PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: Yarulion on November 18, 2003, 09:53:06 pm
-
Grr, you people are pushing my DM instincts to the limit with all the alignment debates. I warned ya I was gonna start having classes. :P
Anyways, there have seriously been a lot of conflicts in discussing alignments (people don\'t seem to have a basic agreement on the difference between good, neutral, and evil). Personally, I go by the AD&D 2E system of alignments because D&D rocks and 3rd Edition as a table-top sucks. :))
At any rate, here\'s the run-down:
Good = serves others
Evil = serves self
Neutral = serves neutrality (balance) or doesn\'t care
Lawful = appreciates order
Chaotic = demolishes or ignores order
Neutral = Either doesn\'t care for the difference or puts a higher emphasis on good v. evil
Any questions?
I will further post a discussion on any alignment as requested :D
-
So, if I run over Xordan with a megeara to get my cooki jar back, is that good(cuz I\'m killing a corruptor), evil(cuz I\'m retreiving my cookie jar by killing him), or neutral(cuz they balance out)?
-
Evil is not serves self... it is serving self with a disregard for others.
Neutrality is serving self, but not at the expense of others.
-
What is the actual point of having personal alignments? Is it just to back up the role playing of a character and to allow a games mechanics know how to react to you in a certain situation e.g. interacting with an NPC of certain alignment.
Perhaps I am missing the point, but in life we aren\'t branded with the fact that we are incredibly evil or a do gooder, people judge us by our actions and reputation, shouldn\'t true RPing in a persistent world be the same? Or in terms of a game needing some reference to judge us by, then couldn\'t it use some kind of karma/reputation type system (I\'m sure we have discussed this before), whereby your ingame deeds score accordingly? This way the many shades of good and evil might be better reflected and those who are truly good/evil would really have to work hard at achieving such a pure reputation. What could be more satisfying than knowing you have really earned your reputation of pure evil and are feared because of it ;)
-
I have always thought the best way to do alignment or whatever you want to call it is to start of at a true neutral starting point and have actions effect it from there. This way has always added much more depth to your character and role playing experience because each action you do now has an effect on your character. If you want a truely evil character or pure goood character you have to work at it to devolp into that.
-
So, if I run over Xordan with a megeara to get my cooki jar back, is that good(cuz I\'m killing a corruptor), evil(cuz I\'m retreiving my cookie jar by killing him), or neutral(cuz they balance out)?
Depends on whether you wanted Xordan\'s death or your cookie jar more, and in the case of wanting Xordan\'s death, if it wasn\'t very justifiable it would be evil.
Evil is not serves self... it is serving self with a disregard for others.
Exactly. Treating yourself as number one. (as an opposite statement to serving others before yourself)
Neutrality is serving self, but not at the expense of others.
Which is... randomly switching between good and evil without regard for either... or not caring. If you only perform evil when there\'s \"no harm in it\" you\'re either neutral cause you don\'t care or a really low-INT evil guy :P
What is the actual point of having personal alignments?
A role-playing distinction and nothing else. We\'re not talking about modifying code, just referring to other forum discussions. Otherwise it would be in GD not Hydlaa.
-
OK, for Monketh, the most amusing alignment discussion I\'ve read to date, found in the 2nd Edition PHB:
Imagine how groups of different alignments might seek to divide a
treasure trove. Suppose the adventuring party contains one character of
each alignment (a virtually impossible situation, but useful for
illustration). Each is then allowed to present his argument:
The lawful good character says, \"Before we went on this adventure, we
agreed to split the treasure equally, and that\'s what we\'re going to do.
First, we\'ll deduct the costs of the adventure and pay for the
resurrection of those who have fallen, since we\'re sharing all this
equally. If someone can\'t be raised, then his share goes to his family\".
\"Since we agreed to split equally, that\'s fine,\" replies the lawful evil
character thoughtfully. \"But there was nothing in this deal about paying
for anyone else\'s expenses. It\'s not my fault if you spent a lot on
equipment! Furthermore, this deal applies only to the surviving partners;
I don\'t remember anything about dead partners. I\'m not setting aside any
money to raise that klutz. He\'s someone else\'s problem.\"
Flourishing a sheet of paper, the lawful neutral character breaks in.
