Lawful/Chaotic Alignment Axis Balance

[Wodan]

That last link you posted has another post by you in which you posted a quote from Kael... I think it's about perfect.

Honestly, based upon the example Kael postulates, Basium is simply applying a bigger context.

If good is defined by putting the needs of the many above the needs of a few, and Basium is willing to destroy an entire city of goodly people...

A short sighted view would point at this and say it's evil. A bigger view would say Basium is worried about all of creation.

Anyway all that answers is good/evil. We've been wondering if he's lawful/neutral/chaotic. Nobody has wanted to make him Chaotic Neutral or something, have they?

 

[Valkrionn]

Honestly, based upon the example Kael postulates, Basium is simply applying a bigger context.

If good is defined by putting the needs of the many above the needs of a few, and Basium is willing to destroy an entire city of goodly people...

A short sighted view would point at this and say it's evil. A bigger view would say Basium is worried about all of creation.

Anyway all that answers is good/evil. We've been wondering if he's lawful/neutral/chaotic. Nobody has wanted to make him Chaotic Neutral or something, have they?

Actually, there are two debates about Basium in this thread: Good or Evil, and Lawful or Chaotic. Odalrick has said that Basium is Evil, as have a few others... I said that in my opinion, he just has a wider viewpoint. As in Kael's quote.

The Lawful/Chaotic aspect has had more attention, though. Xartah brings up a good point, actually... Does the alignment come from the leader's own personality (Do they stick to their views? Easily swayed?) or does it come from how the leader responds to outside rules?

Personally, I've tried to stick to the second, as in this case it's more than just the leader: It's the sum of all people in their empire, as well. Going with the first, though, I can actually see Basium as Lawful... He stuck to his own beliefs in the face of everything else. I think that question is actually what most of the discussion on Lawful/Chaotic boils down to.

 

[Jheral]

Actually, there are two debates about Basium in this thread: Good or Evil, and Lawful or Chaotic. Odalrick has said that Basium is Evil, as have a few others... I said that in my opinion, he just has a wider viewpoint. As in Kael's quote.

I would still say that alignment has more to do with means than ends, though.

Still, morality is always in the eyes of the beholder; I don't think we could ever reach a point where everyone could agree on whether he is good or evil. Better, perhaps, to drop that discussion.

The Lawful/Chaotic aspect has had more attention, though. Xartah brings up a good point, actually... Does the alignment come from the leader's own personality (Do they stick to their views? Easily swayed?) or does it come from how the leader responds to outside rules?

Personally, I've tried to stick to the second, as in this case it's more than just the leader: It's the sum of all people in their empire, as well. Going with the first, though, I can actually see Basium as Lawful... He stuck to his own beliefs in the face of everything else. I think that question is actually what most of the discussion on Lawful/Chaotic boils down to.

I would think that alignment would be based on personality (since you can still be Lawful (at least with the definition I've seen of it - consitency, inflexibility and a strong sense of ethics) without following laws and rules), and his conviction to his cause (among other things) makes me think that Lawful would fit better than Chaotic.

 

[Opera]

@odalrick: I believe intents matter as much (if not more) than actions.

Anyway, I'm all with Valkrionn here, especially since Kael's quote.

 

[odalrick]

And obedience to authority being elevated as the highest moral virtue. Less of "For the Greater Good" stuff and less draconian punishments for trivial misdeeds would be great, too.

But the LG-Order would not mandate such, even an Orthodox-LG-Order.

Exactly, Lawful Good Order would not mandate such. It is one of that precepts that were abandoned in the move from Orthodox to Lawful Good.

And Orthodox Order is Lawful. Orthodox-LG-Order sound as ridiculous as Chaotic-Lawful-Good-Evil-Empyrrean.

Actions are subject to interpretation. An action which has an immediate evil effect may in fact have a long-term lasting good result. (And vice versa.)

This the conundrum which has plagued good peoples whether in fact or fiction. Good peoples are bothered because they have to make such compromises.

But any effect of the action is part of the action, regardless of mow much time passes before the effect becomes obvious.

Intentions are the internal motivations of the agent. They are irrelevant to the morality of the action, at least if it is good. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." (I'm unsure about how I feel about evil intentions realized through good actions.)

The point is he's not chaotic evil whereas his entire race *IS*.

Except for those who aren't. His uncle for instance. One of his sisters was undecided for a while, I think, then Drizzt left, she had to deal with the fallout and turned to religion.

Mostly, as far as I could tell, people in Menzoberranzan were neutral with an Evil culture. Saying they are all Chaotic Evil is like saying all MacDonald's employees are Evil.

Based upon that definition, Lawful Good does not exist. I guess we're done here.

Lawful Good societies can exist. It just can't be as Good as a Good Society can be, nor as Lawful as a Lawful society can. Basic economics; any effort spent being Good is effort not spent being Lawful.

