Information On PS's Alignment System

[Kythag]

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.

[Draklar]

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?

[ross.burns]

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.

[Draklar]

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...

[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.

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.

[Draklar]

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.

[Kythag]

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.

[ross.burns]

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?

[Draklar]

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

[Kythag]

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.

[ross.burns]

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

[Kythag]

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.

[ross.burns]

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).

[Draklar]

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.

[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?

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.