Post/Author/DateTime	Post
PSchirf 08-31-04, 12:51 AM	May 1992 saw the creation of rec.games.dnd. A review of thread topics from Usenet then until today on these boards would seem too indicate that we have learned little in the past twelve years. The cyclic topics invariably return to alignment issues. Perhaps not surprisingly, the official definitions change from publication to publication, making the task of understanding the terms even more difficult. Contradictions can even be found within a single source. The authors avoid the obviously inflammatory issues, such as the death penalty, by expressly not addressing them at all. Most of the Core Book material on Paladin behavior and alignment in general falls outside of the rules section of the material and into the fluff and flavor classification. There are a number of ways to handle alignment and still be completely compliant with the core rules sans flavor and fluff. Much of what is published on alignments outside of the Core Books uses the modern humanist standard for judging good and evil. I reject this standand because I believe it is a flawed position given the typical D&D setting. Let’s consider that humanist model for good and evil. This model rejects the definitions used by historical philosophers and religious figures, labels the vast majority of human history to be evil, and defines good and evil using extremely modern concepts. The model leaves us with two possibilities. One possibility is that philosophers and religious figures throughout history have mislabeled good and evil and only within the last few seconds of human history have a handful of non-religious intellectuals discovered the correct basis for defining moral behavior. The argument that good and evil are defined by divine beings is rejected as being a logical fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam). The other possibility is that philosophers and religious figures throughout history have correctly identified what is good and what is evil (even if it was done accidentally) and, while the definitions are often misunderstood, they’re as good as anything derived within the last few seconds of human history. Regardless of which possibility is correct out-of-game, I argue that the roleplaying experience is enhanced by using the historical model since game settings are not typically intended to represent the last few seconds of human history. Also, we can improve upon the standard used by western religions for the last three thousand years by resolving any logical inconsistencies that arise. Not all Appeals to Authority are logical fallacies. Five conditions for a legitimate argument from authority 1) The authority must have competence in an area. 2) The judgment must be within the authority's field of competence 3) The authority must be interpreted correctly. 4) Direct evidence must be available. 5) A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities. Is the Socratic Euthyphro standard of determining what is good and what is evil illogical? If so it is because the god(s) were not at hand, a situation which we will remedy. Four of the five should already be typical in any setting that includes a body of active (conditions 3 and 4) divine beings (conditions 1 and 2). A DM need now only insure that the beings are not contradictory when defining alignment requirements (to address condition 5). The key is to accept that evil beings do not need to view their actions as good. Evil entities employ the very same rules used by good entities when defining what is good and what is evil. A deity of hate is a deity of hate even to his followers, instead of being a deity of love to some and a deity of hate to others. Evil knows that it is evil! This is evidenced by the fact that the hells and the abyss are not blissful. Deities of evil should not, and do not, for that matter, reward followers with a heavenly paradise in the afterlife. Some evil beings may be under the delusion that the tortures they are destined to suffer in the afterlife are mitigated by the ability to torture others. Intelligent followers of the evil cause know full well that they trade their immortal soul for power on earth. The resulting alignment model does not conflict with the rules. It makes Socrates' definitions for good and evil logically sound in a D&D setting, and agrees with the standard used by western religions. I believe this is exactly what the rules have always called for. [More to follow] Next post will attempt to reconcile the fact that the Core Book definition of Good permits good characters to slay evil opponents in combat, yet this act would appear to violate the precepts of the alignment if one only considers the immediate circumstance and not the full ramification of the act. Note that this isn’t really an “ends justify the means” position, since the phrase implies that true evil is being done but accepted because an evil act is resulting in a greater Good. Instead, let us hold that no evil was done at all*. Likewise, the effects of Laws and Punishments need to be measured in a more encompassing analysis than simply looking at the singular punishment act. *Can an evil act result in good? A deeper discussion of this issue would require sources outside of the game system that fall well within the philosophical and religious sector. The full argument has been investigated by a number of individuals worth reading.
Ma'ElKoth 08-31-04, 06:21 PM	Can an evil act result in good? A deeper discussion of this issue would require sources outside of the game system You are already so outside the game system you need binoculars to see it. This is not to say that I don't like the post. There need to be more alignment discussion outside of the ubiquitous "Is My Pladin Screwed?" posts. One problem I had with your assertions that I feel qualified to bring up is that in your DnD world: Intelligent followers of the evil cause know full well that they trade their immortal soul for power on earth. This is fine, for those beings who are not evil out of simple, ugly self-interest. You know, the people who can justify anything to themselves if it increases their power or comfort. The PHB frequently refers to self-interest as a guiding force for evil. So my question is: does a person only become evil when they acknowledge the fact that they are evil?
