Information On PS's Alignment System

[Kythag]

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.

[Xordan]

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.

[Draklar]

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.

[Kythag]

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.

[Xordan]

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?

[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.

[Kythag]

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.

[Draklar]

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.

[Kythag]

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.

[Draklar]

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.

[Kythag]

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.

[Draklar]

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?

[Kythag]

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.

[Draklar]

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.

[Kythag]

So we both agree there are grey areas in the alignment issue?  Or is it gray?