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

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Did you notice the contribution of arnwyn and others on the last thread where you accused me of this?

That would be a thread where the mod stepped in with a caution against the constant rephrasing of others points? if so, yes, i read that thread.

And is it your position that if someone pursues the goal of universal chaos in an organized and disciplined fashion that they are, as you seem to suggest elsewhere, neutral?

Possibly. That could be. However, when i normally look to assign alignment I have a lot more to go on to mkake that determination... experience with the character, with his actions and goals over time and a setting and campaign context.

If the conclusion i reached about a character was that he showed over time equal parts chaotic and equal parts lawful, showing relatively even tendencies in BOTH, then, yes, i would use neutral for that.

The other problem with your line of reasoning here is that the text you have located reminding GMs that alignment is not a straitjacket and that each alignment category includes various different philosophies and behaviours does not somehow trump or invalidate other parts of the rules. It is every bit as true as the statement "a chaotic evil chatacter… is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent and unpredictable" -- while it provides context for this statement, it doesn't make the statement less true.

This is where we simply disagree. I cannot fathom how one can reach this conclusion.

The line about "use these as guidelines and not scripts" is indeed there to trump the lists below of traits. just like the "not everyone is concistent" and not everyone shares all these traits, they put the later lists of traits in context.

It is not a RULE that a chaotic evil character WILL BE or IS hot tempered and vicious or arbitrarily violent etc... that is just one in a long list of traits which might indicate a character is CE.

Some CE characters will be hot tempered, some will be arbitrarily violent, and so forth. Even those who are will not be so ALL THE TIME, but will vary within their character.

Thats why they tell you these are guidelines, not scripts.

We are so far apart on this as to make discussion practically meaningless.

Alignment is not meant so script character choices, but to reflect it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm not accusing you of saying that -- I'm accusing the rules of saying that. And they're guilty. I agree that your theory of alignment makes it workable. What you don't seem willing to acknowledge is that your theory of alignment is not the one described in the rules.

On the contrary. Alignment cannot be strictly conduct in the rules because it says, in plain view (and I'm paraphrasing), "These are general guidelines, and are not to be used as straightjackets. Moreover, even someone who's Lawful Good can have a bad day and still be Lawful Good."

Additionally, the suggestions of values each alignment might hold are by no means exhaustive - they can't be.

 

[Samhaine]

A Suggestion

I'm really enjoying this thread, and all posters involved have made good points. The main point of contention still seems to be that there's a degree of difference between whether a character pursues a structured, law-bound society vs. an anarchic, individualistic state and whether that character's behavior towards this goal is generally orderly vs. unprededictable.

What if the scale were tied together so that good/evil indicated which side of the split was the more important descriptor?

The continuum of evil to good largely seems to be that an evil character puts his own desires and safety far above the desires and safety of others, while a good character is willing to sacrifice his own personal desires and safety if the good of the many is threatened. So the good/evil axis can in a lot of ways be stripped to society/selfish with qualifiers. Yes? No?

Assuming yes, what if the law/chaos axis was tied to the good/evil axis? An evil character doesn't really care about society as long as his needs and desires are being met.

For evil characters, Lawful and Chaotic describe behavior. Lawful villains plot and plan and act purposefully and rationally towards a goal, and can be trusted to do what's in their best interests without the threat of physical force. Chaotic villains indulge their desires as they feel them, and thus tend to be unpredictable as their actions follow their shifting needs. Only by forcing them to feel an overwhelming interest in important desires (ie personal safety) can they be encouraged to follow someone else's goals when their own desires aren't exactly synched.

Lawful evil characters tend to gravitate to and form strong societies, because they like the ability to control others with the organized behavior they're so good at. Chaotic evil characters tend to gravitate to and form anarchic societies, because they'd rather no one weaker than them be able to tell them what to do. Neither really cares what society is like if their personal goals, desires, and manner of acting are not impacted by the society.

On the other hand, for good characters Law and Chaos describe political outlook. Lawful heros tend to believe that most people benefit from a strong government and extensive rules and regulations; to keep them honest and give them a baseline of beneficial behavior from which to work. Chaotic heroes tend to believe that too much government and regulation are bad things; people become too hung up on minutia rather than helping one another, and poorly designed laws can sometimes cause people to ignore all laws, even good ones.

Lawful Good characters tend to engage in predictable behavior, because law-bound societies make forward-planning important, as well as avoiding breaking any of the laws. Chaotic Good characters tend to be more unpredictable in their actions, because they don't like to feel constrained by another's rules but instead do what they feel is best at the very moment. However, both sides are more interested in their politics than their method of operation; a Lawful Good character can act from moment to moment in the pursuit of stronger governments and a Chaotic Good character can stick to an organization and predictable actions if that is what is most in tune with more freedom for all.