PSchirf 09-02-04, 03:30 PM	So my question is: does a person only become evil when they acknowledge the fact that they are evil? No, a person becomes evil by doing things which are labeled evil by the religions of the setting. Philosophers have long argued about the nature of morality. In today’s world many seek a source for morality that doesn't need religion as its wellspring. Maybe these people desire to remove the connection between religion and ethical behavior based on their belief that their own definitions of right and wrong are not products of, however indirectly, a religion. While there have been attempts to derived a system of ethics solely from enlightened self interest, the resulting construct is limited in scope and falls short of the richer definitions found in both religion and in the D&D game alignment system. I blame the confusion on the introduction of a mechanic for divinity that supercedes the powers of the divine. When alignment and reward becomes an independent system and not a construct flowing from a sentient power you lose the concept of rules being set by the being. This aspect of the argument is more appropriate for another forum, since it goes well beyond introductory courses on ethics and has been debated by scholars far more eloquently than I will ever be able to do. And the truth is, it's not important. Pardon the pun, but having active gods removes the need to rely on a godless system. "Do gods love holiness and morality because they are holy, or is morality holy because the gods love it?" – Socrates Let me explain what I referred to in my previous post. I recommend we take from the Socrates-Euthyphro discussion one important point. In the dialog Socrates showed that Euthyphro’s reasoning for why some actions were labeled good was invalid. But, neither Socrates nor Euthyphro questioned the premise that “The gods love holy actions.” As a DM I try to make it easy for the players to know which actions are good and which are evil. I’m not obligated to define why some action is good or evil. The distinction is important. Attempts to do so, regardless of what good/evil rules are used, often ends in long philosophical debates. While I enjoy the debates on bulletin boards, I do not want them interfering with my live game experience. I returned to the Euthyphro and found the discussion’s premise “Good is what all gods call good” suffices for the players and characters alike. Once we accept that in a setting where many gods are actively talking to their followers there is no need for a system of morality that isn't divinely inspired, the rest is easy. One can rely on church dogma as the sole determiner for defining what good and evil are because, even if the alignment terminology itself is not in the character's vocabulary, the intent of the D&D system is to have the alignment of each god be a priori knowledge. One can know which god is good and which is evil because they either define themselves as such or there is universal agreement about the nature of the deity in the culture. This has always been the case, and the authors have stated that it is an intentional facet of the game. This leads to the conclusion that, in a setting where divine powers routinely talk to their followers, Good can be defined as anything that Good gods call Good. Also, evil gods don’t need to lie and call their dogma good, as evidenced by the large number of people willing to revel in evil. It’s just as reasonable to have evil gods eluding to vile acts, acknowledging them such, and then encouraging their followers to do them to become more evil in return for earthly rewards. I’m not saying that evil beings don’t use manipulation and deceit as a tool to turn a good person evil. I just mean that evil powers can be universally recognized as such, greatly simplifying the job of anyone running the setting. The result? A setting that feels more like fantasy+medieval Europe and less like a modern college campus. Some people claim that punishments out of proportion with the crime are evil. Why? What does "out of proportion" mean, really? If culturally something is extremely taboo and legal penalties are setup, targeting only those in the culture, are the laws wrong just because we consider them harsh by our standards? If everyone knows that the legal penalty for wearing white pants after Labor Day is castration is the law evil, or just stupid? Let’s not label the bulk of our ancestors as evil, as human history has always had, by today’s standards, severe punishment for what we would consider out of proportion with the crime. Do we really think that we are the enlightened age not subject to the same fickle classification a few hundred years from now? I’m not arguing for a relative definition of good and evil, just a definition that has existed for more than one lifetime. Religions should provide the moral rule by which people can guide their actions. And it's likely that religions will take an "evil, period" stance on any creature type that has an evil reputation, such as red dragons. The tiger, on the other hand, would only be evil if it was a man-hunter. Tigers are not typically man-eaters; therefore they are neutral. A single incident where a tiger kills and eats a man may not an evil tiger make, but a tiger that has become a true man-hunter... that tiger could be labeled evil. The DM gets to decide if a man-eating tiger is considered an evil abomination by good religions of his campaign world. It certainly helps maintain a consistent view of good and evil. A Paladin faced with two attacking tigers would then be able to detect which is the evil man-hunter and which is not. The character doesn't have to question an intelligent beast to discover its nature. They should not to trust their own perception of an encounter with a being the good church has already labeled evil. Even if they were to talk with a red dragon and "feel" that it was good, if the good religion says that red dragons are evil and slaying them is good then that is so, regardless of our modern concept of right and wrong. Why trust the religion instead of a self-generated measure of good? Because individuals are extremely likely to be fooled. An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek, A goodly apple rotten at the heart. -- William Shakespeare
Palin the Wizard 09-02-04, 03:55 PM	No, a person becomes evil by doing things which are labeled evil by the religions of the setting. Sorry, I just had to correct this. It should say: "which are labeled evil by the game system." Religions can and will disagree on what is evil.