Seriously, a *society* can do good. Don't you agree? Can't a *society* choose to do good? Isn't that choice just as valid as a "personal" choice?

Sure they can. I've ever claimed all societies are fully Lawful.

All choices are eligable for Good or Evil; passing a Good law is Good, mindlessly following a Good law is only Lawful.

If the LG society does not mandate evil things, then the Good people would not NEED any willingness to disobey. Therefore, there is no threat to the LG-Order.

You don't have to be a saint to be Good.

But someone who is prepared to accept Evil (even though they are lucky enough not to have to) is less Good than someone who isn't.

Seems to me the question that needs to be asked is whether killng innocents is against the law in this example. If it is, then this isn't a question of good/evil in the first place, but law/chaos. If it is not against the law, then presumably there would be no societal unrest as a result.

Wouldn't killing innocents automatically be against the law? Otherwise what are they innocent of?

Maybe you're thinking more along the lines of killing outsiders, regardless of whether they are innocent or not. That, I agree, is outside the scope of the Lawful/Chaotic axis.

If the ethical axis is based on following rules set by others then he is obviously chaotic but that interpretation has certain problems such as an absolute tyrant not having any ethical alignment since he doesn't have to follow any rules set by others (not that ethicality from with is flawless).

I'd say it also shows in what people think about people following rules. The tyrant is probably going to have some pretty strong opinions about that.

@odalrick: I believe intents matter as much (if not more) than actions.

The problem with that is that then serial killers and psychopaths become Good, provided they truly believe that they are helping.

I could easily see a Shearim leader distraught about the state of the world and coming to the conclusion that ending it all is the only way to stop the suffering. Chaotic Good?

In fact, isn't that roughly the opinion of one of the Evil gods? Creation is flawed, let's take a mulligan.

 

[Wodan]

And Orthodox Order is Lawful. Orthodox-LG-Order sound as ridiculous as Chaotic-Lawful-Good-Evil-Empyrrean.

A comeback of "that's ridiculous" only works if you say why it's ridiculous.
(and throwing in a bonus strawman doesn't help any)

But any effect of the action is part of the action, regardless of mow much time passes before the effect becomes obvious.

Intentions are the internal motivations of the agent. They are irrelevant to the morality of the action, at least if it is good. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." (I'm unsure about how I feel about evil intentions realized through good actions.)

Are you honestly arguing that unforseen ramifications define someone as evil? Nonsense. At worst, it's a simple failure to anticipate. At best, it's simply lack of omniscience.

I'm with Opera... intentions are a big part of any good/evil definition. Not that they are the only part, but they definitely need a big consideration.

Mostly, as far as I could tell, people in Menzoberranzan were neutral with an Evil culture. Saying they are all Chaotic Evil is like saying all MacDonald's employees are Evil.

Okay then, Neutral Evil... whatever. You prove my point by saying they are all the same alignment.

(Again, nice bonus strawman.)

Lawful Good societies can exist. It just can't be as Good as a Good Society can be, nor as Lawful as a Lawful society can. Basic economics; any effort spent being Good is effort not spent being Lawful.

That presumes more effort makes you more lawful or more good. Some things just are. Someone who does just one good action and zero evil actions is 100% good; someone who does 100 good actions and zero evil actions is also 100% good. This is degree of exhibitionism, not probity.

All choices are eligable for Good or Evil; passing a Good law is Good, mindlessly following a Good law is only Lawful.

Untrue. Absence of a negative is itself a proof. Consider a neutral or evil person who does not disobey that good law. Such a person is both confirmed in law and disproved in their neutral or evil predisposition; in fact by not disobeying they become more good.

someone who is prepared to accept Evil (even though they are lucky enough not to have to) is less Good than someone who isn't.

What does that have to do with a LG society not having laws which encourage or accept evil, and LG people having to choose between disobeying such laws (because they don't exist) or allowing the evil?

Responding to your comment, though: depends on what you mean by "accept evil". If you mean each and every good person must be a crusader and go out into the world to eliminate evil, I don't agree. If you mean a baker shouldn't accept evil in his shop, I suppose I do.

Wouldn't killing innocents automatically be against the law? Otherwise what are they innocent of?

Why would a lawful society, especially one that is isolationist, necessarily care of a bunch of orcs got killed, despite that they didn't do anything wrong? The orcs aren't a member of the society, they were just wandering through. Innocence is a matter of opinion, and outsiders have no protection under the law.

Maybe you're thinking more along the lines of killing outsiders, regardless of whether they are innocent or not. That, I agree, is outside the scope of the Lawful/Chaotic axis.

Yes.

The problem with that is that then serial killers and psychopaths become Good, provided they truly believe that they are helping.

No, because each person doesn't define what "good" is. I know you've said you believe that (and used as justification why you can insist your definiton of good is the right one), but that's not how it works.

