| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 SolissVL |
|||
|
Posts: 797 (10/22/09 06:59:17) Minimum 1 pt, right? |
It's interesting that many of you view neutral in much the same way as evil, just without the evil intent.
They do they same things, they just don't enjoy it. I'm not really sure I agree, but I suppose it works. -8 modifier to crunch-fu |
||
|
High Priest of Syrinx |
|||
|
Posts: 930 (10/22/09 19:47:12) Spooky |
The way these alignment debates always seem to go, it makes me wonder if the gods of the D&D universe would have an equally hard time agreeing on the
alignment scoring for any particular action or set of behaviors. I can just imagine the eons-long argument about which alignment a mortal is honoring when they
steal some food from a rich nobleman and give it to starving orphans in order to impress and seduce a fair-hearted maiden who has recently been forced to wed
against her will.
|
||
|
Dan C Davis |
|||
|
Posts: 392 (10/24/09 10:27:45) Minimum 1 pt, right? |
High Priest of Syrinx wrote:Chaotic Horny.
Make the world a better place; slap someone who needs it.
|
||
|
phindar |
|||
|
Posts: 187 (10/24/09 11:39:18) Minimum 1 pt, right? |
Reminds me of the alignment shorthand my old group used for rampaging critters. Chaotic Hungry. (Chaotic Horny is scary, tho.)
|
||
 Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
Posts: 8424 (10/26/09 09:03:54) Enigma |
It's interesting that many of you view neutral in much the same way as evil, just without the evil intent.Hmm...good point. Lack of intent isn't sufficient, altho it is necessary. Remorse is a factor. If there's not at least "damn, man, I'm sorry, but you got stuck in the middle"...callousness is part of being evil, IMO. Someone Good would try to make amends (and then some, often), but a Neutral should at least feel the remorse. I can just imagine the eons-long argument about which alignment a mortal is honoring when they steal some food from a rich nobleman and give it to starving orphans in order to impress and seduce a fair-hearted maiden who has recently been forced to wed against her will.NE or CE, and generally I'd lean to CE. The *only* arguably Good part is giving the food to starving orphans, and that part is being done to further a selfish interest. This is using 'Good' to further Evil...it makes the seduction aspect even more a matter of manipulation, dishonesty, and (more than likely) preying on weaknesses. |
||
|
High Priest of Syrinx |
|||
|
Posts: 931 (10/27/09 18:46:26) Spooky |
Tiburon Silverflame wrote:Not to take this too seriously, but what part is evil? Stealing from the rich or doing good to impress someone? Also, since she was wedding against her will she'd probably be happier with the person of her choosing. I agree it was all selfish, but I'm not seeing the evil. I guess the point of the joke was that these discussions always seemed to get wrapped up in motivations, intentions and justifications, but in a universe where good/evil/law/chaos/neutral are absolute forces of nature, what does a mortal's delusional perspective have to do with any of it? |
||
|
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
Posts: 8428 (10/28/09 08:09:27) Enigma |
Perhaps the thing I like *least* about 3E alignment, is the notion of Cosmic Forces. Even there, tho, there's a statement in, IIRC, the intro to BoED to
the effect that doing evil, even if the end result is good, strengthens Cosmic Evil.
Here, the final result that is intended, is evil. The goal is to seduce the maiden, playing on her impressionability and negative situation, and as the scenario is written, strictly for personal pleasure. If successful, you cause the maiden to violate a sacred vow, which in itself is highly evil, if only on a personal scale. Thus, if nothing else, you're actively luring another into an evil act, which has no positive, Good outcome. And when you use the feeding of the orphans to do this, you corrupt the Good act there, by making it a vehicle for Evil. That's worse than using an evil act to do so...remember the movie Indecent Proposal, the movie? Perhaps not, as it was 1993, but the major plot was a young husband and wife, offered $1M by an older man, for one night with the wife. That's clearly an evil means (temptation) into an evil act (adultery)...but ethically, a Good means into the same act, is worse. |
||
|
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
Posts: 8429 (10/28/09 08:53:11) Enigma |
BTW: I know you intended the scenario as a joke of sorts, but I treat it more seriously because, if you look at it, it's not much of a reach, or all that
different from ethical questions that might face a PC.
