@DougPiranha, I don't feel like bashing anything at all, I like to think I keep my ears wide open, that's what TN got be thinking at. I admit we all have to agree on a few basic words before we get confused. But I do have to say I dont see atheism with good eyes; I may say I'm agnostic myself, or areligous; I don't pretend to know if God exists, I can't prove it, and that's reasonable. Athesim is unreasonable, feels obtuse.
@Aranneas Haha, that's what I'm saying. I'm all for talking alignment, but it seems like more of a thread, and less of a poll. Am I supposed to answer with how I think I am aligned, or should I answer with which is the best for gaming, or which is the most likely to save man kind?
@Aranneas Haha, that's what I'm saying. I'm all for talking alignment, but it seems like more of a thread, and less of a poll. Am I supposed to answer with how I think I am aligned, or should I answer with which is the best for gaming, or which is the most likely to save man kind?
I say you should vote for whichever you think makes better waffles.
I say you should vote for whichever you think makes better waffles.
That really just makes it more difficult. Do I believe that the best waffles are made by those who stick strictly to rules, or those who are willing to try something new? I believe the BEST waffles are probably made by those who are Neutral Good (As in, Neutral because they think outside the box, and good, as in they won't poison me). The most consistently good waffles will be made by a Lawful Good person (again, no poison, but one who will stick closely to the recipe).
@Grammarsalad, yes an ontological argument for the existence of God seems to be..um..interesting. I should also say I don't find Aristotel, Kant, utilitarianism and ethical hedonism that extreame from one to another, the purpose is the same, the journey(process) is different, may be logical or empirical, metaphysical, but all studies have to be rational. Just like I find connection dots between words of Aristotel to Epicurus to Marcus Aurelius to Kant and so on.
I say you should vote for whichever you think makes better waffles.
That really just makes it more difficult. Do I believe that the best waffles are made by those who stick strictly to rules, or those who are willing to try something new? I believe the BEST waffles are probably made by those who are Neutral Good (As in, Neutral because they think outside the box, and good, as in they won't poison me). The most consistently good waffles will be made by a Lawful Good person (again, no poison, but one who will stick closely to the recipe).
You see my dilemma right?
It is a question that has troubled sages for a long time, and there has not been a resolution to this date. I think the OP was equally interested in finding a new, definitive answer and that is what sparked him to create the poll.I personally adhere to Allerin's Standard of Cake Creation and came to a similar conclusion as you did.
@Aranneas @Zafiro Would you care to weigh in? What exactly is the question for the poll? I'm having trouble knowing if I should vote by: How I believe I am, Which works best for gaming, which is best in real life, or which I think would make the best waffles. I want to jump in here, but have no idea where to jump, or the depth of the pool... or poll.
@paulsifer42, right, I'm sorry if I was unclear. Why not answer to all of the questions sparks to mind? I feel like best in real life is best in everything, gaming as well.
This may have already been gone over, but I have issues with 'lawful' anything. At least, in my understanding of what lawful is in DnD, it means that one obeys the law, no matter what. What if the law is corrupt? What if the law doesn't make sense in a situation? Binding one's self to any law completely will eventually make a person make an illogical, and irrational decision, unless, of course, the law one follows is that no two situations are identical and must be looked at individually.
@Grammarsalad, about the peasant, we can't say that we can be "too much" good, we shouldn't compromise, not lie at all. Yes, there are certain situation when we feel constrained and have to make a sacrifice, like taking your own life to save a loved one.
@paulsifer42, right, wich leads us to a rational(universal) law or "personal code" as Samiel said on the 2nd page. If the State is corrupt, land law is wrong, we can always follow a rational law, if the law of the land is bad, means theres a right way to make it right, we fight or suffer for an ideal.
This may have already been gone over, but I have issues with 'lawful' anything. At least, in my understanding of what lawful is in DnD, it means that one obeys the law, no matter what. What if the law is corrupt? What if the law doesn't make sense in a situation? Binding one's self to any law completely will eventually make a person make an illogical, and irrational decision, unless, of course, the law one follows is that no two situations are identical and must be looked at individually.
As I posted earlier in this thread being Lawful does not necessarily mean obeying the law of the land, although that is often taken to be the case. It actually means that some sort of code is followed consistently.
See, and to me that blurs lines (which I know is some of why the DnD system of morality makes little sense). I can see how Jaheira should be Neutral Good (as some have said) because, like nature, she sees a need for balance, with an overarching good to it, yet still seems to have a personal creed she lives by.
I would argue that the 'lawful' character's creed should have to come from an outside source to truly be considered lawful. Otherwise, why couldn't they just be neutral?
