bmg@mck-csc.UUCP (Bernard M. Gunther) (11/21/85)
> what people think of it. Also, can anyone think of a better name than > "alignment"? Ethos, personality, morals, and others have been suggested, > but I'm not real happy with any of them. Suggestions? Comments? > > Mike Sellers There is a serious problem with alignment. It has very little to do with the way people act. Take the situation where Good Christian Knights were not allowed to shed the blood of Christians, but anybody else was ok. What alignement would you give to the following character: A strong believer in his faith which says that all humans have soles but no other race does. The person is a pallidan of his temple. He will never torture or fight deviously with another human, but when dealing with non-humans, anything goes because they have no soles and can be treated the same as cattle. This means branding (torture), ownership (slavery), etc. are perfectly ok. The person is lawful good with respect to his temple but with respect to others he may be evil. Another example: A person inside an organization. He will always obey his supiriors and will always do as they say and will never lie to them. If the same person is dealing with outsiders, he is free to lie, cheat, steal, etc. This person is lawful with respect to his organization, but is chaotic with respect to the rest of the world. Is he therefore lawful? Chaotic? Neutral?? If he's neutral it just means that neutral ballance between the extremes, but the standard deviation is irrelevant. Until you can develope ways to allow for complex characters to believe that they are Lawful good even when you or I might not think so, it doesn't matter how you describe it. It's all just for your convinience, so don't worry about it. Use whatever you like, but don't expect to be able to represent the true complexities of real characters. Sorry to make this sound like a flame (which it might very well be) but I have had to deal with some DMs who don't understand these sorts of complexities and especially when you're running a pallidan, these issues can cause all sorts of major problems. Bernie Gunther
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (11/23/85)
In article <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [somebody who'd rather be anonymous] writes: > A strong believer in his faith which says that all humans have > soles but no other race does. > ...anything goes because they have no soles and > I know spelling flames aren't approved of, but this is just too humorous to pass up... Just which animals *do* have soles? Just primates? Snakes surely don't. Apes and monkeys do... do orcs? What about Class IV demons? Does a palladin have to look at the bottoms of his intended victim's feet before slaying them? I've looked all through the relevant literature (e.g. TSR's AD&D manuals), but failed to find a mention of this. Is there somebody out there (a zoologist, perhaps) who can help us out with this burning question? Now you've got me curious!
showard@udenva.UUCP (showard) (11/24/85)
In article <2301@iddic.UUCP> dorettas@iddic.UUCP (Mike Sellers) writes: >I know this is getting long, but I wanted to elicit replies on an idea I had >regarding ALIGNMENTS. The idea is to make it a percentile scale (don't "n" >yet, it gets better), with Most Evil being at 01 and Most Good being at 100. >Different races have cultural ranges (hobbits normally go from 60-80, orcs >from 10-40, etc.), though exceptions are certainly possible. NO ONE starts >out any more evil than, say a 20, or more good than an 80. Scores higher or >lower must be developed. As your character goes on, his or her actions may >change the current alignment value. The referee judges whether or not an >action is more than 5 or 10 points (better or worse) away from the character's >current value. If it is, the character's alignment goes d6 points in that >direction. Also, it is likely that if a character spends time with others >of radically different alignment that he or she (or occasionally the others) >will slip in the direction of the peers (can you say 'peer pressure'?). Thus >a good character will usually not want to run around with a bunch of more >evil people, since his alignment will probably slip in their