I firmly believe that the vast majority of problems with the D&D alignment system are a direct result of using it poorly. Just an FYI, but I've spent a decent amount of time thinking about these things and have spent several hundred hours playing and DM-ing D&D and Pathfinder games, plus several hundred more playing other tabletop RP systems and a dozen or so LARPing, and I've had an idea for a novel (that I'll probably never write) to showcase some of the issues inherent in objective morality systems like D&D's that I've been thinking about for years (using the D&D alignment system specifically). So I've spent a lot of time turning my brain over these things, and I've got a few words.
Your fence-walking analogy isn't really apt. On the law/chaos axis, law and chaos both represent a dedicated stance. Neutrality isn't really threading a needle between two sides of a debate, neutrality on the law/chaos axis is the huge grey are between two extremes. You have to move a ways towards either side before the law- or chaos-flavor of alignment will really stick all that well.
I think it's also very important to note that lawful alignments don't necessary follow any given legal code. It's just that they have their rules and will not break them under any circumstances. And they probably believe that everyone else should also follow those rules. And they probably actively work to enforce those rules upon others. Whether the others like it or not. This is why Lawful Evil characters are dangerous and Lawful Good characters are such insufferable *******s. But simply moving around, such that the local legal code changes, doesn't change a lawful character's behavior. If murder was legal in a given country, for instance, a Lawful Good character still wouldn't murder people.
It's also important that chaotic alignments aren't about "following your heart" or "following your own code". They're about not believing in rules as meaningful things under any circumstances. They don't live by a code, because they believe the very concept of having a code is too restrictive. In fact, they believe that rules are inherently bad for themselves and others, and may actively work to free people from these restrictive systems. Most chaotic characters don't just go around breaking the laws of the place they currently are, but not out of any respect for the law itself. Rather they just don't feel like dealing with being arrested/fined/whatever.
Now you'll notice that I describe both of these as kinda' extreme ideologies. Because they kinda' are. Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are the extremes, and neutrality just represents the wide gulfs between them. Characters who are neutral on the law/chaos axis will tend to have certain things they won't do, but their moral and ethical standards are a little more flexible. A Neutral character might think that murder is generally bad, but extraordinary circumstances can change their mind. A Neutral character who finally finds the man who brutalized their daughter(/son), for instance, might find their normal distaste for murder very easy to ignore. A Lawful character, on the other hand, does not break their moral codes under any circumstances. And a Chaotic character never had a strict moral code to begin with. Characters of any alignment might, if put in the situation I've described, kill the man or not, but their reasons for it would be different.
Similarly, good and evil represent extreme ideals. Good is the belief that all people are important and that you should do things to benefit others as often as possible, to your own detriment if necessary. Evil, on the other hand, is the belief that only you are important and that you should do things to benefit yourself as often as possible, to the detriment of others if necessary. Neutrality on the good/evil axis is pretty much anywhere between these two.
Although one difference between the good/evil axis and the law/chaos one is that many of the books tend to describe Evil less as a real dedication and more as a willingness. Evil characters aren't necessarily all psychopaths who don't believe that others have any real value, but they are willing to hurt others to get what they want. So characters who do a lot of good things and a few evil things might still be Evil. For instance, I'm currently in an AD&D campaign where I'm playing a Neutral Evil thief who's primarily interested in increasing his own wealth. I'm evil because I'll take money for killing innocent people and steal if I believe I can get away with it. Still, I have consistently argued against mass murder, eating our enemies (we had a half-ogre in the party for a while), and many other traditionally evil things, simply because I didn't really see the benefit in doing those things and because I know they wouldn't be good for others and therefore indirectly are slightly not-good for me. (We have a running joke that I'm not actually evil, I'm just an economist, and "genocide is bad for the local economy".)
Good, however, does represent a real dedication. Doing a few things every now and then to help others isn't enough, a character should really make an effort most to all of he time. Good characters should spend time feeding the poor, helping those in need, et cetera, and failure to do those sorts of things without a damn good reason should put their alignment in jeopardy of changing. (Which would be super bad for paladins, and potentially bad for clerics.)