 

[odalrick]

A comeback of "that's ridiculous" only works if you say why it's ridiculous.
(and throwing in a bonus strawman doesn't help any)

I told you why it is ridiculous. Orthodox Order is Lawful. Not Lawful Good. The "strawman" you mention had four incompatible alignments, not just two; otherwise it was identical.

It's possible that I've misunderstood Order and that they really preach civil disobedience in just causes, but I've never seen anything to suggest that they do. Everything I've seen suggest that the only thing they value is Unquestioning Obedience.

Are you honestly arguing that unforseen ramifications define someone as evil? Nonsense. At worst, it's a simple failure to anticipate. At best, it's simply lack of omniscience.

No, I'm arguing that foreseeable consequences make someone Good or Evil. You don't get a free pass just because it is far in the future.

To calculate the Good/Evil value of an action, add up the total of all consequences, weighted by how foreseeable is is.

Note "foreseeable" not "foreseen". You can't defend against being Evil by not thinking about what you do. I believe much evil is done due to failure to calculate value. (This is a personal belief, not something I suggest has anything to do with the game.)

Okay then, Neutral Evil... whatever. You prove my point by saying they are all the same alignment.

No, Neutral/Neutral with a veneer of Evil culture. Most people are Neutral, modified by the prevalent culture.

Nothing would have been different if they had been Humans instead of Drow.

Bannor are mostly Neutral with a Lawful Good culture. Svartalfar are mostly Neutral with a Chaotic Evil culture.

I like to think that Shearim are mostly Neutral, decent people; but the leaders are especially Evil.

The mostly Neutral part is supported by the ease with which cities are assimilated. You need a trait for them to retain any trace of the previous culture.

That presumes more effort makes you more lawful or more good. Some things just are. Someone who does just one good action and zero evil actions is 100% good; someone who does 100 good actions and zero evil actions is also 100% good. This is degree of exhibitionism, not probity.

I disagree.

Adam:
Leads a completely uninteresting life. Does absolutely no Evil; and absolutely no Good, except one day he donated a farthing to a starving widow.

Bertrand:
Spends all his free time helping people. When he isn't free, he either works to raise money to help people or he sleeps dreaming about new ways to help people. Except once, when he stole a ribbon from the local lord, to give to his kid. The theft was never discovered.

Are you seriously saying Adam is more Good than Bertrand?

Being Good takes effort, being Lawful takes effort, so does Chaotic and Evil.

Even if I agreed with you, the probability of the a situation where you have to chose between either a Lawful action or a Good never arising is next to zero. Failure to chose a Lawful action makes you less than max Lawful.

Untrue. Absence of a negative is itself a proof. Consider a neutral or evil person who does not disobey that good law. Such a person is both confirmed in law and disproved in their neutral or evil predisposition; in fact by not disobeying they become more good.

No, such a person is only confirmed as Lawful, or possibly to lazy to avoid a trivial matter.

Although, if the law is easy to avoid, they may make the choice to follow it anyway, which is Good.

What does that have to do with a LG society not having laws which encourage or accept evil, and LG people having to choose between disobeying such laws (because they don't exist) or allowing the evil?

It really only comes into effect at the extremes. Someone who is only slightly Good and slightly Lawful doesn't have to resist all Evil. Likewise, a society that is only slightly Lawful will have enough freedom to tolerate Good people.

Responding to your comment, though: depends on what you mean by "accept evil". If you mean each and every good person must be a crusader and go out into the world to eliminate evil, I don't agree. If you mean a baker shouldn't accept evil in his shop, I suppose I do.

Yes, in order to be maximum Good, you have to go out into the world and seek out Evil and resist it wherever it may be. Most people are content with being less Good than that, like a baker who doesn't beat his employees, but is quite content to let Shearim enslave the Elohim on the other side of the continent.

Why would a lawful society, especially one that is isolationist, necessarily care of a bunch of orcs got killed, despite that they didn't do anything wrong? The orcs aren't a member of the society, they were just wandering through. Innocence is a matter of opinion, and outsiders have no protection under the law.

If they're not members of the society, they're not innocent.

No, because each person doesn't define what "good" is. I know you've said you believe that (and used as justification why you can insist your definiton of good is the right one), but that's not how it works.

I don't insist that my interpretation of Good is correct. In fact, my understanding of Good has been refined in this discussion. It's just that, at any time, my personal definition of Good is the best representation available to me. After all, if I had a better representation I'd use that as my personal definition.

In FFH and RiFE, Good is something objective, and in RiFE it is supposed to have something to do with the normal word "good". This is very different from my understanding of FFH-Good where, for instance, Order is Good.

 

[TC01]

I like to think that Shearim are mostly Neutral, decent people; but the leaders are especially Evil.

I just thought I'd point out that you're wrong about the Sheaim. They are mainly evil:

I have half a story written about a decent man living in the Sheaim capital. He is in charge of some old, horrid women that clean an inn. The things he finds in the inn rooms from time to time are disgusting. He describes it as: "Many travelers passed through Galveholm and took the opportunity to partake in the worst sorts of depravity."

