' as presented here, is laughable.[/quote']

 

Feel free to explain why.

 

And feel free to experience the frustration of realizing how few in your audience can even spell Neizchie, let alone understand what you're trying to say.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Leaving a palindromedary parked in Neutral

[ghost-angel]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics - "Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον' date=' [i']deon[/i], "obligation, duty"; and -λογία, -logia) is an approach to ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. Deontologists look at rules[1] and duties."

 

That has nothing to do with "Lawful" ... "Lawful" can be the following of ones Country Laws, ones Religious Laws, or ones internal Moral Laws. All three can be wildly at odds - you can be Deontological to one of the three, or more if they mesh over each other, but rarely are all three completely in synch with each other making a Religious Deontological Follower a criminal in eyes of a Secular State Law System; as example, a religious Law may find it perfectly acceptable to burn witches at the stake, while a state law considers that murder punishable by death as the state doesn't recognize "witchcraft" as an illegal act in and of itself. Hence you've followed one set of laws perfectly, and broken another set. Are Deontological or not?

 

See the problem there? Spouting the definition at Vondy doesn't actually support your argument - quite the opposite - it proves its total invalidity as a useful condition.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

The "10 Alignments" are a workable way to describe the general beliefs / ethics / morals of a person, I tend to agree.

 

But most people are not quite that well-defined, in their own heads, I believe.

 

I think most people fall somewhere near Neutral - but try to lean one way or the other when possible. I think most people want to be good, but can definitely do evil when pressed, stressed, etc.

 

I personally think the old palladium alignments were a better way to break it up; most people care less about good/evil/law/chaos than they do about their own skin or the skin of those they love; and the most damaged / evil people are those who have no concept or concern for the needs of others, while the most noble or saintly are those that put the needs of others above their own needs.

[Lucius]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

That has nothing to do with "Lawful" ... "Lawful" can be the following of ones Country Laws, ones Religious Laws, or ones internal Moral Laws. All three can be wildly at odds - you can be Deontological to one of the three, or more if they mesh over each other, but rarely are all three completely in synch with each other making a Religious Deontological Follower a criminal in eyes of a Secular State Law System; as example, a religious Law may find it perfectly acceptable to burn witches at the stake, while a state law considers that murder punishable by death as the state doesn't recognize "witchcraft" as an illegal act in and of itself. Hence you've followed one set of laws perfectly, and broken another set. Are Deontological or not?

 

Are Deontological. As far as I'm aware, no one, at any time, claimed that a character that is Deontological, or for that matter Lawful, must obey all possible applicable laws of all types at all times.

 

The paladin attempting to burn a witch (let's assume because of his paladin powers he can actually determine that the man he wants to burn is a "witch" however that might be defined) because that's demanded by the rules of his religion, even if it's against the laws of his state, may be Lawful - although by my conception of Lawful, he'd have to regret violating secular law in pursuit of what he regards as a higher law. Lawful means respecting rules in general, but it doesn't mean you never have to choose one ruleset over another. He is even, by my understanding of the term, Deontological - he is choosing his action, and regarding it as moral, based on a set of rules. That it violates another set of rules doesn't change the fact that it is in accord with HIS set.

 

The king's knight who is attempting to stop the paladin, with lethal force if necessary, may ALSO be both Lawful and Deontological, in my opinion. The fact he is enforcing the king's laws rather than a God's does not make him any less Lawful. Yes, it is quite possible for two Lawful Good characters to come into conflict, even to the point of killing each other, while both being absolutely true to their alignments.

 

Each is breaking the laws the other respects; that does not make either other than Lawful. Or, by my understanding of the term, Deontological.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders why I'm stepping in, as I don't care much for the alignment system either. Although the traditional system certainly is far superior to what replaced it in 4th Edition D&D.

[Lucius]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

the old palladium alignments

 

Now THERE'S an alignment system I REALLY hated.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

That was so long ago, the palindromedary doubts if Lucius is even remembering it well enough to make the categorical statement he just made.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

I always figured Alignment was a sort of a way to help a player define the character; a precusor to the vastly superior Psychological Complications in HERO.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

The problem I have with "alignment" and locking it down onto a character is it seems to presume a character will have the same emotional response to every situation. Which makes one emotionless or emotionally monotone. And people aren't.

