PlaneShift
Gameplay => Wish list => Topic started by: Sangwa on December 19, 2005, 03:26:29 pm
-
Yes, you haven\'t seen the last of this.
Anyway, I\'ve made this new post because I have rethinked my Wish and I no longer think we need any kind of alignment system.
My wish now is about having people informed about PS\'s choice towards the existence, lack or inovation towards this issue.
I recommend that the Developers of this beautiful game find a place to inform people about PS\'s Developers Team option towards the existence, or lack, of any kind of Alignment/Reputation System.
I think we should have the information on the Website or in the Client itself (under /help, or at Character Generation.)
\"WHY?\"
First, because it\'s my opinion that most roleplayers are used to alignment systems and upon joining a MMORPG each player refers to the alignment system it has been used to and the interpretation it makes of said system. This usually spawns conflicts and pointless discussions about Alignments. We\'re all familiar to them.
Second, new players might be encouraged to claim they\'re evil or good, disregarding whatever player constructed perspectives there might exist, since they see other players already discussing and giving importance to words such as \"Good\" and \"Evil\".
This goes against one of PS\'s objectives: to be \"realistic.\" In a realistic set you don\'t go around saying that you\'re Good or Evil and considering that everyone has to fall into this description. If the humanoids have a psyche similar to ours, then the need for self indulgence spawns more than two sides, and battles aren\'t fought for the sake of Good or Evil, but for the sake of these self indulgences.
Third, having players informed is rarely a bad option, since it instructs towards a better interaction between themselves and the enviroment created.
-
Why would you address devs with something they have no control of?
Also, might be just me, but I didn\'t really encounter people yelling that they\'re good or evil in-game...
-
It must be you then ^^.
The devs have no control of it? Bah, why did I waste my time.
<_<
-
Oh well, I suppose I\'m helluva lucky then. Or maybe staying away from plaza helped.
-
If we construct a more extensive introduction to the world of Planeshift (which we should, maybe somehow integrated into the process of name-choosing and character-building), we should definitely discuss the multitude of informal alignments and factions that should exist in a world like planeshift. I think we want to escape the bipolar \"good\" and \"evil\", since they are nebulous, endlessly debatable, and (as played by most people) rather stock and boring. Alignment is measured by loyalty to the ideals and purposes of a particular group of people, whether that is based on religion, a guild, the government of Hydlaa or some other ideals, and this definitely needs to be explained to people who are used to a more structured \"Alignment System\"
-
I have a feeling that if Planeshift came up with its own alignment system, it would be as \"fun\" as the current leveling system.
-
Why does everyone have to have such a low tolerance for pain and emotional abuse? X( :(
-
Originally posted by Draklar
I have a feeling that if Planeshift came up with its own alignment system, it would be as \"fun\" as the current leveling system.
Why are some people afraid of leaving a well-trodden trail?
No risk, no fun. Or in this case: no innovation, no fun. ;)
-
Originally posted by Thoronador
Why are some people afraid of leaving a well-trodden trail?
Because in case of Planeshift it\'s walking a well-trodden trail surrounded by swamps :P
-
I\'ve come to think that there\'s little need for alignments in a realistic MMORPG. I really don\'t care much about how Sangwa\'s labbeled, it\'ll end in world domination anyway :P
But that\'s not what this topic\'s about.
Anyway, I like dfryer\'s idea, to have this information covered in a more extensive introduction to Planeshift.
-
Originally posted by Sangwa
I\'ve come to think that there\'s little need for alignments in a realistic MMORPG.
I shall dare to ask: What do ooc titles have to do with in-game world? :P
Alignments are tools used to help with the role-play. They\'re supposed to make certain decissions easier. And give a stable structure, without which you\'d be much more fragile to being yourself and not your character. As in you do whatever you want your char to do. But then are you doing what you would do or what your char would?
If you think it\'s not needed in RP Game, you\'re mistaken :P
It\'s not needed only for experienced role-players.
-
Making decisions based on alignment also tends to make a character unrealistic and as has the risk of turning it in yet another stereotypical hero or villain. In my opinion decisions should be made at the time itself and loose from any kind of alignment. If my character is having a bad day and doesn\'t even feel like helping a little girl getting her cat out of a tree, he is free to do so. The next day he might very well be handing out trias to the poor though.
I do understand that for some people who are rather new to roleplay it could be hard to stick in their role without the help of a sort of alignment. Still I agree that the good, evil, chaotic, lawful and neutral are better replaced by a well built character morality and more importantly setting certain goals. Set a goal for yourself and try to achieve them without breaking your characters moral code. If there aren\'t any morals ... do anything that needs to be done ;) If helping is the fastest way, help .. if killing is then slit their throats!
-
Originally posted by Zan
Making decisions based on alignment also tends to make a character unrealistic and as has the risk of turning it in yet another stereotypical hero or villain.
Those are results of not using alignments. For example, hero. You have no alignment on your mind, but go around solving quests. You help here then there and so on. Alignments help in deciding what kind of job char should take and what not.
Villain is similar. Someone decides to be a villain and there you have it, a stereotypical one. If you seriously think about alignment and actually follow it, there\'s certain set of rules for each, which give examples of behaviour. That requires you to think about your character. instead of just, \"Ok, I\'m going to be bad\".
I\'ve never actually seen stereotypical villains or heroes among players I played tabletops with...
-
I was under the impresion that in PS all races are considered to be on the side of \"good\" or at least they are civil to each other. The \"evil\" is played by the creatures. Yes, I am aware of the angst between the Talad and Laanx (blah, why not Lanax), but I have yet too see serious in game conflict based on this lore. Given this background an alignment system with good and evil as its base would not help much in the way of roleplay.
-
Couldn\'t it be that people react differently to alignments? In alignment discussions it\'s too often Black or White...
I mean, I completely agree with Zan that your alignment shouldn\'t decide your actions but rather your actions decide your alignment. Then again, what Draklar says (and has said since the alignment discussions started [no flame]) sounds logical too. Some people might actually have to know how people of different alignments behave, in order to know how to behave themselves.
If the devs would create an alignment system, or use an existing one, people could choose whether to live by it or not. Those who find alignments stupid and believe they can RP well without them, can just continue RP:ing like they always have. And maybe those who don\'t know how to behave, can make use of them, like Draklar suggested.
So I completely agree with Sangwa\'s first post. The best thing to do is for the devs to provide information on an alignment system, whatever it may be. There should definetely be one...
EDIT: dfryer, is this something you are working on or do you save it for later?
-
I might just as well post how I personally use the alignments.
When creating character I start from giving some personality attributes, figuring out how character would behave in certain situations. Then put it into life and play it for a while. Just then I decide on what alignment suits it best. I tend to not think about alignments much since then, but sometimes come moral decissions...
And here I stop to give an example:
I\'ve been playing a Neutral Good elf. Once the party I\'ve been member of decided to attack some bandit camp (they knew them, I didn\'t), who apparently knew something about some gold. After onslaught they captured one of them and started forcing him to tell where it is. Eventually they made an... extreme... torture device with plan to use it to get the info. The decission in that case was pretty easy, I simply destroyed the torture device. But then they tied me up ( :| ) and continued with it. I\'ve seen the pain of the bandid and it was driving my char insane. Eventually I got loose and could react.
