[i]This[/i] is my problem with alignment

[swrushing]

Finally, I want to reiterate the complaint I made when I posted this: if alignment is behaviour and being chaotic evil prevents you from acting rationally in your own interest, in pursuit of your own goals, why doesn't this balance-obsessed game find a way to compensate you for that?

1 alignment never prevents a choice of an action.

2. alignment is derived from the chosen actions, over time.

So, there will never be a case where a character is unable to choose a path because of his alignment directly. So there is no compensation required.

A character may never choose to use a certain type of action, or may choose it only very rarely and in extremis, and that will be a character trait that goes along the choosing of an alignment.

Example : Being "a painter" does not prevent one from making pottery. But, if one decides to make a lot of pottery and uses time once spent painting on pottery and then starts making money at pottery eyc... at some point one might no longer be considered a painter but be considered a potter.

Example: A character who chooses rash attacks and incoordinated assaults and is very impulsive would likely be considered chaotic because of that all other things being equal... he does not however choose to do those actions because he is chaotic.

So, if again your problem stems from clinging to the belief that "characters do X because of their alignment" as opposed to "characters are this alignment because of their actions" you have a cart before the horse issue that you need to work thru before we can probably make any headway.

 

[swrushing]

But you're wrong about one thing. A dishonorable act does not get a paladin in jeophardy. A chaotic act does.

yawn...

from the srd

"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."



you will notice that one of the mentioned examples is "act with honor".

so, i will take my "acting dishonorable" happily. It is something that will get him in trouble, which is what i said, right?

 

[Trickstergod]

And the only way to do this is to create a constitutional legal framework that is applied equally to everyone. In other words, we have to empower authority to protect our liberty.

My entire point in this thread has been to show that alignment cannot be both conduct and ideology because it is necessary to behave in a lawful way in order to achieve chaotic goals.

And too which I will simply and succinctly say: agreed.

For the moment, anyway.

 

[Voadam]

But you're wrong about one thing. A dishonorable act does not get a paladin in jeophardy. A chaotic act does. There's supposedly a lot more to law/chaos than just honor/dishonor and trying to narrow the focus down to honor now just concedes the point that the aggregate is untenable.

Except that for a paladin a chaotic act does not put him in jeopardy. A paladin must be LG, but single chaotic acts don't shift your alignment. A single evil act, however, will specifically cost him his paladin status as will gross breaches of his code of conduct which requires acting with honor.

I wouldn't use the paladin special conditions for your point here about chaos and honor/dishonor.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

So I made a mistake about the paladin's code. You're still ducking the question. What acts are chaotic and what acts are lawful? For the paladin, who is required to help people unless they use the help for evil or chaotic ends, what, exactly are chaotic ends? You can come up with a few--anyone can. The question is whether or not the full list of chaotic ends is consistent.

So, I repeat the questions:

1. Which acts from the following list, if consistently followed would jeophardize a paladin's alignment as lawful good?

2. Which acts, if intended by another would remove a paladin's obligation to help that person?

WRT the law:
Breaking a positive law?
Breaking an unimportant law? (Could a paladin habitually jaywalk? or routinely run red lights when it looks like it's safe to do so?)
Breaking an important but unjust law?
Breaking an unjust law with intent to promote social change? (Civil disobedience).
Ignoring legal proceedure in order to get the desired results? (For instance, a judge who sees a guilty man about to be convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence or an innocent man about to be convicted by a legally constituted jury that simply decides wrongly)
Breaking a natural law would generally fall under good/evil since that is the context that natural law theory addresses.

WRT time and personal habits:
Being habitually late? (For whatever reason--some cultures tend to take a rather laid back view about time--if they're talking to someone and it makes them late, that's expected or even the more important person always keeps the less important person waiting. Could a paladin fully embody that portion of his culture and still be a paladin--in other words, is it chaotic?)
Being fundamentally disorganized?

WRT politics
Supporting individual rights above the good of the group?
Supporting time honored traditions in the face of legal innovations?
Employing diversified, or bottom up rather than top down leadership strategies in an organization or army
Supporting regional distinctions in the face of homogenization?
How about in the face of an attemtp to universalize legal proceedings and laws?
How about simply pressing for social change of any kind? (By some Moorcock inspired defitions of chaos, all change is chaotic)

WRT personal decision-making and behavior
Deciding marriage for himself rather than following the traditions of his society for arranged marriages or at least asking his parents for counsel and his to-be fiance's parents for permission first? (Although maybe you can dodge the question by requiring that all paladins remain chaste and celibate).
Deciding to follow the dictates of his conscience rather than the teachings of his superiors? (In other words, is it remotely conceivable for a paladin to act like an idealized Martin Luther?)
How about simply deciding to re-evaluate received authority in the light of new insight into revealed authority? (Is it even conceivable for a paladin to b the Erasmus of his era?)
Lying (It's separately prohibited in the paladin code, but whether or not it's chaotic would still matter for the purpose of the "using help for chaotic ends" exception).
How about lying in extremis? The classic example is a man in a fit of homocidal rage who comes to the paladin and asks where he left his weapons.

