|
|
Post by antimatter on Jul 18, 2012 0:34:23 GMT -5
I disagree a bit, here, so I thought I'd talk about what Alignment means to me.
Alignment is a large part of who a character is. It's the window through which they view the world. While one can judge one's alignment, it's the sort of thing that's not really possible to know for sure without magic. This is because I see alignmentas based on a character's intent, not their actions or words. Actions speak louder than words, but Alignment isn't something that speaks.
An evil person can pretend to be good and still be evil. If an evil person buys an orphanage (Or other good sort of institution) to prevent its destruction, that's a good act. The person has brought more good into the world, so to speak. Perhaps they did it to deflect suspicion away from their own shadier dealings, or to have an orphanage full of children indebted to them, increasing their influence and power. why they did this good act is far more important to their alignment than the fact that they did.
Evil people donate to charity all the time I suspect; tax write-offs help such a thing. It doesn't make them better people if the only reason they're donating to charity is to save money for themselves.
Bringing this back into FRC/D&D, pretending to be another alignment is just that; pretending. While it is true that acting as something you're not may influence your way of thinking, the motivations behind the opposite aligned actions are the key thing.
Of course, there are D&D added black and white exceptions. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, regardless of intent. If you cast "Blasphemy", you are more evil than if you didn't, even if you used it to spare the lives of a dozen good people magically dominated to burn down an orphanage. If you create undead with any kind of regularity, you cannot be good. Of course, there are exceptions to even this (Malconvokers who bind Demons for explicitly good purposes, for instance), but yes, there are some things that D&D has added that goes against my "intent is everything" line of thinking. Considering the flimsy logic that a lot of these entail, I'm not a huge fan of them. (Creating undead is evil because it brings negative energy into the world, which is against life, and life is good, therefore undead creation is evil. Riiiight. )
Also, on another point, There are two versions of true neutral, in my mind. The "dedicated" neutral, in which Balance is key, and the "apathetic" neutral, who just doesn't care. Many Humans are neutral in D&D (And honestly, probably in real life) mostly because they don't really care. Dedicated Neutral characters are devoted to balance, as much as a paladin is dedicated to good.
The last point made in the above quote; that good people who are consistently unwilling to help those in need and greedy, I agree with. Because being greedy is a character trait, not necessarily an action or series of actions. Likewise being unwilling to help others in need. People certainly can and do change the way they think and their alignments, for all sorts of reasons. Performing actions against their current way of thinking isn't usually the cause.
Obviously, all this applies to the Law/Chaos axis as well (And I feel I should have more to say on that divide, but I think I just ran out of motivation.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokarn on Jul 18, 2012 1:25:31 GMT -5
I agree with you a lot actually. However alignment is also the sum of our actions as well as our intent. A perfect example of this would be a PC named Aria Blake. I beliefe her alignment was Chaotic Good, but a very many of her actions were really Chaotic evil.
She murdered "evil" PC's for being evil very often. While her intent was good, the way she went about it was evil.
Someone will link something about the book of exalted deeds I am sure. But also our alignments are always changing. Being LG does not mean you are always acting LG. You might have a day where you act NG, or CG, or LN, or any other alignment.
That's why each alignment has a padding where you can fudge one way or the other a little, but not completely change alignments.
I think of alignment as a set of basic morals and behaviors that my PC feels are acceptable to do. Any act that falls outside of his alignment will cause him to think really hard about himself, and where he stands. Just my own thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by EDM Neo on Jul 18, 2012 2:51:25 GMT -5
Aria started LG, and later shifted to NG.
I still like to think of her, though, as a perfect example of "well meaning" LE who's convinced her abuses of power and authority are for the greater good. :p
(Might post more on actual alignment stuff later, too sleepy right now)
|
|
|
|
Post by Carpe on Jul 18, 2012 7:40:54 GMT -5
If a person does an evil thing for a good reason, or a good thing for an evil reason, they will be shifted toward the thing they did, not their reason for it. If they do this enough, ultimately they will be Neutral...good and evil in equal measure. A stasis of opposed tension rather than immobility.
In the Evil Plot scheme of things, your pitiful accumulation of Good Points for the one-time purchase of an orphanage will be washed away in a veritable flood of Evil Points once Operation: Little Ninjas gets rolling.
Also creation of undead is a desecration of both the body and the soul. It's worse than slavery. If you don't find that oogy and creepy, I may have to assign you some evil points.
|
|
|
|
Post by antimatter on Jul 18, 2012 8:58:07 GMT -5
Having never created undead, I'm not terribly sure exactly what it entails. Do mindless undead have souls? What if someone gave consent to be zombified before death? What of undead that are free-willed, themselves... are they still in such a state? Or people who become undead to serve good in some way (Of course, Liches can't be good, because... of.... probably some part of the lich ritual?). Or spontaneously generating/propagating undead?
Never been an undead, never met one, and honestly I kinda hope I never do. On account of the subsequent getting killed.
Also, I suppose it's good to know that actions and not intent are the drive behind shifts. Makes sense, I suppose. After all... it's a lot easier to see what someone did then why. Presumably it's a technical limitation, anyway, though it may be a difference of opinion.