|
||
|
High Priest of Syrinx |
|||
|
Posts: 933 (10/28/09 11:43:24) Spooky |
Tiburon Silverflame wrote:Which is the only way it makes sense, IMO, under the cosmic forces model. IOW, it's the act alone that puts points on the cosmic scoreboard and not the intentions, results, consequences, justifications, perspective, etc. When a strong enough act is committed, it immediately benefits a particular force or forces and it doesn't terribly matter what the person intended, mistakenly thought at the time, didn't realize, or justified later. The gods don't argue about who gets to claim it, it just rings on the scoreboard according to the governing laws of the universe. Now, I understand that players might feel shafted if their true action doesn't reflect what they meant to do, but a couple thoughts: 1) mortals, and even the gods, aren't perfectly steadfast in their adherence to a particular alignment, so allowances within the system are made for erratic behavior. People are going to score points for the other team from time to time. 2) the only way mortals know when/how they've scored is through guidance from the gods, so feelings of guilt, righteousness, dissatisfaction, etc. are used to let the PCs know when they've screwed up. Maybe clerics and paladins have a kind of 6th sense where the gods let them know ahead of time that they shouldn't do something, but that's up to the DM. 3) since they're looking at the scoreboard, the gods are right no matter what the PCs think about the situation at the time. The gods ultimately know more about the overall situation, just as the DM ultimately knows more than the players about the act itself (minus all the rest). If PCs whack an innocent person, it doesn't matter whether they thought he was guilty of something or not. 4) if the PC repeatedly ignores feelings of guilt, refuses to repent/atone, and generally continues to deviate from the god's guidance then that represents an alignment change. Loss of abilities should only come after several stern warnings via paralyzing guilt, nightmares, etc. 5) the players may gripe that they're not being allowed to play their characters the way they want, but like everything else, the DM is just providing another (divine) stimulus for them to react to. How their PC reacts is completely up to them.
Last Edited By: High Priest of Syrinx
10/28/09 11:46:59.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
phindar |
|||
|
Posts: 189 (10/28/09 12:04:13) Minimum 1 pt, right? |
I guess the point of the joke was that these discussions always seemed to get wrapped up in motivations, intentions and justifications, but in a universe where good/evil/law/chaos/neutral are absolute forces of nature, what does a mortal's delusional perspective have to do with any of it? That's why I prefer a version of alignment the uses cosmic forces but divorces them from subjective morality. That it, these forces have existed since creation, but mortals have come along only relatively recently and named them Good, Evil, Law and Chaos. The easiest examples are Good and Evil, which in my game relate to Positive and Negative energy. Those forces detect as Good and Evil respectively, regardless of how they're being used. Creatures who are listed in the MM as Any or Always an alignment detect and are treated as such, anything else is treated as being Neutral. Characters who channel Positive or Negative Energy (clerics, paladins and so on), detect as those alignments. That's the system I've been using for the past couple of years, which started as an Alignment system that I could use with an AE/3.5 crossover game. It's a variant system, it's a houserule, so CYLL and YMMV and all that, but it's worked out pretty well for me. Character's can't just ping someone on the moral sonar to tell the good guys from the bad guys. Likewise, characters can still have philosophical discussions about the morality of their actions, but without their being a "right" answer. It's about what the character believes rather than objective standard of alignment. |
||
|
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
Posts: 8431 (10/29/09 09:52:59) Enigma |
Even on that argument, HPS, isn't seducing a married woman, an evil act?
