Information On PS's Alignment System

[Draklar]

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.

[Xordan]

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.

[Draklar]

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.

[Nikodemus]

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
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.

[Draklar]

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.

[Father Sengus]

You sad sad boys!

[Zan]

And the winner for the \"most smartass answer\" prize is ...

Draklar!

[Kythag]

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.

[Draklar]

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\".

[Kythag]

Was there anything in my post you agreed with?

[Draklar]

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

[Kythag]

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.\"?

[Draklar]

I agree that everyone sees what they do as right, granted they aren\'t forced to do something against their own will.

[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.

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.

[Xordan]

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.