While I'd like to see myself as a Neutral Good I just have to be honest and set myself as a Lawful Good, I hate lying, I don't kill for sports, I put honor before anything (usually) and usually I follow the laws and rules set. I'm a bit caught between Neautral Good and Good, I do break some rules to make what I think is the better choice but it usually hurts to do so. But I do not see myself as Lawful Neutral at least.
@paulsifer42, I see "lawful" creed to come from rational thought, logic if you like, and the art of Politics: "Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good." The purpose of politics is supreme good.
@Zafiro So, for you, the creed must be mixed with politics. Why can't politics be God, or family honor? Both do the same thing the quote says politics does. Hence, my conclusion that a lawful's creed must come from an external source.
For me to buy into being lawful though, I would need to be able to completely trust that source, that it would continue looking for the 'supreme good.' In my real life, the only one I can count on is God. In the DnD world, I can count on none of them. And so, while I may follow the rules set by those law givers, my creed is sourced internally, and therefore, I cannot be 'lawful.'
To be fair though, I still consider myself Neutral in real life, though I align myself with God as best I can. I'll have to think about why that is.
re:creed: Do an individual's decisions begin with that individual, or do they begin with where the ideas that spawned those decisions originated?
What is different between 'I will no longer lie because I do not liek it' and 'I will no longer lie because it is against the religion I have chosen for myself?' The first individual arrived at his personal dislike through experience, and his or her experience was shaped by the society in which he or she grew and the actions of those closest to him or her. The second individual made a personal choice to adhere to an outside code - but that decision was sparked by the same factors that drove the first person to choose the same. What's the difference? When you get down to it, it feels like an artificial distinction to me.
This may have already been gone over, but I have issues with 'lawful' anything. At least, in my understanding of what lawful is in DnD, it means that one obeys the law, no matter what. What if the law is corrupt? What if the law doesn't make sense in a situation? Binding one's self to any law completely will eventually make a person make an illogical, and irrational decision, unless, of course, the law one follows is that no two situations are identical and must be looked at individually.
I don't see it like that at all. I think that "Lawful" is just poorly-named because people immediately associate it with governments and law whereas I don't think that it was the intent nor a useful part of "alignment".
I always read it as more like a principles versus consequences axis with Lawful characters being essentially principle-based (their actions are informed most by whether an action in a situation is "generally" good/useful or not) and Chaotic characters being more consequence-orientated (the ends can justify the means). As an example, a superhero refusing to kill a villain because killing is "wrong" (for whatever reason) is at the utter extreme end of Lawful behaviour (whether he'd be lawful good/neutral/evil would be more about the motivations for this pacifism). There is no necessary contradiction between a Lawful character disobeying the law.
@paulsifer42, I mix my belifs with politics because some may say "man is by nature a social animal"; "When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity."
And even my wish is to live the life of a recluse, it's not that easy, we have seven billion people, you can't live in the forest anymore, someone will cut it down from under your arse. Some may think there are three methods of living: life of senses(the consumer), the public life(politics, but even a postman, or a any citizen), and the contemplative life. You can see the two extreams with the public life in the middle, I may add here, I see it vertically, with the contemplative life as Paradise and the life of senses, of an animal, as Inferno, and this is why I see myself in Purgatory, for I have to struggle to move upwards. You reach Purgatory when you free yourself of vices and you question everything and excercise your mind; this is to be taken metaphorical, of course.
@Aranneas, I can tell you my decision not to lie, felt natural, when I was about 19(5 years ago, more or less), lying to others feels like you're lying to yourself(yeah, I know sounds like a line from the movies), my "creed" came later; I had to find my true self(yeah, sounds cheesy, bare with me), I had to make an introspection, if you like, and to ask myself why have I acted this way or that way in a certain situation, all breaks down to one single question: what do you want? All humans seem to hanker happines, and this is where we try and find out what happines really is. If we agree, we are rational beings, we can say goodness is natural. Yes, two people may share the same experience, yet break apart, each to it's own. The "outside code" comes just as same from a past experience, you can test those belives yourself, maybe they seem wrong to you. Doesn't matter where the claims spark, they come from a rational being, just as you, just as any other.
@Zafiro so being lawful doesn't actually have to do with any law other than that of simple human decency? What is the difference between being 'lawful' and being 'good'? how does evil occur at all?
@Aranneas, surely "lawful" is forced word here, lawful can have to do alot with a universal, rational, natural law, but not everybody searches for the truth or knowledge; every human being has a duty to learn as much as possible, we learn about morals from parents, the Curch for some maybe, school, and most we find out for ourselves if we keep our minds open. The Statesman should build laws of the land on strong ground ethics; if the law is faulty, not according with rationality, we do our best to improve social life, by questioning everything, and never forsake logic. Now, about how evil occurs? Like I said, by misunderstanding regarding good and bad, everybody can be good some say, we all want to be happy, only some people act selfish, ignoring any guidence.