Also: in this context, I think the flaw is that you're treating each act as atomic. One of the important points of the scenario, IMO is that you have to treat the *whole* action together, not the parts. I think phin's approach is a decent compromise. Much tho I hate them, the alignments have a mechanical representation due to all the spells/effects that are alignment related, so we can't easily just wipe them all away. (Altho it's tempting.) But fine, they exist...but they're *not* so intimately correlated to the PC alignment system. |
||
|
High Priest of Syrinx |
|||
|
Posts: 934 (10/29/09 10:45:37) Spooky |
Tiburon Silverflame wrote:You tell me. I said she was forced to wed against her will, which sounds closer to slavery and institutionalized rape than a sacred vow... but opinions vary. FWIW, there are some folks who even consider the normal kind of marriage to be a form of slavery. Others feel that marriage is a legal or civil matter rather than a religious one. Personally, I'd say mating issues don't weigh on the good/evil axis for humans any more than they would for other animals -- especially if I look at good/evil as stemming from universal absolutes rather than a moral perspective. Also: in this context, I think the flaw is that you're treating each act as atomic. One of the important points of the scenario, IMO is that you have to treat the *whole* action together, not the parts. Well, I'm treating alignment as an extension of natural or physical laws. Not necessarily atomic in scale, but unlike human laws, natural laws are notoriously unconcerned with context or intent. I don't see that as a flaw in my reasoning, in fact, it simplifies these types of alignment debates immensely. FWIW, I'm not saying I love (or like...) the D&D alignment system, but simply describing what I see as a logical following of the "alignments as universal absolutes" setup. I think phin's approach is a decent compromise. Much tho I hate them, the alignments have a mechanical representation due to all the spells/effects that are alignment related, so we can't easily just wipe them all away. (Altho it's tempting.) But fine, they exist...but they're *not* so intimately correlated to the PC alignment system. What would the PC alignment system be based upon, then? I'd also love to get rid of the alignment system if it weren't so ingrained in all the spells and effects. However, I'm unwilling to allow players to choose an alignment which gives them exemption from harmful spells and effects while giving them freedom to consistently act in any manner they choose. |
||
|
High Priest of Syrinx |
|||
|
Posts: 935 (10/30/09 06:28:15) Spooky |
High Priest of Syrinx wrote:So, from my moral perspective the initial setup was that something wrong was done (stealing), but was turned it into something right (feeding orphans), but it was for wrong reasons (seducing married maiden), which ultimately would result in something right (freeing her from forced matrimony if successful). Which of those were good/evil vs. chaos/law I hadn't really spent the time trying to work out. |
||
|
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
Posts: 8433 (10/30/09 09:55:53) Enigma |
You tell me. I said she was forced to wed against her will, which sounds closer to slavery and institutionalized rape than a sacred vow... but opinions vary.How does the unwilling marriage aspect, affect his action in seducing her? That's an ethical issue pointed at her husband and (we can assume) her parents who forced her into it...not at him. If there has been a violation of morality, of the principles of marriage, and of the vow involved, that's THEIR problem. We can shift this to a somewhat simpler case: Arnav the Greedy keeps slaves to work his fields, in the kingdom of Darnalon where slavery is legal. You live in the neighboring kingdom of Ansalon, where slavery is illegal and abhorrent. There is a moral case for being "my brother's keeper" and working to free Arnav's slaves, BUT the means by which you can do so, are seriously restricted. You *can't* justify, say, sneaking onto Arnav's estate and into the slave pen, opening up a Gate to your lands in Ansalon, and have all the slaves there walk through and now be free. That is Theft. You CAN shelter any runaway slave you find on Ansalon soil, and refuse Arnav's demand for his return. So in the forced-marriage case, you have the moral right to seek cause for dissolution of the marriage...but not by this means! I mean, hey, why seduce her? There's a MUCH easier way to achieve this result: kill the hubby. She becomes a widow, she gets direct inheritance of all hubby's possessions, and she's no longer married. So...ok, neither pure action nor pure motivation, in themselves, is sufficient. Things are more complex...but really, that's what I've been saying all along. It's not a simple "this was Good, so give him an Attaboy" and "this was Evil, so give him an OhDamn". So, from my moral perspective the initial setup was that something wrong was done (stealing), but was turned it into something right (feeding orphans), but it was for wrong reasons (seducing married maiden), which ultimately would result in something right (freeing her from forced matrimony if successful). Which of those were good/evil vs. chaos/law I hadn't really spent the time trying to work out.2 wrongs don't make a right. Nor did you say, his goal was to get her freed from the marriage...and even on the assumption that it was, the means to do so are completely wrong, and IMO evil. NOW we can go back to your absolutist notion, and BoED: you cannot use evil means to accomplish something Good in the end. What would the PC alignment