direction. There >are all sorts of other uses for this, too. For example, what if you had to >have a certain alignment value or better to get into an order of knights, or >to get to the next experience level (for paladins, say), or if you had to >have no better than an alignment of 15 to join an evil force. This would make >it so player's played their character's alignments not just as restrictive >values, but as things to be developed like any other ability. Evil characters >would always be on the look-out for things to do to make them more evil (and >maybe they gain some other kind of power or prowess by doing so), and good >characters would want to stay away from evil deeds and do good things (or >perhaps lose Wisdom points or something). Neutral characters (45-55 range) >would probably take great care not to stray to either extreme, lest they >become like these other fanatics :-). >As you can see, this idea is not fully developed, but I would like to see >what people think of it. Also, can anyone think of a better name than >"alignment"? Ethos, personality, morals, and others have been suggested, >but I'm not real happy with any of them. Suggestions? Comments? >[Flames will be sent directly to the Great Bit Bucket in the sky.] > > Thanks for listening/reading/not drooling > Mike Sellers Sounds interesting. Another idea would be to have clerics'(and paladins') spell powers modified by alignment. The closer one is to either extreme (or to 50 for neutral clerics/druids) the more effective one's spells are. Two clerics casting conflicting spells could be resolved by the use of this idea: whichever is the closest to the alignment of his/her god (or ideal, or what- ever) prevails. My idea for the name of this ranking is Morality. --Mr. Blore, the DJ who would not die! --aka Steve Howard, ...udenva!showard --"Look over there, a dry ice factory. Good place to get some thinking done"
berry@tolerant.UUCP (David Berry) (11/26/85)
> A strong believer in his faith which says that all humans have > soles but no other race does. The person is a pallidan of his temple. ^ Yep, 2 of 'em. > He will never torture or fight deviously with another human, but when > dealing with non-humans, anything goes because they have no soles and > can be treated the same as cattle. This means branding (torture), Cattle on the other hand have hooves. > ownership (slavery), etc. are perfectly ok. -- David W. Berry ...!ucbvax!tolerant!berry [Don't shoot the Tolerant Systems, I'm just the consultant]
morrism@ecn-aa.UUCP (The Music Man) (11/26/85)
A good question comes up on this question on Alignment. But I see one
big error in the discussion on Good & Evil Alignment.
Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral are the Alignments. BUT, Good, Evil, and
Neutral are INTENTS.
Intents are what we would call today morals. While Alignments are what I
would call actions to other people. Intent strongly affects Alignment. In fact,
90 percent of the Adventuring Fellows I guide seem to follow only Intent.
An example: A group sabotaged a town waiting for some raiders to come
in. The townsmen had evacuated, so the party just took over.
Well, the raiders did not show up. But the townspeople did. They must
have sprung every trap. 1/2 of the population died.
In any case, they saw the adventures and chased them. All but one
escaped and he was caught by 2 people and told of his charges BEFORE they were
to escort him to jail.
His Alignment was Lawful and Intent was Evil. He decided that, being
Evil, he would start hacking at the two and make a clean breakaway.
I said NO. His Alignment is LAWFUL. Which means he MUST face his
charges in a court of law. Evil, Good, or Neutral, Lawful means the LAW. He
believes that the Law is fair.
Okay. Evil's Laws are different than Good's Laws. But he still must
accept the Law as a visitor of a town.
So there is the difference between Alignment and Intent. Now, what do
we do about it?
Dosvidania.
-morrism-
Mitchell J. Morrison Hacker/Programmer/Consultant at Large
UUCP: {decvax, ihnp4, seismo, ucbvax}!pur-ee!ecn-aa!morrism
USPS: 902 S. 9th St. Lafayette, IN 47905
Ma Bell: 317-423-2054 or 317-742-5259 (both voice)
What I say, think, & do are of my judgement & opinion. So nobody is to
blame but me.