But then what could I do? The other characters would stop me this time. So I took my bow and shoot the bandit, instantly killing him. That was much harder decission and many people couldn\'t understand how was that fitting the good alignment (luckily GM knew and I was awarded with bonus xp :P). In such situation many people would be wondering what would be the \"right\" thing to do, while the situation needed fast reaction. Set of rules behind the alignment allowed me to make it really fast and save the bandit from further suffering.
What I\'m getting at, later I use the alignments only for the purpose of solving harder decissions and be careful not to influence my char\'s actions by what \"I\" believe is right.
-
Personally I don\'t think a person can be of any alignment. Only actions are good/evil etc. So that\'s how I think PS should do alignments. One action may be seen as evil to one party, and good to another, and reputation will scale accordingly. In the case of Draklars example, you could say that he did good or evil, depending on what your position is. To Draklar, he did good. To a third party, maybe he did evil for killing.
So that\'s why I don\'t think we\'ll have D&D style alignments. :)
-
Originally posted by Xordan
In the case of Draklars example, you could say that he did good or evil, depending on what your position is. To Draklar, he did good. To a third party, maybe he did evil for killing.
Err... no.
My character most certainly didn\'t see it as good. He seen it as right. It was an evil act made in good intention, at best. Click the link in my sig :|
And the only way person can lack an alignment is in case of not thinking at all. Surely everyone else follow authority, despise it, or don\'t care; Are altruistic, egoistic, or keep the balance; and so on.
-
As has been explained in above posts in worse or better way: who we are is what we do. Furthermore, someones alignment is based on what he do (not the other way), a set of rules which that person will most likelly follow. So, alignment is n-elements set of m-amount of rules. Where n and m is basically infinite. So, we can have infinite to the power of 2 alignments, or somethink similiar :P
Additionally, each of these infinite amount of alignments can be seen differently by someone else who have different alignment. So, besides infinite amount of alignments we have also infinite ways to define each of these alignments.
Lost? I\'m a little ;)
As there are currently 51291 characters, we can say for 95%, that there are exactly that many alignments... and raising! Just like available free space at my gmail account :)
That\'s first reason why having aligment information is bad idea. Second more important is that, I want others to know my char alignment only by traditional ways, known from the real world around you. And yea, you don\'t know your cousin alignment by looking into his info, nor you can know it all by traditional ways. There will be always some unanswered questions.
-
Originally posted by Nikodemus
So, alignment is n-elements set of m-amount of rules. Where n and m is basically infinite. So, we can have infinite to the power of 2 alignments, or somethink similiar :P
(M1 + M2 + M3 +...+ Mn-1 + Mn) actually :P
M should be lower case, but then mn would be confusing :P
M will be finite, otherwise we\'re not talking about alignment, but personality.
Edit: n is finite too, I think.
Yeah, mostly [ n = (x*3) V_ (x*2+1) V_ (x*3)^x ]
Where x is number of values related to morality/ethics
Try to come up with infinite number of those.
-
You sad sad boys! :P
-
And the winner for the \"most smartass answer\" prize is ...
Draklar! :P
-
dfryer\'s idea is good for this game: base alignment on affliation within the game. This places the basis for alignment on role-play, not a set formula. It also moves away from the standard D&D alignment rules that are somewhat overused.
Evil people do not consider themselves evil. Everyone thinks they are doing the right thing. Think about the role-play Kythag had done. Did you consider him good or evil? I considered him more a vessel for either that put him to use. Still, I don\'t think in terms of good or evil when I role-play(except in situations like the Bandit above). I think in terms of how my character would feel about things.
Kythag in that situation would see \"good goods\" and \"bad bads\". He would have attacked the \"bad bads\" to his detriment. He would have also \"hung his head in shame\" at being allied with the \"bad bads\". I have characters that feel that interfering with the torture device is \"sticking your nose in where it doesn\'t belong\". If he were being tortured, he would simply scream, not scream for help. He would also wonder at the sanity of those that helped him escape.
Alignment can\'t be bottled, only guided as it has been suggested. Some basic guidelines are a good idea, but that\'s where the line should be drawn, in my opinion.
And some new posts while I write mine...again.
-
Originally posted by Kythag
Evil people do not consider themselves evil. Everyone thinks they are doing the right thing.
Your argument doesn\'t support your statement and the statement itself is wrong.
Why? Good vs Evil and Right vs Wrong aren\'t same things. Believes of what is right and what is wrong form the moral standing on the good to evil axis. If someone believes helping others is right thing to do, he most likely is good; If someone believes causing suffering in others for the sake of pleasing himself is right, then most likely he is evil.
Not considering oneself evil is completely different thing. If someone who commits awful crimes, doesn\'t see himself as evil, it\'s a state of psychological disfunction where person cannot tell good from evil; Take serial murderers for example.
Sure, people would have problems with openly admitting themselves to be evil, but that doesn\'t mean they don\'t see themselves as evil. The word itself is a rather strong factor, but meaning behind it isn\'t.
If someone sees himself as vicious, automatically he sees himself as evil, even though he would never pin the title to himself.
One problem I see when people talk about alignments is that they look solely at the titles. Good, evil, neutral, chaotic, lawful... And yet it is the meaning behind them that is important, never the titles themselves.
Let\'s just compare how many people would pin to themselves word \"lawful\" and how many statements such as \"I value honour\", \"I follow the tradition\", \"I follow the law of my country\".
-
Was there anything in my post you agreed with?
-
I\'d agree or disagree with bits of your post depending on context, but since the context in this thread turns out to be really vague, I cannot answer that question :P
-
Let me rephrase that question so you understand it better:
Did you agree with anything in the post I made that you replied to saying that you disagreed with the statement,\"Evil people do not consider themselves evil.\"?
I\'ll restate it again.
Did you agreee with anything in the post I made that contained the phrase,\"Everyone thinks they are doing the right thing.\"?
-
I agree that everyone sees what they do as right, granted they aren\'t forced to do something against their own will.
-
I can agree that there are people in the world that believe themselves to be evil(whether they are or not). I also can agree that Right and Wrong do not necessarily coincide with Good and Evil(You had already made an example with the N/G Elf.). What I will not agree with is that only psychologically dysfunctional(or Abnormal) people do not see themselves as evil.
Terrorists see themselves as waging a Holy War(or Jyhad) against what they see as infidels. We \"infidels\" see terrorists as evil because of the acts they commit. So both sides see the other as \"evil\". My original point is only(as you have been arguing yourself) that alignment is subjective and cannot be easily characterized. These \"labels\" can only be used as guidelines at best.
Therefore, I believe that dfryer\'s idea of some basic guidelines at the start is a good idea.
-
My point is that using a set alignment system, like D&D\'s... right and wrong _are_ the same as good and evil. Take a paladin which can only do good acts or not be a paladin.... which then slaughters a village of gnoll who weren\'t actually doing anything but are \'evil\' by default and therefore must die.... The paladin thinks he\'s doing right, and also must be doing good. The gnolls think he\'s doing wrong and therefore a evil act... So is the paladin good or evil? Neither, it\'s his actions which are seen as good or evil depending on who\'s looking upon it.