PSchirf 09-02-04, 04:00 PM	Sorry, I just had to correct this. It should say: "which are labeled evil by the game system." Religions can and will disagree on what is evil. Why? They don't have to, especially in a setting where the gods are actively and routinely talking to their followers, thus correcting any misunderstands which may occur. That's my whole point. Have the gods all agree on what is good and what is evil, and have them propagate this knowledge. They can disagree about many things and still remain consistent on alignment issues. Also, since I can play my setting using GURPS, D&D, or a number of other systems, it's important to understand that, for many of us, the game system should serve the setting, not the other way around.
Ma'ElKoth 09-03-04, 01:44 AM	which are labeled evil by the game system Not true. Even if you assume D20 Modern is an independant system, Eberron remains a DnD product. In that world the Gods (if they even exist) are distant, and do not talk directly to mortals. True, their worshipers gain spells. However, their clerics still get spells if they are more than one alignment step away from the deity's alignment, so the deities don't seem to make judgements based on merit. Also, non-aligned clerics (who worhsip a force, or a cause, or a general alignment) also recieve spells. Finally, everyone ends up in a sort of grey limbo after death regardless of how their life is led. So no, it is the setting (ie Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc.) not the system.
Moonlion 09-03-04, 01:00 PM	Why is the alignment system necessary in the first place?
Green Gilled Dragon 09-03-04, 06:44 PM	Why is the alignment system necessary in the first place? Because it's a convient shorthand for telling how a person (or community using the Town Alignment) will respond to situations. Will they accept the bribe offered them? Lawful: probably not. Chaotic: why not? Will they help capture the escaped prisoner? Good: likely, as it is something that benefits the whole. Evil: not likely, too much risk of themselves getting hurt. Now the above are just examples and there are cases where individuals can see things differently --a Lawful Evil person might expect a bribe if they are in a position of power, but they'll probably still do their job without the greased palm. Just not as quickly. Alignment is part of the game that serves the purposes of the game. It gives both a shorthand for people's reactions, and allows players to feel rightous and just when fighting evil. As the great Minsc stated, "Evil must feel the force of my rightous boot upon its buttocks." Still, if you are uncomfortable with Alignment, play the game without it. Hold paladins to their actions and let the rest of the game happen as is. I don't think the Alignment Police (LN) will be showing up at your door to take you away in the middle of the night over this.
PSchirf 09-05-04, 09:02 AM	Why is the alignment system necessary in the first place?My goal is to create a rational alignment system that is divinely based and doesn't conflict with the core rules to any greater degree than that found in the various official settings. Others may decide to drop the idea of alignment entirely.
FreeTheSlaves 09-05-04, 10:00 AM	Because it's a convient shorthand for telling how a person (or community using the Town Alignment) will respond to situations. snippage I'll second this. It is also a declaration of player intention of how they will play their character. D&D is at it's core a party-based RPG so it makes sense that the party see eye to eye at some level. A formal alignment system is not essential to D&D but it is a useful tool to assist player and DM. Unfortunately in past editions, alignment has been presented as a warzone between DM and players, usually in the form of the DM "smiting" the wayward player with hefty XP penalties. Some players & dms still think this way. Frankly, getting rid of the alignment tool merely hides the mechanic from view. You still have alignment but rather than having an easy two word code you need to write a paragraph. Why bother?
