These kinds of threads never go well when non-fiction examples are brought in. I think you guys should stick to characters, rather than historical figures.
While I tend to agree, often times fictional characters are so cardboard and one dimensional that there really is no discussion at all. Yep, The Joker is Chaotic Evil. End of conversation.
The D&D alignment system can only be applied to cardboard, one dimensional fictional characters because it can only sufficiently describe cardboard, one dimensional characters for which the inner thinking, intentions and goals are known. There is no room for grey areas in the alignment system and the real world has grey areas; true motivations/intentions aren't always clear and can even shift or change over time. In order to properly place someone into an alignment, you have to have clearly defined motivations, intentions and actions.
I tend to disagree. The Alignment system as described in one of the DMG's over the years expresses that alignment is a continuum and that players may play characters anywhere along the axis. It's a sliding scale so as to more appropriately apply to real life and how players think and act.
Also, people play these characters. They play based on their own personalities and biases. Therefore any alignment system must take into account not only variability of definition, but also style mood and interpretation or it becomes less than meaningless.
I agree that in the game world 'Absolute' good and evil exist as objective values, but these are somewhat outside of player (and even NPC) alignments and are generally restricted to extra-planar beings. So, in essence, yes. they can be expected to be cardboard, but the characters themselves and the personalities that they encounter are not so (outside of those exceptions).
And in the end, if we ONLY apply the concepts of alignment to cardboard caricatures such as The Joker, Darth Vader, Gandalf and Captain America, ultimately that isn't Playing a role because then every character become a bit samey, which at least in my experience in playing D&D is anything but the case.
These kinds of threads never go well when non-fiction examples are brought in. I think you guys should stick to characters, rather than historical figures.
While I tend to agree, often times fictional characters are so cardboard and one dimensional that there really is no discussion at all. Yep, The Joker is Chaotic Evil. End of conversation.
Seriously though, IRL people are so often more than the sum of some single appellation or description that people can discuss and debate endlessly. Then when you base the actual discussion exclusively on history book accounts (thanks for @Dragonspear's comment) and third, fourth and fifth hand accounts of partial events, it becomes even more convoluted. It can almost be the opposite.
@tennisgolfboll - I'd be curious where you think my comments were wrong. Just in broad strokes. Might make it easier to understand your point of view.
Your answer is kind. Very well i will speak (write).
What is good is always good. What is evil is always evil. God is the judge and he is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
People who see the light move away from the darkness. Some people fought slavery and died and suffered in america. Their disgust for slavery was great even though they were taught to love it.
I was thaught to tribute abortion (swedish) as we have the most liberal and celebrated laws for killing your unborn children. I refuse. I will never accept such heinous crimes and evil. But you are right many will follow society like a sect. They will follow any social law. These people would have been good nazis had hitler won. They were slave owners and treated humans worse than cattle.
But there is always those who are good no matter what. Like the priest that took a bullet for a kid that was about to be executed. Or people like Schindler.
The axis for dnd is just a grid and wont fit the world. Sure we can force the grid on it but its not real.
Good is eternal and unchanging. Societies may call evil good but that does not make it so.
You are right that no society can claim to judge another as they are all peers and thus the only one able to judge good and evil is God. And he is the same always.
The D&D alignment system can only be applied to cardboard, one dimensional fictional characters because it can only sufficiently describe cardboard, one dimensional characters for which the inner thinking, intentions and goals are known. There is no room for grey areas in the alignment system and the real world has grey areas; true motivations/intentions aren't always clear and can even shift or change over time. In order to properly place someone into an alignment, you have to have clearly defined motivations, intentions and actions.
You seem to have misinterpreted alignment as something that is meant to describe everything about the character. Multi-dimensional characters simply have a lot more personality traits, quirks, desires, etc. than one-dimensional characters, and none of those things necessarily have anything to do with alignment.
The alignment system does have grey areas. It's called "Neutral," and it exists on both axes.
Also, the people assigning alignments to their characters know the motivations of their characters.
Who told you D&D characters' motivations can't shift or change over time?
Characters whose intentions and motivations aren't known are either bad characters, or characters that aren't known too well themselves. The DM knows his villain is Neutral Evil the same way a player can know his Ranger is Neutral Good, and knowing as much doesn't make either character cardboard.
I tend to disagree. The Alignment system as described in one of the DMG's over the years expresses that alignment is a continuum and that players may play characters anywhere along the axis. It's a sliding scale so as to more appropriately apply to real life and how players think and act.