The donating to charity for a personal benefit like a tax write off is the sort of intent not matching action, though. When would the evil points 'come back'? Or would someone who abused a system in such a way become good? All this assuming that such could be done, of course. Uh... and for that matter, is exploiting loopholes lawful or chaotic? LvC axis confuses me sometimes.
Or to put it another way, is killing orcs evil or good? The line of thought I'm riding is that it's not inherently good or evil... circumstances can justify the killing, but... well... Killing them because they're about to attack a village and you want to protect the villagers is good. Killing them because they're in your way/they smell bad is evil, whether or not they're poised to attack a village, and whether or not you know they're poised to attack a village.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thrym on Jul 18, 2012 9:54:31 GMT -5
This is from the True Resurrection spell. True Resurrection can bring back someone whose body was disintegrated over a hundred years ago. True Resurrection can not resurrect someone you zombified five minutes ago untill the zombie is destroyed.  In general, I think one should be very, very careful with handing out alignment shifts towards chars one hasn't observed for a while. Why you may ask? Imagine you're a DM, and you see Larry Lawful act lawfully. Do you give him lawful points for that? You likely won't, even if it was exceptionally lawful. After all he is lawful, it's like he should act! But oh vey, over the course of the next few years, Larry does two or three chaotic things, and gets slapped with chaos points for them. He is now far less lawful then a newly made level 1 char, maybe even in danger of an alignment change, despite being a paragon of order all the time. Because no DM ever gave him lawful points for acting the alignment he had anyways. This is by the way not some example I pulled out of ma donkey. This exact thing happened over the years with Zaebros, who got like 5 chaotic points for ridiculously minor things multiple times, usually by DMs who weren't very or at all familiar with him, while he only once during the three or four years I played him got lawful points (Go Munroe, alignment saver you!) The thing is, it's very, very rare you get alignment points for acting out your alignment, but you'll frequently get points against it for once in a life time stuff that, as was said by others would be totally 'evened out' by acting your alignment all the time, but simply is not evened out ingame because it's just ridiculously rare for a DM to award you points towards your own alignment even if you consistently play a perfect example of it. |
|
|
|
Post by canuckkane on Jul 18, 2012 10:31:34 GMT -5
"Resurrection and true resurrection can affected undead, but these spells
turn undead back into the living creatures they were before they
became undead."
Direct from Libris Mortis 3.5 ed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carpe on Jul 18, 2012 10:57:59 GMT -5
Having never created undead, I'm not terribly sure exactly what it entails. Do mindless undead have souls? They do not. They are more like negative energy constructs. The body animated by that pattern of negative energy once had a soul, which is, presumably, still out in the cosmos somewhere, and still attached enough to that bit of bone to be pulled back to it by a True Res. What if someone gave consent to be zombified before death? Aren't you tricky! See also: the Dustmen of Sigil, and Eladrin Baelnorn Liches. There are exceptions to many rules, and yes consent changes the desecration and violation aspects greatly. But it's a rule for a reason...and that is that consent to such a thing is ridiculously rare. What of undead that are free-willed, themselves... are they still in such a state? I'm unsure what you're asking here. Or people who become undead to serve good in some way (Of course, Liches can't be good, because... of.... probably some part of the lich ritual?). See above. Or spontaneously generating/propagating undead? They themselves take the alignment hit for their own creation. There's nobody else in the equation. Never been an undead, never met one, and honestly I kinda hope I never do. On account of the subsequent getting killed. You simply must meet Bob. Also, I suppose it's good to know that actions and not intent are the drive behind shifts. Makes sense, I suppose. After all... it's a lot easier to see what someone did then why. Presumably it's a technical limitation, anyway, though it may be a difference of opinion. No, it's that the Evil who buys the orphanage to launder money is not as Evil as the Evil who buys the orphanage to eat all the babies. The buying of the orphanage alone is not at issue, that's narrowing the focus far too much...the entire act must be observed. Bought the orphanage...for profit. Bought the orphanage...for canibalism. See the difference? ;D So in that way, yes, intent does matter. But only in that it defines the action. The first action helps many children. The second action did not help anyone, in fact harms many. Why you did it is sort of irrelevant to the determination of your alignment. The donating to charity for a personal benefit like a tax write off is the sort of intent not matching action, though. Sounds decidedly neutral to me. "So I helped people...big deal." When would the evil points 'come back'? When you used the money you'd saved to pay the Black Lotus, the world's most feared assassin, to gruesomely murder the Minister of Finance for his damnable policies that forced you to feed peasants. Or would someone who abused a system in such a way become good? If all you ever do is help people, and you never do anything wrong? Yes, you can be Good, and be grumpy about it. "Damned kids need saving again, always with the damned saving..." All this assuming that such could be done, of course. Uh... and for that matter, is exploiting loopholes lawful or chaotic? LvC axis confuses me sometimes. Chaotics don't exploit loopholes. They just ignore the rules they don't like. Or to put it another way, is killing orcs evil or good? The line of thought I'm riding is that it's not inherently good or evil... circumstances can justify the killing, but... well... Killing them because they're about to attack a village and you want to protect the villagers is good. Killing them because they're in your way/they smell bad is evil, whether or not they're poised to attack a village, and whether or not you know they're poised to attack a village. "Killing orcs" is not good or evil because it is far too vague and cases can be cited of both. Killing orcs in various circumsatnces can in fact be seen as evil. But it's rare, because orcs are seen as monsters. Full Orcs are treated to the same Kill On Sight mentality as ogres, things shrouded with flames, and anything with more eyes or limbs or heads than it ought to have. They have a very common tendency to eat ambassadors. They are responsible for more carnage in Cormyr than any three other species combined. They view humans and demihumans as the reason their lives suck. And most of them don't even understand common. Go on...negotiate.  It's not Evil to kill them on sight. It's Practical. |
|
elysiumfields
Old School
Two Kit Determinator
Flavour text is tasty
Posts: 512
|
Post by elysiumfields on Jul 18, 2012 11:22:48 GMT -5
With alignments I only think one thing:
"To be willing to pass into hell for a heavenly cause."