PSchirf 09-06-04, 07:59 PM	Unfortunately in past editions, alignment has been presented as a warzone between DM and players, usually in the form of the DM "smiting" the wayward player with hefty XP penalties. Some players & dms still think this way.The disagreements on alignment often appear to be based on differences of opinion when it comes to modern definitions of good and evil. Once players are able to move to a historical mindset, viewing the definitions as being divinely inspired and not based on a model that trumps the powers of the divine, the arbiter becomes the DM. How will this make for fewer arguments during play? Many DMs (incorrectly) see as taboo exploratory questions prior to taking alignment related actions yet penalize players for not having an approach that coincides with their interpretation of alignments. These same DMs often permit pre-action investigative questions when the issue relates to setting specific customs that the character would understand but the players do not due to lack of DM guidance. While it is only a side effect of my intended goal, moving all alignment decisions out of the rulebooks and into the province of the setting makes the same questions so obviously acceptable that no rational DM could refuse to offer guidance during play.
PSchirf 09-08-04, 09:13 AM	A peek at the boards has people debating the "Is poison evil" issue, another classic topic that is resolved by going to the above alignment basis.
PSchirf 04-19-05, 10:30 AM	And the beat goes on...
agent_paper 04-19-05, 01:12 PM	That is an interesting thought, but note that Alignment is essentially a term used only for the perspective of the players and the DM. The characters aren't walking around saying "I'm Lawful Good," but they may be Lawful Good on paper as a guideline for the player. The alignment descriptors use an epistemic understanding of "good" and "evil" rather than a mythical-lyrical-religious one because it is meant to be applied in a player's thought rather than role-playing context. Otherwise, it is a very good point.
weasel fierce 04-19-05, 09:18 PM	Alignment can be seen in a few broad ways, I think A: Good and Evil, like Law and Chaos are cosmic forces that are in constant struggle (Moorcock) B: In a fantasy realm, some things just plain are evil, or good. C: Its a tool to assist in roleplaying, but nothing to be given significant thought or weight D: Its an archaic element that should have been dropped 30 years ago. Make your choice ;)
Sarella Starshine 04-19-05, 11:29 PM	i had a nice discussion about how the debates on the message board always seem to degenerate into people trying to justify 'evil' acts by thier 'good' characters, but when i hit the 'submit reply' button it was timed out. to me, and the people i play with, alignment is one facet of a character. and alignment is used to figure out what is and is not 'allowed' for our characters to do. a 'good' person does not go around killing innocent babies, steal (though, according to the people on the message boards, a 'good' person can steal from an 'evil' person (as if the alignment of the person you are stealing from makes the action 'good' or 'evil')), or cause any form of harm to innocents, an 'evil' person has no such scruples (though they may have others).
totoro 04-20-05, 03:12 AM	The problem with allowing the gods to define alignment is that it doesn't make any more sense than before. So, you lose the shorthand effect of alignment. I once played with a guy who had detailed explanations for alignments that fit his world. It was horribly confusing. I would much prefer a simple alignment system. I don't think the historical context approach works anyway. You need an objective approach. Just change the alignment of your gods to fit the setting. Then, as long as you are trying to serve your lawful god, you're fine. And there is just no pleasing a chaotic god (if he/she's in a bad mood!)