I think thats pretty typical of the Sheaim. It has all of the normal aspects of medievil/fantasy society, but is incredibly depraved and corrupt. The man continues to muse about what happens in the Inn rooms (and Sheaim society as a whole) by saying: "The Sheaim believed in the sanctity of personal expression, though it applied more to the visiting Emrys than the diseased whore he hired for the evening."

I dont think the common man thinks or cares much about the apoclypse. They are much more concerned about things that directly impact their lives. I made the man in the story a good man just to highlight the corruption around him. Even his wife berates him for not spreading rumors that the inn manager has been indiscrete about his guests so that he can take over the managers job.

Depravity is seen as freedom inside the society and immorality as tolerance. The difference between the Sheaim and the Calabim is that in the Sheaim society the low class really does have a chance to rise up. Each man is viewed on his own merits, but in order to rise in the society he has to be willing to sacrifice any part of morality or virtue that he may have. This is what draws a lot of people from other cultures to the Sheaim, but usually only the most corrupt candidates.

(source: Sheaim Society)

 

[Wodan]

I told you why it is ridiculous. Orthodox Order is Lawful. Not Lawful Good.

Order is not a society, it's a religion. Order is lawful, but the society has a more specific alignment. In our hypotheticals, we have been using a Lawful Good society which is running the Order religion, which may be Orthodox.

The "strawman" you mention had four incompatible alignments, not just two; otherwise it was identical.

Not at all. Chaos and Law are antipodes on a single axis. Order and Good are apples and oranges. Even if we say the Order religion requires you to be Lawful, they still aren't antipodes... they are on two different axes.

It's possible that I've misunderstood Order and that they really preach civil disobedience in just causes, but I've never seen anything to suggest that they do. Everything I've seen suggest that the only thing they value is Unquestioning Obedience.

Why would you have to disobey or obey if there is no relevant law on a given action?

No, I'm arguing that foreseeable consequences make someone Good or Evil. You don't get a free pass just because it is far in the future.

You said "before the effect becomes obvious". The corollary is that the effect was non-obvious and as a result probably even totally unforseen.

I'll grant that if a good person knowingly does something that 1000 years down the line will cause babies to be slaughtered, then that's an evil act. The key word there is "knowingly".

To calculate the Good/Evil value of an action, add up the total of all consequences, weighted by how foreseeable is is.

Sure, ok.

Note "foreseeable" not "foreseen". You can't defend against being Evil by not thinking about what you do. I believe much evil is done due to failure to calculate value. (This is a personal belief, not something I suggest has anything to do with the game.)

But that's an argument for the stupid being held just as accountable as the intelligent. Shouldn't smart people be held to a higher standard? And, how can we expect dumb people to calculate years ahead, when they can't even plan out tomorrow's menu?

No, Neutral/Neutral with a veneer of Evil culture. Most people are Neutral, modified by the prevalent culture.

Nothing would have been different if they had been Humans instead of Drow.

Bannor are mostly Neutral with a Lawful Good culture. Svartalfar are mostly Neutral with a Chaotic Evil culture.

I like to think that Shearim are mostly Neutral, decent people; but the leaders are especially Evil.

The mostly Neutral part is supported by the ease with which cities are assimilated. You need a trait for them to retain any trace of the previous culture.

That's hardly any fun at all. Humans are the same as orcs? Bannor the same as Svaltafar? Mostly neutral with just a veneer of culture?

In real life, I agree. In Fantasy, I don't. Mostly because in real life we don't haveother races. Most Fantasy (particularly D&D, which FFH is modeled after Kael's campaign) presents humans as the "central" neutral race, able to go in the direction of any alignment's bent. While specific demihuman races are more polar. But even with human societies the culture is very strong and hardly ever presented as a veneer.

I disagree.

Adam:
Leads a completely uninteresting life. Does absolutely no Evil; and absolutely no Good, except one day he donated a farthing to a starving widow.

Bertrand:
Spends all his free time helping people. When he isn't free, he either works to raise money to help people or he sleeps dreaming about new ways to help people. Except once, when he stole a ribbon from the local lord, to give to his kid. The theft was never discovered.

Are you seriously saying Adam is more Good than Bertrand?

No. I said they were equally as good.

Even if I agreed with you, the probability of the a situation where you have to chose between either a Lawful action or a Good never arising is next to zero.

Not if the people writing the Laws are all Bertrands.

No, such a person is only confirmed as Lawful, or possibly to lazy to avoid a trivial matter.

So, two people are good. By doing an evil act, because a law required it, person A is equally as good as person B who did not do that act?

It really only comes into effect at the extremes. Someone who is only slightly Good and slightly Lawful doesn't have to resist all Evil. Likewise, a society that is only slightly Lawful will have enough freedom to tolerate Good people.