\"It\'s a good thing for you two that I\'ve got things together, nice and
organized. I had the foresight to write down the exact terms of our
agreement, and we\'re all going to follow them.\"
The neutral good character balances the issues and decides, \"I\'m in
favor of equal shares - that keeps everybody happy. I feel that expenses
are each adventurer\'s own business: If someone spent too much, then he
should be more careful next time. But raising fallen comrades seems like a
good idea, so I say we set aside money to do that\".
After listening to the above arguments, the true neutral character
decides not to say anything yet. He\'s not particularly concerned with any
choice. If the issue can be solved without his becoming involved, great.
But if it looks like one person is going to get everything, that\'s when
he\'ll step in and cast his vote for a more balanced distribution.
The neutral evil character died during the adventure, so he doesn\'t have
anything to say. However, if he could make his opinion known, he would
gladly argue that the group ought to pay for raising him and set aside a
share for him. The neutral evil character would also hope that the group
doesn\'t discover the big gem he secretly pocketed during one of the encounters.
The chaotic good character objects to the whole business. \"Look, it\'s
obvious that the original agreement is messed up. I say we scrap it and
reward people for what they did. I saw some of you hiding in the
background when the rest of us were doing all the real fighting. I don\'t
see why anyone should be rewarded for being a coward! As far as raising
dead partners, I say that\'s a matter of personal choice. I don\'t mind
chipping in for some of them, but I don\'t think I want everyone back in
the group\".
Outraged at the totally true but tactless accusation of cowardice, the
chaotic evil character snaps back, \"Look, I was doing an important job,
guarding the rear! Can I help it if nothing tried to sneak up behind us?
Now, it seems to me that all of you are pretty beat up - and I\'m not. So,
I don\'t think there\'s going to be too much objection if I take all the
jewelry and that wand. And I\'ll take anything interesting those two dead
guys have. Now, you can either work with me and do what I say or get lost
- permanently!\"
The chaotic neutral character is also dead (after he tried to charge a
gorgon), so he doesn\'t contribute to the argument. However, if he were
alive, he would join forces with whichever side appealed to him the most
at the moment. If he couldn\'t decide, he\'d flip a coin.
Clearly, widely diverse alignments in a group can make even the simplest
task impossible. It is almost certain that the group in the example would
come to blows before they could reach a decision. But dividing cash is not
the only instance in which this group would have problems. Consider the
battle in which they gained the treasure in the first place.
Upon penetrating the heart of the ruined castle, the party met its foe,
a powerful gorgon commanded by a mad warrior. There, chained behind the
two, was a helpless peasant kidnapped from a nearby village.
The lawful good character unhesitatingly (but not foolishly) entered the
battle; it was the right thing to do. He considered it his duty to protect
the villagers. Besides, he could not abandon an innocent hostage to such
fiends. He was willing to fight until he won or was dragged off by his
friends. He had no intention of fighting to his own death, but he would
not give up until he had tried his utmost to defeat the evil creatures.
The lawful evil character also entered the battle willingly. Although he
cared nothing for the peasant, he could not allow the two fiends to mock
him. Still, there was no reason for him to risk all for one peasant. If
forced to retreat, he could return with a stronger force, capture the
criminals, and execute them publicly. If the peasant died in the meantime,
their punishment would be that much more horrible.
The lawful neutral character was willing to fight, because the villains
threatened public order. However, he was not willing to risk his own life.
He would have preferred to come back later with reinforcements. If the
peasant could be saved, that is good, because he is part of the community.
If not, it would be unfortunate but unavoidable.
The neutral good character did not fight the gorgon or the warrior, but
he tried to rescue the peasant. Saving the peasant was worthwhile, but
there was no need to risk injury and death along the way. Thus, while the
enemy was distracted in combat, he tried to slip past and free the pea-
sant.
