Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 4230810" data-attributes="member: 5100">I don't think there was ever a good definition, game-wise.&nbsp; No matter how you cut it, you have to fudge the definition of &quot;ethics&quot; a bit.&nbsp; Some people are going to call it &quot;respect for society&quot;, then promptly confuse &quot;society&quot; with &quot;other people&quot; which automatically makes lawful more good.Others are going to say that it's a context of having ordered thinking, including personal codes.&nbsp; That runs completely counter to some 1e text on the subject that explicitly says chaotics pretty frequently have personal codes, they are just personal, rather than based on social conventions.&nbsp; It also tends to push things in the direction of &quot;lawful == sane, chaotic == insane&quot;, which is a bloody worthless and stupid core mechanic for a game that doesn't have that as a strong theme (e.g. Cthulhu, Cyberpunk).I've always figured the ethics indicated how you processed your morals.&nbsp; Lawfuls tend to think in terms of societies and groups.&nbsp; Chaotics think of individuals and situations.&nbsp; Neutrals tended to see the value in each.&nbsp; You want your laws made by LG people because they are thinking of the stable framework that provides for the best chance of good being done as a rule.&nbsp; You want CG cops because they will be looking at you and the situation as it exists right now and will be focusing on what's going to be best for the people actually present, rather than the precedent being set or how their decision would work if turned into a rule.&nbsp; Judges are best in between because they need to look at both what's before them in the specific case and how their ruling will impact the way other pieces of the system function.&nbsp; Sometimes things work best other ways, but that's a general outline that worked well enough for me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 4230810, member: 5100"] I don't think there was ever a good definition, game-wise. No matter how you cut it, you have to fudge the definition of "ethics" a bit. Some people are going to call it "respect for society", then promptly confuse "society" with "other people" which automatically makes lawful more good. Others are going to say that it's a context of having ordered thinking, including personal codes. That runs completely counter to some 1e text on the subject that explicitly says chaotics pretty frequently have personal codes, they are just personal, rather than based on social conventions. It also tends to push things in the direction of "lawful == sane, chaotic == insane", which is a bloody worthless and stupid core mechanic for a game that doesn't have that as a strong theme (e.g. Cthulhu, Cyberpunk). I've always figured the ethics indicated how you processed your morals. Lawfuls tend to think in terms of societies and groups. Chaotics think of individuals and situations. Neutrals tended to see the value in each. You want your laws made by LG people because they are thinking of the stable framework that provides for the best chance of good being done as a rule. You want CG cops because they will be looking at [u]you[/u] and the situation as it exists right now and will be focusing on what's going to be best for the people actually present, rather than the precedent being set or how their decision would work if turned into a rule. Judges are best in between because they need to look at both what's before them in the specific case and how their ruling will impact the way other pieces of the system function. Sometimes things work best other ways, but that's a general outline that worked well enough for me. [/QUOTE]

Verification