Our concepts are so far apart that this does not even compute to my thinking. It is entirely possible to have a completely LG society. Law can be evil but can exist and thrive without being evil.

If they're not members of the society, they're not innocent.

Not even babies?

Gotta run.

 

[odalrick]

Order is not a society, it's a religion. Order is lawful, but the society has a more specific alignment. In our hypotheticals, we have been using a Lawful Good society which is running the Order religion, which may be Orthodox.

No a Lawful Good society will not be running Orthodox Order. Orthodox Order is fully Lawful Neutral. Any practice of Order in a Good society of any kind, must be less than fully Lawful Neutral and thus not orthodox.

Not at all. Chaos and Law are antipodes on a single axis. Order and Good are apples and oranges. Even if we say the Order religion requires you to be Lawful, they still aren't antipodes... they are on two different axes.

(1+0i) is not equal to (1+i). In the same way it is impossible to be both Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral at the same time. Just as impossible as it is to be Lawful and Chaotic at the same time, for the same reason.

Could it be that you haven't understood that when I write "Lawful", I mean "Lawful Neutral", not "Lawful of any variety"?

Why would you have to disobey or obey if there is no relevant law on a given action?

Orthodox Order has laws for everything.

You said "before the effect becomes obvious". The corollary is that the effect was non-obvious and as a result probably even totally unforseen.

Obvious means it is impossible not to notice it. Non-obvious doesn't mean completely hidden, just that you may have to open your eyes to see it.

I'll grant that if a good person knowingly does something that 1000 years down the line will cause babies to be slaughtered, then that's an evil act. The key word there is "knowingly".

A button is connected to a random number generator. A dial can be set that determines what the maximum number that can be generated is with no maximum, minimum is 0. If you press the button and the number generated is 0, an axe falls and kills a baby.

What number would you have to set the dial to in order for it not to be an Evil act to press the button?

Just trying to figure out exactly what you mean by "knowingly".

For extra credit, if the number isn't 0, you are killed; you are forced to press the button. What number is a morally neutral then?

My answers:

Spoiler :

No number is big enough
0

But that's an argument for the stupid being held just as accountable as the intelligent. Shouldn't smart people be held to a higher standard? And, how can we expect dumb people to calculate years ahead, when they can't even plan out tomorrow's menu?

Yes, stupid people are just as accountable as smart ones. So are insane ones. Remember, in FFH and derivatives, Good is an objective thing; but I think it applies in real life too.

That means that dumb people will not be as extremely Good as smart people. They also lack the intelligence for real Evil.

Luckily, the most foreseeable things will probably dominate the morality-value, so more obscure outcomes can probably be ignored.

That's hardly any fun at all. Humans are the same as orcs? Bannor the same as Svaltafar? Mostly neutral with just a veneer of culture?

I on the other hand, wouldn't find it as fun if the fantasy worlds were completely lacking any resemblance to real life.

In real life, I agree. In Fantasy, I don't. Mostly because in real life we don't haveother races. Most Fantasy (particularly D&D, which FFH is modeled after Kael's campaign) presents humans as the "central" neutral race, able to go in the direction of any alignment's bent. While specific demihuman races are more polar. But even with human societies the culture is very strong and hardly ever presented as a veneer.

You've never heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment or the Milgram experiment? Or Grigori Rasputin and Ron Hubbard?

Sure, we like to think that we are smart, free, brave people, with a strong culture as you say. We are not, everything we believe in can be changed at the drop of a hat. There are exceptions, for instance techniques that can be used to retain truth or brief. Previous exposure to similar situations help.

No. I said they were equally as good.

But Bertrand had committed Evil! His ratio of Good to Evil was lower.

Not if the people writing the Laws are all Bertrands.

Not even then. My suspension of disbelief only goes so far.

So, two people are good. By doing an evil act, because a law required it, person A is equally as good as person B who did not do that act?

No. Good actions can be negated if you follow a law, Evil actions can't.

Our concepts are so far apart that this does not even compute to my thinking. It is entirely possible to have a completely LG society. Law can be evil but can exist and thrive without being evil.

It seems that you don't believe that being Good requires spending resources.

I do. Often, the resources can be spent on both being Good and Lawful, but not always. If nothing else because you can do more Good by being Chaotic. Thus a fully Good person will always be more Good than a Lawful Good person. (Given that they both had the same amount of resources.)

Not even babies?

Babies are usually members of the society if their parents are. The same rule applies to them: innocent, guilty or outsiders.

 

[Wodan]

No a Lawful Good society will not be running Orthodox Order. Orthodox Order is fully Lawful Neutral. Any practice of Order in a Good society of any kind, must be less than fully Lawful Neutral and thus not orthodox.

Why?