So, to get to my point after a lot of words, you really shouldn't be looking at individual actions when trying to determine your character's alignment. You should be looking at what your character does most of the time. A character isn't Chaotic Good because they stole from the rich to give to the poor one time, a character is Chaotic Good because they are actively working to free citizens from an oppressive regime that enforces its power through economic disparity. No single action determines a character's alignment, and you shouldn't be using the system that way.
Also, alignment isn't supposed to be a prescriptive thing that tells you how you're supposed to act. That's bad roleplaying. Your character's actions should be based on who your character is and what your character values. Your alignment is just a shorthand to get a quick sense of how you should probably play, plus it has a handful of minor mechanical effects. But alignment isn't set in stone; if you've played with a character for a while and realize that the way you're playing is a different alignment, just talk to your DM about changing the listed alignment on the character sheet. Similarly, if you're the DM yourself and a character's actions are clearly not in line with their alignment, tell the player that they need to either act in accordance with their alignment or change it.
EDIT: Buzzfeed quizes are horse**** anyway.
Your fence-walking analogy isn't really apt. On the law/chaos axis, law and chaos both represent a dedicated stance. Neutrality isn't really threading a needle between two sides of a debate, neutrality on the law/chaos axis is the huge grey are between two extremes. You have to move a ways towards either side before the law- or chaos-flavor of alignment will really stick all that well.
I think it's also very important to note that lawful alignments don't necessary follow any given legal code. It's just that they have their rules and will not break them under any circumstances. And they probably believe that everyone else should also follow those rules. And they probably actively work to enforce those rules upon others. Whether the others like it or not. This is why Lawful Evil characters are dangerous and Lawful Good characters are such insufferable *******s. But simply moving around, such that the local legal code changes, doesn't change a lawful character's behavior. If murder was legal in a given country, for instance, a Lawful Good character still wouldn't murder people.
It's also important that chaotic alignments aren't about "following your heart" or "following your own code". They're about not believing in rules as meaningful things under any circumstances. They don't live by a code, because they believe the very concept of having a code is too restrictive. In fact, they believe that rules are inherently bad for themselves and others, and may actively work to free people from these restrictive systems. Most chaotic characters don't just go around breaking the laws of the place they currently are, but not out of any respect for the law itself. Rather they just don't feel like dealing with being arrested/fined/whatever.
Now you'll notice that I describe both of these as kinda' extreme ideologies. Because they kinda' are. Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil are the extremes, and neutrality just represents the wide gulfs between them. Characters who are neutral on the law/chaos axis will tend to have certain things they won't do, but their moral and ethical standards are a little more flexible. A Neutral character might think that murder is generally bad, but extraordinary circumstances can change their mind. A Neutral character who finally finds the man who brutalized their daughter(/son), for instance, might find their normal distaste for murder very easy to ignore. A Lawful character, on the other hand, does not break their moral codes under any circumstances. And a Chaotic character never had a strict moral code to begin with. Characters of any alignment might, if put in the situation I've described, kill the man or not, but their reasons for it would be different.
Similarly, good and evil represent extreme ideals. Good is the belief that all people are important and that you should do things to benefit others as often as possible, to your own detriment if necessary. Evil, on the other hand, is the belief that only you are important and that you should do things to benefit yourself as often as possible, to the detriment of others if necessary. Neutrality on the good/evil axis is pretty much anywhere between these two.
Although one difference between the good/evil axis and the law/chaos one is that many of the books tend to describe Evil less as a real dedication and more as a willingness. Evil characters aren't necessarily all psychopaths who don't believe that others have any real value, but they are willing to hurt others to get what they want. So characters who do a lot of good things and a few evil things might still be Evil. For instance, I'm currently in an AD&D campaign where I'm playing a Neutral Evil thief who's primarily interested in increasing his own wealth. I'm evil because I'll take money for killing innocent people and steal if I believe I can get away with it. Still, I have consistently argued against mass murder, eating our enemies (we had a half-ogre in the party for a while), and many other traditionally evil things, simply because I didn't really see the benefit in doing those things and because I know they wouldn't be good for others and therefore indirectly are slightly not-good for me. (We have a running joke that I'm not actually evil, I'm just an economist, and "genocide is bad for the local economy".)