IF - the action you can take is worth the cost of your soul to improve or save the lives of others
THEN - Act. Take it up with the Gods when your time comes.
...that's all I discuss with alignments as it's the number contentious subject in D&D.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thrym on Jul 18, 2012 12:18:48 GMT -5
"Resurrection and true resurrection can affected undead, but these spells turn undead back into the living creatures they were before they became undead." Direct from Libris Mortis 3.5 ed. Same quote with context: "What would disable or render unconscious a living creature destroys an undead beyond recall. No aid, mundane or magical, is sufficient to restore the undead back to its previous state of animation. Since they are already dead, undead that are destroyed can not be brought back to existance through raise dead and reincarnation. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead, but these spells turn undead back into the living creatures they were before they became undead."The entire paragraph is about destroyed undead. I believe it is quite the stretch to assume the line on resurrection is not refering the destroyed undeads in the sentence right before it, which... happens to make that the exact same thing the SRD says. After destroying, ya can resurrect. Even if one was to take that sentence out of context and assume it to mean you can cast resurrection while there is a zombie of the person, it'd still say the undead is turned back into a living creature, meaning it'd turn a zombie back into a person, not create a new body and give you both a zombie and a living person. Alas, with the quote in context, I believe it is clear it means the exact same thing the SRD version does: To bring an undead creature back to life, you must first destroy it. People turned into zombies/skeletons can't be resurrected, making any claims that these spells are 'merely affecting the body' rather impossible to hold. |
|
|
|
Post by Aseanamous on Jul 18, 2012 12:30:08 GMT -5
Unless you play a class that requires you to be a specific alignment, I think that the alignment on your character sheet really shouldn't matter. It's more of an OOC thing anyways. When you make your character, you pick your alignment toward how you think you'll act. So let's say you make a CG fighter. Later on you realize that you want to be lawful evil because of some RP you've been through... so then act LE. It may take a LOOONG time for your alignment to shift using the NWN mechanics and DM help, but you know what your actual alignment is. I think everyone should just role play your character how you think he would act in each situation and somewhat disregard what their alignment is on their sheet (unless you're a paladin/cleric/etc). The alignment on your character sheet will eventually lead up to show how you're acting, but that doesn't matter because no one but you and DMs can see that. Though, if you want your character to act CG, and on your character sheet is says CG, all the more power to you. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by canuckkane on Jul 18, 2012 12:31:24 GMT -5
Once destroyed, undead are no longer undead, so I fail to see how you glean that from this.
Edit: I was at no time claiming that it would leave both. I agree that either way you interpret that, the undead is destroyed in the process.
2nd edit: Nevermind... I was totally unaware that the system reference document even existed. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by bentusi16 on Jul 18, 2012 12:46:31 GMT -5
. Before we get further, remember that Forgotten Realms is NOT D and D, even though it uses much of the same mechanics system. The forgotten realms are intentionally less black and white then  . And yet evil, good, law, and chaos, are all actual things in the world of Forgotten Realms. They are not 'concepts'. They flow in the nature of the world, just as positive (living) and negative (undead) energy do. On a meta-level, we all understand as players that the world needs a balance of them all or it will fall apart. Tipping the scale in any direction to far could lead to...unforeseen consequences. The whole idea of playing, say, a paladin, is to tip the balance of scales in the favor of 'lawful' and 'good'. That's what the alignment on your sheet means. Alignment is a philosophical support of a way of living within the universe. True neutral 'balance' vs. neutral neutral 'do not give a crap/do not understand this'. Even if a character isn't actively aware of how what they do in their lives effects the universe, if they still live in a certain way, they can literally add more of that to the universe. If a character lives in a lawful/good manner, he is making the world more lawful/good, even on a cosmic level (albeit in a very tiny amount). And in both Forgotten Realms and D and D, it is the act that carries the weight, with the reasons being mitigating circumstance. Is murder evil. Yes. It doesn't matter what your justification is. Remember that murder is specifically the intricate and planned killing of another sentient creature. Whether or not they are evil or good, the murder itself is an evil act. But if you do it for a good reason, then you maybe don't get as many evil points. Otherwise there'd be no such thing as Chaotic Good, there'd just be 'Chaotic Evil who happens to focus on evil'. Or as I call it, the 'Dexter Cliche'. Alignment is not based on perspective An evil act is an evil act, even if everyone within a culture thinks its not. |
|
|
|
Post by catmage on Jul 18, 2012 17:44:59 GMT -5
Quick point out, positivie energy is not the energy of life and negative energy is not the energy of undeath.