-
We are all saying the same thing. We all agree that alignment is subjective. We seem to disagree on how the terms good, evil, right, and wrong fit into our definitions of alignment and apply to characters(and real life).
I believe that Good is defined as any action that is beneficial with the least amount of harm possible.
I believe that evil is any action that harms even if there are benfits to it.
(Notice that my definitions allow for Good and Evil to be subjective to the beholder.)
I believe that Lawful is the general tendency to follow the spirit(and sometimes the letter) of the law.
I believe that Chaos is the tendency to do your own thing without apparent or intended structure.
I believe neutrality to be the ability to choose either path situationally without regard to morality.
Lets define terms.
-
Originally posted by Kythag
I believe that Good is defined as any action that is beneficial with the least amount of harm possible.
I believe that evil is any action that harms even if there are benfits to it.
(Notice that my definitions allow for Good and Evil to be subjective to the beholder.)
I believe that Lawful is the general tendency to follow the spirit(and sometimes the letter) of the law.
I believe that Chaos is the tendency to do your own thing without apparent or intended structure.
I believe neutrality to be the ability to choose either path situationally without regard to morality.
Lets define terms.
That\'s pretty much what I\'d say as well.
-
Originally posted by Kythag
I can agree that there are people in the world that believe themselves to be evil(whether they are or not). I also can agree that Right and Wrong do not necessarily coincide with Good and Evil(You had already made an example with the N/G Elf.). What I will not agree with is that only psychologically dysfunctional(or Abnormal) people do not see themselves as evil.
Ehh... I already explained that...
Originally posted by me
Sure, people would have problems with openly admitting themselves to be evil, but that doesn\'t mean they don\'t see themselves as evil. The word itself is a rather strong factor, but meaning behind it isn\'t.
If someone sees himself as vicious, automatically he sees himself as evil, even though he would never pin the title to himself.
The whole problem is people believing \'evil\' == \'wrong\', while it\'s completely false. if someone sees himself as cruel, vicious, unkind, then automatically he sees himself as evil, no matter if he pins to himself the title of \'good\'.
Originally posted by Kythag
Terrorists see themselves as waging a Holy War(or Jyhad) against what they see as infidels. We \"infidels\" see terrorists as evil because of the acts they commit. So both sides see the other as \"evil\". My original point is only(as you have been arguing yourself) that alignment is subjective and cannot be easily characterized. These \"labels\" can only be used as guidelines at best.
Now my question is how well do you know those terrorists? Do you know what drives them to do what they do? What they see as right and what as wrong? Whether they murder for personal gain, or goodwill of their people? If you don\'t know them enough, then this case isn\'t subjectivity, but unjust judgement.
And that\'s also answer to Xordan\'s point. Alignment isn\'t how people see others. Alignment shows ethical believes that drive certain character to do what it does. Unless someone knows exactly what are the reasons why character does certain thing, he cannot judge his alignment.
Originally posted by Kythag
I believe that Good is defined as any action that is beneficial with the least amount of harm possible.
I believe that evil is any action that harms even if there are benfits to it.
This is true, but doesn\'t have anything to do with alignments (and they aren\'t subjective to beholder, their apparence is). Alignments are about what you see as right and wrong. Like cruelty is right/wrong, following tradition is right/wrong, breaking law is right/wrong and so on.
Alignment is judged by moral believes, not actions. Actions come from the moral believes and that\'s where the confusion steps in.
-
Now, I shall try to make my case:
I believe that aligned characters can act out of alignment in order to further a goal of their true alignment. For example, an evil character can play nice to someone for the purpose of using them to some end. A Police Officer can go undercover in an organization to ultimately bust them for their \"evil\" ways.
There is also the idea that a \"Lawful\" character can be following a set of laws that another does not. The laws of one guild in this game can direct its members to be helpful to others, while another can direct its members to spread chaos at any cost. A \"Lawful Evil\" character can be a member of the Chaotic guild and follow its directives within their own(and the Planeshift society\'s) laws. A Chaotic character can belong to the \"helpful\" guild because his idea of helping is to teach that new member to spread chaos. He is not following the laws of the guild as much as the laws of the guild coincide with his own goals.
What I am saying is this: You can justify any action according to alignment as long as it in within the parameters of the character you have created. Kythag may walk into Hydlaa PLaza shouting, \"Kythag no no bad bads.\" and be in character and in alignment. Kythag can walk into Hydlaa Plaza shouting, \"I killed 20 Trepors.\" and be in alignment, but out of character.
The point is: Alignment is a good guide for anyone wishing to keep their character on track if they need help, so a basic guide such as dfryer\'s idea would be helpful and welcomed. However, trying to pigeonhole anything into an alignment is a futile effort. It is only fodder for the kind of disagreements that never gets solved.
Basically, alignment is only necessary to impart to the uninformed. We who role=play understand alignment well and are simply examples of how alignment works in Planeshift.
-
My whole point is that I\'m not judging the person. I\'m saying that the actions should be judged, and would be judged subjectivly, which they are in rl, and the action can be judged both by another person, and the person who\'s making that action, and get a different \'alignment\' for the action. Kythag\'s example is good, because we _do_ judge those actions as evil. It doesn\'t matter how well we know those people, and the reasons they may have (which they may see as good reasons for doing the \'good\' that they do), or what they see as right and wrong because they make no impact on whether or not we see the action as good or evil. Just like a child can make evil actions. They may not know right from wrong, or have any ethical/moral believes or reasons, but just \'do something\' which is seen as a evil action. Or do you say that a child can\'t have a alignment put against it or it\'s actions?
-
At this point we should distinguish \"evil action\" from \"evil alignment\" and such. Evil action = something that causes harm (which isn\'t subjective, only how we perceive it is); Evil alignment = moral believes based on thinking it\'s all right to harm others for personal gain.
Said that, I agree with what you posted, but it has absolutely nothing to do with alignments. Alignment is a set of personal believes, actions have nothing to do with it. Other than they are an outcome of the believes.
-
How well do I know the terroists? Not at all, but they have released video of themselves stating their actions are a \"holy war\".
You said, \"If someone who commits awful crimes, doesn\'t see himself as evil, it\'s a state of psychological disfunction where person cannot tell good from evil;\"
I said,\"What I will not agree with is that only psychologically dysfunctional(or Abnormal) people do not see themselves as evil.\"
You reply,\"Ehh... I already explained that...
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by me
Sure, people would have problems with openly admitting themselves to be evil, but that doesn\'t mean they don\'t see themselves as evil. The word itself is a rather strong factor, but meaning behind it isn\'t.
If someone sees himself as vicious, automatically he sees himself as evil, even though he would never pin the title to himself.
So I have to ask: Are you contradicting yourself? You said that anyone who commits awful crimes and not see them self as evil must be psychologically dysfunctional, then I said that I disagree with the idea of all people in this situation are psychologically dysfunctional. So you claim you had already stated that, but you also state that they must be psychologically disfunctional. So which is it? Do you believe that all criminals must be psychologically dysfunctional or do you believe that some of them are? We can\'t have a discussion on this while you are contradicting yourself.
-
Read the part under me quoting myself.