Good, however, does represent a real dedication. Doing a few things every now and then to help others isn't enough, a character should really make an effort most to all of he time. Good characters should spend time feeding the poor, helping those in need, et cetera, and failure to do those sorts of things without a damn good reason should put their alignment in jeopardy of changing. (Which would be super bad for paladins, and potentially bad for clerics.)
So, to get to my point after a lot of words, you really shouldn't be looking at individual actions when trying to determine your character's alignment. You should be looking at what your character does most of the time. A character isn't Chaotic Good because they stole from the rich to give to the poor one time, a character is Chaotic Good because they are actively working to free citizens from an oppressive regime that enforces its power through economic disparity. No single action determines a character's alignment, and you shouldn't be using the system that way.
Also, alignment isn't supposed to be a prescriptive thing that tells you how you're supposed to act. That's bad roleplaying. Your character's actions should be based on who your character is and what your character values. Your alignment is just a shorthand to get a quick sense of how you should probably play, plus it has a handful of minor mechanical effects. But alignment isn't set in stone; if you've played with a character for a while and realize that the way you're playing is a different alignment, just talk to your DM about changing the listed alignment on the character sheet. Similarly, if you're the DM yourself and a character's actions are clearly not in line with their alignment, tell the player that they need to either act in accordance with their alignment or change it.
EDIT: Buzzfeed quizes are horse**** anyway.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
Neutral actions simply don't exist. A neutral action would be not acting at all, but then one can argue using the idea of the Sin of Omission that not acting at all is considered 'wrong' (or 'good', if something bad happens).
That essentially sums up the rest of your issue. Although if you really want a chart, I'd say list 6 to 8 things your character values, then rate them accordingly (e.g. 1-10) on both morals and ethics. Then get the - possible weighted - average and voilà, you've got two numbers that tells you what alignment your character is.
lifebaka wrote:
Also, alignment isn't supposed to be a prescriptive thing that tells you how you're supposed to act. That's bad roleplaying. Your character's actions should be based on who your character is and what your character values.
That essentially sums up the rest of your issue. Although if you really want a chart, I'd say list 6 to 8 things your character values, then rate them accordingly (e.g. 1-10) on both morals and ethics. Then get the - possible weighted - average and voilà, you've got two numbers that tells you what alignment your character is.
here's the thing Life: Deciding that a code or set of values would be too restrictive to live by and opting for freedom instead, doesn't eliminate the code. It just makes it smaller and more manageable sometimes to the point of "I'm just going to act on a whim." which is still a code. it is very much like Atheism is a religion, because a religion is a set of beliefs.
The extremes are pretty much that. If an Extreme Lawful will follow the law no matter what and a extreme chaotic would break the law no matter what, then they have to be the same based on their moral code,just on opposite ends of the spectrum.
The extremes are pretty much that. If an Extreme Lawful will follow the law no matter what and a extreme chaotic would break the law no matter what, then they have to be the same based on their moral code,just on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Kazega wrote:
which is still a code. it is very much like Atheism is a religion, because a religion is a set of beliefs.
"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:"
Atheism does not fit that requirement as atheism denies the existence of anything supernatural, like (a) god(s).
And 'Going to act on a/any/every whim' is not a code, it's the lack of a code. Same as 'Let's do nothing' isn't a plan but the lack of a plan. Characters placing themselves above any kind code are chaotic, the other way around; not so much.
I've always been a Merriam-Webster guy. Also just because someone doesn't worship a god or gods in the traditional sense doesn't mean that the person doesn't do it at all.
and I know it might seem a little contradictory but it is a key principle in Taoism. The Yin and Yang is a symbol of balance. The reason that both sides has a circle of the other color is because you can't be completely on one side. It's the same thing here. You can't simply "not have a code" because "whatever you feel like at the time" is a code. It's an anti-code, similar to what the anti-hero is like, but in the end,the anti-code is still a personal conviction.
and I know it might seem a little contradictory but it is a key principle in Taoism. The Yin and Yang is a symbol of balance. The reason that both sides has a circle of the other color is because you can't be completely on one side. It's the same thing here. You can't simply "not have a code" because "whatever you feel like at the time" is a code. It's an anti-code, similar to what the anti-hero is like, but in the end,the anti-code is still a personal conviction.