(1+0i) is not equal to (1+i). In the same way it is impossible to be both Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral at the same time. Just as impossible as it is to be Lawful and Chaotic at the same time, for the same reason.

Why?

Could it be that you haven't understood that when I write "Lawful", I mean "Lawful Neutral", not "Lawful of any variety"?

Yes, I did not understand that. Just as I wouldn't understand if you said you like ice cream, but anytime you said "ice cream" you meant "chocolate ice cream".

Orthodox Order has laws for everything.

"Everything" is infinite and thus impossible. In addition, they clearly would not have laws which require and impose Chaos, therefore "everything" is clearly a false statement, so you are incorrect.

I maintain that an Orthodox-LG-Order would not have laws which require or impose Evil.

I on the other hand, wouldn't find it as fun if the fantasy worlds were completely lacking any resemblance to real life.

Differences do not equate to "completely lacking any resemblance". Otherwise, we should argue for the removal of magic, the removal of nonhumans, and the addition of modern technology.

You've never heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment or the Milgram experiment? Or Grigori Rasputin and Ron Hubbard?

Sure, we like to think that we are smart, free, brave people, with a strong culture as you say. We are not, everything we believe in can be changed at the drop of a hat. There are exceptions, for instance techniques that can be used to retain truth or brief. Previous exposure to similar situations help.

You just demonstrated and argued for my point. Perhaps you misunderstood what I said?

But Bertrand had committed Evil! His ratio of Good to Evil was lower.

He did? I missed that. If Bertrand committed an evil act, then yes he is more evil (less good) than someone who commits many fewer good acts and no evil acts.

Not even then. My suspension of disbelief only goes so far.

Then you can't imagine a LG society. (To your credit, you did say that [paraphrasing] to you, all societies are neutral with a veneer of another alignment. Personally, I don't view it that way, at all. To me, a LG society is composed of predominantly LG people.)

No. Good actions can be negated if you follow a law, Evil actions can't.

That makes no sense.

Babies are usually members of the society if their parents are. The same rule applies to them: innocent, guilty or outsiders.

You sidestepped the issue. You said no outsiders are innocent. Therefore, it is OK for Good people to kill babies of other societies. To me, this is an evil act.

It seems that you don't believe that being Good requires spending resources.

Correct. I believe that deeds demonstrate a morality, but are not required to have a morality.

I do. Often, the resources can be spent on both being Good and Lawful, but not always. If nothing else because you can do more Good by being Chaotic. Thus a fully Good person will always be more Good than a Lawful Good person. (Given that they both had the same amount of resources.)

Interesting concepts. But I don't understand how you can do more Good by being Chaotic Neutral.

(You *do* mean "Chaotic Neutral" every time you say "Chaotic", right?)

 

[Imuratep]

I consider this discussion very interesting as it centers on two very important questions: Should we apply medieval moral standards (which empathizes the RPG-factor of FFH) or modern moral standards (which empathizes personal identification with the alignment categories) on FFH? What is better: Chaotic Good or Lawful Good?
I think that chaotic good meaning more good than lawful good is not true in most circumstances. It is true if the chaotic good person has the oversight about the consequences of his deeds for the whole society, not just for a small part of it. But to have this overview a single person or a group of benevolents has to make big, long reflections about the current structure of the society they want to change or it will hurt innocents by helping innocents. A liberator of the surpressed peasants has to show them perspectives for their life without the surpression. Laws on the other hand are designed to ensure an acceptable life for all members of the society taking account of a maximum number of factors. Since a very long decade people have thought about a just society they don't have to be designed new by every single person and thus avoid overlooking small but important details that are essential to avoid suffering. Chaotic good aligned movements tend to condemn the whole goverment they are fighting and thus forget the actual sense of the laws the "suppressors" made.
An example: Serfdom. Along present day's moral standards it is pure suppression. But during the medieval ages it was absolutely necessary. Without it thousands of peasants would have starved as they didn't have the money to buy their own lands. Nobility on the other hand did need the high taxes as otherwise their country would have been overrun by the other countries. A group that ends this suppression would have needed the capacities to give the peasants an adequate substitution for their current life and the capacities to defend their country from the other countries.
That this has been unsuccessful can be seen by the example of movements as great as the French revolution (a classical example of a chaotic good movement). It did lack both the projection to know what to do after ending royalism (as it was a spontaneous movement reacting on short term problems) and the capacities to build something new as it was isolated in Europe. That's why it necessarily had to cause great misery like Robespierre's reign of terror (and many liberal contemporaries did actually disapprove of the revolution as they thought that a such great change had to be prepared much better). Without a dictator like Napoleon (that most certainly has no good alignment) France would have collapsed soon and the other royalist countries would have feasted on the cadaver of France to destroy the seed of all liberal thought.
That's why I think neither lawful good nor chaotic good is the best alignment, but neutral good or a collaboration between lawful good and chaotic good (like Sabathiel working on the laws and Ethne pointing on the grievance that is still existing).