system be based upon, then? I'd also love to get rid of the alignment system if it weren't so ingrained in all the spells and effects. However, I'm unwilling to allow players to choose an alignment which gives them exemption from harmful spells and effects while giving them freedom to consistently act in any manner they choose.Ethics...which means motivation plays a big role. The first thing to note: many, if not most, situations have moral shades of gray attached to them. The D&D alignment system is all about Black and White, and reality isn't black and white unless your name's Bush. Examine the end, AND examine the means to reach the end. When is an End, Good? When is an End, Evil? It's Good to the degree that it helps others. It's Evil to the degree that it harms others. (Note that this means, its effect on *you* is NOT a factor.) When is an End, Lawful? When is an End, Chaotic? GAH...can I pass here? This axis is a total disaster, as the definitions are totally unworkable. (And note that ALL the effects that operate on this axis, are new to 3E. I think we *can* throw out all the spells/effects on this axis, and the players wouldn't even notice.) Same with these questions for Means. So now, when are Means Good, and when are they Evil? This is more complex, because one really needs to consider the universe of means...what other options were available? When you're Good, you'll pick the means that create the least harm...and that, if you can't see a method that creates more harm than it solves, *you don't do anything.* Yes, Good can be paralyzed by this. Evil doesn't care; anything goes. Then there's Consequences...sometimes bad things happen that you don't expect. If you're Evil, you don't care. If you're Good, you care. But remember: sometimes there's no choice. Sometimes, actions that would under most circumstances be evil, are acceptable when considerably greater evil will be avoided as a result, *and when* all other means that would accomplish the goal with less adverse side effects, are considerably less likely to be successful at achieving the goal. |
||
|
High Priest of Syrinx |
|||
|
Posts: 936 (10/30/09 12:42:20) Spooky |
Tiburon Silverflame wrote:Honestly, I can't see any way that the freeing of captive people would be considered theft, so maybe that's where we're missing each other. Any limitations on the right or wrong way to free them seems baseless to me, although ancillary actions committed during their liberation (ie, murdering the lord) would have to be judged on their own merit or lack thereof. How does the unwilling marriage aspect, affect his action in seducing her? It renders the nature of her possession and assumed unavailability as null and void. His action isn't really affected by the unwilling aspect, but neither is it affected by the fact that she is considered married by others. In fact, he's not really seducing a "married woman", he's attempting to seduce a woman who is free at least the sense of being able to decide who she has relations with besides her captor. She is exercising freewill in any resulting relations with the seducer, and might view them as a path to eventual liberation. If he aided her in achieving her freedom, then that be a Good act. If she chooses to run away and legitimately marry him eventually, then she's still free (as opposed to becoming his property)... so it's not theft by any means. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Nor did you say, his goal was to get her freed from the marriage...and even on the assumption that it was, the means to do so are completely wrong, and IMO evil.2 wrongs: I wasn't implying that the net score of all the actions was ultimately positive, just that some of his actions are good, while others are not. Whether he physically removes her from her predicament or simply respects her right to choose how to react to his affections, he is still affording her a greater degree of freedom than she had in her marriage..... so that's a liberation of sorts. It seems where you're going wrong is in assuming that she's an object for one person to own, or another. Ethics...which means motivation plays a big role. D&D alignment doesn't have to be black and white if each action is scored individually as I've been suggesting *would* be the logical way to handle a universally absolute Good/Evil as the game suggests. Someone might score 55% Good and 45% Evil, which is gray. Incorporating an individual's code of ethics into the game adds a great dimension and complexity for role-playing, but would be independent from one's alignment. That's where socialization and rationalization affect one's actions but ultimately not one's alignment. In your example above, Arnav the greedy sees nothing wrong with his life, treats his slaves well, introduces his fine breeding stock where appropriate, etc. According to the ethical code of the kingdom of Darnalon he's a fine, upstanding citizen.... but he detects as evil. He may not find this out until the afterlife, just like the rest of us. If DMs wish to push the alignment system aside and focus on the characters' perspectives then I see nothing wrong with that (unless they are conveniently choosing an alignment to escape harmful game effects like Blasphemy or Forbiddance). Alternatively, I see every justification for telling a player that while his PC's rationalization of an action is nice and he's free to run with it for role-playing... that his PC is plagued by nightmares and an unnerving sense of guilt for a few days. I think that approach would simplify these convoluted alignment discussions significantly.
Last Edited By: High Priest of Syrinx
10/30/09 13:18:52.