Elven_Enchantress 04-20-05, 08:49 AM	I like Mimirs.... The Compassionate - Mount Celestia Character Society should care for all, no matter how weak or useless they may seem to be. Everyone has an equal right to life. The good and the civilised must care for one another. The strong should support the weak. The rich should help the poor. The stronger or richer you are, the more you should help those less fortunate than you. Only in this way can a spirit find true release and happiness. Of course, it's best not to have people get into a plight in the first place. That's why a society needs fair laws to set a framework of what's permitted and not permitted. Never take advantage of those in a position below you, and always respect those above you. Consider the feelings of all in every action you take, and do nothing which is not for the good of society as a whole. Contradiction 'Don't impose your morals on me!' That's what many folk would say to a Celestian. Why should I give what I worked hard for to someone who's looking for an easy life? Who'd want to be powerful and rich if it meant being pestered by bubbers and knights of the cross trade all the time? When a berk no longer has to strive for a living, where does the motive to improve oneself go? Is it right to patronise those weaker than yourself with unwanted aid? And what is it that makes you such a paragon of virtue yourself? Arrogance, that's what. Do you see anything but the good side of someone? It's better, surely, to be realistic and realise that some folk have hidden agendas. Don't be so gullible that you believe everything you're told. The Equalitarian - Bytopia Character All beings are born equal. You make your own fate. Only by toiling and hard graft can you elevate yourself. Work well in all things, and you will achieve what you deserve. Life is an auction, and those who bid the highest stakes will reap the greatest rewards. Help others, but help them to help themselves first. Charity is worthless if those who you aid don't take steps to improve themselves. If someone is willing to make an effort then they deserve as much help as you can give. There is no room for free-loaders or slackers, and do not feel guilty about their fate - they chose it for themselves. Contradiction Equalitarians maybe don't always see the whole picture. Perhaps your fate isn't entirely controllable by your own hand; some sods just have hard lives. Other have bad luck. Can you control whether you're handsome or ugly as sin? An equalitarian would just shrug and say: 'Probably. Try harder'. That's a little cold sometimes, when all a body's looking for is a handout to see him through the night. Why should folk have to try and fit in to a society which doesn't treat them right, anyway? Are there enough jobs to go round? What if you don't know anything useful? What if you're crippled or insane; how then do you make yourself useful to society? The Altruist - Elysium Character Take it upon yourself to help someone in need. It doesn't matter who they are, or who you are - if you are capable of helping someone then do so. If a rich man falls sick, and you are poor, then help him as you hope he would do for you. Do not expect gratitude or payment for your aid. Treat others as you expect to be treated yourself. Love your enemies as well as your friends - when they realise you treat them as equals then they will have no choice but to love you in return. Forgive the faults and misdeeds of others. Contradiction 'Altruists are fools!' scream some. 'Never trust your enemy! What he did once, he'll do again!' Can an opponent be reformed by your own good acts? Altruists like to think so, but is this a realistic attitude? Would you let a bebilith babysit your children? Exactly! Forgiveness is all very well, but don't expect others to respect you the next day. If they realise you're a doormat, then expect them to wipe their feet on your face. The Instinctive - The Beastlands Character Life is a complicated environment. Some will win, and some will lose. Protect those close to you, like your family, and help to see they it is they who win. Strive to do the best for yourself. Set an example for others to follow. Do not put others down in order to rise above them, for this is selfish. Advance yourself by improving the way you do things. Compete, but do not let competition drive you away from doing good. Do not take what you do not need, and do not waste resources. Help others if it does not endanger yourself. Everyone is important in the grand scheme, even the most lowly, so do not take advantage of those weaker than yourself. Contradiction This is how animals think, and they're not exactly as smart as humanoids, are they? It's all very well to conserve things, but the multiverse is a big place. What you spend your life saving is nothing compared with the infinity that surrounds everyone. Do you really think your little bit counts that much? A bit of selfishness makes your life so much easier, and if you're striving to be the best, then surely you're contradicting yourself by not taking this advantage? The Go-Lucky - Arborea Character Life is precious, and none more so than your own. You are the only one to care for yourself so much, so make sure you look after your interests. Live to make each moment count. Life can be short, so live it for yourself, and allow others to do the same. Help them if it pleases you, because you cannot be happy if those around you are miserable. Care for those you love, but do not love lightly. Do not accept help if you do not need it, and likewise, do not offer aid unless asked first. Contradiction Some folk are hot-headed, and it leads them to trouble. Some are fickle, and treat different people in different ways. Some cannot direct their lives, and wander aimlessly from event to event with no plans or ambition. Go-luckies are all three of these. How can you hope to be successful if your attitudes are shaped not by