Also, people play these characters. They play based on their own personalities and biases. Therefore any alignment system must take into account not only variability of definition, but also style mood and interpretation or it becomes less than meaningless.
I agree that in the game world 'Absolute' good and evil exist as objective values, but these are somewhat outside of player (and even NPC) alignments and are generally restricted to extra-planar beings. So, in essence, yes. they can be expected to be cardboard, but the characters themselves and the personalities that they encounter are not so (outside of those exceptions).
And in the end, if we ONLY apply the concepts of alignment to cardboard caricatures such as The Joker, Darth Vader, Gandalf and Captain America, ultimately that isn't Playing a role because then every character become a bit samey, which at least in my experience in playing D&D is anything but the case.
When people play these characters, they have clearly defined motivations, intentions and (ultimately) actions that they use to apply to the alignment system (and even then, they are applying their interpretation of the alignment system...). They build a history, a background, and a personality that can be applied to the alignment system.
My point is that trying to apply the alignment system to real world examples doesn't work because everything you're basing that on is a historical interpretation of what their motivations and intentions were. We don't have absolute, 100% defined motivations, intentions and goals for these people so applying them to the alignment system is impossible - an argument could be made for almost anything within reason (i.e. Hitler is evil, nobody can reasonably argue against that, hence within reason).
@Zano - I think you might find that people like @tennisgolfboll absolutely believe in absolutes. They believe in Good and Evil being objective and tangible. They believe in essentially what the D&D system is meant (in my view) to portray. And while I don't personally subscribe to their philosophy, I concede the fact that I might be wrong.
The point is, the alignment system is not supposed to be a restrictive shackle in the way you (seemingly) think it should be. The characters that the players portray are not cardboard and have a range of emotion that literary characters don't. They react to situations and change over time. If Drizzts acts out of character, the author gets lambasted for poor writings. If Superman kills someone, the movie gets panned ( Ok it was a pretty poor movie anyway, but...). But if a character is played properly and acts out of character, usually a simple discussion with the DM will make that OK one way or the other. Even to the point of the player explaining why and the DM agreeing. The characters are much more alive than some static novel.
In short, they represent what the living player thinks and feels. In that, as the character is a reflection (to some degree) of the player, it has very real interpretations and can be compared to real life almost better than fictional characters. The alignment system's definition of good and evil (and law and chaos) are the beginning, not the sum total. It is the player's own emotional, moral and personality factors that flesh out the characters into more than simply words on a page.
I do agree that interpretations of historic figures are based on books, usually written by the victors or people with their own agendas, and therefore are less than complete. Hitler may be absolutely the evil monster that is being portrayed, but that doesn't preclude the possibilities of him having a nice and compassionate side (however unexplored or developed). By all accounts he was a poet of sorts, which must show something of a character.
But more than that, IRL characters as portrayed in books are actually little more than the cardboard characters we read about in books. Admittedly there are usually more sources and differing points of view, but still they are someone presenting facts without the flavor of life and often the surrounding details necessary to see the complete picture.
It's only for fun, anyways... this is a discussion where we're making Napoleon a halfling cleric, which clearly is not representative of the real person except in a fun, caricatured way. I don't see any problem with speculating on which alignment fits them best (not exactly, just closest) as long as no one takes it too seriously. And you might get some insights into the alignment system in the process, or figure out a way to make it better represent complex characters like real people.
I admit I don't know anything about history, with my head up in the clouds of math and physics, but I always like dicussions where we try to translate real people into fictional worlds or fictional people into the real world (like the Baldur's Gate High thread).
How about his Egyptian campaign where he poisoned his own troops, then eventually abandoned his army as he fled the scene? Or using sulphur dioxide to murder slaves in the Carribean, all in the name of quelling a rebellion? Or simply the fact that he intentionally left many of his most brutal orders unwritten, with only the results left to serve as evidence that he was no less than a war criminal?
Edit: spelling!
I cant find these to be intentional actions taken by him. Although I loathe to do it, I think I need to ask for some sources. Also, why agree about the post that history is written by the winners when all the people you portray as evil were eventually losers?
To be clear, Napoleon was not without critical flaws, I just believe he has an undeserved infamous reputation considering the time he lived in. Since it *is* history we have to take cultural (historical) context into consideration.
IMHO I think the bottom line is that portraying historical figures as evil or good is too simple, as said before.