Evil stands for certain actions. If someone is aware of doing such actions, then he is aware of being evil. But if he won\'t understand the exact meaning behind the word \'evil\' (for example thinks evil=wrong, and all he does is right -- to him), he might call himself \'good\'.
Now if someone doesn\'t understand his actions cause harm even though it\'s apparent (as in doesn\'t understand he\'s cruel, malicious and so on), then that\'s psychological dysfunction.
-
You said,\"At this point we should distinguish \"evil action\" from \"evil alignment\" and such. Evil action = something that causes harm (which isn\'t subjective, only how we perceive it is); Evil alignment = moral believes based on thinking it\'s all right to harm others for personal gain.
Said that, I agree with what you posted, but it has absolutely nothing to do with alignments. Alignment is a set of personal believes, actions have nothing to do with it. Other than they are an outcome of the believes.\"
Ehhh... didn\'t I explain that?
I said,\"I believe that aligned characters can act out of alignment in order to further a goal of their true alignment. For example, an evil character can play nice to someone for the purpose of using them to some end. A Police Officer can go undercover in an organization to ultimately bust them for their \"evil\" ways.
There is also the idea that a \"Lawful\" character can be following a set of laws that another does not. The laws of one guild in this game can direct its members to be helpful to others, while another can direct its members to spread chaos at any cost. A \"Lawful Evil\" character can be a member of the Chaotic guild and follow its directives within their own(and the Planeshift society\'s) laws. A Chaotic character can belong to the \"helpful\" guild because his idea of helping is to teach that new member to spread chaos. He is not following the laws of the guild as much as the laws of the guild coincide with his own goals.
What I am saying is this: You can justify any action according to alignment as long as it in within the parameters of the character you have created. Kythag may walk into Hydlaa PLaza shouting, \"Kythag no no bad bads.\" and be in character and in alignment. Kythag can walk into Hydlaa Plaza shouting, \"I killed 20 Trepors.\" and be in alignment, but out of character. \"
You still haven\'t explained why you are contradicting yourself.
-
Kythag: I was answering to Xordan\'s post :<
Edit: And I\'m not contradicting myself. Look deeper into what I say.
If you are aware of your cruelty, you are aware of your evilness.
But if you don\'t understand the word, you won\'t pin the title to yourself.
It\'s like being aware of a title and being aware of your actions.
-
I still want to know what you believe, though. Do all criminals that don\'t see themselves as evil have a psychological disfunction or do some of them? You have stated both cases. I want to continue the discussion, but I feel I can\'t until this is cleared up.
-
If criminal is aware he\'s doing harm, he\'s aware of his evilness.
Not seeing themselves as evil might mean two things:
a) Aren\'t aware of their evilness, and thus aren\'t aware of the harm they cause (in which case it\'s disfunction).
b) Don\'t fully understand what \'evil\' means and thus they make no connection between causing harm (aka their evilness) with the word \'evil\' (but still are aware of their evilness, as in causing harm).
Second option appears quite often, I mean... Would you expect all the criminals to study morality and look deep into own actions?
-
This is where I have an opinion that differs. Now we are getting somewhere. Yes!
I believe there are people in the world that take evil actions, but believe they are working for the greater good despite the harm it causes to the minority or believe that their actions are not harmful.
This goes to the idea of \"perceptions\" you have been talking about. Our perceptions can be distorted by cultural differences, religious beliefs, or political bias. These are the perceptions of good and evil we have been discussing. I believe that we basically agree on this issue, we just state our case differently.
Does the mother that steals to feed her children see herself as evil? Is she psychologically impaired? I do not think so. While she might recognize that the act itself is evil toward one person, she sees that it is good toward her children and , therefore, justified. Some will have no sympathy and see her as weak, while others might sympathize and see her as strong. The mother still feels justified in her actions, even if she goes to jail.
That word justified is popping up a lot. Perhaps we are talking about whether we feel justified in doing evil things, and therefore, we don\'t feel evil.
-
I was talking more in theorytical matter, as in black and white sphere.
The case of doing greater good is of course different matter. If someone does more good than evil, then considering oneself evil wouldn\'t be right. More likely somewhat evil, but mostly good. That is the grey sphere.
-
So we both agree there are grey areas in the alignment issue? Or is it gray?
-
We\'ve been talking about actions, not alignments.
But yes, I agree with it.
And grey/gray is british/american English issue, I believe.
-
Originally posted by Draklar
At this point we should distinguish \"evil action\" from \"evil alignment\" and such. Evil action = something that causes harm (which isn\'t subjective, only how we perceive it is); Evil alignment = moral believes based on thinking it\'s all right to harm others for personal gain.
Said that, I agree with what you posted, but it has absolutely nothing to do with alignments. Alignment is a set of personal believes, actions have nothing to do with it. Other than they are an outcome of the believes.
In that case I would say that most people don\'t have an alignment, as I don\'t believe that anybody can be classed under such restrictive labels. Only the extremes can be easily classified. So a character shouldn\'t be able to say \"I\'m lawful good\", because alignments aren\'t that fine cut.
-
Actually we are talking about alignments, that is what the thread topic is all about, but actions help define and are defined by what alignment a character is. Xordan is absolutely correct, only clear-cut cases can be bottled and labelled.
I didn\'t realize I might be stepping into anything with the grey/gray thing. Just always noticed two ways of spelling it so I played it for some lightening of the mood.
I know what is next so let me say that if actions cannot define an alignment, then how would it ever change? Also alignment would never be stable if it didn\'t define actions. I believe it to be a circular process that changes due to external stimuli.
-
Originally posted by Xordan
In that case I would say that most people don\'t have an alignment, as I don\'t believe that anybody can be classed under such restrictive labels. Only the extremes can be easily classified. So a character shouldn\'t be able to say \"I\'m lawful good\", because alignments aren\'t that fine cut.
I oppose tradition, and tend to stand against authority. I also don\'t feel strong within the good to evil axis, since I can use actions taken out of both depending on what feels right at the moment.
I am clearly chaotic-neutral.
I don\'t understand how you can say they\'re restrictive.
You can follow tradition (lawful), oppose it (chaotic), or don\'t care about it at all (neutral). There\'s absolutely no way you can come up with fourth option, so it covers all possibilities.
Also the point only extremes can be easily classified and that\'s why nobody can be classified under such labels. So if something is hard, then it\'s impossible? I don\'t think so. Training makes perfect, they say. And what seems hard at start becomes easy in the end.
And why would a character call himself after an ooc title in the first place?
Kythag: Actions don\'t help to define alignment. All good, neutral and evil characters can kill and the act of killing can look same. Likewise, chaotic, neutral and lawful characters will oppose a tyrant king. You can only define alignmnet by looking at what drives a character to do what it does.
-
I follow some parts of tradition but not all, I like authority in some cases but not all, I make actions when it benifits me directly and not caring if it hurts others, but also can help other people who I see have some need even if it is against my interests, whatever I choose depends on how I feel about the issue at hand. I both break and follow laws. My views change on things.