Whether alignment is descriptive or prescriptive, it still needs to be definable, even if it isn't actually defined. Otherwise it's just nonsense. Good and evil don't have insurmountable difficulties in that regard. Law and Chaos appear to.

yawn...

from the srd

"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

you will notice that one of the mentioned examples is "act with honor".

so, i will take my "acting dishonorable" happily. It is something that will get him in trouble, which is what i said, right?

 

[painandgreed]

What acts are chaotic and what acts are lawful?

Ask your DM.

Sorry all, but I think that's the only answer that will ever work for that question. Trying to plot every action to a single numberline for all cases and circumstances is a futile idea. The only opinion that is ever going to tell you what is lawful or chaos is the currently running DM, and they may not even care. Each Dm is going to have his view point and opinion of what is lawful or chaotic and it may even differ from campaign to campaign or game to game for flavor. Even if attempting to go strictly by the RAW, it sounds futile. I've seen DM and player argue for hours over more concrete things than alignment in the RAW. People can give their opinions of what is lawful or not, but I don't think anybody will ever come up with a common agreement .

Law and chaos is like porn. I can't define it but I know it when I see it.

 

[Trickstergod]

Law and chaos is like porn. I can't define it but I know it when I see it.

Oh, I can define porn all right...but I'm not sure that's grandmother approved. Heh.

Anyway, I do agree, after fashion. I've tried doing a bit of explaining on how I see law and chaos and, often enough, find myself not quite fully satisfied with the answer I gave. There's always something nagging, some exception, sitting there in my head.

However, for the most part, I do feel I know it when I see it.

 

[fusangite]

1 alignment never prevents a choice of an action.
2. alignment is derived from the chosen actions, over time.

Even if you put it this way, it's really a matter of hair-splitting. If I am a paladin and I wish to continue gaining levels in this class and continue to use its various magical abilities, alignment is absolutely proscriptive. I suppose I'm not forced, in your model to keep being lawful good but only in the most academic sense. If I want to continue laying on hands, riding my special mount, smiting evil and having a bonus to saving throws, I have to keep being lawful good. So, what do I need to do in order to not lose all these powers? I have to behave in a lawful good way consistently. Similarly, if I'm a barbarian, the rules pretty much force me to keep behaving in a non-lawful way; otherwise I'll lose the ability to rage, etc. etc.

Your argument that alignment is not proscriptive is essentially the same as saying the Criminal Code isn't proscriptive. After all, I'm still free to kill people. I'll just have to go to jail if I do. If you are a barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, monk or paladin, alignment does effectively restrict your course of action.

But even if I accepted your assertions about alignment here, it does not address my actual issue. We went over Thomas Paine's career earlier in the thread -- can you tell me if he was chaotic or lawful. Let me generalize further: can you tell me in any meaningful way that does not directly contradict the text of the Player's Handbook what the alignment of any of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence was?

Example: A character who chooses rash attacks and incoordinated assaults and is very impulsive would likely be considered chaotic because of that all other things being equal... he does not however choose to do those actions because he is chaotic.

You're just practicing sophistry here. Whether he is chaotic because he does those things or he does those things because he is chaotic in no way pertains to the substance of my argument.

What I am actually arguing is that the alignment mechanic is self-contradictory and that point you have avoided altogether.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Fus, you're still asking the wrong question.

But I'll answer it anyway:

Let me generalize further: can you tell me in any meaningful way that does not directly contradict the text of the Player's Handbook what the alignment of any of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence was?

No. No one can.

You want to know why? Because I'm not their player, and I'm certainly not their DM.

The problem you have is that philosophers, for the entirety of human history, have tried to define Good vs. Evil.

They couldn't (and can't) do it, and yet you expect a roleplaying game to achieve a similar if not more difficult philosophical feat.

You're just continuing the "Ooh, my characters are so complex, they can't be so simply categorized as to be one of nine categories" whining-type viewpoint.

Moreover, D&D will never, ever get to the level you want. You want to know why? Because it's stupid and a waste of time. Currently, the axes of Good vs. Evil and Law vs. Chaos are defined well-enough for a competent DM to use them, and no further.