Perhaps I could play the role of moderator, and suggest that we remember the purpose of the general forum, fully realizing that some of my own comments might have influenced and suggested this train of debate?
The thread was meant to contemplate Lawful Evil, as opposed to other alignments, and contrasted to the discussions about Lawful Good.
Also, this entire sub-forum is supposed to center on BG:EE, and BG2:EE.
So, maybe I did err in bringing real-life historical figures into this discussion. There could be a new thread in Off-Topic for those who wish to continue philosophical discussion of the "D&D alignments of real-life historical figures."
Also contemplating how I might have mistakenly influenced people into an off-topic discussion, perhaps a discussion of characters *in the game* who are labeled as "lawful evil", as opposed to those labeled "neutral evil", or "chaotic evil", would be more apropos.
I would have to review the "lawful good" thread to see if I had any inappropriate influence on that one, or whether people started going off-topic into real life philosophy, as opposed to in-game discussion.
Really, shouldn't any real-life discussion based upon the D&D alignment system be in the Off-Topic forum? This forum is supposed to be for people discussing general Baldur's Gate issues, problems, and insights.
And, considering that the general forum is the first forum that people who are curious, and who are considering buying EE will check, should we not also be conscious of being good salespeople in general?
I deeply regret any comments I have made, or influence I have had, that may have had the end effect of reducing sales of EE.
I am starting to wonder if most of these "Philosophy 101" threads shouldn't be enjoyed in the "off-topic" forum?
In the end, what we call evil in real life is sometimes a reverse view of things. The common notion of good is a consensus, that may be reversed. It can only hold because we choose to elevate some values above other. Eg. human life is important. But sometimes ones evil is anothers good.
Perhaps the early system in its vagueness was better in this regard: Law, Neutrality and Chaos. Lawful was seen as the equivalent of good, of course, and chaos meant anarchy and evil, but morallity was mostly left out. Elves, for instance were chaotic, but obviously not monsters.
Allignment is a rule for roleplay. It sets the parameters of our interactions. One could argue that making it more specific improved the game but also took some freedom away from the players and dm. As far as roleplay is concerned, grey areas are a good thing.
@Silverstar@Belgarathmth I appreciate your positions, but I disagree. I think the discussions have been civil and interesting. And the topic has been expanded in a natural way - we are still debating evil - only also to see how it possibly can be applied to real life (my interpretation at least). However, if the discussion has evolved in a way that discourages posters to post regarding the OP i apologize for my part in it. (I dont know if that is the case)
Comments
Also, people play these characters. They play based on their own personalities and biases. Therefore any alignment system must take into account not only variability of definition, but also style mood and interpretation or it becomes less than meaningless.
I agree that in the game world 'Absolute' good and evil exist as objective values, but these are somewhat outside of player (and even NPC) alignments and are generally restricted to extra-planar beings. So, in essence, yes. they can be expected to be cardboard, but the characters themselves and the personalities that they encounter are not so (outside of those exceptions).
And in the end, if we ONLY apply the concepts of alignment to cardboard caricatures such as The Joker, Darth Vader, Gandalf and Captain America, ultimately that isn't Playing a role because then every character become a bit samey, which at least in my experience in playing D&D is anything but the case.
"So I kicked him in the head till he was dead, mwoahahah."
In hindsight I guess we should've had a bard on the team.
People who see the light move away from the darkness. Some people fought slavery and died and suffered in america. Their disgust for slavery was great even though they were taught to love it.
I was thaught to tribute abortion (swedish) as we have the most liberal and celebrated laws for killing your unborn children. I refuse. I will never accept such heinous crimes and evil. But you are right many will follow society like a sect. They will follow any social law. These people would have been good nazis had hitler won. They were slave owners and treated humans worse than cattle.
But there is always those who are good no matter what. Like the priest that took a bullet
for a kid that was about to be executed. Or people like Schindler.
The axis for dnd is just a grid and wont fit the world. Sure we can force the grid on it but its not real.
Good is eternal and unchanging. Societies may call evil good but that does not make it so.
You are right that no society can claim to judge another as they are all peers and thus the only one able to judge good and evil is God. And he is the same always.
The alignment system does have grey areas. It's called "Neutral," and it exists on both axes.
Also, the people assigning alignments to their characters know the motivations of their characters.
Who told you D&D characters' motivations can't shift or change over time?
Characters whose intentions and motivations aren't known are either bad characters, or characters that aren't known too well themselves. The DM knows his villain is Neutral Evil the same way a player can know his Ranger is Neutral Good, and knowing as much doesn't make either character cardboard.