The true neutral character weighed the situation carefully. Although it
looked like the forces working for order would have the upper hand in the
battle, he knew there had been a general trend toward chaos and
destruction in the region that must be combatted. He tried to help, but if
the group failed, he could work to restore the balance of law and chaos
elsewhere in the kingdom.
The neutral evil character cared nothing about law, order, or the poor
peasant. He figured that there had to be some treasure around somewhere.
After all, the villain\'s lair had once been a powerful temple. He could
poke around for cash while the others did the real work. If the group got
into real trouble and it looked like the villains would attack him, then
he would fight. Unfortunately, a stray magical arrow killed him just after
he found a large gem.
The chaotic good character joined the fight for several reasons. Several
people in the group were his friends, and he wanted to fight at their
sides. Furthermore, the poor, kidnapped peasant deserved to be rescued.
Thus, the chaotic good character fought to aid his companions and save the
peasant. He didn\'t care if the villains were killed, captured, or just
driven away. Their attacks against the village didn\'t concern him.
The chaotic neutral character decided to charge, screaming bloodthirsty
cries, straight for the gorgon. Who knows? He might have broken its nerve
and thrown it off guard. He discovered that his plan was a bad one when
the gorgon\'s breath killed him.
The chaotic evil character saw no point in risking his hide for the
villagers, the peasant, or the rest of the party. In fact, he thought of
several good reasons not to. If he party was weakened, he might be able to
take over. If the villains won, he could probably make a deal with them
and join their side. If everyone was killed, he could take everything he
wanted and leave. All these sounded a lot better than getting hurt for
little or no gain. So he stayed near the back of the battle, watching. If
anyone asked, he could say he was watching the rear, making sure no one
came to aid the enemy.
-
What I said. Sort of.
-
I\'m Ninja Aligned! :D
-
i like neutral it give me the right to kill oh say....... jedi!
then save a family from a burning building (for a reward of course)
-
I like good because it gives me an excuse to stab Sep in the face...It\'s ridding the world of his evil blight. :P jk
-
Tighten up, fellas. Moogie\'s referring peeps to da thread here. Act like you\'re on topic! :]
I\'m about to post the various discussions on alignments to my webpage as per PHB2e. Link will be posted in a later edit (unless you spam the crap out of my thread and I\'ll re-post).
EDIT: Here\'s the link. (http://www.geocities.com/seregon_blackflame/alignment.html) That should do well to incite discussion. Do I need to post area alignments to help out, too? Sometimes they can give a different perspective on how alignments function in a group (e.g. a guild).
-
Oh yes, alignments...it\'s all a type of control, even though people have these huge arguments and don\'t play by the rules anyways, but if you like those sort of things...enjoy yourself.
See...I can do it
**pats shotgun and stares at the ceiling for that damn bird**
-
Originally posted by seperot
i like neutral it give me the right to kill oh say....... jedi!
then save a family from a burning building (for a reward of course)
Oh? That\'s why you\'re neutral? I thought...
Originally posted by TSR, Inc.
Some things - particularly unintelligent monsters (killer plants, etc.) and animals - never bother with moral and ethical concerns. For these creatures, alignment is simply not applicable. A dog, even a well-trained one, is neither good nor evil, lawful nor chaotic. It is simply a dog. For these creatures, alignment is always detected as neutral.
:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P
{edit: A link has been posted. You rolled doubles! Move back three posts.}
{edit 2: Er... two posts now. Somebody got baleeted. 8o }
{edit 3: alignment allegory above has been extended.}
-
allignments are hard to determine w/o the use of the secong half ,the law/neutarl/chaos it really depends o how you rp
-
Originally posted by Jedi
Oooookay, guys. Chill. Seperot, this is MG. MG...ya. :P Let\'s all just be a nice big happy family, ok? :D
Ok Jedi I suppose I can handle that if he can, truce alright Sep, I guess I went over the top. thanks Jedi!
-
Right, don\'t we all love losing posts. 8)
Anyways, to keep this on topic.