So, in summary, the Law/Chaos axis is defined by personal behavior for evil characters but by political outlook for good characters. Lawful Good characters can be deeply conflicted by choices between an organized but unjust state and a benevolent anarchy. Chaotic Good characters can be deeply conflicted by choices between a just but highly regulated state and a self-destructive anarchy that nonetheless allows great personal freedoms. Meanwhile, evil characters have no real alignment to politics beyond what's in their personal best interest, and can work together to become even greater threats to the good characters.

I'm not sure just yet how this would work more towards the neutral sides of each continuum.

Thoughts?

 

[fusangite]

If i say "Joe is on the fifth floor" because Joe has gone to the fifth floor, that doesn't proscribe Joe from then going to the third floor if he is so inclined. Same with alignment.

What I said is "alignment functions to prohibit conduct." (See above) Your argument is that as long as alignment has no function, it doesn't prohibit conduct. I suppose that's true but not really relevant because we are looking at the operational functioning of a thing.

It's like this. While it is true that "Joe is on the fifth floor" does not proscribe Joe's actions with respect to going to the third floor but when paired with "and anyone on the third floor
- loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin's mount (PHB 44)
- cannot gain new levels as a monk (PHB 42)
- loses the ability to rage (PHB 26)
- cannot progress in levels as a bard (PHB 30)
- loses all spells and druid abilities (PHB 37)
- can no longer use the intelligent magic item they have (DMG 269)
- cannot gain any more levels in the prestige class Assassin (DMG 180)
- cannot gain any more levels in the prestige class Blackguard (DMG 181)
- gains one negative level every time they attempt to use their weapon (DMG 223-226)
- becomes you vulnerable to detection by this spell (PHB 218-219)
- takes additional damage from this spell (PHB 205, 210, 218, 220-223, 241-242, 249-250, 266, 278, 297, 303)
- is immune to damage from this spell (PHB 205, 210, 218, 220-223, 241-242, 249-250, 266, 278, 297, 303)
- cannot cast this spell
it obviously does. Keeping your alignment is often an important thing to do. Failing to keep it has consequences. Consequences are what function to proscribe actions.

Your argument goes as follows: as long as alignment change has no in-game effects, it is not proscriptive. But it does have in-game effects. Dozens of them.

Furthermore, that's true of everything. Having a strength of less than 13 acts to prohibit you from taking the Power Attack feat. Thus, having a low Strength proscribes your from taking the Power Attack feat. I suppose you could argue that the feat and not the strength score functions to proscribe this but operationally, this statement is irrelevant and meaningless because the rules are an integrated whole.

Yes. I will happily grant that if you systematically remove every single in-game operational feature of alignment, the system ceases to be proscriptive. But that's only because it has ceased to have any effects.

Your argument is essentially: alignment only has in-game effects when it has in-game effects. Fair enough. I accept this. But what I'm interested in doing is discussing how alignment operates, how it functions.

You have clerics in your game who need to maintain a particular alignment in order to keep their domains. Their alignment functions to proscribe some of their actions because of the threat of losing these domains (and possibly, depending on how your play, all of their spells).

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Your argument is that as long as alignment has no function, it doesn't prohibit conduct.

Nope. thats just your imaginative rephrasing.

Your argument goes as follows: as long as alignment change has no in-game effects, it is not proscriptive.

Nope. Again, thats your creative retelling.

Your argument is essentially: alignment only has in-game effects when it has in-game effects.

Nope, thats your spinned up version.

you really seem to like this arguing with yourself thingy.

to each his own.

 

[fusangite]

swrushing, if you feel I am misrepresenting you, perhaps it would help if you answered the following questions:

1. Do you agree that when a paladin's alignment changes, he loses his paladin abilities?
2. Do you agree that a paladin's alignment is derived solely from the choices he has made? (Not my position, just my attempt to accurately express yours.)
3. Do you agree that if the overall longterm pattern of a character's choices is not in accordance with behaviour defined as good that he ceases to have a good alignment?
4. Does the threat of losing all of one's class abilities and the capacity to advance in the class function to proscribe the behaviour that would cause such a loss?

Obviously, in order for you to maintain your position, you have to answer "no" to one of these questions. But at the moment, I have no idea which one (or more) it will be.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

swrushing, if you feel I am misrepresenting you, perhaps it would help if you answered the following questions:

it wont. i have every confidence in your ability to imaginatively reconstrue to produce a more assailable image of those who do not share your views.

Now i will reORDER your questions to make a point. yes i know its risky but it is not being done to change what you said, but to highlight what i am saying.

2. Do you agree that a paladin's alignment is derived solely from the choices he has made? (Not my position, just my attempt to accurately express yours.)

Yes, absolutely, 100% Matter of fact, i would suggest CHARACTER instead of paladin. This of course assumes not a character who is born a certain way like demons and such. i would also wonder, if you do disagree here, WHAT other than character choice do you derive alignment for characters on?

3. Do you agree that if the overall longterm pattern of a character's choices is not in accordance with behaviour defined as good that he ceases to have a good alignment?

yes. if the CONCLUSION made in context of the game and setting lead you to "is not good" then an evil or neutral result is appropriate and a change would be made.