I am clearly of no set alignment. I make both good and evil actions depending on how I feel at the time. I can be very lawful or very chaotic depending on the item. I\'m not true neutral either, because I\'m not that clear cut. So I\'m in some area somewhere.... what really matters is how other people view me and my actions. :)
And the majority of people are like that. What they do or think depends on the situation. Your example just gave a very fine cut person, an extreme with set opinions. You can\'t label a real person in 2 lines of text.
-
I have to agree. Motivations behind the actions defines the character. But consider this: My character is motivated to kill, but never does. By the character\'s inaction or action he is defined in the terms we place on that character. Motivation with or without action is needed to define a person. Inaction defines that character one way and action defines the character another. So while the motivation behind the action is the underlying definition, it is refined by the action or inaction of that character. Therefore, actions help define alignment
So this is my conclusion from this:
1) The true alignment of a character is defined by his motivations.
2) The apparent alignment(what others perceive of that character) is defined by that character\'s actions.
What Xordan and I have been saying is that you can\'t say for sure what a character is because your perceptions of that character could be wrong.
I believe that Xordan and I have been discussing Apparent Alignment, and you have been discussing True Alignment. So you are correct, when you say that a character\'s alignment is set in stone. However, we are correct in saying that this cannot be truly measured except by the character. This is why I believe dfryer\'s idea of informing people during character creation of the basics of alignment is the way to go. The person generating the character can determine its True Alignment and then decide how to present its Apparent Alignment.
-
Originally posted by Xordan
I follow some parts of tradition but not all, I like authority in some cases but not all, I make actions when it benifits me directly and not caring if it hurts others, but also can help other people who I see have some need even if it is against my interests, whatever I choose depends on how I feel about the issue at hand. I both break and follow laws. My views change on things.
This is clearly Neutral, also called \"Undecided\"
Neutral
\"Undecided\"
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn\'t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or order vs. chaos. She thinks of good as better than evil ? after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she isn\'t personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
The neutral alignment is without prejudice or compulsion.
This is the most common alignment of sentient creatures and the alignment of almost all animals and other creatures of very low intelligence.
Kythag: My opinion comes down to this. Alignment can never be judged solely by actions and what you call apparent alignment is based upon nothing but unjust judgement. Alignment is a personal tool, usable only for the player controlling a character and it should be of no interest to other characters.
-
While it may be unjust, and the goal of alignment is for the player to control their character, Apparent Alignment is a fact in roleplay. People makes judgments whether you want them to or not. They use their perceptions of others to determine whether or not to trust them, what kind of person they are, etc. Since you cannot control others making judgments, the only other thing you can do is control their perceptions. I use these tools in everyday roleplay personally. Is it unjust that people do this? O yeah!
I never said action SOLELY defined alignment. I came to the conclusion that my statements concerning that were directed towards Apparent Alignment. True alignment is solely judged by motivations. Apparent alignment is judged by your actions. Whether those actions reflect your True Alignment is where we had the actions/motivations controversy. I made the True Alignment/Apparent Alignment terms so that we could avoid further disagreements concerning this. It seems I was saying that actions determine others view of your alignment, and I am saying that this is a tool to be used by the player to mask or unmask his True Alignment.
I agree that alignment is a tool to be used personally by the player. So what is wrong with a player utilizing an Apparent Alignment by using misinformation strategies? People in real life do this all the time. Why can\'t our characters do the same thing?
In conclusion, everything you said was true, but what I am saying is also true. I can appreciate your distatse for people making \"unjust\" judgments, but they happen, so I say utilize them.
These terms, it occurs to me, could be used by RMs to help judge RP in Events. If there were official True and Apparent Alignment stats(Apparent Alignment being the image you are trying to project), this would be a useful tool for determining more defined XP rewards for RP. With these criteria, awards for XP could be tailored towards how accurate a roleplay statement or action is overall instead of just the situation. The RMs don\'t seem to need it, but it is just a thought.
-
Originally posted by Kythag
While it may be unjust, and the goal of alignment is for the player to control their character, Apparent Alignment is a fact in roleplay. People makes judgments whether you want them to or not. They use their perceptions of others to determine whether or not to trust them, what kind of person they are, etc. Since you cannot control others making judgments, the only other thing you can do is control their perceptions. I use these tools in everyday roleplay personally. Is it unjust that people do this? O yeah!
Personally I never feel a need to figure out what are person\'s moral believes like. Heck, I don\'t even pin words \"good\" and \"evil\" to anyone and rather go by \"like him\"/\"don\'t like him\", \"trust him\"/\"don\'t trust him\". Therefore I can\'t really fathom why one character would try to guess alignment of another.
Such behaviour is actually really weird to me. I wouldn\'t think anyone I ever talked with tried to guess my moral believes (other than in a morality-related discussion of course).
-
If you try to decide things about people or characters, then you are doing exactly what I said people do. When I say this, it is never meant to be implied that people try to estimate people exactly(some do). I am saying that people make estimates of other people so they know how to deal with them.
This is instinctual as well as purposeful. Animals even make attempts to determine what another\'s motives are. Animals shy away from anger, take advantage of fear, and embrace affection. There are exceptions to this, but the idea is that animals, including the human animal, react based on their base judgments of others. These judgments can be wrong, skewed, or misled, but they are always made.
You said yourself that decide whether to trust people or not. I ask, if you don\'t trust someone, do you bother to reason why you don\'t trust them? Do you assume it is mistrust based on their intentions or lack of sincerity? I think you\'ll find that you do make these same assumptions I have been talking about. You may label them different than good, evil, lawful, chaotic, but you do make them. Everyone does. If you don\'t trust someone, I am sure you have made a moral judgment about them as well. Being untrustworthy can come from undependability, unpredictability, or immorality. While I might believe that you are unconscious of these judgments, I will never believe that anyone does not make them.
Also you have confused moral belief with good and evil. These do not necessarily go hand in hand. There are three measures of morality: Morality: the tendency to do the moral thing; Immorality: the tendency to do the immoral thing; and Amorality: the absence of morality, good or bad. So what I am saying is that these judgments are made to determine whether we trust a person to do what we feel is correct or not. Our own ideas of right/wrong and good/evil determine how that person is seen by us. This goes back to perception. We perceive, even if we perceive unconsciously.
-
I think about if I should trust them, what they may want to do, but not really why (unless it would make it easier to figure out the \"what\" bit).
If someone would rob me, I wouldn\'t try to figure out whether it\'s for a bottle of vodka or food for his kids.
-
I see. In your case(and many others), the why doesn\'t matter to you. You were robbed, and that\'s all you care about. Why you were robbed is meaningless to you.
There are people like me that take these things into consideration. I might be just as unforgiving either way, but I always want to know what motivates people.
-
Yeah, when dealing with my friends, I don\'t think about what their moral believes are and really, all that matters are the actions. The real world is built up on those. I leave morality considerations for philosophical discussions.
I mean, should it really matter to me that someone is lawful-evil if he remains nice for me?
That he\'s nice should be all that matters. Trying to figure out moral believes for me is... somewhat unhealthy curiousity ;)
-
The funny part is: I find it unhealthy not to be curious. To each their own though.
In the game, the system could be placed for people like me, and ignored for people like you. I would rather have the option and not use it, then want the option and not have it.
