Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zelig" data-source="post: 1766764" data-attributes="member: 18369">I would say that the example can't be defintively answered.&nbsp; Actions, in and of themselves, are not necessarily definitive.&nbsp; One needs to know the motivations.&nbsp; This example, as many of this kind do, pressupposes too many assumptions.&nbsp; It is also extremely simplistic and unrealistic no one person is able to change that many institutions.&nbsp; One person can be the instrument but there has to be support for the change or the change won't occur.Personally, I approach alignment by looking at the two elements that create an alignment.&nbsp; The first element I think effectively relates to &quot;method&quot;.&nbsp; It is the method that a PC chooses for resolving ethical questions.&nbsp; Lawfuls will work with others (organziations/protest groups/PTA's/etc) to develop change.&nbsp; Chaotics rely on making the change independly or &quot;it's only illegal if I get caught&quot; approach.&nbsp; A more gentle view might be &quot;if I'm not hurting anyone then where's the harm?&quot;.&nbsp; Regardless it is always focused on one's self-interest.&nbsp; Lawful is looking at group interest.&nbsp; Leaving Neutral to choose either/or depending on the circumstance.The second element IMO deals with how a PC views himself/herself and others.&nbsp; Good is alturism.&nbsp; It focuses on the idea that if I worry about taking care of others then I will be taking care of myself, people are worthy of my energy.&nbsp; Evil is always focused on the 'self'.&nbsp; What is in it for me.&nbsp; They are always selfish.&nbsp; They are the insenitive selfabsorb character who will always looks at any situation from how it will benefit or not inconvience oneself.&nbsp; Neutrals again worry about both and will fluctuate between either pole but never truly going to one or the other.&nbsp; That's why all the heroes are good.&nbsp; The definition of being a hero is the same as it is for being good.&nbsp; It is also why villians are always evil.&nbsp; Everyone else is neutral and why they get the bit parts.I think the majority of these type of &quot;alignment conundrum&quot; approach it ass-backwards.&nbsp; Alignments in and of themselves create relatively rigid pyschological/ideological responses/approaches a PC may take.&nbsp; Using real world examples are meaningless as they exist in a context that is &quot;grey&quot; at best.&nbsp; In D&amp;D the world is fairly sharply coloured (to extend the analogy).I would suggest that a more appropriate approach would be to ask given circumstance &quot;A&quot; what would a person with a &quot;given alignment&quot; do or find appropriate in changing &quot;A&quot; to something else, &quot;B&quot;.But in my heart of hearts I believe that the real reason these types of questions are put forward is become players don't want to restrict their playing options and that they put forward arguemtns that extends the &quot;grey&quot; in order to legitimate their own desire to stray from a given alignment.&nbsp; IMO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zelig, post: 1766764, member: 18369"] I would say that the example can't be defintively answered. Actions, in and of themselves, are not necessarily definitive. One needs to know the motivations. This example, as many of this kind do, pressupposes too many assumptions. It is also extremely simplistic and unrealistic no one person is able to change that many institutions. One person can be the instrument but there has to be support for the change or the change won't occur. Personally, I approach alignment by looking at the two elements that create an alignment. The first element I think effectively relates to "method". It is the method that a PC chooses for resolving ethical questions. Lawfuls will work with others (organziations/protest groups/PTA's/etc) to develop change. Chaotics rely on making the change independly or "it's only illegal if I get caught" approach. A more gentle view might be "if I'm not hurting anyone then where's the harm?". Regardless it is always focused on one's self-interest. Lawful is looking at group interest. Leaving Neutral to choose either/or depending on the circumstance. The second element IMO deals with how a PC views himself/herself and others. Good is alturism. It focuses on the idea that if I worry about taking care of others then I will be taking care of myself, people are worthy of my energy. Evil is always focused on the 'self'. What is in it for me. They are always selfish. They are the insenitive selfabsorb character who will always looks at any situation from how it will benefit or not inconvience oneself. Neutrals again worry about both and will fluctuate between either pole but never truly going to one or the other. That's why all the heroes are good. The definition of being a hero is the same as it is for being good. It is also why villians are always evil. Everyone else is neutral and why they get the bit parts. I think the majority of these type of "alignment conundrum" approach it ass-backwards. Alignments in and of themselves create relatively rigid pyschological/ideological responses/approaches a PC may take. Using real world examples are meaningless as they exist in a context that is "grey" at best. In D&D the world is fairly sharply coloured (to extend the analogy). I would suggest that a more appropriate approach would be to ask given circumstance "A" what would a person with a "given alignment" do or find appropriate in changing "A" to something else, "B". But in my heart of hearts I believe that the real reason these types of questions are put forward is become players don't want to restrict their playing options and that they put forward arguemtns that extends the "grey" in order to legitimate their own desire to stray from a given alignment. IMO. [/QUOTE]

Verification