I miss CG

[Mal Malenkirk]

Well, there is a certain potential for that to be culture related. Some belief systems (particularly certain versions of Confucianism) would hold that defending your sister is of higher importance and moral value then defending a stranger.

I would say that defending your sister is of a higher priority than defending a stranger.
If it's one or the other, I can't imagine that I'd chose a stranger over my sisters.

I am not aware that even confucianism would put a higher value on defending your sister than a stranger, since the first is so much more common than the later. If both action are deemed worthy but one is less common than the others, the rarest action is of higher value than the most common.

 

[Celebrim]

I am not aware that even confucianism would put a higher value on defending your sister than a stranger, since the first is so much more common than the later. If both action are deemed worthy but one is less common than the others, the rarest action is of higher value than the most common.

I'm hardly an expert here, but I know enough of Confucianism to believe that that last statement is not true under its ethical formulation.

Those actions are deemed most worthy that are the most expected (common) according to your station and relationships. Hense, also, by failing in these duties you are most unworthy. Under Confucianism, the logic would run, "If it were true that it was more worthy to help strangers than ones sister, then it would also be true that it was more unworthy to not help strangers than ones sister. Since this is not the case, it cannot be true that it is more worthy to help strangers than ones sisters."

I'm not actually clear to what extent if any Confucianism would esteem helping a stranger. My guess is that it esteems benevolence to strangers as necessary for perfection, but generally to be of low value since by definition your relationship to a stranger - and therefore your duty to him - is one of non-relationship.

 

[Krensky]

I would say that defending your sister is of a higher priority than defending a stranger.
If it's one or the other, I can't imagine that I'd chose a stranger over my sisters.

I am not aware that even confucianism would put a higher value on defending your sister than a stranger, since the first is so much more common than the later. If both action are deemed worthy but one is less common than the others, the rarest action is of higher value than the most common.

I said some forms of it. Namely because the filial relationship between you and your sister is higher then the one between you and a friend or the non-existent one between you and a stranger. Master Kung may not have agreed, but this is how some have interpreted it.

That wasn't quite the point though, my point is that the determination of good and evil, even if one accepts that they are dualistic absolutes, is not necessarily something universal. The level of morality or immorality ascribed to a particular act by a culture can and will vary. Even if good and evil are absolute, the actual definitions of "good" and "evil" are cultural.

 

[Celebrim]

I said some forms of it. Namely because the filial relationship between you and your sister is higher then the one between you and a friend or the non-existent one between you and a stranger. Master Kung may not have agreed, but this is how some have interpreted it.

Master Kung did not claim there existed a relationship between you and a stranger or enemy. He did however provide a guide to benevolent behavior:

"Do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you."

But this formulation is expressively passive, as it asserts what behavior to avoid (murder, for example), but it doesn't exhort you to take any sort of particular action. So, you might avoid cruelty, but there is no particular impetus toward charity unless you have a duty to the individual because of a relationship - in which case it is not charity.

Of course, I'm not a scholar and haven't been instructed in the texts, but the critical point it would seem to me is how much value that Master Kung placed on forming friendships. If you are under no obligation to create the friend relationship, you are also under no obligation to practice kindness to strangers. It still might be advisable, but it would be a matter of rational self-interest at that point, and not a moral necessity.

I leave the answer to that to an actual expert.

 

[Krensky]

Master Kung did not claim there existed a relationship between you and a stranger or enemy. He did however provide a guide to benevolent behavior:

"Do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you."

But this formulation is expressively passive, as it asserts what behavior to avoid (murder, for example), but it doesn't exhort you to take any sort of particular action. So, you might avoid cruelty, but there is no particular impetus toward charity unless you have a duty to the individual because of a relationship - in which case it is not charity.

Of course, I'm not a scholar and haven't been instructed in the texts, but the critical point it would seem to me is how much value that Master Kung placed on forming friendships. If you are under no obligation to create the friend relationship, you are also under no obligation to practice kindness to strangers. It still might be advisable, but it would be a matter of rational self-interest at that point, and not a moral necessity.

I leave the answer to that to an actual expert.

I think we're arguing the same thing here. The root of my comments remains:

If the mechanical influence of alignment (targeting, penalties for not adhering to it, or rewards for adhering to it) has been removed, why include alignment at all? In a modern game something closer to True20's (among other systems, many of which came first, True20 is just one that popped in my head) virtues and vices or WoD's humanity scales or Oriental Adventures/L5R's honor system is more appropriate if some sort of scale for moral and ethical predilection is required. I honestly think alignment in 4e is another sacred cow the designers felt they couldn't kill.