yourself, but by those around you? Take control of your life, and get some discipline! The Individual - Ysgard Character Depend upon nobody except yourself. You are the only person you can afford to rely on, because only you know what you really want. Be filled with courage, and act upon your desires. Do what you wish, but bear no malice towards those who do not wish to live as you do. Earn the respect of others by your brave acts. Prove you are worthy of their attention and admiration. Be an example to others, but do not force them to follow it. Do not agree unless you know what you hear to be true. Life is as good as you care to make it. Contradiction Why do teams exist? Because you're stronger in one than against one. Going solo is often foolish; what makes you think you're better than everyone else? Sheer arrogance, that's what. Struggling to achieve everything seems a tiring way to live, when biting your tongue and for once not speaking your mind could get you so much further. If you never do anything except what you want to do, who washes the dishes? Besides, doing things you don't like doing is character-building. The Free - Limbo Character Do nothing you do not want to do. Do not be bound by the laws of others, for they do not have your best interests at heart. Laws are made by those who serve themselves, so let your laws be your own and change them when you wish. Do not be set in your ways. It is not weak to change your mind. It is weak to stick to beliefs which are no longer the truth. Enjoy life while it lasts, for happiness is transient. See as much as you can. There's beauty in not knowing what's coming around the next corner; surprises are fun and stop a body getting stuck in the dreary ruts of life. Live to act - do not make assumptions about what you haven't experienced. Open your mind and learn! Contradiction 'If you want to be free, go somewhere else and do it.' That's the message from decent, law-abiding folk everywhere. 'If your own company is so great, then why bother sticking around us and spoiling our plans?' Contrary to some opinions, laws are often good things, made for the benefit of you and other people. Just because something is good for someone else doesn't mean it can't be good for you too. And if your mind is this uncontrolled, it's not going to take much to push you that little step further, into a raving barmy. The Paranoid - Pandemonium Character Live how you will, but be careful. They are out there, and they are after you. They are envious of you, of your possessions and accomplishments, of your spirit. Watch every shadow, and be wary of every footstep. They will not rest until they have what They want. Hide if you can, but be warned that in the end They will find you. Keep moving so They do not find you. Do not keep to routines. They could be anywhere, so take care of who you trust. Do not help others in case it is Them you are really helping. Choose your friends and allies wisely, because any one of them could be one of Them. Contradiction Those happy with their roles in society scoff at this idea. 'I've never seen Them,' they say, 'and I think its plain silly to assume that that's because They're so well hidden.' Why does life have to be a conspiracy? Can't a body take the fact that some folk are unlucky? Get help, berk, because your life's weird! Open your eyes, come out from under the sheets and take a look under the bed. Don't see anything? Exactly. That's because there ain't anything there. The Malicious - The Abyss Character You owe others nothing. Everyone is self-serving. Putting the interests of others over those of yourself is foolish. Obeying laws which do not serve you is weak. Stand up to your oppressors, make them fear you instead. Let them feel the lash of their own whips on their skins. Take what you can, because life is short and harsh. People may pretend to care, but they are trying to win your confidence so they have power over you. Society exists only in the mind of fools - everyone really seeks their own personal gain. Strength is everything. Show others you are not weak, then you will not have to fear their betrayal. Contradiction Maybe this'd be true, if you lived in the Abyss. Thing is, most people don't. Once someone starts acting like this, it's a slippery slope to chaos, because to get ahead, other have got to be like this too. Any if everyone's malicious, well, then you'll all be in the Abyss soon enough! Some folk do care! Why the conspiracy theory? Can't you see that it's only you who's so twisted inside, and that other people get their kicks out of helping people, rather than causing pain and suffering? You fight, struggle and wage war on everything, so what happens when you lose? Annihilation! Wouldn't it be more intelligent to take things slowly, and consolidate power by gaining a bit of trust? The Bitter - Carceri Character Others have what you do not. Nobody gets anything without treading on someone else's feelings to get it. The ones who deserve to win will never win. There is always a bigger struggle beyond the horizon. The harder you try, the more they take away from you, so why bother? Life is not fair, because you can't win. Everyone dies in the end. You are trapped in the cage of society. If you can, slip between the bars and escape. Break their rules, else you will never get what you want. Steal if you dare, but don't expect them to be merciful if they catch you. Contradiction Obstacles you face are largely of your own creation. Stop feeling sorry for yourself. Work honestly for what you want; don't try to stab others in the back, or you'll be too busy watching your own back to get anywhere. Trust people, don't spread rumours which you know you can't justify - if you upset a real blood you might not get a second chance. The Callous - Gray Waste Character Why care? Does anybody else really care? You are born, some live, all die. Does it really matter when? Sure, there is pain, but