What is your Alignment?

[Rosbjerg]

This thread goes a long way toward explaining why I hate alignments...

 

/cut due to length/

 

The defense rests

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm guessing .. Chaotic Evil .. "

[Roger the Sith]

Chaotic on either of the extremes.

[213374U]

Lawful neutral. However some of my views and my lack of pity could definitely be considered lawful evil.

 

That's just me. My internet persona is obviously chaotic evil. )

[Jediphile]

This thread goes a long way toward explaining why I hate alignments...

 

/cut due to length/

 

The defense rests

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm guessing .. Chaotic Evil .. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, Game Master - much worse... according to my players

[Ewen Brown]

nocturnal neutral

[metadigital]

This thread goes a long way toward explaining why I hate alignments...

 

I'm the GM of an AD&D 2e campaign, and I've banned alignments! Choosing an alignment is actually *verboten* for a player!

 

Instead I will assign one as GM if and when I find it appropriate.

 

Why?

 

Because what a particular alignment means depends entirely on who you ask. Ask any player (or GM) about any alignment, and you get a different answer from everyone. With nine alignments, this means a group of four players and a GM will have five different interpretations of any one alignment for a total of 45, and that's way too many.

 

I once had a player wanting to play neutral evil simply because he thought it was the alignment what would least limit his moral and ethical choices in the game. Think of that what you like, but it does show that players find alignments restrictive.

 

I don't think so myself - alignments are descriptions, not straight-jackets, so neutral evil is just as "restrictive" as lawful good (remember, though paladins must be lawful good, that doesn't mean all lawful good characters must have a paladin's ethos - those restrictions on the paladin are found in the description of the class, not under the alignment description of lawful good).

 

But most players don't see it that way, which causes no end of problems. Most other games but D&D have no alignments and still have no problems as a consequence - everybody understands that torturing a prisoner for information or selling people into slavery are not benevolent things to do...

 

So I banned them and the game runs much smoother as a consequence - no player arguments about alignments being restrictive.

 

And if you have any doubt about alignments causing more problems than they solve, just read this entire topic...

 

The defense rests

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. How do you act according to an alignment? What if you are lawful good suddenly snap and do something chaotic evil, is this necessarily a permanent shift, or just an anomoly? And Chaotic Evil are quite prepared to do expedient things for their own rewards, which can appear superficially to be good.

I began D&D by selecting Chaotic Neutral as my alignment, mostly because I saw it as the least restrictive.

 

A system whereby your alignment is a cumulative score of your actions is probably much wiser. After all, I believe anyone is capable of anything, given the right situation and motivation (in psychology it is called "The Power of the Situation" that doesn't prevent the guard from the treating the prisoner like a lower form of life, for example).

True Neutral I mentioned only because you mentioned Chaotic Neutral.  Otherwise, Neutral Good people want a "good" society, but feel that as long as it's good, it's...good.  Anyway, the most important part is that the greatest number of people are happy.  If you believe it can be done effectively either way, you'd be Neutral Good, though the way you feel it could be done best would determine whether you swayed towards Law or Chaos.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By this definition I am good. I don't believe the rules will work, sometimes the end does justify the means: but this is a difficult call, because the end does not always justify the means!

 

I also believe that some evil cannot be defeated without evil means, even though this is a direct contradiction.

 

Let me illustrate with an example

So what if your Paladin kills a good person who is building a weapon that will kill thousands of people in the misguided opinion that it will end a war earlier and save more lives on both sides of the conflict? E.g. your paladin has the opportunity to kill Oppenheimer and all the people working on the atomic weapons projects (in all countries and including all their collective intellectual property).

 

What about the US atomic bombing of Japan to end WW2? Was that a necessary evil (less evil than the pyrrhic futility of months of hand-to-hand combat and thousands more casualties and accumulated suffering), or the embodiment of pure evil, or something else more complex, perhaps depending on future events?

 

Conclusion

Whatever system is used (and I agree the current one is flawed beyond usefulness, except to take a snapshot) it needs to be able to manage such concepts, including complex interrogations at different times, such that an event may appear good now, but in the context of future events may indeed look evil.