[Clonus]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

The problem I have with "alignment" and locking it down onto a character is it seems to presume a character will have the same emotional response to every situation. Which makes one emotionless or emotionally monotone. And people aren't.

 

Hanh? I don't get what you are saying.

 

I always figured Alignment was a sort of a way to help a player define the character; a precusor to the vastly superior Psychological Complications in HERO.

 

No, there's another element to it. Consider Witch World. In Witch World, the land of Escore has the Dark and the Light. These two forces will actually collect in puddles. Good guy central is a literally enchanted valley. Nobody who is "of the dark" can get past the spell on it and enter the valley.

 

That's the real function of alignment. Who can safely drink from the Holy Grail? Who can enter the Valley of the Light? Who will get fried by drawing White-Hilt, and who can touch it safely? Who will summoned demons willingly serve? Who will catch on fire if he sets foot in a holy place?

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

The problem I have with "alignment" and locking it down onto a character is it seems to presume a character will have the same emotional response to every situation. Which makes one emotionless or emotionally monotone. And people aren't.

 

True, but a good GM will challenge that. I've seen it playing both good and evil characters; given a situation that doesn't so easily fall into one of 10 spots on a chart. Save the Princess and let the villagers die? Or save the villagers and let the princess die? Kill the Goblin women and children to prevent future infestations, or let them go?

 

Again, things just aren't as cut and dry as fiction might sometimes make them out to be; there aren't always even "Good" choices to make to solve a problem; is the lesser of two evils "Good?"

 

Best question I was ever asked in relation to Aligment: If there was a plague sweeping through your town, what would you do? Flee, stay and help, board your family up at home? Which of those actions is "Good" or "Lawful"? Which of them are "Selfless" or "Selfish"? Is "Selfish" inherently Evil, or Chaotic? What if the Law says to stay in your home? Is it inherently unlawful to disobey this to save your family?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

I always figured Alignment was a sort of a way to help a player define the character; a precusor to the vastly superior Psychological Complications in HERO.

 

While I find Psych Complications more nuanced, I've seen any number of debates on what various Psych's, at various levels, actually mean. They certainly don't reduce arguments due to universal buy-in by the players/GM as to their meaning.

[Lucius]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

No, there's another element to it. Consider Witch World. In Witch World, the land of Escore has the Dark and the Light. These two forces will actually collect in puddles. Good guy central is a literally enchanted valley. Nobody who is "of the dark" can get past the spell on it and enter the valley.

 

That's the real function of alignment. Who can safely drink from the Holy Grail? Who can enter the Valley of the Light? Who will get fried by drawing White-Hilt, and who can touch it safely? Who will summoned demons willingly serve? Who will catch on fire if he sets foot in a holy place?

 

Which in Hero falls under such things as Distinctive Features and Susceptibilities.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Distinctive Feature: Always uses a palindromedary tagline

[Clonus]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

Which in Hero falls under such things as Distinctive Features and Susceptibilities.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Distinctive Feature: Always uses a palindromedary tagline

 

Yes, by the author's decree, nobody is a good person can ever have a Suceptibility to any form of light in Witch World, so in a fanfic she published in a collection of Witch World fanworks, a good-guy vampire who was transported to there found his problem with sunlight just vanished.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

True, but a good GM will challenge that. I've seen it playing both good and evil characters; given a situation that doesn't so easily fall into one of 10 spots on a chart. Save the Princess and let the villagers die? Or save the villagers and let the princess die? Kill the Goblin women and children to prevent future infestations, or let them go?

 

Again, things just aren't as cut and dry as fiction might sometimes make them out to be; there aren't always even "Good" choices to make to solve a problem; is the lesser of two evils "Good?"

 

Best question I was ever asked in relation to Aligment: If there was a plague sweeping through your town, what would you do? Flee, stay and help, board your family up at home? Which of those actions is "Good" or "Lawful"? Which of them are "Selfless" or "Selfish"? Is "Selfish" inherently Evil, or Chaotic? What if the Law says to stay in your home? Is it inherently unlawful to disobey this to save your family?