that is only brief. Emotions are muted, everything is too transient. People are shallow, so why should you respect them? Do not care what others think of you - it is not your problem. Try to make the misery you feel lessen for yourself. That is what everyone else does, but they don't care about you. Work for yourself, and don't be afraid to do what you need in the course of that work. Make yourself numb, and the hurt will go away. The ends always justify the means. Contradiction The ultimate in self-centeredness, this is. Just because people don't give a damn about you doesn't mean people don't give a damn. Maybe you're obnoxious, miserable and introverted. Berks won't make an effort if you don't; sell yourself and try to feel a bit of love. It might sound sickly, but they say that you are what you feel. If you're cold inside, you're cold outside too, and other folk can feel it. Empathy's what's lacking here, severely. The Avaricious - Gehenna Character Hierarchies are only useful so you know where to aim next. Work your way into power, and guard your back. If you can achieve power, so can others. Give nothing away, for gifts only weaken your position. You have to fight for what you deserve, so make sure others have to do the same. Take what you can from other people. Weakening others can only strengthen yourself. Anything that will let you get ahead has got to be good. Earn people's trust, as this gives you power over them. Let nobody do the same to you. See the selfish motives behind everyone's actions, and be happy you are careful. Contradiction Companionship? Trust? Friends? Any of these words ring bells, berk? No? It's me, me, me, ain't it! Stop for a second and think: wouldn't it be nice to have a friend? Someone who remains with you not because you pay them, or because you've got them chained up, but because they feel you're the sort of person they aspire to be? Like, even? Teamwork, that's the concept: you spend so much time concerned with holding on to your ill-gotten gains that you're wasting time you could be getting your grubby hands on other people's jink. Maybe that's a good thing, for the rest of us, at least. The Tyrant - Baator Character Work to advance yourself in society. Use the laws to aid you, and punish those who do you wrong. Look after number one, and use any means you can to further your own interests. Break laws if you dare, for there are others like you who will use whatever they can against you. Conform, and make sure others do as well, for your own good. If they cheat, make sure you catch them first! Grind them beneath your feet once you have finished with them. Follow your laws to the letter, not the spirit - so long as you do not break them you are safe. There is an advantage in every situation, and every law has its loophole. Find them! Contradiction Fear, pain and bribery, that's what a society like this is based upon. The cutter offering the fattest garnish, or wielding the sharpest sword gets his way, not the one with the best ideas or the fairest attitude. Corruption is inherent in the system, and this breeds contempt, disillusionment and inefficiency. Of course, is the leader's frightening enough then he'll keep these rats of dissent gnawing quietly, in secret, rather then rattling their bone-boxes in public. But they'll never go away. Rule by politics might be less bloody for the noble classes, but like breeds like, and a tyrannical society encourages all manner of law-breaking in the under classes: mugging, robbery, fraud, embezzlement. A lawful society based on who's the best at breaking laws without getting caught? Does it sound like a bad idea to you? Thought as much. The Obedient - Acheron Character Never question the rules, live your life by them. Fulfil them to the letter - there is no room in this life for those who make mistakes. Punish those who do wrong. If you know you are right, then any who stand against you are wrong. Persuade them by force if you must, but know that people are stubborn. If violence is the only redress then so be it. It is wrong to question everything; children ask questions, men know the answers. The leader has all the answers, and leadership is divine. Any punishment is legitimate for criminals - when they choose to break the laws they also choose to bear the consequences. Life brings only one choice: obey or do not. If you do not, expect no mercy from those who do. Contradiction If you don't ask the questions, you'll never find the answers for yourself. Even if the judgment of others is as good as you own (and I'm not even saying that's true), then there's no sin in exercising your opinion. That's why you've got one, after all. If you behave like an automaton, you should expect to be treated like one. Individuals are, well, individual. Obeying something you don't agree with is being a sheep at best, hypocritical at worst. And what of those who are unable to comply? Should they too be punished? And what when it's you who can't obey? Will you be so blindly patriotic then, berk? The Conformist - Mechanus Character Every problem can be solved by thought. Consider your actions carefully, and make them all count. Follow the routine, because those who wrote it were wiser then you. Experience is to be respected. Trust the judgment of others, for it is as good as your own judgment. Laws are made for the benefit of all. If one inconveniences you, think of all those whose lives have been made easier. Do not place yourself above others; it is not your right to do so. Only those higher than yourself may raise your rank. Normality is perfection - observe your peers are be like them; this is natural and correct. You cannot win all the time. If you are wrong, then concede defeat nobly. Consider others; they have the same rights and feelings as yourself, so who is to say who is more important. The majority must prevail. Contradiction Become one with the crowd, and you're lost in a sea of faces. What is 