 

[odalrick]

Why?

Why?

Now you're just saying why for no reason. If 1 = 2 then you are a small hamlet outside outside of Liverpool.

A world where logic doesn't work is utterly incomprehensible.

I maintain that an Orthodox-LG-Order would not have laws which require or impose Evil.

And I maintain that Lawful Good Order is not orthodox, because Order is fully Lawful and thus have no resources to spare on being Good. (*)

Differences do not equate to "completely lacking any resemblance". Otherwise, we should argue for the removal of magic, the removal of nonhumans, and the addition of modern technology.

True, but some differences are more jarring than others. For me, having everyone be cardboard cut-outs of a single morality would be very jarring.

You just demonstrated and argued for my point. Perhaps you misunderstood what I said?

Culture and morality can be swapped neigh instantly. What I got from your statements was that is was hard.

He did? I missed that. If Bertrand committed an evil act, then yes he is more evil (less good) than someone who commits many fewer good acts and no evil acts.

Stole a ribbon... was meant to be a tiny Evil act. Substitute "stepped on a spider" or whatever you think is a minor Evil act.

Then you can't imagine a LG society. (To your credit, you did say that [paraphrasing] to you, all societies are neutral with a veneer of another alignment. Personally, I don't view it that way, at all. To me, a LG society is composed of predominantly LG people.)

But if their culture and morality can be changed as easily as the Stanford experiment showed, are they really Lawful Good?

I suppose they could be if alignment is free.(*)

That makes no sense.

Good is not just Evil in reverse. If you kill a man, you can't make up for it by having a kid. Yet: "kill a man" = -1 life; "have a kid" = +1 life .

You sidestepped the issue. You said no outsiders are innocent. Therefore, it is OK for Good people to kill babies of other societies. To me, this is an evil act.

No, I said it's okay for Lawful people to kill them. Good people try not to kill anyone; innocent, guilty or outsider.

Correct. I believe that deeds demonstrate a morality, but are not required to have a morality.

* This must be the heart of our disagreement.

Interesting concepts. But I don't understand how you can do more Good by being Chaotic Neutral.

By not doing something Lawful Evil. Even if no laws are Lawful Evil, it's not that hard to imagine a Chaotic Good act.

 

[Opera]

Substitute "stepped on a spider" or whatever you think is a minor Evil act.

Wut, killing spider is working for the Ultimate Goodly Good

 

[Deon]

Spiders are good! They catch and kill mosquitos and flies!

 

[Wodan]

Now you're just saying why for no reason.

You're tossing out platitudes as if they were truisms.

Instead of saying "why", if you prefer I can say "citation needed" or "you need to demonstrate why that statement is true".

A world where logic doesn't work is utterly incomprehensible.

I totally agree! We should use logic to try to get to the bottom of our debate.

And I maintain that Lawful Good Order is not orthodox, because Order is fully Lawful and thus have no resources to spare on being Good. (*)

Given your assumptions, I can grant that would be true (if your assumptions are valid; perhaps we should examine both your and my assumptions instead of debating the conclusions based upon them).

Though... wouldn't the same be true of evil? Orthodox Order is fully lawful and thus would have no resources to spare on being Evil? I believe you previously said that Order is Lawful Evil, not Lawful Neutral. Right?

True, but some differences are more jarring than others. For me, having everyone be cardboard cut-outs of a single morality would be very jarring.

CIV doesn't examine people in an individual level. It's on a society (a civ) level. Since the makeup of individuals is not part of the game, there's no way you could be "jarred".

Culture and morality can be swapped neigh instantly. What I got from your statements was that is was hard.

You mean "nigh"?

I can see how from your viewpoint, where "culture" and "morality" are a superficial veneer which defines one society from another but people are a huge morass of neutrality that otherwise are identical, this would be true. However, to me, culture is based upon everything that has gone before and a society has an inertia and a belief structure that forms its morality that is distinct and different from other societies.

The United States can't simply conquer Iraq, impose democratic rule, and wholah! instant U.S. Junior. It doesn't work that way. The arabic people are very different and have very different beliefs and culture than people in the U.S. I don't think anybody thought it would be that easy. (The reason the U.S. even tried is to make a *start* of it... by starting Iraq down the path, it would begin to sway the culture and, with peace, would eventually change their society. But it would take hundreds of years, if not longer.)

Stole a ribbon... was meant to be a tiny Evil act. Substitute "stepped on a spider" or whatever you think is a minor Evil act.

I don't think stepping on a spider is always evil.

That aside. He's still less good than someone who has never committed a minor Evil act. He intentionally stole a ribbon, capriciously, and without paying for it. Surely he had the copper pence to pay for it, yet chose to stole.

I'm not saying he's all of a sudden totally evil. Just that he's moved himself down the good Axis a bit.

But if their culture and morality can be changed as easily as the Stanford experiment showed, are they really Lawful Good?