[Reveilled]

By this definition I am good. I don't believe the rules will work, sometimes the end does justify the means: but this is a difficult call, because the end does not always justify the means!

 

I also believe that some evil cannot be defeated without evil means, even though this is a direct contradiction.

 

Let me illustrate with an example

So what if your Paladin kills a good person who is building a weapon that will kill thousands of people in the misguided opinion that it will end a war earlier and save more lives on both sides of the conflict? E.g. your paladin has the opportunity to kill Oppenheimer and all the people working on the atomic weapons projects (in all countries and including all their collective intellectual property).

 

If I'm the DM, that player's not staying a Paladin for too long. For starters, killing when the people in question have yet to commit an evil act and are not about to press the button is clearly a chaotic way of doing things. Second, the Paladin's code is very specific about deferring to Legitimate authority, and murdering someone who hasn't yet done anything wrong is clearly a defiance of the Paladin's code (because legitimate authority usually forbids killing innocents). Third, Paladins don't burst into a scientist's lab and start chopping off heads. They sit down and have a nice chat with the scientist about the extreme dangers of continuing with the weapon. They may stop the scientists in question from continuing their work, but there's no way a Paladin who goes about exectuing good-aligned scientists is Lawful Good. Chaotic Good, maybe just. Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, more likely.

 

What about the US atomic bombing of Japan to end WW2? Was that a necessary evil (less evil than the pyrrhic futility of months of hand-to-hand combat and thousands more casualties and accumulated suffering), or the embodiment of pure evil, or something else more complex, perhaps depending on future events?

 

Now that's a bit more like a proper Paladin dilemma. Under those circumstances, I'd let the Paladin do either, but require a justification for that action.

 

Conclusion

Whatever system is used (and I agree the current one is flawed beyond usefulness, except to take a snapshot) it needs to be able to manage such concepts, including complex interrogations at different times, such that an event may appear good now, but in the context of future events may indeed look evil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Alignment is about what's in your heart, not the consequences of your actions. With an event that appears good now but is evil later, what matters is the spirit in which it was intended. An evil person who does a million good things is not good if he did them with an evil heart and evil designs in mind. A Chaotic person doesn't all of a sudden become lawful because he doesn't compulsively break the rules just for the sake of breaking them. A Lawful good Character doesn't become Chaotic good because she freed the slaves of a Lawful Evil society. Even when a good person loses his temper for some reason and kills someone who did not deserve to die, that doesn't make him evil if he truly regrets and repents his actions (though a Paladin is held to a higher standerd and would require an Atonement quest to be redeemed).

[metadigital]

I agree, but how on Earth do you map intention in a cRPG? The only way so far is through the dialogue tree, so I guess a natural extension to this would help untie this gordian knot, thus a typical dialogue might be as follows.

 

You arrive at the scientist's lab, she is inside, do you:

1. [Chaotic] crash in and kill her with the element of surprise before she can do anything

2. [Lawful] knock on the door politely

3. [Lawful Good] bang on the door and demand entrance in the name of all that is holy

4. [Hide in Shadows] run away and hide

5. [set Traps] set a booby trap on the door and retire a safe distance.

 

Then you can map alignment. One of the neat strategems / plot flaws in any RPG is that the players alignment is not taken into account. For instance, with the KotOR series, it would have been a great feature to be able to bluff or lie to achieve some end (unlike in most Bioware games, where lying is just a pointless way to rack up Chaotic alignment points), like saving Hitler in WW1 so that he will be elected to power in 1936 and start WW2 in 1939.

 

You see Hitler in your rifle sight:

1. Kill the mass murderer before he has a chance to cause more death

2. Miss him (let him take his place in history, because out of his great evil will come the new US world order in sixty years time)

3. Miss him (let him kill all those non-Arians)

4. Miss him (it is never right to kill another, even when it might save innocents)

etc ...

 

:cool:

[Archmonarch]

You see Hitler in your rifle sight:

1. Kill the mass murderer before he has a chance to cause more death

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

While I normally disapprove of murder in any form, sometimes the one must be sacrificed to save the many. (Not that its much of a sacrifice or that he wont deserve it.)