'normal', anyway? Even the modrons are different by degrees, so tarring everyone with the same brush is either inaccuracy, or laziness. Some cutters have special needs, or out-of-the-ordinary skills. Others need to be handled differently. You can average numbers, but you can't average real people. Laws and bureaucracy come hand in fist; too many papers and officials and any semblance of efficiency goes out the window. A sod squashed by the weight of a law going against him isn't consoled by the thought that his next-door neighbour's all the happier. Such small seeds can spark the resentment that's brought revolution and anarchy more than once before. The Idealist - Arcadia Character Fight for what you know is right. You are guilty until you can redeem yourself. Everyone commits crimes. Dishonesty is mortality by nature, rise above this. Be perfect. Corruption is weakness. Live to the spirit of the law, but make sure you interpret the spirit correctly. Work for what you believe in. If you are worthy, you will be noticed. Strive to achieve greatness for yourself and your cause. There can be only one winning team, so make sure you are part of that team. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Contradiction Banish the vices, and you've got a more 'perfect' society, but one that stagnates. Is a stagnant society perfect? No. Therefore this isn't an answer. Why am I guilty? By whose judgment? Guilty of what? These questions aren't answered by Idealists; they simply assume that since you're alive, you must be guilty of something. If you weren't you certainly wouldn't be a mortal (or a petitioner); the perfect move on somewhere higher. As for the spirit of the law; there's as many interpretations of each law as there are barmies in the Hive. The Diplomat - The Outlands Character Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. If you think they are wrong, then so be it. You know what is best for yourself, but do not assume this it true of others. Point out their faults, but do not assume they do not already know them for themselves. Do not patronise others. They may be as intelligent as you, no matter how strong or weak they are. Balance in all things is precious. Strive to maintain the status quo. Do not try to convert others to your way of thinking. It does not suit all, so let them do it for themselves. Offer charity only when asked, and do not give unwanted advice. Your opinion matters, but only as much as the next opinion. Do not dominate others. Too much of anything is as bad as nothing at all. Contradiction On the planes, belief is everything. This is a vacuous hole in the concept of belief; a null choice. Can anything come from lack of action? Maybe, but what if the outcome is one which is bad? Do you chalk one up for evil and blandly say 'the time for good will come'? Do you take direct action to ensure it comes sooner? How can a state in which you don't pose any questions ever bring you answers? Or don't you care about the answers? Seems like Nobody's got The AnswerScholar Mimir Is there a right way to behave? A correct manner in which to think? A truly perfect system of belief? Perhaps there is, berks, but sure as Baator nobody's found it yet, not even the Powers. That'd suggest to a blood that maybe there ain't one after all, or maybe the Powers aren't as divine as they claim. I'd say the latter, most likely, but then I'm biased too. See, on the Planes, bias is ingrained in our beings; we live, breathe and represent philosophy itself. He who finds the final answer will surely know the great darks of the multiverse. Contradiction Who says nobody knows the answer? Who says there is only one truth? For the question of belief, maybe everything's the right answer...or maybe every being's got it's own special solution that only applies to it. It's all very well to talk about the multiversal truth, but it's a damn big place. I'd be surprised if there was only one truth for all of it. But then, I've been surprised before. If you do find the answer, be sure to tell me, bloods. -- Julius the Symmetrical
DMDaddy 04-21-05, 04:17 AM	It is also a declaration of player intention of how they will play their character. D&D is at it's core a party-based RPG so it makes sense that the party see eye to eye at some level. Alignment =s How they intend to play, but, not always how they play. Can we all agree that a modern day christian is LG. But, if you step on his toe really, really hard, then he may punch your lights out. I allow the players to play how ever they want, but they have to choose Good or Evil, Law Abiders or Rebelious. Many times I step in based on their alignment and I tell them how their characters feel about certain situations. I think Minsc is CG, but if he knew he was fixing to get thrown in jail for breaking the law, then I think he may be a little lawful for a day.
Andrew_980 04-21-05, 10:10 AM	get your hands ona copy of Palladium RPG and look at the alignment system they use. i really wish wizards would make something so clear and easy to understand
Leap 04-21-05, 01:47 PM	Have read the Palladium one myself, and personally I dont like it - it seems as forced as DnD :( For a simple distinction between lawful, neutral and chaotic think in terms of factory-farmed, free-range and feral/wild to describe the social environment and the leeway offered in such. In a factory farmed environment behavioural flexibility is tightly constrained in favour of productivity. In a free-range environment it remains enclosed for the service of productivity (but not as servely so as with factory farming - such a high level of productivity is not required or gained). In a feral environment behaviour suffers very few social constraints (as in "hunter-gatherer" life and the animal equivalent productivity is a very minor matter if at all). On the good, neutral and evil aspects it is a matter of the value of life; precious, casually-respected and cheap respectively.