Yes. Current alignment does not measure capacity for fidelity. It measures actuality.

I suppose they could be if alignment is free.(*)

Even if it is not free, if they have not yet done anything, in heart or deed, then their alignment is unchanged.

Good is not just Evil in reverse. If you kill a man, you can't make up for it by having a kid.

What? Yet you say Bertram is more good than Chad, because Bertram has this accumulated wealth of good deeds, which make up for stealing a ribbon.

I think I see what you are saying. "Good actions can be negated; evil actions can't." I disagree, though. If Bertram steals a ribbon, has a crisis of conscience, and gives it back; heck, goes out and buys 10 of them and gives them all to the person, then he has made "whole" the person who suffered from the theft.

Likewise, someone who's evil, and steals, then decides to give it back, does not gain the affirmation of "evilness" from the theft.

It brings up an interesting point, though. If someone, anyone, lives in a society whose alignment does not match their individual alignment, then eventually a conflict will arise. The individual will have to make a choice to break either the convention of the society OR his own convictions. If the latter, then his alignment will move to match that of the society (which matches my assertion: that societies have a firm and distinct alignment).

If the former, then this will cause conflict. e.g., the individual breaks a law, or enforces a law upon others where the society doesn't have one, or does good deeds where the society encourages evil ones, or evil where the society encourages good ones. The resulting conflict could take the form of the police coming after the guy, a lynch mob, a personal fistfight, or simply a vengeful neighbor.

No, I said it's okay for Lawful people to kill them. Good people try not to kill anyone; innocent, guilty or outsider.

It's not ok for Lawful Neutral people to kill them, as that is an evil act. Its only OK for lawful evil people to kill them.

* This must be the heart of our disagreement.

One of them, I agree.

By not doing something Lawful Evil. Even if no laws are Lawful Evil, it's not that hard to imagine a Chaotic Good act.

What's imaging a CG act have to do with it?

I think you're trying to say that you don't have to spend as much resources being chaotic as you do being lawful. Therefore, you can spend more of your limited resources being good if you're chaotic. Thus, a CG person has the capacity to be more good than a LG person. (right?)

 

[Grey Fox]

I consider this discussion very interesting as it centers on two very important questions: Should we apply medieval moral standards (which empathizes the RPG-factor of FFH) or modern moral standards (which empathizes personal identification with the alignment categories) on FFH?

What is better: Chaotic Good or Lawful Good?

I think that chaotic good meaning more good than lawful good is not true in most circumstances. It is true if the chaotic good person has the oversight about the consequences of his deeds for the whole society, not just for a small part of it. But to have this overview a single person or a group of benevolents has to make big, long reflections about the current structure of the society they want to change or it will hurt innocents by helping innocents. A liberator of the surpressed peasants has to show them perspectives for their life without the surpression.

Laws on the other hand are designed to ensure an acceptable life for all members of the society taking account of a maximum number of factors. Since a very long decade people have thought about a just society they don't have to be designed new by every single person and thus avoid overlooking small but important details that are essential to avoid suffering.

Chaotic good aligned movements tend to condemn the whole goverment they are fighting and thus forget the actual sense of the laws the "suppressors" made.

An example: Serfdom. Along present day's moral standards it is pure suppression. But during the medieval ages it was absolutely necessary. Without it thousands of peasants would have starved as they didn't have the money to buy their own lands. Nobility on the other hand did need the high taxes as otherwise their country would have been overrun by the other countries. A group that ends this suppression would have needed the capacities to give the peasants an adequate substitution for their current life and the capacities to defend their country from the other countries.

That this has been unsuccessful can be seen by the example of movements as great as the French revolution (a classical example of a chaotic good movement). It did lack both the projection to know what to do after ending royalism (as it was a spontaneous movement reacting on short term problems) and the capacities to build something new as it was isolated in Europe.

That's why it necessarily had to cause great misery like Robespierre's reign of terror (and many liberal contemporaries did actually disapprove of the revolution as they thought that a such great change had to be prepared much better).

Without a dictator like Napoleon (that most certainly has no good alignment) France would have collapsed soon and the other royalist countries would have feasted on the cadaver of France to destroy the seed of all liberal thought.

That's why I think neither lawful good nor chaotic good is the best alignment, but neutral good or a collaboration between lawful good and chaotic good (like Sabathiel working on the laws and Ethne pointing on the grievance that is still existing).

I paragraphed your post a bit for easier reading, since it was worth the read, and figured more would read it this way. No offense

 

[Wodan]

I paragraphed your post a bit for easier reading, since it was worth the read, and figured more would read it this way. No offense

I had the same trouble. A lot of good thoughts there regardless.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Spiders are good! They catch and kill mosquitos and flies!

We need to start a petition to change these Archos guys to Good, then!

 

[Opera]

Nah, spiders are evil incarnate