[metadigital]

You see Hitler in your rifle sight:

1. Kill the mass murderer before he has a chance to cause more death

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

While I normally disapprove of murder in any form, sometimes the one must be sacrificed to save the many. (Not that its much of a sacrifice or that he wont deserve it.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, but how do you know that someone far worse than Hitler wouldn't come along later? Maybe the world got off lightly? A few more years after the end of WW2 and Germany would have had intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons (after all, the USSR and US atomic programmes were staffed almost exclusively by captured / dissedent German scientists).

 

Perhaps Hitler was the least worst outcome: certainly the Nazis have given us a salient reminder of the evils of totalitarianism and racism.

 

Out of Great Evil, some Great Good must come ...

[Cantousent]

I am a sinner. My alignment is Neutral Evil. I strive to be Good.

[metadigital]

I am a sinner.  My alignment is Neutral Evil.  I strive to be Good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't understand. If you want to be good, but don't then is your alignment really neutral evil?

 

I thought you must be trying to be evil to be truly evil, otherwise you are just a weak-willed neutral.

[Cantousent]

I thought you must be trying to be evil to be truly evil, otherwise you are just a weak-willed neutral.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

guilty, as charged.

[Aponez]

Then you can map alignment. One of the neat strategems / plot flaws in any RPG is that the players alignment is not taken into account. For instance, with the KotOR series, it would have been a great feature to be able to bluff or lie to achieve some end (unlike in most Bioware games, where lying is just a pointless way to rack up Chaotic alignment points), like saving Hitler in WW1 so that he will be elected to power in 1936 and start WW2 in 1939.

 

You see Hitler in your rifle sight:

1. Kill the mass murderer before he has a chance to cause more death

2. Miss him (let him take his place in history, because out of his great evil will come the new US world order in sixty years time)

3. Miss him (let him kill all those non-Arians)

4. Miss him (it is never right to kill another, even when it might save innocents)

etc ...

 

:cool:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First of all metadigital Hitler didn't was elected to power in 1936, was in 1934 after the death of Hindenburg.

 

Second killing him in 1936 the only thing you changes is the name of the ruler of Germany, but his succesor will be other nazi, the others where in the exile or in the camps.

 

Third in 1939 or maybe in 1940-42 you would had the war, but this time the war would be started by the Soviet Union and without the Whermacht to slow them in their advance to the west. In other words, killing him you surely would get a red Europe, remember that with between the 38 and the 45% of the Luftwaffe, the 60% of the Heer (Army), and the 62% of the Waffen SS fighting in the Ostfront (East Front) the allies needed almost 2 years to conquer Italy, and 11 months to conquer what the Wehrmacht conquered in 1940 in 45 days.

 

How many time do you think they would need against the Soviet Army at the same time the allies had to fight against Japan?

 

In other words, my election is miss him independent the alignement .

[Telrunya]

I'd be a Neutral good, kinda like Jolee Bindo in Kotor I....

Also..I'm equally grumpy when it's cold and I'm tired.

[metadigital]

First of all metadigital Hitler didn't was elected to power in 1936, was in 1934 after the death of Hindenburg.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I stand corrected, I was just guessing on that date (using the '36 Berlin Olympics as a rough guide).

Second killing him in 1936 the only thing you changes is the name of the ruler of Germany, but his succesor will be other nazi, the others where in the exile or in the camps.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was actually referring to Hitler's term as a corporal in WW1.

Third in 1939 or maybe in 1940-42 you would had the war, but this time the war would be started by the Soviet Union and without the Whermacht to slow them in their advance to the west. In other words, killing him you surely would get a red Europe, remember that with between the 38 and the 45% of the Luftwaffe, the 60% of the Heer (Army), and the 62% of the Waffen SS fighting in the Ostfront (East Front) the allies needed almost 2 years to conquer Italy, and 11 months to conquer what the Wehrmacht conquered in 1940 in 45 days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Italy took a long time to re-take because the Germans were dug in very deep. Germany also had superior weapons (e.g. especially their tanks). Don't forget that Patton wasn't permitted to run amok; I'm sure he would have made a big difference had he been let loose by Eisenhower.