Should D&D ever decide to come out with "The Complete Law" and "The Complete Chaos" sourcebooks, you'll only change your argument. Instead of "Law and Chaos are incomprehensible," you (and others like you) will argue, "But on page 32 of CL, it says Lawful people do X; I disagree, therefore Law and Chaos don't make sense."

The only difference? Today, you can only argue with and about generalities.

So here's the final point. Alignment in D&D is absolute. I know this next bit is a hard concept for the relativistically besotted world we live in to grasp, but I'll try anyway. Alignment is absolute. Therefore, you can be wrong. You can say, "But I think X and Y are examples of Lawful behaviour, not Chaotic." And when you say that, you're wrong; you can try and argue, but it doesn't matter, because you're still wrong.

Now, D&D is nice in that, unlike most objectivist philosophies, it doesn't actually try and present the reader with a complete moral code. It leaves itself vague so that individual DMs and gaming groups can decide amongst themselves exactly where the lines between black, white, and grey are drawn.

I don't see this as a problem. Apparently, you do, because you can't perform your own brand of ethical calculus to determine whether or not Thomas Paine or George Washington or Mary, Queen of Scots, wer Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Stupid.

Again, just because your own moral math doesn't mesh with the D&D system of alignment doesn't mean the D&D system is incoherent. Rather, it probably means you're just bad at math.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Even if you put it this way, it's really a matter of hair-splitting.

aaack! aputter!!

letme be clear... if you consider the difference between the position of because of your alignment, you cannot choose these actions" and "choose whatever actions you wish and your alignment will reflect those choices of actions" as the core of the alignment system to be "hair splitting", we are so far apart in the games were run that we might as well be speaking different languages with narry a rosetta stone in sight.

If I am a paladin and I wish to continue gaining levels in this class and continue to use its various magical abilities, alignment is absolutely proscriptive.

technically, alignment is not proscriptive. the paladins CODE is proscriptive.

As differentiated from alignment, a paladin's code absolutely prohibits any single evil act without repercussion.

the usual alignment system does not do that and thus is not proscriptive.

I have to behave in a lawful good way consistently. Similarly, if I'm a barbarian, the rules pretty much force me to keep behaving in a non-lawful way; otherwise I'll lose the ability to rage, etc. etc.

Note "consistently". The barbarian class requires you not go lawful and going lawful would require consistently being more lawful than neutral or chaotic. Its not going to be a "ooops, one slip or two" whammy, but a repeated and significant series of actions/choices.

Again, not proscriptive in any given case or instance. however, if the characters choices are consitently over time best represented by lawful, he won't fit that class requirements.

Your argument that alignment is not proscriptive is essentially the same as saying the Criminal Code isn't proscriptive. After all, I'm still free to kill people. I'll just have to go to jail if I do. If you are a barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, monk or paladin, alignment does effectively restrict your course of action.

It restricts your choice of CHARACTER. A bard can do lawful acts. A cleric of pelor can do evil acts. etc etc... What cannot happen is there cannot be an EVIL cleric of Pelor. There cannot be a lawful bard. etc.

Thats a huge difference.

The above is ignoring whether or not i agree with or use many of the class alignment restrictions in my games. i actually only use the ones which are religious in nature, the divine casters thingy.

can you tell me in any meaningful way that does not directly contradict the text of the Player's Handbook what the alignment of any of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence was?

none of them appear in my DND games, so ... no.

You're just practicing sophistry here. Whether he is chaotic because he does those things or he does those things because he is chaotic in no way pertains to the substance of my argument.

again, we come from different worlds.

if your problem stems from the premise, flawed premise, that alingments are going to dictate actions then the solution to your problem is to let that false premise go and let alingments derive from actions. Actually, honestly, the term actions is IMO inappropriate... it should be replaced with "choices."

What I am actually arguing is that the alignment mechanic is self-contradictory and that point you have avoided altogether.

The alignment system is not self-contradictory. There is nothing within the alignment section that is contradictory.

the fact that a character can be who possesses both chaotic and lawful traits is not an indication that the alignment system is contradictory. it is a sign that the system does not require characters to be totally polarized.

One can pursue lawful goals using chaotic means... and if those are relatively evenly weighted in your character's choices, i would judge that neutral.

and thats not a contradictory thing either.

the perception that i keep getting from this is that IF one makes the alignment system the driving element (as opposed to the character) and a controlling factor (instead of a reflective one) and/or if one wants characters to be totally polarized by their alignments, then the alignment system can be seen as a problem. none of these are BTW supported by the rules for alignment.

to which my answer is, just like the apocryphal doctor said to the guy who raised his arm and said "when i do this, it hurts!", ...

Don't do that!