"Sleep is a state of mind. So I do without."dorettas@iddic.UUCP (Doretta Schrock) (12/03/85)
[I am really Mike Sellers, in a most ingenious disguise...] >> ...Also, can anyone think of a better name than >> "alignment"? Ethos, personality, morals, and others have been suggested, >> but I'm not real happy with any of them. Suggestions? Comments? By current count, "morality" seems to be the most preferred. I always liked "ethos", an old Greek word, but then I tend to accumulate old words like that. I don't know why the word "alignment" was first chosen, but I suspect that it referred to how one's personality was *aligned* versus the forces of the cosmos (a.k.a. good/evil, law/chaos, chocolate/vanilla, etc :-) in much the same way that a compass needle aligns itself with respect to the compass points around it. If this is true, it defuses the arguments and examples below. > ...Take the situation where Good Christian Knights were > not allowed to shed the blood of Christians, but anybody else was ok. What > alignement would you give to the following character: > > A strong believer in his faith which says that all humans have > soles [I won't even touch this one! MJS :-] but no other race does. > The person is a pallidan of his temple. > He will never torture or fight deviously with another human, but when > dealing with non-humans, anything goes because they have no soles and > can be treated the same as cattle. This means branding (torture), > ownership (slavery), etc. are perfectly ok. > > The person is lawful good with respect to his temple but with respect to > others he may be evil. This example uses the "cultural-dependence" model of good and evil: what we say is good is good, even if it means torturing your children. If you say instead that there are (broadly based) universal standards of Good and Evil then this problem disappears. I did have a friend who once ran an "Inquistion" adventure, where you were tortured until you blew your save and recanted your old heathen life and took up the dominant religion, new alignment and all. The new alignment, and that of your inquisitors? Why, Lawful/Good :-( ! I luckily (for me, my character, and my friendship with this guy) escaped this fate. > Another example: > > A person inside an organization. He will always obey his supiriors > and will always do as they say and will never lie to them. If the same > person is dealing with outsiders, he is free to lie, cheat, steal, etc. I hope this doesn't start a major psychology discussion, but I wonder how many people there are like this in mainstream society. Most people who lie, cheat, steal, etc., in one part of their life carry this over to other parts as well. Of course, you could say that this character is mentally a little off-balance (who *else* would go adventuring so often?! :-), or that he or she is basically neutral and is simply doing what is expedient without really hurting others. > Until you can develope ways to allow for complex characters to believe that > they are Lawful good even when you or I might not think so, it doesn't > matter how you describe it. It's all just for your convinience, so don't > worry about it. Use whatever you like, but don't expect to be able to > represent the true complexities of real characters. I think you can account and allow for the complexities of personalities in characters, though certainly not with an inflexible prescriptive system such as (I think) the classic AD&D alignment system is. Characters *should* be able to think of themselves as good and right, even if they are the most diabolical things that ever walked. You can't function well for too long if you believe that your personality is flawed in a primary way. They should also be able to fool others if they want, with sufficient effort (none of this "no, you can't give the beggar a generous gift; you're *evil*, remember?"), and with the chance that their actions will rub off on them ("sure, you can do that, but if you blow the roll, you might find that you really *enjoy* mugging old ladies"). This is getting too long, so I'll finish it up in another posting with my view of how to say what good and evil are and how to measure them in characters. Later days. Comments appreciated. Mike Sellers
darin@ut-dillo.UUCP (Darin Adler) (12/05/85)
<> > He will never torture or fight deviously with another human, but when > dealing with non-humans, anything goes because they have no soles and > can be treated the same as cattle. This means branding (torture), > ownership (slavery), etc. are perfectly OK. > > The person is lawful good with respect to his temple but with respect to > others he may be evil. The world of AD&D is simpler than the real world. In AD&D, good/evil (referred to as morals) and law/chaos (referred to as ethics) make up a system called "Alignment". The word, "Alignment", refers to combination of beliefs and actions that creatures in this world possess and perform. The inhabitants of this world are not familiar with the term "Alignment" in the sense that players are. These inhabitants may have a different interpretation of the terms "good", "evil", "law", and/or "chaos". Thus, a "Know Alignment" spell will reveal the base system of morals/ethics compared to those of the caster. A Lawful Evil cleric would see that a group of Chaotic Good elves were diametrically opposed to his viewpoint, regardless of the terms he used to describe himself. Regardless of how a player/character/NPC describes his world view, "Alignment", for AD&D purposes is based on the definitions in the AD&D books and the particular interpretation of the DM. Torture and slavery of those outside a select group might not be considered "evil" by a particular sect. On the contrary, these might be considered "pious" or "good" actions by that sect. However, the DM can determine that these are "evil" actions by consulting the definitions of the evil alignments, both his own and those in the Dungeon Master's Guide, Players Handbook, and in Oriental Adventures, if appropriate. Of course, this is the DEFINITIVE alignment system; any other is INCORRECT and CANNOT BE USED ;-) Comments? Flames? -- Darin Adler {gatech,harvard,ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!ut-dillo!darin
rtummers1@watrose.UUCP (Richard Tummers) (12/05/85)
I myself am a RuneQuest player, which has no real parallel with the D&D concept of alignment. This means that players can do as they please... Do as they please MOSTLY anyway. The concept of character behavior patterns are based on the situation you are in. If you do constantly steal, cheat and lie, then no one will trust you. It will become more difficult to have people believe that you are NOT stealing, cheating and lieing. As well, you may be caught stealing (or whatever) by some 'higher authority'. In my game, set in a civilized mileau, I have a well developed legal system that punishes people that break the laws of society. (One or two very tense adventures took place in a courtroom where the party was (correctly) accused of Grand Theft and Fraud; They were exonerated of the charges). Thus, character behavior is dictated not by an abstract concept like 'alignment', but by concrete and definable system of police, bounty hunters, judges and laws. Other mileaus have similar 'higher authorities' that can affect game play in many ways. If you worship a god, and perform deeds the god deems unsuitable - you will be punished by the god or your fellow worshippers. If you are a member of a barbarian clan, and murder a tribesman, then the clan head or his supporters, or even the tribesmans family may be free - by tribal custom - to kill you, or perhaps demand weregeld. Historically, each society has had ways to punish those it felt were wrong: Be it our system of law, an eye for an eye, the strongest person makes the rules, etc. Another example from my game is that different areas use different 'higher authorities'. In many uncivilized areas, the philosophy that the strongest person makes the rules prevails. If you worship a god, then the god will punish you. (These punishments range from withholding the full power of the spells that the god grants, to the biblical 7 good years and 7 bad years of crops). For me, this 'responsibility to your environment' is more meaningful than alignment. I can understand loyalty to god, king and country. I cannot easily understand and explain the concept of alignment. In this way the 'punishment' for acting out of societies views are well defined: be they arrest, loss of friends, starting a feud, excommunication, etc. The effects are much more easily explained in a logical manner. Richard Tummers. Hey man, ain't no disclaimers here. I actually believe this stuff!
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (12/06/85)
In article <218@ut-dillo.UUCP>, darin@ut-dillo.UUCP (Darin Adler) writes: > > The world of AD&D is simpler than the real world. In AD&D, good/evil > (referred to as morals) and law/chaos (referred to as ethics) make up > a system called "Alignment". The word, "Alignment", refers to combination > of beliefs and actions that creatures in this world possess and > perform. I agree that AD&D shows a simple-minded worldview -- that's the problem. By playing with braindamaged alignment rules you are, in effect, saying to your players, "Make sure your role-playing lives down to this braindamaged game system." But I disagree that AD&D's "good/evil" system has anything to do with morals, or law/chaos with ethics. All Paladin characters I have ever seen were sadistic butchers, for example. If a sadistic butcher can be "lawful good," then alignment means exactly nothing. > A Lawful Evil > cleric would see that a group of Chaotic Good elves were diametrically > opposed to his viewpoint, regardless of the terms he used to describe > himself. On what issues? Even in fantasy one rarely sees people so opposite that they disagree on *everything*. If two Clerics are out aiding their gods by butchering peasants, would they see themselves as being of the same alignment, even though one is butchering them for Christ and the other is butchering them for Satan? -- Robert Plamondon UUCP: {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert FidoNet: 10/624 robert plamondon