I really don\'t like alignments and stuff. They take away from the reality of the rp experience. Honestly, do you have alignments in real life? Then they shouldn\'t exist in games either. Role playing is supposed to be an imitation of real life with real people. People do things because they think they should, not because it\'s their alignment. Alignments waste crucial thinking power.
-
Alignments never really have done anyone any good, i mean in real life what you do depends on the circumstances, because everyone knows that you can go from evil to neutral to good and back again several times a day, we all have our moments, and your morals also govern things to a lesser extent but they can change over time as well.
-
Originally posted by Metal Gear
evil to neutral to good and back again
So you\'re saying everyone is neutral?
That\'s what neutral basicly is doing whats best for you. Sometimes being a do-gooder is best, sometimes its being evil that\'s best.
-
Originally posted by Elegrand
That\'s what neutral basicly is doing whats best for you. Sometimes being a do-gooder is best, sometimes its being evil that\'s best.
you quoted the allingment of my life :P
-
i hate to say it but the kid who started this thread is actually right.
damn that hurts to admit something.
-
Originally posted by Elegrand
Originally posted by Metal Gear
evil to neutral to good and back again
So you\'re saying everyone is neutral?
That\'s what neutral basicly is doing whats best for you. Sometimes being a do-gooder is best, sometimes its being evil that\'s best.
you got it!! it all depends on the circumstances, but everyone is neutral, some to a greater degree and some to a lesser degree but it\'s in everyone, good and evil are just shades of neutrality, one dark, one light.
-
I agree!
-
Just read this.
Alignments
Good = Serves others, themselves, without the regard to alignment.
Evil = Serves oneself, without the regard of others and to gain power (or money) the fastest way possible.
Neutral = Consists of people who are just human, always want money and power, but do not gain these qualities at the expense of others.
Styles
Chaotic = Fight first, talk Later. (Just get the job done, at any expense. -In honor of the Mercenaries.)
Lawful = Follows boundaries of their guild, following instructions to the letter. (In other words, high in the art of Tactics) They do not take lives if it isn\'t required. (Again, in honor of the mercenaries- \"Get the job done as efficiently as possible, and as fast as possible.)
Neutral = Settle things, or start things, in the first manner that comes to mind. (Does whatever they feel like doing under the circumstance.)From Metal Gear- The combination of all the alignments in different proportions at different times, depending on the situation. Neutrality is everyone\'s one and only real alignment, all the others are just sub-alignments of it.
Metal Gear, I like your words. I am almost sure that you have pledged yourself to a guild, but someone like you would do the world a whole lot of good. Everyone is neutral. Perhaps you might want to read \"The Incomplete Chronicles\" to see what I am missing.
-
I appreciate it, Actually no I haven\'t pledged myself to a guild yet. I\'ll keep my eye out for it thanks for the suggestion.
well then here\'s the only real one you need then:
Neutrality: The combination of all the alignments in different proportions at different times, depending on the situation. Neutrality is everyone\'s one and only real alignment, all the others are just sub-alignments of it.
-
You people are hurting my head with this discussion! Honestly!!
Let me catch up and respond in turn.
To Druke, who said \"allignments are hard to determine w/o the use of the secong half ,the law/neutarl/chaos it really depends o how you rp\":
I am using the 9 alignment system. That includes those. What do you mean?
To Jedi, who said \"I really don\'t like alignments and stuff. They take away from the reality of the rp experience. Honestly, do you have alignments in real life? Then they shouldn\'t exist in games either. Role playing is supposed to be an imitation of real life with real people. People do things because they think they should, not because it\'s their alignment. Alignments waste crucial thinking power.\"
They what? Yes! You have an alignment in real life. You can define yourself by some kind of alignment or the tendency toward it. If you couldn\'t you\'d be completely haphazard. You have a consistency in how you make decisions. That, my friend, is an alignment. Role-playing is NOT AN IMITATION OF REAL LIFE. You are not a Jedi. I am not a Cipher. I am a freshman in college and that\'s not what I play. Role-playing is playing a character. Something else\'s life. Something fictional. Completely different. PEOPLE don\'t do these things. Characters do.