If (when) I run a 4e game I probably won't use alignment if it indeed has no mechanical effect in the RAW. Even if it does most things, including people and monsters simply won't have any. Alignment is a property of outsiders and beings touched by a higher power and purpose. Clerics and Paladins generally don't count as being touched in this way, I mean things that a other worldly power that possesses alignment has invested some of that power directly in. This has worked for 3.X and Spycraft 2.0 games, I don't foresee any issues in 4e.

 

[Family]

---

 

[2eBladeSinger]

I just jumped from the third page to the last... I was wondering when the thread would devolve into a philisophical debate *casually whistles and steps out of the room*

Probably the only time in my life I'm ever going to say this: I like the way Palladium does the mechanic much better.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

Purely a symmantic difference. Whether or not the chaotic actor is ignoring the external code or consciously defying it, the effect is the same. The point is the chaotic actor does not believe his actions should be dictated by an external code, but only by internal and personal constructs (or some sort).

Of course it's semantic. But obviously it's necessary to absorb.
You believe that being Chaotic is to be devoted to the idea of Chaos. I believe that the way WotC is defining it is as Actually Chaotic.

I think if you drop the assumption that an action is defined by its intention, this will clear itself up pretty quickly.

No reason to drop an assumption that makes every bit of sense.

It is sufficient for lawful evil that you are trying to achieve law through evil. It is not necessary that you be trying to achieve evil through law.

You are talking about something other than what I am talking about. You are talking about a Lawful *and* Evil person. Not a Lawfully Evil person.
I agree that Lawful/Evil can exist (Lawful Evil in the old system). Yes. Great. That's true. But the new system doesn't define it the same way.

Yes, there is. Plenty of perfectly rational and rigorous philosophies exist out there that do not consider intentionality to be particularly important in determining whether something was good or evil. They might consider it a mitigating factor when dispensing justice, but the act itself was good or evil based on something other than its intention.

All right. These philosophies have a definition of evil action that is Completely Irrelevant because it means that you cannot know when you are and are not doing good and evil actions. And if that is true, then no one would know how to act.

Once again, I can't help but think your confusion is that you have a very specific moral philosophy and you refuse to classify it except as 'Good' and refuse to examine your bias or to consider other philosophies relative to your own.

I don't. I'm perfectly willing to accept that your idea of Lawful/Good, Lawful/Evil, Chaotic/Good, all that old stuff exist. I put a '/' in there to more accurately label it, but it is exactly what 3.x alignments were. I am differentiating between the two editions. This second one focuses on Good and Evil, and scraps the Lawful and Chaotic "axis." I think it works better.

I understand that you are really splitting hairs here.

You aren't even arguing against me, you're just reinforcing the reasoning behind the previous system. Which is great. But it isn't the current system. You should probably be arguing that the new system sucks, rather than that the new system should be the old system without qualification.

I think your distinct difference just don't amount to much to anyone but yourself.

That's fine. Hopefully one or two people do, and start to actually think about how the difference matters.

Quite the contrary, without an allegiance to law and good such indecision, confusion, and tension wouldn't exist. Unaligned people generally don't have internal moral turmoil.

Um. Right. Unaligned people including everyone who isn't at heart devoted to Good or Evil. I'm sure they have no compunctions about their actions.

Err... you still seem like you are stretching to me.

That's fine...it's a hard concept to grasp.

Common sense isn't proof of anything.

Common connotations define the usage and meaning of words.

That's not the definition of slavery, and more importantly that's certainly not how societies that practiced slavery understood the term.

Definition:
"Slavery is a social-economic system under which certain persons — known as slaves — are deprived of personal freedom and compelled to work.
Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages) in return for their labor. As such, slavery is one form of unfree labor."

More importantly:
This still has nothing to do with the distinct difference between the old and new definitions of Lawful, Chaotic, Good, and Evil.

Swell.

Rough day?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

You are the one who is assuming these acts are inherently chaotic. What Robin Hood did was war on a small scale. Guerrila, basically. Is war an inherently CHAOTIC activity? Because fighting a guerilla war to restore the LAW is kind of paradoxal if only CHAOTIC people can do it. Yourself you tagged the nazis as Lawful. Well, they were waging war. And used sneaky tactics such as blitzkrieg and snipers. Why would Robin Hood be chaotic just because he didn't have the means to fight Prince John on an open field?

It's still banditry. He didn't do guerilla warfare. He didn't do strategic attacks on the Prince's army. He hid in the woods and mugged people.