Positive energy represents creation, vitality, and unchecked growth. If you got a big enough dose of positive energy, you would EXPLODE in a vibrant, livily EXPLOSION that would probably be spectacular to behold. In sources of postive energy, fires shine brighter, sounds are crisp and clear, everything feels more vibrant.
Negative energy is the force of entropy, decay, and death. Negative energy infuses undead, and empowers them, because they are a twisted mockery of life. Negative energy has no alignment or allegience, According to Libris Mortis, even the weakest undead channels the plane, constantly draining minute amounts of vitality from the world. Also, note that Morghs, Wights, Ghouls and several other varieties of undead are spontaneously reanimated from the bodies of people who commited terrible crimes in life. It is often stated or intimated that atrocity calls to the power of negative energy, as well as the fiendish outer planes, letting them bleed into the Prime.
The energy itself is not innately evil, but tapping those forces and establishing a being that has no place in the order of the world, has no truly natural predator, and that gives negative energy an unchecked foothold to speed up it's natural processes is, well, morally tricky. Being a non-evil undead is tricky, because while negative energy is an uncaring universal principle, a being that embodies entropy and ruin tends to do morally allignable things, like draining the life from an area, or killing for the sake of killing.
|
|
|
|
Post by erratic1 on Jul 18, 2012 19:37:12 GMT -5
Killing an orc is not an evil act, as it's classed as a monster. By your logic every character and their mother, daughter, husband, wife, granny, dog and kitty cat would be Evil with the amount of Orcs people have had to kill on this server, or any server, or PnP game.
You're putting into question the entire alignment system and throwing it into conflict with a core piece of the game- fighting monsters. You just can't do that and justify it in this instance. Remember, this is a game. Some things you just have to lead with common sense first.
Alignment discussions are all the same. Nobody agrees on anything, and it's all a big grey area. Leave it at that, and let the DM team decide if you're acting your alignment or not. As long as common sense is used in your actions, you'll not go too far wrong, as most things are fairly straight forward, and needless complications are really not neccessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Divinity on Jul 18, 2012 23:17:21 GMT -5
Positive energy represents creation, vitality, and unchecked growth. If you got a big enough dose of positive energy, you would EXPLODE in a vibrant, livily EXPLOSION that would probably be spectacular to behold. In sources of postive energy, fires shine brighter, sounds are crisp and clear, everything feels more vibrant. For example: The epic spell Greater Ruin is positive energy. |
|
|
|
Post by Divinity on Jul 18, 2012 23:22:50 GMT -5
Unless you play a class that requires you to be a specific alignment, I think that the alignment on your character sheet really shouldn't matter. It's more of an OOC thing anyways. When you make your character, you pick your alignment toward how you think you'll act. So let's say you make a CG fighter. Later on you realize that you want to be lawful evil because of some RP you've been through... so then act LE. It may take a LOOONG time for your alignment to shift using the NWN mechanics and DM help, but you know what your actual alignment is. I think everyone should just role play your character how you think he would act in each situation and somewhat disregard what their alignment is on their sheet (unless you're a paladin/cleric/etc). The alignment on your character sheet will eventually lead up to show how you're acting, but that doesn't matter because no one but you and DMs can see that. Though, if you want your character to act CG, and on your character sheet is says CG, all the more power to you. ;D +1 Alignment is a summary of your PC's actions which are determined by their personality. It shouldn't be the other way around. |
|
|
|
Post by Carpe on Jul 19, 2012 8:13:52 GMT -5
The whole idea of playing, say, a paladin, is to tip the balance of scales in the favor of 'lawful' and 'good'. That's what the alignment on your sheet means. You're putting the cart before the horse. Or, since this is philosophy, putting Descartes before the horse. The idea of a paladin of Tyr is to tip the scales in favor of Justice. The idea of a paladin of Lathander is to tip the scales in favor of Light. That Law and Good colored auras brighten is a result, but hardly the purpose of a vast majority of these memetic entities. Some few, I'll grant you, are living expressions of these ideals...but most simply gravitate to one or the other incidentally. If you've only got nine boxes...everyone ends up in one of nine boxes. You're doing a strange dance with focus and generalization here that's ultimately blurring things. The alignment is not the goal... the goal, like everything, is aligned. The painting is not painted to contain purple. The painting contains purple as part of whatever the artist is expressing. We look at it and say, "Is it mostly purple?" If it is, then we may categorize it, file it between Red and Blue among other paintings which contain a great deal of purple. But the point of it was never to use up the purple paint. It was to paint a dark and stormy night. Alignment is a philosophical support of a way of living within the universe. True neutral 'balance' vs. neutral neutral 'do not give a crap/do not understand this'. It is also a method of polarizing the outer planes and their denizens. The axis of Law/Chaos and of Good/Evil are almost as palpable as individual forces themselves. But do the forces push the universe, shaping it, and defining the choices you may make? Or do all the choices ever made push and shape the universe, and the polarity of each soul repels and attracts the new-flung spirit toward its destination, where the most similar souls in all creation are to be found, and their aggregate warps that portion of reality in their own image? Dunno but the second sounds better to me. I think of characters as generators rather than motors. Even if a character isn't actively aware of how what they do in their lives effects the universe, if they still live in a certain way, they can literally add more of that to the universe. If a character lives in a lawful/good manner, he is making the world more lawful/good, even on a cosmic level (albeit in a very tiny amount). And in both Forgotten Realms and D and D, it is the act that carries the weight, with the reasons being mitigating circumstance. Again with the reasons mitigating things. Not so. Your own quote of Ed shows this false: "do-gooders" often do more harm than good, for the best of motives. Otherwise yes, this is true, if you ooze Law and Good, you are Lawful Good. Is murder evil. Yes. It doesn't matter what your justification is. Remember that murder is specifically the intricate and planned killing of another sentient creature. Whether or not they are evil or good, the murder itself is an evil act. Nobody's said murder isn't evil. But calling a killing "Murder" loads the act and sets the stage with a single word. The question was killing an orc, not murdering an orc. But if you do it for a good reason, then you maybe don't get as many evil points. If you did it for a good reason, all this means is that you're more likely to shift those evil points back toward Good with your next action. It speaks nothing of the results of this act. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't care why you fed the baby to Cthulhu, or what the ramifications of refusal would have been. It was an evil act, and if you're really a good person, you'll regret it and go so Emo we can actually hear the violins, whereas if you're not, you'll chuckle about it over Triple Bock. Paladins take heed: "But the world was going to end!" IS NOT AN EXCUSE. If you cannot find a NON-EVIL way to save the world, YOU HAVE FAILED AS A PALADIN. Then again, there's always Atonement. Otherwise there'd be no such thing as Chaotic Good, there'd just be 'Chaotic Evil who happens to focus on evil'. Or as I call it, the 'Dexter Cliche'. This makes no sense. Chaotic Good is about Freedom being Sacred, Individuality and diversity being cherished, and basically being nothing but a damn dirty hippy. Dexter Morgan is so ridiculously Lawful he could be the poster child for Lawful Evil, so I have no idea where you're going with this. Alignment is not based on perspective An evil act is an evil act, even if everyone within a culture thinks its not. You've clearly had this argument before. And what you've said is correct. But that's not what I said at all. Circumstance, not Perspective. We're back to zooming out a bit and looking at more than just the purchase of the orphanage. The circumstance cannot be judged simply by the moment of the orc's death. Offhand I can't even think of a case sample of killing an orc being evil. Executing a prisoner isn't evil, it's lawful. Stabbing the orc after he'd done his part of The Deal and showed you the treasure, still not evil, it's Chaotic. I think a case could be made that releasing a captive orc would be an evil act, even if it were also Lawful. I'm just not willing to admit it can't happen. I'm not sure I'd award evil points even for the ninja assassination of an orc tribe's leader. Possibly for poisoning their water supply...that's sort of low. Throw some torture in there and we'll talk. |
|
|
|
Post by canuckkane on Jul 19, 2012 9:30:02 GMT -5
The only example I could think of where killing an orc could be considered murder would be if, (and this if is so massive that given orc culture I can't see it happening outside of a half-orc which aren't really orcs but that's another argument), said orc waived it's hands in surrender crying "No please, I've been a very bad boy, how can I make it up to you?" and actually meant it rather than it being a ploy to buy time so his friends can cut your heads off. As I said... this "if" is a doozy and I really can't see it happening ever. Orcs are monsters, not "people".
|
|
|
|
Post by Grozer on Jul 19, 2012 10:29:35 GMT -5
Offhand I can't even think of a case sample of killing an orc being evil. Executing a prisoner isn't evil, it's lawful. Stabbing the orc after he'd done his part of The Deal and showed you the treasure, still not evil, it's Chaotic. I think a case could be made that releasing a captive orc would be an evil act, even if it were also Lawful. I'm just not willing to admit it can't happen. I'm not sure I'd award evil points even for the ninja assassination of an orc tribe's leader. Possibly for poisoning their water supply...that's sort of low. Throw some torture in there and we'll talk. Excellent discussion. Honing in on the statement about a situation where killing orcs would be evil, what about the cliche scenario of stumbling upon immature orcs, calling them immature rather children because well "labeling" them children just doesnt seem right. But assume a character stumbles upon on a group them, they are unarmed, barely can defend themselves and have no adult orcs around to protect them, they make no agressive action toward the wandering adventures, but the adventurers eliminate them anyway. Would this not be considered an evil act? |
|
|
|
Post by Grozer on Jul 19, 2012 10:48:43 GMT -5
The whole idea of playing, say, a paladin, is to tip the balance of scales in the favor of 'lawful' and 'good'. That's what the alignment on your sheet means. You're putting the cart before the horse. Or, since this is philosophy, putting Descartes before the horse. The idea of a paladin of Tyr is to tip the scales in favor of Justice. The idea of a paladin of Lathander is to tip the scales in favor of Light. That Law and Good colored auras brighten is a result, but hardly the purpose of a vast majority of these memetic entities. Some few, I'll grant you, are living expressions of these ideals...but most simply gravitate to one or the other incidentally. If you've only got nine boxes...everyone ends up in one of nine boxes. You're doing a strange dance with focus and generalization here that's ultimately blurring things. The alignment is not the goal... the goal, like everything, is aligned. The painting is not painted to contain purple. The painting contains purple as part of whatever the artist is expressing. We look at it and say, "Is it mostly purple?" If it is, then we may categorize it, file it between Red and Blue among other paintings which contain a great deal of purple. But the point of it was never to use up the purple paint. It was to paint a dark and stormy night. If I am following this correctly, in short you are saying alignment is a result of actions not the guide to character actions. And if I am getting that wrong well chalk it up to my lack of wisdom.  In either case, I happen to believe that alignment is a product of actions and is not what really drives a character to make moral/ethical decisions. Purpose, goals, etc drive actions and are most likely aligned with... well the character's alignment, unless they are drifting down a new path. Using the paladin example they are acting out of faith and a belief system which so happens to drive them toward LG, in fact their fact demands that they hold certain standard and moral obligations. People just like PCs are not "born" with alignments, they develop over time. Unfortunately the D&D systems forces an alignment choice upfront, likely because characters tend to start as young adults. By then, even in real life, individuals have formed a moral standing and "path" if you will, thereby settling into a certain alignment. I could go on from my own perspective but I wont bore the conversation more with it. Great topic though. |
|
|
|
Post by erratic1 on Jul 19, 2012 11:06:22 GMT -5
Ugh, that old argument, and it's a very good point. However, if we look on it in that light, how about killing immature Deer? People like a good bit of Venison. How about a Calf? Those cute little eyes looking up at a farmer as he gets ready to do the deed.... in this context, how is THAT not evil?