How many time do you think they would need against the Soviet Army at the same time the allies had to fight against Japan?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US managed to beat the Soviets in the end, so I would say its a fair bet that they would have done it earlier, too. You forget the arms build up by the Soviets after WW2; at the end of WW2 the US was producing 5 battle ships a day, for example.

In other words, my election is miss him independent the alignement .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was my point, actually. Using Hitler (who is generally regarded as evil) as an example of how great good can come from great evil. It is all too likely that, if Hitler hadn't existed, a far worse tragedy would have occurred, just not at that particular instant in time.

 

Finally, it was an illustration of intent as a marker for alignment. So your alignment would be Chaotic Good, because you chose to allow a great evil because you deemed the consequential great good that derived from it worth the sacrifice. :cool:

[Telrunya]

Whoa...

I think you're one of those people who listened to Morpheus's rant in Deus Ex I, at Everett's house:D

I know I did:D :ph34r:

 

nice explanation

[Aponez]

Finally, it was an illustration of intent as a marker for alignment. So your alignment would be Chaotic Good, because you chose to allow a great evil because you deemed the consequential great good that derived from it worth the sacrifice.  :cool:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I said before that my alignment was Chaotic, and the other part was about the day "

 

About the war, forget the ships, in a war in Europe the USSR don't need ships, and remeber that Germany conquered France in 1940 with worst tanks than the allies, the best german tank were the Pz III ( 37/46 mm gun and 3*7.92 mm machineguns, armor 50 mm) and the Pz IV (75/24 mm gun and 3 machineguns, same armor than the Pz III) against them the allies had the Somua (47 mm gun and 2 machineguns, armor 50 mm), the Char B1 Bis ( 1*75 mm gun, 1* 47 mm gun and 2 machineguns, armor 65 mm) and the Infantry Tank Mk II (Mathilda) ( 1*40 mm gun, 2 machineguns, armor 78 mm) and won

[metadigital]

Well, I said before that my alignment was Chaotic, and the other part was about the day "

 

About the war, forget the ships, in a war in Europe the USSR don't need ships, and remeber that Germany conquered France in 1940 with worst tanks than the allies, the best german tank were the Pz III ( 37/46 mm gun and 3*7.92 mm machineguns, armor 50 mm) and the Pz IV (75/24 mm gun and 3 machineguns, same armor than the Pz III) against them the allies had the Somua (47 mm gun and 2 machineguns, armor 50 mm), the Char B1 Bis ( 1*75 mm gun, 1* 47 mm gun and 2 machineguns, armor 65 mm) and the Infantry Tank Mk II (Mathilda) ( 1*40 mm gun, 2 machineguns, armor 78 mm) and won

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The ships were an example; unfortunately I'm not a WW2 munitions geek, or I'd produce some wonderful bumph about that, the ships were one reference I recall without searching. Here's some US WW2 weapon production figures, compared to the German figures.

 

I have no doubt the Germans were a ferociously talented armed forces: it took the rest of the world and nearly six years to stop them (even if they did have a running start: Hitler building the autobahns to join hands with the rest of Europe masking his true intentions of using them to transport tanks!); and their motivation, to remove the stain of reparations from WW1, was a just cause.

 

Their Blitzkreig tactics of the Sichelschnitt were pure innovative genius, for example; it would take the US another three years to begin to perfect the Marines amphibious forces in the Pacific. (Avoiding the Maginot Line was pretty clever, too.)

 

Anyway, I come not to praise Hitler, but to bury him.

[alanschu]

The US managed to beat the Soviets in the end, so I would say its a fair bet that they would have done it earlier, too. You forget the arms build up by the Soviets after WW2; at the end of WW2 the US was producing 5 battle ships a day, for example.

 

Errr.....5 battleships a day???

 

As for Aponez, I think you are sorely underestimating the usefullness of the german tanks.