@Aranneas, surely "lawful" is forced word here, lawful can have to do alot with a universal, rational, natural law, but not everybody searches for the truth or knowledge; every human being has a duty to learn as much as possible, we learn about morals from parents, the Curch for some maybe, school, and most we find out for ourselves if we keep our minds open. The Statesman should build laws of the land on strong ground ethics; if the law is faulty, not according with rationality, we do our best to improve social life, by questioning everything, and never forsake logic. Now, about how evil occurs? Like I said, by misunderstanding regarding good and bad, everybody can be good some say, we all want to be happy, only some people act selfish, ignoring any guidence.
You're talking in ideal terms. The dichotomy of good and evil is operated in a specific context and not in absolute terms : as such, "evil" does not exist in nature but exists within a group which shares a way of thinking. Humans, as members of the same species, usually share a few values because they live in the same psychological context. The world does not tend to be good or evil, the world is meaningless without an observer. As for the human eye, I would say that what appears as a progression towards "good" is simply the domestication of nature and the application of human values through more efficient ways, after having defined humanity in contrast of nature. But outside of our perspectives, things go unchanged (or more accurately, unseen).
The D&D alignments seem to oppose those who make the effort to preserve and build society (good) to those who lack the empathy or selfless motivation to do so (evil), and those who conform easily (lawful) to those who thrive to be different (chaotic).
Hmm, I followed the link to that WoTC alignment test, and found this very good set of definitions of the six axis poles:
What Alignment Means
Alignment is central to a D&D character's personality. D&D uses two measures to determine a specific character's ethical and moral attitudes and behavior.
The moral axis has three positions: good, neutral and evil. Good characters generally care about the welfare of others. Neutral people generally care about their own welfare. Evil people generally seek to harm the others' welfare.
The ethical axis has three positions as well: lawful, neutral, and chaotic. Lawful people generally follow the social rules as they understand them. Neutral people follow those rules find convenient or obviously necessary. And chaotic people seek to upset the social order and either institute change, or simply create anarchy.
EDIT: After some reflection, I think the problem with trying to apply the D&D alignment system to real life personalities is that we are all very complicated mixtures of ALL the behaviors and attitudes described at every axis. The system is meant to guide character development for an improvisitory exercise in acting. As a psychological theory of personality, I think it utterly fails. It is just too simplistic.
The test at WotC calls me "Neutral". Yet I was very dissatisfied with the questions, and I knew while answering them that I was all over the place. There was not enough information about the posed situations, and there were not enough choices to cover a broad enough spectrum of human responses. Now, that was answering as myself. If I were to answer the questions as a character in a D&D game, the poll would probably work as intended.
As for the original post and the poll, I don't think it is clear enough about whether you're supposed to answer what you think your own real-life alignment would be, or whether you are supposed to say what alignmnet you like to play in a D&D game.
@belgarathmth, I see nothing more I can add to the original post and poll, I'm sorry if some don't find it sufficient, I did mention this more about real life though; I used the D&D alignments because this forums are for BG and D&D.
Comments
?
Duh.
;o
Haha, that's what I'm saying. I'm all for talking alignment, but it seems like more of a thread, and less of a poll. Am I supposed to answer with how I think I am aligned, or should I answer with which is the best for gaming, or which is the most likely to save man kind?
That really just makes it more difficult. Do I believe that the best waffles are made by those who stick strictly to rules, or those who are willing to try something new? I believe the BEST waffles are probably made by those who are Neutral Good (As in, Neutral because they think outside the box, and good, as in they won't poison me). The most consistently good waffles will be made by a Lawful Good person (again, no poison, but one who will stick closely to the recipe).
You see my dilemma right?
@Zafiro
Would you care to weigh in? What exactly is the question for the poll? I'm having trouble knowing if I should vote by: How I believe I am, Which works best for gaming, which is best in real life, or which I think would make the best waffles. I want to jump in here, but have no idea where to jump, or the depth of the pool... or poll.
That was a bad pun. I'm sorry. But not really.
Let's consider the poll about real life.
Cool enough.
This may have already been gone over, but I have issues with 'lawful' anything. At least, in my understanding of what lawful is in DnD, it means that one obeys the law, no matter what. What if the law is corrupt? What if the law doesn't make sense in a situation? Binding one's self to any law completely will eventually make a person make an illogical, and irrational decision, unless, of course, the law one follows is that no two situations are identical and must be looked at individually.
As I posted earlier in this thread being Lawful does not necessarily mean obeying the law of the land, although that is often taken to be the case. It actually means that some sort of code is followed consistently.