-
Can I just ask a question, having read all of this - why do we need alignments? Not, are they applicable (though the idea that the 6 billion people alive today fall into three distinct categories is ABSOLUTELY ludicrous), not how to judge alignment, not any of that; I just want to know, why should we include them? Why does officially selecting in-game whether your character is good/evil/neutral improve RPGing? If the distinctions mean that much, just play them in your head - adding them to the game would make every player, players who want characters more developed and complex than that, bound by the system. To be \"chaotic good\" for a moment, surely fewer rules are better than more, since people who wish to limit their freedom can do so by choice, and those who do not want to won\'t be forced to. I seriously, seriously don\'t believe that forcing new RPGers to prop up their character with alignments helps them at all, it just makes them lazier so they have to think through their character that little bit less.
-
One point is that there are people coming into this game with absolutely no RP experience. While alignment is easy to keep track of in your head and mine, others may not see it as easily.
Another point I have made is that it could be a vehicle for judging RP by the RMs for the purpose of judging how people are sticking to their characters. I can be Chaotic Evil one day and Lawful Good the next and always find a reason to do so. With an alignment system, people who are being wishy-washy with their characters could be getting less RP awards than those who are roleplaying their characters better.
Another point: Where are you getting that only three points of alignment have been discussed? Furthermore, telling me that my ideas are ludicrous is insulting. I don\'t care if you disagree, but don\'t be insulting! It has been discussed in this thread that alignment is a fluctuating thing that can only be used as a guide. I (and others) have stated that no one can be pigeonholed into one simple category.
Finally, if you had read the thread, I have simply come on the side of dfryer\'s idea of including a description of alignment for those who have no roleplay experience. I have not advocated at any time that I want to see an alignment system. I have discussed it in the context of its applicability. The designers will never implement an alignment system. For the why, see my first two points.
I believe including alignment as dfryer stated it to be implemented would be only a teaching tool for those new to roleplay. It can be helpful to those new to roleplay in the same way training wheels on a bicycle are helpful to people first learning to ride a bike.
I look forward to more discussion on this, ross.
-
Originally posted by ross.burns
Can I just ask a question, having read all of this - why do we need alignments? Not, are they applicable (though the idea that the 6 billion people alive today fall into three distinct categories is ABSOLUTELY ludicrous)
You\'re talking about three so I assume good-neutral-evil. Do you have any argument to support that someone might fall into another category? If not good or evil or balanced then what?
-
Okay, I really don\'t want to be dragged into a philosophical discussion about this, since it\'s all about the gameplay, but I reject the very foundations of those definitions. I don\'t think \'good\', \'evil\' or \'neutral\' have any meaning. I do not think a single person is good or evil or balanced - I do not think actions have meaning in that sense, I do not think \'values\' in that way exist. While people may seem themselves in one category or another I think the very categories themselves are illusory. There are no good or bad actions, only actions; there are no good or bad consequences, only consequences. I don\'t care if you accept or reject this view, and I don\'t want to be drawn into some sort of argument about it, you asked me a question and I gave you an answer. There are no categories, at least in my opinion, and you are entitled to your own (I guess... JK). However, I wouldn\'t wish to impose my philosophy on the gaming community as a whole, and I don\'t want the alignment system imposed on me or the community as a whole. What purpose does it serve? It doesn\'t help new RPGers, it gives them crutches so they don\'t have to develop their character, and it limits those of us who would do away with it. By not having any trace of it at all, those who want to use it are still free to (heck, they can even put it in their character descriptions themselves), but no one iis forced to.
-
This thread (I think) isn\'t about enforcing alignments upon the players, but rather discussing their need in a role-playing environment.
It\'s kind of odd to believe defined terms have no meaning by the way...
-
By calling for the total ban of any official stand on alignment, you are imposing your views on others, just as I and others are. At least in the sense you are stating.
If you didn\'t want to get into a philosophical discussion perhaps you shouldn\'t have included yourself. The original question dealt with an official stand in one form or another from the official staff on this question; therefore, you cannot answer it anymore than we can. Our discussions are intended to address our concerns about the issue, and you are, of course, welcome to join them.
However, if you say our ideas are \"ludicrous\", and you don\'t care about our opinion, then why should we care about yours? I am very intrigued by the idea of no labels. Draklar has stated, and I have agreed, that labelling people is \"unjust\". Walking into a discussion, stating your opinion, denouncing ours, then walking away simply will not do. You can do this, but your words will have all the weight you have placed on ours.
With that said...
You have stated that actions, in themselves, are not good or evil. Do you believe this of motivations as well? Do you think murder is not evil because this label relys on the underlying motivations? Or do you simply not believe in any kind of moral code at all? If you are rejecting the ideas of good, evil, and neutrality, what is there? I am getting the sense you believe in anarchy. Is this a true or false impression? If not, how can you make a law without some type of moral compass to guide you?
Edit: Draklar, I wouldn\'t find it odd if ross believes in anarchy. I am anxious to hear ross discuss these views further, if he will.
-
Originally posted by Kythag
Edit: Draklar, I wouldn\'t find it odd if ross believes in anarchy. I am anxious to hear ross discuss these views further, if he will.
What I meant is that existance of terms, which have their definitions and yet lack meaning is a paradox... Since definition alone gives meaning to a word. Even if defined term would be purely theorytical.
-
That is a paradox. I think he means that the terms and their definitions are meaningless to him because they have no place in his philosophy, however.
If he is an anarchist, I will understand where he is coming from. If he is not, I really need to hear more.
-
Originally posted by Kythag
By calling for the total ban of any official stand on alignment, you are imposing your views on others, just as I and others are. At least in the sense you are stating.
No, by leaving something out, you give the option for some to include it and others not to. By putting something in, everyone MUST include it. You see the difference?
If you didn\'t want to get into a philosophical discussion perhaps you shouldn\'t have included yourself.
But the thread isn\'t about philosophy, it\'s about RPGing.
The original question dealt with an official stand in one form or another from the official staff on this question; therefore, you cannot answer it anymore than we can.
I\'m not trying to \"answer\" it, I\'m arguing for one side of the debate, the side not to include alignment systems. Isn\'t THAT what this thread is about?
Our discussions are intended to address our concerns about the issue, and you are, of course, welcome to join them.
Why thank you!!!
However, if you say our ideas are \"ludicrous\", and you don\'t care about our opinion, then why should we care about yours?
Firstly, I apologise for calling Draklar\'s splitting humanity into three \"alignments\" in RL ludicrous, that was rude and rash of me. Secondly, I don\'t care about your opinion of my opinion - that was the \"not caring\" point, so that critique kinda answered itself there, Kythag; and, again, that only applied to the philosophical side of things. I DO care, however, about suggestions for PS gameplay and RPGing, which is what the thread is about, afterall.
I am very intrigued by the idea of no labels. Draklar has stated, and I have agreed, that labelling people is \"unjust\". Walking into a discussion, stating your opinion, denouncing ours, then walking away simply will not do. You can do this, but your words will have all the weight you have placed on ours.
Of course, I hope you now realise that you\'ve completely misunderstood what had happened, so you can retract this incredibly patronising critique.
With that said...