 

If the Panzer IV was such a crap tank, why was it still able to punch holes in Allied armor towards the end of the war.

[metadigital]

The US managed to beat the Soviets in the end, so I would say its a fair bet that they would have done it earlier, too. You forget the arms build up by the Soviets after WW2; at the end of WW2 the US was producing 5 battle ships a day, for example.

Errr.....5 battleships a day???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, maybe it was five flying fortresses a day. Whatever the statistic, it was an ungodly amount of production. That was always -- and has remained -- the US miltary strength: production capacity.

Whoa...

I think you're one of those people who listened to Morpheus's rant in Deus Ex I, at Everett's house:D

I know I did:D :ph34r:

 

nice explanation

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually I listened to one of Doctor Who's rants: Tom Baker's fourth Doctor, in the "Genesis of the Daleks", when confronted with the choice of whether it was "right" to destroy the cradle of the Daleks, mutant creatures that had been genetically altered to only have hate as an emotion, and whose sole xenophobic ambition was to destroy all that was not Dalek in the universes. (And whom, it has recently transpired, caused the death of the Time Lords and the Daleks in the last Great Time War.)

[SteveThaiBinh]

I'm neutral good, and I suspect most people are, although they no doubt would disagree over their definition of 'good'. I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who who struck me as evil (name-badges with alignment would be a big help), though I do know lots of true neutrals, I think.

[metadigital]

I'm neutral good, and I suspect most people are, although they no doubt would disagree over their definition of 'good'.  I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who who struck me as evil (name-badges with alignment would be a big help), though I do know lots of true neutrals, I think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dr Smith, as played by Gary Oldman in Lost in Space of the cult series, was a Lawful Evil person.

 

You're lucky (or young, or na

[SteveThaiBinh]

Dr. Smith is a rather one-dimensional character. I'm prepared to admit that a lot of people struggle between good and evil (better to say ethical and unethical?) choices, and don't always make the right choice. But nearly everyone has their generous moments. There are so many times when someone has frustrated something that I've wanted to do, seemingly for no other reason than petty self-interest, but with patience and careful delving, it turns out that their motivation was good.

 

I'm not very young, and I don't think I'm naive, although I seem to get called it a lot. I would say that I've a lot of experience at looking at things from other people's perspectives, and this is a path that leads to tolerance and optimism.

[metadigital]

There are so many times when someone has frustrated something that I've wanted to do, seemingly for no other reason than petty self-interest, but with patience and careful delving, it turns out that their motivation was good.

 

I'm not very young, and I don't think I'm naive, although I seem to get called it a lot.  I would say that I've a lot of experience at looking at things from other people's perspectives, and this is a path that leads to tolerance and optimism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You sound far too understanding for your own good. This isn't a bad thing, but it means you are so good at seeing a situation from your opponent's pov that you are more likely as not to help them above your own interests. It is easy to rationalise after an event. To take an extreme example, Hitler never expected the UK to oppose Germany in WW2 (the Royal Family's real surname is Saxe-Coburg, but Windsor was adopted by George V, July 1917) and hoped to have a quick military engagement to change the political landscape in continental Europe (much the way the British and French carried on up to the twentieth century); he was quite happy to deport the Jewish people from Germany (but the countries of the rest of the world were strangely reticent to have the immigrants <_< ) so the great genocide might never have happened. See, even the hated figure of Hitler can be given a positive sheen, if you try hard enough.

 

I can be a little too empathic at times, too. Others can and will take advantage of this -- the rationale being that it is not good for one to be so pliable to another's wishes -- sort of "teaching the person a lesson" in the kindest way possible, as they let them.

 

Make no mistake there are evil people in the world. I think it is a failing of liberal education to think that "turning the other cheek" and giving people "one more chance" will always work. I certainly wouldn't advocate letting Charles Manson out of jail, because he would kill again. Is he mad? Well, he is of sound mind enough to debate us that his world-view is not faulty. What about Hannibal, from the novels and films? He's actually quite a likable character, aside from the fact that he eats people he doesn't like. But he only eats the rude, so I'd be okay. :D