To Metal Gear, who posted \"Alignments never really have done anyone any good, i mean in real life what you do depends on the circumstances, because everyone knows that you can go from evil to neutral to good and back again several times a day, we all have our moments, and your morals also govern things to a lesser extent but they can change over time as well.\"
You are speaking for everyone in the world when you say this and that is totally ridiculous. You cannot generalize the entire planet as acting one way. People quit doing that 2000 years ago for a reason. You said it yourself. Your morals govern things to an extent but can change. That\'s your alignment.
To Elegrand, who posted \"That\'s what neutral basicly is doing whats best for you. Sometimes being a do-gooder is best, sometimes its being evil that\'s best.\"
Neutral is SO not doing what\'s best for you. That\'s EVIL. Read it: EVIL. Neutral is either actively not caring by fighting for balance or passively not caring by being apathetic. Neutral is NOT saying \"I don\'t care. I\'ll do what\'s good for me.\" That\'s neutral evil.
To Metal Gear again, who posted \"you got it!! it all depends on the circumstances, but everyone is neutral, some to a greater degree and some to a lesser degree but it\'s in everyone, good and evil are just shades of neutrality, one dark, one light.\"
Do you realize how intrinsically wrong that is? I\'m not trying to be ugly, guys, but come on. NEUTRAL. Have you ever heard of neutering a pet? That means making them the NEUTRAL gender. Neither male nor female. By your definition male and female are just \"shades\" of sterility not having reproductive organs when reproductive organs are their defining characteristics. You can define by comparison, you can combine by negation, but how can you define through non-existence? That would be such as saying \"Life is the condition of not being dead, and death is the condition of not being alive, but what actually defines being alive or dead is what lies in between them, which is an intangible that is neither alive nor dead.\"
To Kal, who posted an incredibly long post:
Good is an alignment. It cannot be both an alignment and a disregard of alignment. That would make it a self-reference to a self-denial. Even if it was possible, no one who was good could classify themselves as such because they would not recognize alignment. And it would be too paradoxical to use effectively as a tool. Evil is wanting power and money. Do you honestly think that\'s the ONLY way to be evil? I can be at the bottom of the food chain and broke, and if I kill someone for the hell of it, if I don\'t gain anything, by your definition, I\'m of no alignment instead of evil. As for neutrality, neutrality does not entail desires for gain. Desiring gain for either yourself or others is the antithesis of neutrality. Gaining money and power (first of all these are not qualities insofar as alignment-defining qualities would be virtues) without hurting other people is just a way to be self-serving and reclusive. You\'re still serving yourself even if you\'re harmless. Evil does not always cause harm. You cannot take a stance and be neutral or you\'re not neutral.
Now on to law/chaos. First thing\'s first. These are not \"styles.\" Style supercedes alignment by far. These are a secondary classification of alignment. You\'re trying to imagine your character\'s philosophical view of the world. He may or may not have a view on metaphysics (where we come from) or epistemology (what we can know) but he damn well probably has an ethical and political view. Ethics is good/evil and political is law/chaos. Do you know what chaos is? Disorder. The opposite of doing things systematically. FIGHT FIRST TALK LATER IS METHODICAL. And neutrality is not doing whatever you feel like. That\'s CHAOTIC! Abiding by your whims, which are ever-different, is chaos. It\'s not orderly. The only predictable part is that it\'s unpredictable. That\'s chaos. Chaos plain and simple. Textbook case, even. Neutrality is not the combination of every alignment. It is the absence of it. White light combines every light, and the difference is the absence of light, which is black. You have neutrality derived totally opposite from that which it means.
To Metal Gear a final time, who posted \"Neutrality: The combination of all the alignments in different proportions at different times, depending on the situation. Neutrality is everyone\'s one and only real alignment, all the others are just sub-alignments of it\":
No, no, no, no, no. See the whiteness/blackness comparison. You cannot derive caring from not caring because you cannot take something from nothing!!
[/SOAPBOX]
Sorry....