Let's not go there, it's all circles and roundabouts.
Alignment is something a character, or person, oe even an NPC would eventually earn for themselves, yes. However, there IS such a thing as being inherently good or evil as well. Orcs are born inherently evil. They're raised from birth to follow harsh gods and a very harsh way of life and hatred of all other species is ingrained into them- again, from birth. I find it extremely unlikely that those groups of young Orcs wouldn't actually attempt to attack, despite their immaturity, because of such an upbringing.
There's plenty of other creatures such as this, and it's why they're labelled as "monsters". The big problem we're all facing here as people lving on planet "Earth", is that here, we have no monsters. It's a concept that we're not really thinking about properly when we discuss them. It's a completely different culture, and when we discuss them in alignment discussions, we tend to think with planet "Earth" rules, rather than the setting we're all playing on!
Which is why I said before and I'll always say- alignment discussions never really will prove nothing, nor will they decide anything with any real finality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carpe on Jul 19, 2012 13:00:28 GMT -5
Before I go further...a note about the rarity of alignment points. We do not typically trail PC's around holding our scale, at every action weighing their heart against a feather to see which way their alignment tips. I cannot imagine a more mindnumbingly tedious job. Such constant nip-tuck alteration is for PnP and is impractical in this environment. We alter it when our attention is drawn. No more, no less. In general, we pay much more attention to those for whom it directly and dramatically affects...monks, blackguards, paladins, and clerics. We are also less likely at this point to award them on the fly. Most cases of alignment shift happen after discussion among the DM's. If you feel your alignment should have changed, and no points are forthcoming, and you just really want some...try asking. The DM forums are brimming with old case files of people doing just that, sometimes for very dramatic turns in character, sometimes less so. We trust you guys to know what your character is about and is doing, the only time we take a more Tribunal approach to it is for those who will be more deeply and/or mechanically affected by such a change. Now replies. You guys have me coughing out books, I'm getting nothing done today If I am following this correctly, in short you are saying alignment is a result of actions not the guide to character actions. And if I am getting that wrong well chalk it up to my lack of wisdom. Correct. However, you run into certain value systems where the character is, quite ICly, very concerned about Being Good. I want to be the Bestest Goody I can be! The Gooder I am, the Gooder the world is! In which case it could be argued that alignment is indeed a guide to the character's actions. Darth Vader gets a little electronic woody for Order, though he's as Evil as they come being Evil doesn't really motivate him, he expresses it mostly as a lack of patience and empathy. He's not hurting Han to hurt Han, "They never even asked me any questions", but he didn't hesitate when that's what would bring him Luke. But he wants Luke in the first place to bring Order, nice, shiny Order. William Wallace and his Freedom kick. Piffany from Nodwick, Roy Greenhilt from Order of the Stick. All choose a raw alignment itself as a goal and motivator. But it is only used to inform their actions and behavior, and those are what will actually determine (read: shift) your alignment. In either case, I happen to believe that alignment is a product of actions and is not what really drives a character to make moral/ethical decisions. Purpose, goals, etc drive actions and are most likely aligned with... well the character's alignment, unless they are drifting down a new path. Using the paladin example they are acting out of faith and a belief system which so happens to drive them toward LG, in fact their fact demands that they hold certain standard and moral obligations. I agree. It is important to keep in mind, that in this game world, alignment generates some sort of energy, and this energy is real enough to interact with, detectable by spell and ability, and attractive/repulsive to actual planes of existence where you can actually go and hang out. From my perspective, the character is an Alignment Generator, and pulses with the power they create. The more you turn it, the brighter you burn it. Realigning the generator simply requires doing it...without an actual change of heart, a Whole New Me, and resulting change in behavior, you will continue the old behaviors. The idea of Penance is as old as humanity, that one can do Good to make up for the Evil one has done. On the surface, in this system, this is true...sponsoring that orphanage really will grab you some Good points. But again, if you keep killing people in the night, and filling that orphanage with the children of your victims, your pitiful dam will never withstand the flood of Evil you're choosing to commit. Buying an orphanage will not make you Good. It will just make you a tad less Evil. Real villains are proud to snort derisively at the weak children who'd be stronger if they had to survive the streets. People just like PCs are not "born" with alignments, they develop over time. Unfortunately the D&D systems forces an alignment choice upfront, likely because characters tend to start as young adults. By then, even in real life, individuals have formed a moral standing and "path" if you will, thereby settling into a certain alignment. I could go on from my own perspective but I wont bore the conversation more with it. Great topic though. Even