Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6633012" data-attributes="member: 4937">I don't even think we've yet conceded that Pemerton has accurately classified and explained Gygax's alignments.  Granted, that might be Gygax's fault, since Gygax doesn't spend a lot of time on the subject and simply broadly sketches the major themes of each alignment - what they value, what they don't value - but nonetheless, I believe what I have described is based on a reading of Gygax per for example the 1e AD&D Player's Handbook.  Beyond that, we disagree on so much I don't really know where to begin, but I'll hit a few high points with little hope that we are going to reach a consensus on anything.Yes and no.  I am saying that Lawful Evil is less evil than Neutral Evil, which doesn't have any sort of goal other than evil itself and that the Lawful Evil position while vile is at least a little less than completely vile if only by virtue of being mixed and impure.   And I do agree that relative to an absolute incarnation of Lawful Evil, even a truly vile mortal individual will not necessarily be wholly evil in all his ways and therefore least some somewhat sympathetic, endearing, or admirable traits.   Well, I would.  Although I think I should make clear that when I apply alignment to anything, whether an individual or a society, I'm suggesting only a preponderance or preference for certain things, and not absolute unswerving uniformity.   Particularly in a case of a society (in my game, although we can find parallel examples in the real world) if I define a society as 'lawful evil', I only mean that a plurality of persons in the society hold lawful evil beliefs and as such either have tended to make the societies institutions in their image or are attempt to remake those institutions along lines that they believe are better and as they would see it even more 'moral' - such as say, exterminating their neighbors.Sure?  But so what?I disagree.Uniformly? Maybe not.  By preponderance and plurality and the structure of the institutions of the society, yes, I think I can.  I just did after all.He's not necessarily encouraged and most importantly is not expected to.  By the lawful conception, a person that sacrifices himself for others is only doing the duty that is expected of him.  The action is worthy of honor, but it is also compulsory in that anything else would have been dishonorable.   But in the chaotic conception, sacrificing oneself for others is a voluntary and heroic choice which depending on how successful it was might be commendable, but a person who doesn't sacrifice himself incurs no particular condemnation.  In the lawful society, if you didn't sacrifice yourself for others, it might be a crime worthy of death.  In the chaotic society, this idea that you are responsible for putting others ahead of yourself doesn't hold, and any compulsion to do so would be seen as abhorrent.   And in of course, CN and CE see sacrificing your own interests for others as the root of all that is 'evil' or 'wrong' in the world.  CE defines injustice as the strong being forced to give to the weak.  CN defines evil as altruism, and sees rational self-interest as the basis of goodness. No, Gygax defines evil tautologically.  To be evil is to love and advance evil, period.  He doesn't delve deeply into what that means, though the closest you might come is to say that is the position of anti-life.  Thus, evil is equated most with nihilism, and not with focus on his own good and his own will.   Even examining the definitions of LE and CE finds no particular emphasis common to all evil alignments on the self and self-will, for the LE are subordinated by their strict discipline and hold freedom to be valueless.  By contrast, freedom is a virtue of the CE and wish for power to implement their personal whims and capricious desires.I haven't (to my mind); you have (in my opinion).Well, sure, but it is not solely defined by that.  Particularly in the case of CE and CG, clearly they are balancing this preference with other desires and purposes.No,  no.  What ever it is, it is not a personality trait.  I've gone through that at great length proving it in other essays.   And it's not really about 'rules' versus 'no rules'.  It's about where the rules come from (outside the self or welling up from within the self as an expression of their natural being) and who ultimately gets to judge (something external or ones own consciousness).   That's not a personality trait.  That's a belief system, or at least a portion of one, and belief systems can influence personality but they don't define it.Well sure, your straw man burns.  Big surprise.As for as societies, but 'lawful good' society I would simply mean 'the majority of persons hold lawful good beliefs' and the society correspondingly has structures that reflect that to some degree.  That's the definition that I have, and I think it is backed up by the normal presentation of communities - at least large and complex ones - within Gygaxian worlds and D&D generally (were things are only 'usually' of a particular alignment, but exceptions may exist).   But heck, even applied to individuals, by saying an individual is 'lawful good' I only mean a preponderance of his actions and beliefs lean in that direction and not that every such belief and action is coherent with what he believes or claims to believe.  And I believe that this is consistent with Gygax's idea of tracking the drift of alignment over time.Sure.  Who has said that you couldn't?  Again, you seem to be making straw men to burn here.</blockquote>

Verification