Using the given definitions in the link -

 

It depends why. If you flee because an evacuation order has been given, that's a Deontological act. If you stay and help everyone out of selflessness, that's Aretological - You're acting according to a virtue. If you try to board up your family at home to save those you know you can, that's Consequentialist - You're justifying a means (cutting off anyone who might be infected) with an ends (saving those you know you can). If you do so because a set of laws you follow says to do so, that's Deontological. If you do so because your Aretological values say that your family comes before others, then so.

 

If you flee, saving only yourself without any care for any other, that's an Evil (or, from your point of view, "Pragmantic") act - Your circle of consideration is sharply limited to yourself. If you flee, taking with you those you know are not infected, that's a Neutral act - Your circle of consideration slopes significantly or has a sharp drop-off.

 

If you stay and help everyone out of selfless concern for everyone, that's a Good act. If you do so because you want to be famous, but also to help others, that's a Neutral act - Your circle of consideration slopes outward from you to those you help.

 

If you try to save your family only without concern for any others, even if you could help safely, that's an Evil act - Your circle soon slopes sharply downward. If you try to save only your family, with only concern for those you know are uninfected, then it's a Neutral act - You have a significantly sloping circle of consideration or one with a sharp, but distant, drop-off. If you spare as much concern as you can for those who are infected, without risking your family, that's a Good act - You're limited by circumstances, not willingness.

 

By definition given "Selflish" has a sharply-sloping circle of consideration and is thus Evil. A person could be a Consequentialist, with an end of helping everyone they possibly can as much as they can - Or, "Chaotic Good", in that their actions cannot be predicted using a Lawful or Deontological system.

 

If the law you follow says to stay home, no matter what, and you leave home to save your family, then you've broken with strict Deontologicalism. If you do so to grab a bag of money off the street, that's Neutral at best. If you do so to save your family, it depends again on why.

 

If you consider yourself the only qualified person to save your family and that your family can't be safe without you, and known reality contradicts that, you're likely Evil, in that your circle of consideration includes only yourself - You're risking other people, including your family, by possibly getting infected and you're discounting any others who can help and you're discounting your family's capabilities. You are, in essence, saying "Only I count!".

 

If the city is full of rioting and thus the safety of your family is in evident doubt, trying to save your family is at least Neutral, Good if you try to save those you can - Unless you're doing so out of some rational that considers only yourself.

 

If the laws you subscribe to say to save your family first, then you're being Deontological by following them. That you may be breaking other laws, that you do not subscribe to, might cause you regret and possibly makes you a criminal, but you're behaving in an orderly and rules-following fashion. OTOH, if you've, for example, willingly become a Citizen of Bobland and one of the laws of Bobland is that you can't wear green on Wednesdays, and you know this, wearing green on Wednesdays is not Deontological, even though the law is ridonkulous.

 

In conclusion, even within the given alignment system, intent, knowledge and action determines character.

[Old Man]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

The problem I have with "alignment" and locking it down onto a character is it seems to presume a character will have the same emotional response to every situation. Which makes one emotionless or emotionally monotone. And people aren't.

 

I don't think anyone ever claimed the 3x3 alignment system was a good one. It's only useful for wargame-level moral interactions, if that. But the linked article makes more sense out of it than any other treatment I've seen. I could now see using the alignment system as a starting point for a more in depth character personality study along the lines of Myers-Briggs.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Alignment makes perfect sense

 

Feel free to explain why.

 

To do so in full would be a project of...proportions that I am unwilling to invest in a board post.

 

However, in short, that's not what Nietzsche's about. There is nothing in Nietzsche's work that requires you to be "cruel" or "greedy," or even "proud" or "aggressive." Furthermore, Nietzsche isn't arguing that you should use people in the sense that people tend to envision the term. It's more about self-actualization than achieving domination over others. In fact, it's not "more about" it. That's entirely it.

 

While I don't necessarily subscribe to Nietzsche's moral framework (if you can fairly call it that), I do recognize this as an incredibly simplistic and inaccurate representation of his words. Which isn't a huge deal. It's just a quick article about alignments and D&D. I just tend to get irked by this kind of simplification, much like people tend to misquote/misrepresent by saying he said "God is dead." The reality is much more complicated than that, and in fact has an entirely different conclusion.

 

Also, there's a complete jump in the definition he's using where we go from the "Judeo-Christian" definition of "evil" to "evil" is "self-interested," and yet the terms are used interchangeably while being completely different definitions.