so a great shock can radically change a person's entire worldview. Born Again, Reformed, whatever you want to call it, people can and do change. The Face-Heel-Turn and Heel-Face-Turn are tropes because it happens so often. There's plenty of other creatures such as this, and it's why they're labelled as "monsters". The big problem we're all facing here as people lving on planet "Earth", is that here, we have no monsters. It's a concept that we're not really thinking about properly when we discuss them. It's a completely different culture, and when we discuss them in alignment discussions, we tend to think with planet "Earth" rules, rather than the setting we're all playing on! It is easy to forget that Western Democracy is an infant of an idea, and through most of history people would have considered our ideals to be absurd and impractical. The last time we as a species faced a moral dilemma like this was hundreds of thousands of years ago, when there were other hominids around on the planet. The current total lack of other hominid species would seem to illustrate our decision on that subject. Which is why I said before and I'll always say- alignment discussions never really will prove nothing, nor will they decide anything with any real finality. Some things are not a matter of proof. |
|
|
|
Post by Spirit of a Phoenix on Jul 19, 2012 15:52:29 GMT -5
Normally I would say that alignment is based on your actions and not your words, but with NWN that's difficult to measure. I always base my characters based on likely potential. It's difficult to show off some aspects of alignment without being involved in a dm event. I'm not saying you can't at all, ever show your alignment outside of a dm event. It's just that it's easier when a dm can alter events based on your characters alignment-related decisions.
It's a pet peeve of mine when I see people "saying" their alignment rather than showing it. "I don't care much for laws, but I'm a good person". I basically hear that exact phrase said all the time by characters trying to show themselves as being chaotic good. Just don't say it, it seems OOC and its immersion breaking. Show yourself as chaotic good. Let people figure out your character's alignment for themselves, and make it seem natural....don't cram it down everyone's throat. That just annoying in my opinion.
I also hate assumed tie in of Lawful and chaotic with actual laws. Just because you're lawful doesn't mean you're going to support the law and just because you're chaotic doesn't mean that you're going to work against every law. I see lawful and chaotic as being stability and unpredictability respectfully. A lawful character may actually respect the law as a method of maintaining control and stability. Let's use slavery for example. In some parts of Faerun, slavery is acceptable. A character who is not born in a region where slavery is acceptable might find it to be an unlawful law, which a character of the same alignment born in the region may come to believe it as an acceptable norm. Both characters may remain LG and feel differently about the law. The one born elsewhere may tolerate the law and respect it, but at the same time work to have it removed, while the other LG character might feel how you treat your slaves as a manner of being unjust rather than act of owning slaves itself.
With CG and slavery, one CG character may work against the law, kidnapping slaves from their homes and freeing them. Another CG character may live in a region without slaves but feel as though owning slaves is alright, just as long as you treat them well. So that character might bring home hobos off the street and welcome them into their home as his slaves, even though the region they live in might be against slavery. To me alignment is difficult to distinguish and is not very black in white. In pnp, alignment might just very depending on the DM hosting the game. On here, we have many different DMs, who I'm sure all won't completely agree on how alignment should be represented.
Personally, I just tend to pick the alignment that best suits my character and the personality I pick for them. I don't put high emphasis and following alignment strictly and I don't feel anyone else should either. In my personal opinion I also feel that DMs should look at a character's alignment loosely rather than critically. If someone is very off regarding their alignment, then I feel Dms should confront the player by having them explain their alignment.
More often than not in terms of alignment, it might be best just to give people the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
|
|
Post by catmage on Jul 19, 2012 16:13:08 GMT -5
According to the book of Exalted Deeds, killing the orcs because you have proof they're about to launch a brutal war isn't evil. Killing them because you want access to the resources of the land they inhabit would be evil. Orcs are humanoid, and able to make decisions on morality, so you do need a moral reason to kill one, and delibrately placing non-combatant orcs in harms way is unambiguously evil.
Deer and cattle are animals, with no ability to reason or commit either good or evil deeds. Hunting isn't evil.
And I would say that stabbing someone in the back after they filled their end of the bargain is more evil than Chaotic. Intentionally betraying a trust and using another person before eliminating them as a witness or competition reeks of badness. Executing a captive who has not been placed in proper custody and can not defend itself, especially if it surrendered, would be evil.
|
|
|
|
Post by antimatter on Jul 19, 2012 17:07:45 GMT -5
Of course, this isn't to say evil can't be commited against them. Unnecessary cruelty, even against animals, is evil, I would think. I'm talking like... vivisection without anaesthetic or the like.