Edited 3 times.
|
||
|
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
Posts: 8437 (10/30/09 14:16:08) Enigma |
Honestly, I can't see any way that the freeing of captive people would be considered theft, so maybe that's where we're missing each other.It would seem so. What your statement here says, tho, is a lot. You're asserting that YOUR moral interpretation of the situation is the only viable and proper one, and it overrides the laws of Darnalon. Darnalon says slavery is legal, and that slaves are property. Therefore, they are NOT captives that you're freeing, but property you're stealing. There is no such thing as universal or constant morality...it seems that's something you think is possible, but it doesn't exist. Morality and ethics exist in context, and are defined within, and as part of, the general social contract. It's not etched in stone; it can, and does, change. It renders the nature of her possession and assumed unavailability as null and void. His action isn't really affected by the unwilling aspect, but neither is it affected by the fact that she is considered married by others. In fact, he's not really seducing a "married woman", he's attempting to seduce a woman who is free at least the sense of being able to decide who she has relations with besides her captor.So? She married. She took the vow. She said she would have relations with NO ONE else. That's the moral contract she's made. She IS married, and just because she's unhappy with it...tough. There is no 'considered' about it...it IS. And no, NOTHING about the unwilling nature of the marriage, supports his choice of action. No, it damn sure DOES NOT render the marriage null. Your arguments here, really strike me as singularly dangerous. You are pretty much saying that anything that violates your sense of ethics, is open season...that you can ignore every law linked to that violation that you want. It's only a small reach from the cases you're making here, to throwing fire bombs into abortion clinics. |
||
|
High Priest of Syrinx |
|||
|
Posts: 937 (10/31/09 09:04:21) Spooky |
Tiburon Silverflame wrote:If they don't become *my* property, then there's no theft. If I simply knock the fence down and they run away then that might break a property or vandalism law, but it's not theft. See? Now go back and re-read. You are pretty much saying that anything that violates your sense of ethics, is open season...that you can ignore every law linked to that violation that you want.No, I'm saying that freeing captive people is righting a wrong that's already been committed -- whether they be slaves or women enslaved by their patriarchs for sexual pleasure and reproduction. And I'm not professing that any and all laws may be violated. As I said in my last post, the actions taken during the liberation of those people would have to be judged on their own merit or lack thereof. It's only a small reach from the cases you're making here, to throwing fire bombs into abortion clinics. Honestly now? I think we're done here. 
|
||
|
phindar |
|||
|
Posts: 192 (10/31/09 12:54:50) Minimum 1 pt, right? |
I'm not sure that marital infidelity can be covered under "Good/Evil/Law/Chaos", but this
discussion is a pretty good example of where the alignment system breaks down-- almost any action can be argued from almost any side. I don't think there
will ever be a "this is a Lawful Good action", if only because two LG characters can take very different actions and still be following their
alignment.
|
||
|
High Priest of Syrinx |
|||
|
Posts: 938 (10/31/09 15:03:30) Spooky |
phindar wrote:That's the point that TS is trying to make -- that the side you happen to be arguing from makes a difference. I'm not arguing from a side at all. My point is that it doesn't make a difference under the 3.x D&D system with Good/Evil/Law/Chaos as universal absolutes, and in that case the alignment system doesn't break down it just produces the potential for a gap between the PCs' perspectives and reality. I don't think there will ever be a "this is a Lawful Good action", if only because two LG characters can take very different actions and still be following their alignment. Since I don't think *actions* have alignments at all, I agree with your first point, and since characters will sometimes-to-oftentimes act outside of their alignment, I agree with your second as well. 
Also, I think it's a mistake to tie the "Lawful" alignment too tightly to a society's laws... Couldn't agree more. Trying to make a philosophical point into a mechanical reality is where alignment usually jumps the tracks. Two people may disagree on a the morality of a particular course of action and both be sincere and both be right as far as each is concerned, as everyone is entitled to their own belief. But in D&D, your belief can determine whether you are unaffected by a particular spell or struck deaf, blind, paralyzed and dead, so it's kind of a big deal. If we're assuming that everyone brings their current moral and ethical background into the game and applies them to a character of another place and time (and maybe race, species, etc.), then yeah, that's a mess. How would the players understand the moral and ethical environment of the campaign world wihout the DM's guidance? |
||
|
phindar |
|||
|
Posts: 193 (10/31/09 15:55:44) Minimum 1 pt, right? |
Since I don't think *actions* have alignments at all, I agree with your first point, and since characters will sometimes-to-oftentimes act outside of their alignment, I agree with your second as well. My second point was it's entirely possible for two (or three, or more) characters who are LG to do completely different things and all be following their alignment. Three paladins faced with a situation may react three different ways, all of which are appropriate for a paladin, none of which constitutes an alignment violation. These paladins may even disagree with one another and still each be following their alignment. |
||