And more importantly, you never answered this : Why would Robin Hood STOP his activities and become a loyal subject once the rightful king is restored if he was truly chaotic.

His alignment changed.

Robin Hood used the only means he had available. In most variant, he didn't take to the wood immediately. In most stories he starts by protesting formally. Very Lawful. But it backfires and soon he has to flee for his life. He didn't use a chaotic method to fight back. He used the only method to fight back in the context. Nothing else would have worked in an area where the Sheriff conrols the local armed force, the church hierarchy is corrupt, there is no such things as media and public opinion and simply slaughtering any visible opposition is very much an option for the government.

Are you telling me his alignment changed when he fled into the woods out of necessity and the reverted to LG or NG once Richard returned? Because his ethics remained constant. That's why he had to fight. If his ethics were flexible, he'd have shut up and accepted John's rule.

I'm saying that, due to his actions - mugging rich people and giving money to others - he was chaotic good. Again, he wasn't some lone warrior bravely fighting against all odds. He hid in the woods and mugged people.

If you defend strangers because it's the right thing to do, you are GOOD. If you defend your family, maybe you are GOOD. Maybe you are unlaigned. Maybe you are even evil. You didn't know that most mafia hitmen were also family men? Better not endanger their family. Wanting to protect your kid sister makes you a normal brother, not a saint.

So yes, defending strangers is more altruistic than defending your kin. I can't understand why you don't grasp that fact.

You haven't answered my point. Defending people is an activity that scores you "good" points. I'm not saying "everyone who defends their family is good." I'm saying the action itself is a good one. You're saying "No, defending people is unaligned unless they're a stranger. There's nothing good about risking your life for someone else." Which is bizarre. I don't care which is more altruistic, I'm saying they're both altruistic to begin with.

Put down that comic book NOW.

The guy who became a war hero during WW2 and then went home to his wife and beat the living crap out of her isn't a chaotic evil psychopath fighting to destroy order. He's just a patriot, a macho and has poor emotional control. My argument wasn't that such a man was CE, just that he wasn't GOOD. It was in relation to the point above.

I have no clue what you're trying to say here, or what it has to do with a comic book. I said: "X people are chaotic good." You said "They aren't all good." I said "Ok, but that works even better - it's a show that chaotic people, irregardless of alignment, can team up." Then you respond with "PUT DOWN THE COMIC BOOK, I just said he isn't good!"

Yes, I realize they weren't all good. That has nothing to do with my point.

To reiterate, defending your family isn't GOOD, it's expected. You might still be a GOOD person, it's just not on that one action we'll know because notoriously EVIL people have helped and protected their family too. It's pretty much a biological imperative and if you don't even do that, then I guess you really are decadent CE.

Being a nice person is expected. Most of modern society is created around "People shouldn't be douchebags." Just because something is expected doesn't mean it's suddenly not good. And yes, evil people do it. So? Evil people do good things all the time. Good people do evil things all the time. We're mortals.

And I don't think I wrote 'Chaos is doing something bad' anywhere.

That's the overall gist from 4e. The deeper you go into evil, the more chaotic you get. The deeper you go into good, the more lawful you get. And your general consensus has been "You can't be chaotic and good."



Out of curiosity, for those who say Chaotic Good doesn't exist, where does the American Revolution or the various acts done by the Sons of Liberty fit in?

 

[Krensky]

Out of curiosity, for those who say Chaotic Good doesn't exist, where does the American Revolution or the various acts done by the Sons of Liberty fit in?

I think it exists quite fine in the game, but trying to apply D&D's neat little nine cell matrix to reality doesn't go where you think it will.

The important people in founding our country, namely the framers of the Declaration of Independence and even more so the Constitution and Bill of Rights (Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin) were probably Lawful Good or Neutral. The entire premise of the Declaration was that the British rule was contrary to natural law. They spent an inordinate amount of time being reasonable and amazingly enough were in the process of getting what most colonists really wanted: To be subjects, not colonists. Then the crazy rabble rousers (CG or CN) in Massachusetts went and started an armed revolt.

Faced with this the three framers and a number of other men of their ilk drew up the Declaration if Independence which served a number of purposes, one of which was a legal and philosophic fig leaf to pretty up the revolt and rationalize it. Following the end of the War of American Independence, they then went on and established a legalist society second only to the Chinese Empire.

As for the Sons on Liberty, from any objective modern perspective, they were by an large terrorists. Similarly Ethan Allen was an insurgent, although again, probably Lawful as his actions related to New York not recognizing the property rights when the Crown decided what we now call Vermont was part of New York and not New Hampshire.