And yes, betrayal is more evil than chaotic, from what I understand. Devils are the epitome of Lawful Evil, and they exult in betraying people with exact wordings in devil contracts.
Also, the monstrosity of orcs is a touchy point (personal belief; they're sentient, reasoning beings, so they can make moral choices and are therefore effectively humans raised in a violent barbaric culture) so how about a different analogy to bounce around, because whatever the case here, (IIRC) killing evil is a good act because it stops more evil from being committed.
Sometimes good aligned people fight each other. Perhaps two good nations are both facing impending invasion from evil nations nearby, and need to consume all of a resource between their lands (Some sort of Macguffin, let's say, to prevent mere cooperation) in order to prevent being wiped out. They're likely to fight over that necessary resource if they think fighting such a battle will help their chances. Is engaging in or participating in this battle evil? Probably not, even though the targets are good people. Because there's a morally justifiable reason to fight (Evil overwhelming).
A few people do follow an alignment as a goal. (This is why in D&D 3.5, Clerics can worship an alignment and get their spellcasting without a god intervening). In the forgotten realms, alignments don't grant spellcasting though, so the purple paint analogy works well; the gods are the painters, and their dogma their paintings. And Clerics are all art critics, some for and some against each painter. Even those who like the works of Ilmater in general may still not be a fan of certain paintings done by him, though.
Ah, yes, and Positive Energy Death Explosion. My circle have dubbed it "death by awesome".
|
|
mastersenge
Old School
[orange]Player Advocate[/orange] Scoutmaster of Evil Scouts Troop 1372
"I can't brain today. I've got the dumb."
Posts: 516
|
Post by mastersenge on Jul 19, 2012 17:18:08 GMT -5
This topic comes up from time to time and is always a really long thread and I just have to say that this is one of those that does that that I never mind reading. I always like to hear what people have to say about alignment because it's one of those that can have such a variation of definition from person to person. There are right and wrong answers about alignment but there is also a HUGE grey area between that and it's always interresting to see what people think on the issue.
DMs have always been standoffish about shifting alignment. Especially when it comes to law and chaos. From my experience, lawful points are given out less than anything. That huge grey area makes that understandable though. It would be nice to see more alignment shifts I think. Getting an alignment point in any direction, depending on the character I'm playing, has always seemed to me just as cool as getting RP XP. Especially when it's the direction I was meaning to go in. If you get an alignment shift in any direction it's best not to argue with it but to try and figure out what gave you that shift instead and either try not to do whatever it was again or do it more depending on the situation.
I just wanted to say that out of all the topics that seem to drag on and end up being huge threads that this one is one of the few that I actually love to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokarn on Jul 19, 2012 19:33:17 GMT -5
I really enjoy this topic. I like seeing so many differing views on the same topic. I'm sure it helps a lot of us form our own opinions further.
|
|
|
|
Post by erratic1 on Jul 19, 2012 23:32:30 GMT -5
According to the book of Exalted Deeds, killing the orcs because you have proof they're about to launch a brutal war isn't evil. Killing them because you want access to the resources of the land they inhabit would be evil. Orcs are humanoid, and able to make decisions on morality, so you do need a moral reason to kill one, and delibrately placing non-combatant orcs in harms way is unambiguously evil. Deer and cattle are animals, with no ability to reason or commit either good or evil deeds. Hunting isn't evil. Orcs are classed as monsters. That's the moral reason. There's no way around that. Orc- Monster. You can kill a monster freely without alignment penalty or restriction. Least that's how I thought DnD worked. If people found out you'd killed a score of Orcs and built a castle on their land they'd likely praise someone for it rather than calling that person evil. Orcs are labelled "Monster" for a reason. Monster doesn't neccessarily mean one cannot reason, or be intelligent. It means to act (not just look) "Monstrous". By all accounts acting in a way none of the civilised races can or will ever accept en masse. I find it ludicrous in a setting such as FR, people suggest that creatures such as Orcs or their kin (Half Orcs not included) should be treated as humanoids with the capacity for sensible reason without violence. This is what makes them worse. They choose to be violent, and aggressive, and evil. As for Animals, I never said anything about hunting. I mentioned farmers slaughtering their animals, which they do. Big difference. However, this was taken out of context. My meaning here was to bring up which is worse to kill.. a Monster, which by all accounts, is "monstrous", or an animal.. which is likely just trying to get by and survive? |
|
|
|
Post by erratic1 on Jul 19, 2012 23:53:27 GMT -5
It is easy to forget that Western Democracy is an infant of an idea, and through most of history people would have considered our ideals to be absurd and impractical. The last time we as a species faced a moral dilemma like this was hundreds of thousands of years ago, when there were other hominids around on the planet. The current total lack of other hominid species would seem to illustrate our decision on that subject. Which is why I said before and I'll always say- alignment discussions never really will prove nothing, nor will they decide anything with any real finality. Some things are not a matter of proof. Just to respond here- the first point we seem to agree on, We have no monsters, Cormyr, our game setting does. Yet people are trying to assert rules and guidelines in a way that refers to this Western Democracy. I find this rather amusing. As for the second point, I stand by it. I'm not really into philosophy, which what an alignment based discussion really is. I find it best to keep it simple, and let the people who're in charge of the game setting to do what's best. I trust the DM team to do exactly that. |
|
.