1. Do you agree that when a paladin's alignment changes, he loses his paladin abilities?
4. Does the threat of losing all of one's class abilities and the capacity to advance in the class function to proscribe the behaviour that would cause such a loss?

These are ONE step, ONE question. Numbered for your convenience.

1 Yes. It remained such in my game. heck, one of my plotlines revolved around a defrocked in game paladin NPC regaining her faith.

4. No. thats the one!

Note that, while 3 is underway, there should be ample cautions and warnings in game (signs, omens, warnings from church authorities and even temporary withholding of favors) to make sure the character is aware of his straying. (In practical terms, this insures it is a deliberate choice of the player to take his character story down this road, as opposed to a misunderstanding 'twixt player and GM as to "what good is in this world".)

let me repeat that... the change in alignment is a deliberate choice made by the player by the choices he makes with the character. i find it odd to consider this implementation of the player's goal in character development a proscriptive process.

Back to the paladin...

I see the paladin abilites as a "you get these neat things, if you do these things so we like you" with the "we" being the god or the church. this is them granting benefits on those who share their goals. A paladin who believed in those goals would not "not be evil" because he feared losing his power, but because he believed doing evil was wrong. he doesn't do "good things" because he needs to but because he thinks doing good things is right.

Its no more "proscriptive" than a rogue's ability to sneak attack (which only works if he is flanking or is surprising) is "proscriptive" against him attacking alone in the open or proscribes him from attacking undead. (Though the paladin thingy is longer term.)

The character chooses to move away from the faith, so to speak, and loses or risks losing his favors. The thief decides to attack undead, he loses his main damage. In both cases, the player makes the choice to take the character down that path. Thats where he wants it to go.

Of course, both these "if you..., then gain..." things are a part of the CLASS.

Still not a part of alignment.

This comes back to the core... the character doesn't do certain things because he is alingment so-n-so, he is alignment so-n-so because he does certain things.

The reason i reordered your questions was to put them in the order they occur in practice: choices made in character, overall pattern develops long term to the point that the paladin is stripped of his powers and changes his alignment.

i cannot think of a way to explain it better.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

To go along with swrushing, a paladin can fall and still remain Lawful Good.

 

[Trickstergod]

What I said is "alignment functions to prohibit conduct." (See above) Your argument is that as long as alignment has no function, it doesn't prohibit conduct. I suppose that's true but not really relevant because we are looking at the operational functioning of a thing.

It's like this. While it is true that "Joe is on the fifth floor" does not proscribe Joe's actions with respect to going to the third floor but when paired with "and anyone on the third floor
- loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin's mount (PHB 44)
- cannot gain new levels as a monk (PHB 42)
...etc

it obviously does. Keeping your alignment is often an important thing to do. Failing to keep it has consequences. Consequences are what function to proscribe actions.

Just to interject, but the only one of those things you listed that will happen if Joe goes to the 3rd floor is that he'd lose his paladin abilities. All the rest would only happen if he consistently went to the third floor - and even then, only some of those things would occur if he went to the 5th and 3rd floor more or less in equal parts.

Presuming the 5th floor is where Joe needs to go to keep his alignment, and the 3rd floor is diametrically opposed to his alignment, he could still go to the 3rd floor. Repeatedly. So long as he ultimately spent more time on the 5th floor. With the exception, of course, of the paladin.

Let's say alignment is a job. Then let's say your class is your supervisor. In the case of the paladin, it's a very strict supervisor. If Joe leaves his cubicle on the 5th floor and goes to the 3rd floor, he's fired. That's it. However, he's the only one that bad.

Now, to continue with my silly example, lets say his supervisor's a monk. This guy, he's strict, but not so bad. For all this guy cares, Joe can spend his lunch break down on the 3rd floor every single day and even visit on weekends, if he wanted. What's important is that Joe shows up on time on the 5th floor, doesn't leave early, gets all his work done, and doesn't use too many sick days. If Joe can do that, he can keep his job (that is, his alignment).

Heck, the 4th and 6th floor also have offices and cubicles that he can get his work done at, so he can go there all he wants, too, as they're just one floor up or down, and still connected to the 5th floor.

Sure, the office politics on the 6th floor are a bit vicious and the folk down on the 4th floor are kinda flakey, but so long as that doesn't get in the way of Joe doing his work and showing up on time, both places are just extensions of the 5th floor, anyway, so going there doesn't matter much.

So alignment isn't quite so confining, for most, anyway.

And hopefully my examples were clear enough even if they're a bit well, silly.

 

[drnuncheon]

4. Does the threat of losing all of one's class abilities and the capacity to advance in the class function to proscribe the behaviour that would cause such a loss?

The answer here would be 'no'. The paladin is perfectly capable of becoming evil. There just happen to be consequences if he does. The threat of losing one's class abilities might deter, but it does not necessarily prevent.

It's like the difference between "wizards can't use swords" and "wizards can use swords but they take a -4 proficiency penalty".

J