Information On PS's Alignment System

[Draklar]

We\'ve been talking about actions, not alignments.

But yes, I agree with it.

And grey/gray is british/american English issue, I believe.

[Xordan]

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.

[Kythag]

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.

[Draklar]

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.

[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.

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.

[Kythag]

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.

[Draklar]

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.

[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!

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.

[Draklar]

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).

[Kythag]

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.

[Draklar]

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.

[Kythag]

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.

[Draklar]

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 ;)

[Kythag]

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.

[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), 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.