See, and to me that blurs lines (which I know is some of why the DnD system of morality makes little sense). I can see how Jaheira should be Neutral Good (as some have said) because, like nature, she sees a need for balance, with an overarching good to it, yet still seems to have a personal creed she lives by.
I would argue that the 'lawful' character's creed should have to come from an outside source to truly be considered lawful. Otherwise, why couldn't they just be neutral?
So, for you, the creed must be mixed with politics. Why can't politics be God, or family honor? Both do the same thing the quote says politics does. Hence, my conclusion that a lawful's creed must come from an external source.
For me to buy into being lawful though, I would need to be able to completely trust that source, that it would continue looking for the 'supreme good.' In my real life, the only one I can count on is God. In the DnD world, I can count on none of them. And so, while I may follow the rules set by those law givers, my creed is sourced internally, and therefore, I cannot be 'lawful.'
To be fair though, I still consider myself Neutral in real life, though I align myself with God as best I can. I'll have to think about why that is.
What is different between 'I will no longer lie because I do not liek it' and 'I will no longer lie because it is against the religion I have chosen for myself?' The first individual arrived at his personal dislike through experience, and his or her experience was shaped by the society in which he or she grew and the actions of those closest to him or her. The second individual made a personal choice to adhere to an outside code - but that decision was sparked by the same factors that drove the first person to choose the same. What's the difference? When you get down to it, it feels like an artificial distinction to me.
I always read it as more like a principles versus consequences axis with Lawful characters being essentially principle-based (their actions are informed most by whether an action in a situation is "generally" good/useful or not) and Chaotic characters being more consequence-orientated (the ends can justify the means). As an example, a superhero refusing to kill a villain because killing is "wrong" (for whatever reason) is at the utter extreme end of Lawful behaviour (whether he'd be lawful good/neutral/evil would be more about the motivations for this pacifism). There is no necessary contradiction between a Lawful character disobeying the law.
And even my wish is to live the life of a recluse, it's not that easy, we have seven billion people, you can't live in the forest anymore, someone will cut it down from under your arse.
Some may think there are three methods of living: life of senses(the consumer), the public life(politics, but even a postman, or a any citizen), and the contemplative life. You can see the two extreams with the public life in the middle, I may add here, I see it vertically, with the contemplative life as Paradise and the life of senses, of an animal, as Inferno, and this is why I see myself in Purgatory, for I have to struggle to move upwards. You reach Purgatory when you free yourself of vices and you question everything and excercise your mind; this is to be taken metaphorical, of course.
The "outside code" comes just as same from a past experience, you can test those belives yourself, maybe they seem wrong to you. Doesn't matter where the claims spark, they come from a rational being, just as you, just as any other.
Now, about how evil occurs? Like I said, by misunderstanding regarding good and bad, everybody can be good some say, we all want to be happy, only some people act selfish, ignoring any guidence.
The world does not tend to be good or evil, the world is meaningless without an observer. As for the human eye, I would say that what appears as a progression towards "good" is simply the domestication of nature and the application of human values through more efficient ways, after having defined humanity in contrast of nature. But outside of our perspectives, things go unchanged (or more accurately, unseen).
The D&D alignments seem to oppose those who make the effort to preserve and build society (good) to those who lack the empathy or selfless motivation to do so (evil), and those who conform easily (lawful) to those who thrive to be different (chaotic).
What Alignment Means
Alignment is central to a D&D character's personality. D&D uses two measures to determine a specific character's ethical and moral attitudes and behavior.
The moral axis has three positions: good, neutral and evil. Good characters generally care about the welfare of others. Neutral people generally care about their own welfare. Evil people generally seek to harm the others' welfare.
The ethical axis has three positions as well: lawful, neutral, and chaotic. Lawful people generally follow the social rules as they understand them. Neutral people follow those rules find convenient or obviously necessary. And chaotic people seek to upset the social order and either institute change, or simply create anarchy.
EDIT: After some reflection, I think the problem with trying to apply the D&D alignment system to real life personalities is that we are all very complicated mixtures of ALL the behaviors and attitudes described at every axis. The system is meant to guide character development for an improvisitory exercise in acting. As a psychological theory of personality, I think it utterly fails. It is just too simplistic.
The test at WotC calls me "Neutral". Yet I was very dissatisfied with the questions, and I knew while answering them that I was all over the place. There was not enough information about the posed situations, and there were not enough choices to cover a broad enough spectrum of human responses. Now, that was answering as myself. If I were to answer the questions as a character in a D&D game, the poll would probably work as intended.
As for the original post and the poll, I don't think it is clear enough about whether you're supposed to answer what you think your own real-life alignment would be, or whether you are supposed to say what alignmnet you like to play in a D&D game.