My point is that trying to apply the alignment system to real world examples doesn't work because everything you're basing that on is a historical interpretation of what their motivations and intentions were. We don't have absolute, 100% defined motivations, intentions and goals for these people so applying them to the alignment system is impossible - an argument could be made for almost anything within reason (i.e. Hitler is evil, nobody can reasonably argue against that, hence within reason).
The point is, the alignment system is not supposed to be a restrictive shackle in the way you (seemingly) think it should be. The characters that the players portray are not cardboard and have a range of emotion that literary characters don't. They react to situations and change over time. If Drizzts acts out of character, the author gets lambasted for poor writings. If Superman kills someone, the movie gets panned ( Ok it was a pretty poor movie anyway, but...). But if a character is played properly and acts out of character, usually a simple discussion with the DM will make that OK one way or the other. Even to the point of the player explaining why and the DM agreeing. The characters are much more alive than some static novel.
In short, they represent what the living player thinks and feels. In that, as the character is a reflection (to some degree) of the player, it has very real interpretations and can be compared to real life almost better than fictional characters. The alignment system's definition of good and evil (and law and chaos) are the beginning, not the sum total. It is the player's own emotional, moral and personality factors that flesh out the characters into more than simply words on a page.
I do agree that interpretations of historic figures are based on books, usually written by the victors or people with their own agendas, and therefore are less than complete. Hitler may be absolutely the evil monster that is being portrayed, but that doesn't preclude the possibilities of him having a nice and compassionate side (however unexplored or developed). By all accounts he was a poet of sorts, which must show something of a character.
But more than that, IRL characters as portrayed in books are actually little more than the cardboard characters we read about in books. Admittedly there are usually more sources and differing points of view, but still they are someone presenting facts without the flavor of life and often the surrounding details necessary to see the complete picture.
I admit I don't know anything about history, with my head up in the clouds of math and physics, but I always like dicussions where we try to translate real people into fictional worlds or fictional people into the real world (like the Baldur's Gate High thread).
To be clear, Napoleon was not without critical flaws, I just believe he has an undeserved infamous reputation considering the time he lived in. Since it *is* history we have to take cultural (historical) context into consideration.
IMHO I think the bottom line is that portraying historical figures as evil or good is too simple, as said before.
The thread was meant to contemplate Lawful Evil, as opposed to other alignments, and contrasted to the discussions about Lawful Good.
Also, this entire sub-forum is supposed to center on BG:EE, and BG2:EE.
So, maybe I did err in bringing real-life historical figures into this discussion. There could be a new thread in Off-Topic for those who wish to continue philosophical discussion of the "D&D alignments of real-life historical figures."
Also contemplating how I might have mistakenly influenced people into an off-topic discussion, perhaps a discussion of characters *in the game* who are labeled as "lawful evil", as opposed to those labeled "neutral evil", or "chaotic evil", would be more apropos.
I would have to review the "lawful good" thread to see if I had any inappropriate influence on that one, or whether people started going off-topic into real life philosophy, as opposed to in-game discussion.
Really, shouldn't any real-life discussion based upon the D&D alignment system be in the Off-Topic forum? This forum is supposed to be for people discussing general Baldur's Gate issues, problems, and insights.
And, considering that the general forum is the first forum that people who are curious, and who are considering buying EE will check, should we not also be conscious of being good salespeople in general?
I deeply regret any comments I have made, or influence I have had, that may have had the end effect of reducing sales of EE.
I am starting to wonder if most of these "Philosophy 101" threads shouldn't be enjoyed in the "off-topic" forum?
Perhaps the early system in its vagueness was better in this regard: Law, Neutrality and Chaos. Lawful was seen as the equivalent of good, of course, and chaos meant anarchy and evil, but morallity was mostly left out. Elves, for instance were chaotic, but obviously not monsters.
Allignment is a rule for roleplay. It sets the parameters of our interactions. One could argue that making it more specific improved the game but also took some freedom away from the players and dm. As far as roleplay is concerned, grey areas are a good thing.
I appreciate your positions, but I disagree. I think the discussions have been civil and interesting. And the topic has been expanded in a natural way - we are still debating evil - only also to see how it possibly can be applied to real life (my interpretation at least). However, if the discussion has evolved in a way that discourages posters to post regarding the OP i apologize for my part in it. (I dont know if that is the case)