-
Personally, I think alignments are BS. I act based on mood, so (using the 9-alignment system) I constantly shift from neutral neutral, good neutral, evil neutral, evil lawful, and evil chaotic. I\'d much rather define myself through adjectives rather than some predefined set of \"alignments\".
I am: Humble, Silent, Easily-Annoyed, Difficult-to-Provoke, Fickle, Helpful, Patient, Evil, Wizard Grakrim. That conveys a hell of a lot more information than simply \"Neutral Neutral\" (Which is my declared alignment).
-
To Kal, who posted an incredibly long post:
not nearly as long as you ;)
-
Discussions about alignment are so relevant as arguing with the cabal. Irrelevant... there have been many threads on this and never did all accept one\'s declaration of what x really was.
Pointless, I tell you.
-
If everyone is going to have an alignment, then everyone needs to agree on what to call it. If you\'re going to use words like \"good\" or \"evil\" you need to know what they are. If no one can settle an argument on what any of these are, then why do guilds say \"We\'re lawful evil\" or whatever. There\'s an alignment system in every game. It\'s shorthand, and not the end-all of your character, but it needs to be there. The original intent of this thread was to bring together a community-wide solid definition of an alignment system, not to flame about how they are stupid. We obviously all convey that guilds have alignments, but we get posts every day about how no one knows what any of them really mean. My original guild thread got flamed because I had to spend two pages explaining why my guild is Chaotic Neutral. I let this thread stand as a reference to how I define my alignment, for both guild and self, take it or leave it. At least that way everyone has a standard. You can\'t have measurement without a standard. I\'m not saying everyone should have an alignment and abide by it, but some of you are using self-contradictory definitions of alignments that don\'t convey good information because the definition conflicts with something else you might say or because it conflicts with the meaning of the word. To me, it\'s no different than calling yourself a \"fighter\" and being some sort of assassin. Everybody has a personality. Everybody is something different. But you have to be able to describe your character more concisely than nine or ten adjectives and alignment can help with that. Just like the word \"mage\" entails anyone that uses magic from any school in any way for any purpose and \"fighter\" means anyone who fights with any weapon for any reason. It\'s not that you can\'t use a magical item if you\'re a fighter because you\'re bound by your chosen profession. It\'s just an easy way to say what you do.
-
Ok. Everyone here, has an alignment. This, they get to choose by starting a guild, or joining one of the alignment of their choice.
Basically, It does not matter about this, whether you are good or not. All we need to do is follow our rules. That detemines you alignment. If you want, we can get a moderator to align us. Now, we wouldn\'t want that, right? :D
-
Originally posted by Kal Keraden
If you want, we can get a moderator to align us. Now, we wouldn\'t want that, right? :D
lol we can? :P
anyways, i fully agree with Yarulion here...
And for me saying alignments are pointless is like saying same about classes:
You don\'t need to name your alignment - you just do what you do
You don\'t need to name your class - you just are who you are
-
Listen.........
Let me put it a final (yes, final) way.
Consider I had put up a thread saying \"So what guilds are good?\" as you did.
Following this thread, here\'s the answer I would expect to get.
By Metal Gear\'s definition, there would be none. We\'re all neutral.
By Elegrand\'s definition, we all do what\'s best for ourselves, so if you join a guild you better hope that what\'s best for you is best for everyone else in there most of the time.
By Kal\'s definition it would be everyone who posted in this thread except maybe me and Dorbian, because evidently good means \"without regard towards alignment.\"
That\'s all that\'s been proposed and everyone else would just clam up because they don\'t believe there shoud be terms like \"good\" and \"evil.\"
Maybe it\'s the term alignment? Maybe the connotation is something binding? Perhaps if we started discussing ethics and politics instead.
This is something that every one of us possesses, both in RL and RPG, and we need to have a standard of comparison to make it a useful measurement.
-
Why don\'t you people start making a \"Politics\" thread? This stuff is just too involved to be a debate over alignments.
Under politics, we can all get mad at each other :D . Maybe there someone will even agree with me for once! 8o .