You have stated that actions, in themselves, are not good or evil. Do you believe this of motivations as well? Do you think murder is not evil because this label relys on the underlying motivations? Or do you simply not believe in any kind of moral code at all? If you are rejecting the ideas of good, evil, and neutrality, what is there? I am getting the sense you believe in anarchy. Is this a true or false impression? If not, how can you make a law without some type of moral compass to guide you?
Edit: Draklar, I wouldn\'t find it odd if ross believes in anarchy. I am anxious to hear ross discuss these views further, if he will.
I\'m not an anarchist, I\'m a determinist. I believe (and now, just so you don\'t think I\'m \"walking away\", Kythag, I\'m about to expose some personal information that really you guys never needed to know, just like the whole philosophical element of this conversation) that no one has free will, that everything is decided and predetermined by God. We are not moral agents, we have no choice, nothing we do is good or bad, it just is; God\'s solitaire-version of chess. Nothing has value other than whether it follows its predestination, which of course it must do. I do not expect anyone else to believe this, and I DO NOT CARE WHAT YOU THINK OF THIS IDEA. I do not want to be attacked nor supported for holding it. Kythag, I do not care about your or anyone else\'s opinion on this matter, just to make that clear from the start. You shan\'t disuade me from my opinion, and I doubt I\'ll persuade you from yours - and nor do I want to. Now that we\'ve forced Ross into exposing his cooky theology, would one of you stop treating me like an idiot and answer the only question I\'ve asked on this thread so far, the only one I actually want to discuss, the only where I care about your opinions, and want you to care about mine, the only one I actually want to enter a debate into:
What purpose would having an alignment system built into the fame serve?
-
Ah, now I see. The case here is confusing terms right/wrong with good/evil, since right and wrong are subjective terms and from universal point of view nothing is right or wrong, but rather just is.
But that of course is completely different case than good/evil, as I believe I explained before.
Heh, so I was right. That statement was odd :P
-
Actually, I did answer your question ross. It is posted above. If you want my answers, they are there to be read.
Your opinion is not as unpopular as you think by the way. I do understand your viewpoint and respect it; it had just not occurred to me as an option.
-
I just clicked \"report\" instead of \"reply\", so some moderator is gonna get mighty P.O.\'d at me...
Wanna play PS now, will retype my response later.
*edited to include \'reported post\' ;)*
Yes, sorry, but in posts previously I had stated my arguments against your reasons for including the alignment system, and I wondered whether you had a counter to them.
Also, Draclar, I\'m confusing good and evil with right and wrong (firstly, I simply don\'t believe that by an definition one chooses those concepts are as separate as you would wish to convince us) but I think both sets of concepts fall under the same banner of meaninglessness. One cannot be good or evil, just as one cannot DO good or evil, just as one cannot do something right or wrong. As concepts in themselves, in my belief system, they simply do not exist. And what is your thing with always being right? Since both are systems are non-falsifiable, it\'s more a case of neither of us being provable wrong.
But even if your system is exactly how everything works, that doesn\'t change my basic argument for not including them in PS.
Don\'t worry, mistakes happen :) --Karyuu
-
I am very confused. I keep stating that I have not advocated an alignment system be implemented. I do not know where you are getting that. Nor will one be implemented. I have been making arguments for it for the philosophical discussion it raises.
I have advocated that dfryer\'s idea be implemented. It puts the information there without \"imposing\" it on anyone. If you don\'t want to read it, you don\'t have to.
-
Yeah, sorry man, I seemed to have lumped you and Drac both together in my head. It seems we\'re in total \'alignment\' (get it) over the matter. Drac just ruffles my feathers, and I have a question for him which is philosophical in nature, but since he seems to enjoy this discussion I\'ll ask him anyway, and he can choose not to answer it if he doesn\'t want to (I\'d ask the same from others): You keep saying that doing good/evil are unconnected to doing right/wrong, and I would agree to this in certain terms (it\'s possible to doing something wrong for a good end, like the killing a torture victim scenario - though I have my own objections to that, and don\'t really think it was good by that definition). So I would like to know what your definition of good/evil and right/wrong are, because many people would say good is doing lots of right actions, and evil doing lots of wrong ones (and don\'t just denounce that as confusing the concepts, because it is also a valid definition, even if not shared by you - you\'ve still yet to define your terms).
-
Originally posted by ross.burns
So I would like to know what your definition of good/evil and right/wrong are, because many people would say good is doing lots of right actions, and evil doing lots of wrong ones (and don\'t just denounce that as confusing the concepts, because it is also a valid definition, even if not shared by you - you\'ve still yet to define your terms).
Good: That which causes wellfare.
Evil: That which causes suffering.
Good and evil don\'t exist only if people don\'t feel pleasure or pain. And even then they would exist as theorytical terms.
And yes, the definition you pointed out is purely confusion of the terms. I seriously doubt people who follow such definition even looked into a dictionary to realise what good actually means.
And by the way, I never said alignments should be put into game.
-
You\'ve argued consistently that they should be put into the game based on their benefits, as you saw them, that they were useful to newbies and helpful to older RPGers. Haven\'t you?
And, then, how would you define a right action and a wrong action - which is what most people would call your good/evil, I suspect.
Also, you definition of good/evil is purely secularist. For religious folk good/evil depends on how faitful/permitted their actions are in their religion, for knights of the round table it was how closely their actions matched the chivalry archetype, etc,. Don\'t pretend good and evel are just simple concepts with a shared definition by everyone. No matter what your dictionary dictates.
-
Originally posted by ross.burns
You\'ve argued consistently that they should be put into the game based on their benefits, as you saw them, that they were useful to newbies and helpful to older RPGers. Haven\'t you?
Go ahead and quote me saying it should be implemented.
And, then, how would you define a right action and a wrong action - which is what most people would call your good/evil, I suspect.
Right action - something that should be done.
Wrong action - something that shouldn\'t be done.
Also, you definition of good/evil is purely secularist. For religious folk good/evil depends on how faitful/permitted their actions are in their religion, for knights of the round table it was how closely their actions matched the chivalry archetype, etc,. Don\'t pretend good and evel are just simple concepts with a shared definition by everyone. No matter what your dictionary dictates.
I\'d like to see you give an argument of how being faithfull alone brings welfare.
Quite frankly \"good follower\" and \"good person\" mean completely different things.
Your responses consist of such arguments as \"for most people\", \"for religious folk\", \"for knights of the round table\". Such arguments hold very little importance to me. I\'d rather see arguments based on reasoning. What other people think is hardly something I\'d be convinced by.
-
Man, I\'m sorry, but terms like \'good\' and \'evil\' don\'t HAVE to have anything to do with welfare. They\'re simply not definitive terms. You can\'t \'reason\' when you use terms like \'good\' and \'evil\'. And your definition of a right or wrong action is circular - what actions ought ot be done, and which actions ought not to be done?
-
Draklar ruffles your feathers?
1) I am the most reactionary person on this planet(of course, you haven\'t seen an example of this :\\ ), at times. Draklar has never ruffled my feathers.
2) I can\'t wait until you meet zanzibar or Verliit or some of the others on here who truly know how to \"ruffle some feathers.\"
Disclaimer: This is not a condemnation of these people, just a sincere admiration for people who have a knack for irritating people(whether they mean to or not :D )
Note: The last time I made a disclaimer, it was disclaimed. :\\
Edited for missing words.