Kazega wrote:
and I know it might seem a little contradictory but it is a key principle in Taoism. The Yin and Yang is a symbol of balance. The reason that both sides has a circle of the other color is because you can't be completely on one side. It's the same thing here. You can't simply "not have a code" because "whatever you feel like at the time" is a code. It's an anti-code, similar to what the anti-hero is like, but in the end,the anti-code is still a personal conviction.
It's more of a modus operandi rather than an actual code. A code is a set of rules that dictates how you should live and what decisions you should make. They're closely related and possibly entangled but they're not the same.
"Thou shalt not kill" is a rule, which is part of a code. To simply not kill anyone is an M.O.
basically everything lifebaka said, i used to play d+d all the time.
also, if the lawful good character in your party is a paladin, they don't have a stick up their ***, they have an immovable rod instead.
also, if the lawful good character in your party is a paladin, they don't have a stick up their ***, they have an immovable rod instead.
I like things that make me feel stupid. - Ken Levine
GrandmasterD wrote:
Neutral actions simply don't exist. A neutral action would be not acting at all, but then one can argue using the idea of the Sin of Omission that not acting at all is considered 'wrong' (or 'good', if something bad happens).
Kazega wrote:
I've always been a Merriam-Webster guy. Also just because someone doesn't worship a god or gods in the traditional sense doesn't mean that the person doesn't do it at all.
and I know it might seem a little contradictory but it is a key principle in Taoism. The Yin and Yang is a symbol of balance. The reason that both sides has a circle of the other color is because you can't be completely on one side. It's the same thing here. You can't simply "not have a code" because "whatever you feel like at the time" is a code. It's an anti-code, similar to what the anti-hero is like, but in the end,the anti-code is still a personal conviction.
Surprise!
It all ends in a battle of definitions!
Sittin' on chimneys, putting fire up my ***.
"I biked 12km in a blizzard today and mice are chewing on my chocolate bars. Life's good."
"I biked 12km in a blizzard today and mice are chewing on my chocolate bars. Life's good."
You need to log in before commenting.
The weird thing is that there is no action you can take that will be a neutral action. There are 4 possible actions you can take: leave because it isn't your business, Jump into the fray to stop the fight (either by helping the 3 or the subduing them), stay and watch, or get the authorities. None of these are Neutral responses. In fact, as I read up on the Alignment basics on the D+D Wiki here I noticed that a lot of Neutral characteristics were what I would define as Chaotic traits. A Chaotic person will follow his own code. That code shouldn't change for almost any reason. The fact that these values in his code lines up with a local law is a mere happenstance. The player will do what he feels he should based on his own value system. A lawful person, will follow the local laws, no matter where he is, no matter how he feels about it. If he wanders into a neighboring country that he might have wronged somehow and is wanted for it, under most situations the man will turn himself in to face what he has done and defending himself using the law. Here, there is no room for Neutral. Your actions will either abide by the law or they will not.
As Far as Good and Evil go, it is pretty simple. Good is really just the desire to serve others. A Paladin will be good because he strives to defend the people. Being a lawful, the Paladin when he sees a wrong will right it using the law. If a child steals an apple, he will not use the law to punish the kid, but instead use the law to help by paying for the fruit and then lecturing the child about the merits of honesty and hard work to inspire him to be a better person. Evil on the other hand is the desire to satisfy oneself. Most politicians are depicted as Lawful Evil for this reason. Rather than breaking the Law, they bend it to their whims. Imposing taxes on the people to break their spirit and secure his position even further. Outlawing certain actions or people who constantly threaten the power the law holds. Neutral has little meaning here. The hero kicked that politician out of town and saved the people, but only for vengeance, making this an "Evil" action, despite "Good" consequences. Even if something is for the "greater good" all that it comes down to is intent. Just like with Law and Chaos, you will either serve Others, or Yourself. Never both at the same time.
You can either follow the law or listen to your heart, and you can either satisfy yourself or you can serve others, where is the room for neutrality in your actions?