-
Originally posted by ross.burns
Man, I\'m sorry, but terms like \'good\' and \'evil\' don\'t HAVE to have anything to do with welfare.
Then what? Once again I\'m asking for reasoning. And that means philosophical meanings of the terms. Not \"good game\" or such.
Originally posted by ross.burns They\'re simply not definitive terms. You can\'t \'reason\' when you use terms like \'good\' and \'evil\'.
If you don\'t reason when discussing those terms, it explains a lot :[
Originally posted by ross.burns
And your definition of a right or wrong action is circular - what actions ought ot be done, and which actions ought not to be done?
Did you even read all the posts in this thread? Right and wrong are subjective terms based on personal opinions. So what should be done and what shouldn\'t is based on what you believe to be right and what wrong. If for you personally nothing is right or wrong, then that\'s simply sad. It isn\'t right to live, nor is it right to die... It\'s like being a plant, you just exist :[
-
I misrepresented myself when I said one cannot use reason with those terms, what I meant was that one could use reason to make those terms mean anything at all. One might reason that \'good\' has to be based on \'right\' actions - being good and doing good is doing things one ought to do. That is not an unreasonable definition of \'good\'. \'Good\' is as subjective as \'right\'. One might believe that what is \'good\' is what God decides is \'good\' - for instance: an orthodox Jew believes that doing the mitzvot of the Torah is good because God has said they are good. Things are right or wrong and good or evil depending on what God dictates in the Torah - the commanded actions are not always logical or explained (how can not eating one animal or another whilst eating another one - and seemingly by arbitrary standards - be described as either good or right?) but they are always good because God says so. Here, you will notice, right and wrong and good and evil are inextricably linked - one ought to do what God says AND what God says is right AND what God says is Good. You are not doing Good by doing Wrong actions. It is not a confusion of terms, it is simply a different definition of them than yours. One ought to do what God says because God says it - morality is defined by God\'s word. If God had said to Moses when giiving the Torah \"And all Jews must rape children, which he wouldn\'t because God is not only Good and Right, but also Loving (see, in this definition, welfare is separated from good/evil - which refer ONLY to whether God commanded it or not) but if he had, then raping children would be both Good and Right, though not loving or pleasant. The two things are unconnected. An orthodox Jew might say you are confusing your terms, because Good and Evil only refer to God\'s commands, not to whether the actions are pleasant or logical or increase welfare.
This is only one example. Just face it Drakky ol\' buddy, you CAN\'T be correct about this, because nobody can. It\'s non-falsifiable and subjective and dependent on individual believe. There is not one consensual definitive definition of the terms Good and Evil (just as you\'ve already admitted there aren\'t for Right and Wrong). Each person will have his own working definition, and there is absolutely no need for that definition to be based on the consequences of the actions, pain/pleasure debates or any of the infinity of other arguments put forward to explain what is good or evil. This debate has raged on since the dawn of humankind\'s conscience, why do you presume to be able to give the correct answer? The best you can do is give the answer you believe is correct, which I respect as applicable and meaningful to you and probably many others, but not to everyone, nor can it be. To me, for instance, you definition yields no meaning, nor to an orthodox Jew, nor to many other people.
-
Oh for crying out loud, even more \"some people believe that\" arguments. I already told you I don\'t care what others believe and unless you give solid arguments for what you say, you won\'t change my opinion. I can come up with a cake religion and believe cake is all-powerful, but will that change anything? No.
I\'d suggest reading up a bit, because believing what people believed in medieval times won\'t take you anywhere.
http://www.philosopher.org.uk/moral.htm
I\'m out, this discussion becomes pointless.
-
I really liked that link, Draklar! It is a very good summation of the history of moral development. I had actually never studied these philsophers that believe as ross does. I knew there were people out there, but I didn\'t know they had a place in the history of philosophy(and I have to blame that on the college I took those studies in). Reading it, I thought of a hypothetical question to pose to you, ross:
Would you be more inclined to accept an alignment system that had the tenth option to opt out as a non-believer in alignment? I know you have objections based on alignment \"limiting\" roleplay. I am merely asking if you believe that this would prevent \"imposing\" alignment on a player.
The reason I asked this is you don\'t fit into the alignment system based on your beliefs. I know you won\'t ever believe an alignment system has a place because you believe it limits roleplay. I am only wondering if the category of \"non-believer in alignment\" would be more palatable than having an actual alignment imposed on you.
(I use non-believer in alignment as a term to be descriptive because I can\'t think of a term offhand that would fit there).
-
Yes, that would be acceptable to me. That way people who don\'t want to use it aren\'t stuck with it. That also enables people who actually want to use it in-game still can - that\'s a better idea then making everyone use it or taking it out completely.
Also, I don\'t know if Drakky is still reading this, but I can\'t give anymore reasoned arguments for you - I\'m arguing from the point of Devil\'s advocate anyway, and I\'ve more than defended enough of other people\'s views of what good and evil can mean. If you really don\'t believe anybody except yourself can possibly, even a little bit, be correct, or at least have another valid view point of what good and evil mean, outside of \'good = nice\' \'evil = suffering\' then the discussion was really pointless from the start. I assumed you wanted to know about other people\'s ideas, I wasn\'t trying to dissuade you from yours. That\'s all I asked for myself as well, and I\'ve accepted time and time again that your definition of the terms is a perfectly valid one and many people would find it meaningful. This idea you have that no one else\'s concepts are meaningful, even to them, though, really is ludicrous, and I don\'t shy away from using that term in this instance.
-
Draklar and I had to define terms at one point to continue the discussion. The problem is that terms are not capable of being reconciled between the two views that are being discussed. A stance of \"agreeing to disagree\" would be a nice way of ending things.
-
Originally posted by ross.burns
If you really don\'t believe anybody except yourself can possibly, even a little bit, be correct, or at least have another valid view point of what good and evil mean, outside of \'good = nice\' \'evil = suffering\' then the discussion was really pointless from the start.
I keep changing my world views when I see people give solid argumentation for what they believe. You gave none.
Not to mention the whole determinism... One of the biggest paradoxes I\'ve ever seen.
Our minds are formed by our experiences; Therefore we are results of those experiences. Therefore it is us who make the decissions. Yet determinism states that since human actions could be predicted (noteworthy, which means same as decissions can be predicted), human being lacks ability to make decissions.
Human being lacks the ability to make decissions, because with enough info we could predict his decissions. Paradox.
Interesting world view, but doesn\'t belong in modern times.
In the concept of time we already made all the future decissions. But the keyword is \"we\".
-
Ok, once more, Drakky, that is only your understanding of it - if you start from that same premise as you have (which nobody has to) then it is possible to reach that conclusion. If one starts from an entirely different premise, the one reaches an entirely different conclusion. I gave you plenty of arguments, and no, none of them were solid, but you\'ve yet to provide a \'solid\' argument yourself, if by solid you mean irrefutable. There are no \'solid\' arguments for anything, because all reasoning has to start from somewhere, and that somewhere can be anywhere. You have deemed that your starting place is the only one possible.