Alignment personality (versatility question)

Remove all ads!

Shura, I thought you were the Lawful evil type? But now you're just nutter who's going to end up on the wrong end of a town's pitchforks. Tisk tisk.

Don't worry Shura, I'll be there to accuse the townsfolk who killed you of murder and inherit all thier belongings as well as yours as the law states

 

Hey, a Lawful Evil guy will naturally wish for a lot of Chaotic Evil underlings, right? All the more easier to manipulate those dumb orc-kin. Why go out to get the ingredients for some nice elf-burgers when you can get a handful of morons to do it for you?

 

I'm with Shura all the way on this. Chaotic Evil (but not Chaotic Stupid, mind you).

Basically, ethics and morals don't matter to you. The only restriction is that if you do repeated good acts, then you're good. But that's when you go slaughter an orphange for "atonement".

 

Chev:
Quote: Being pedantic, obsessive-compulsive or anal retentive is a lawful trait and can balance the scale in lawful direction.

I'm not convinced. Explain if you will.

Quote: Lawful characters may well feel restricted.
Knowing the boundaries of their personal codes and manners of behaviour up to the point of "I'm too lawful to do that" stance.

I don't agree, because real people don't 'choose' their alignment and thus the idea of 'being restricted' by 'being oneself' is specious. It simply doesn't follow.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KELDOR: ‘Evil’ is, again, a subjective concept. When speaking *objectively* about evil, destroying evil *is* good.

Quote: Which, essentially, is your subjective view on what's objective and subjective evaluation as to whether this given concept fulfils the criteria

I think you misunderstood me. I was trying to make the point that since 'evil' is subjective, the statement -'Destroying evil *is* good', while true, is meaningless without giving any specifics about what 'evil' is. Thus, I followed by saying "*Defining* 'evil' is the hard part".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: I don't need to be religious to know or feel that killing someone just because I disagree with him, have been offended by him, or know him to have done wrong, is a murder and an evil act. Justifiable only by absolute necessity and so legally as possible carried out execution. Or self-defence.

I didn't suggest you are/might be religious. Check my post more carefully please. I also said: "Is it founded on your personal experience? If so, you are defining evil according to some *personal philosophy*."

My point being that your statement:
“Killing just because he's evil is evil too”,
MUST be based upon something - religion, philosophy, whatever. THEREFORE, it is merely your own *opinion* because 'evil' is a subjective concept and one man's 'evil' may be another man's 'good'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote: What you're talking about, is anti-evil neutral, much like Helmites. Of the most core anti-evil zealots and yet not good themselves.

No - I'm not talking about anti-evil neutral, much like Helmites! I'm saying, “Killing just because he's evil is evil too” is just a statement of your opinion, which to me demonstrates that your understanding of alignments is not all you think it is. Sorry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KELDOR: People often misunderstand the definition of ‘morals’ and ‘ethics’; morals are the codes of conduct themselves e.g. ‘thou shalt not kill’ and ‘thou shalt not steal’. ‘Ethics’ is the *study* of such codes.

Quote: Again, that includes someone's personal, own study. Also, it can't really be said all people except Smith or Jones misunderstand morals

Firstly, what are you trying to say here? With respect, is English your mother tongue? I ask because, as far as I can tell, you have stated the obvious, which, as a reply, has no point.

Secondly, I'll be the judge of what my personal experience is, thank you, and it *is* that most people seem confused as to the meanings of the words 'morality' and 'ethics'.

I say this because of your statement: "Some people see good/evil as morals and lawful/chaotic as ethics. Not there, as I said, but the idea has some merit."

If this statement is true, then these people clearly do not understand the meaning of the words 'morals' and 'ethics' and your comment "Not there, as I said, but the idea has some merit" made me think that you too have an improper understanding of them (because the idea is nonsense and has no merit whatsoever!).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KELDOR: Your test Chev, while clearly of interest to people, presupposes that you yourself have a complete grasp of alignments.

Quote: As any test beginning with Wizards' own alignment test.

Indeed. My point being that you are implying knowledge that I think you don't have. If you did, you wouldn't have said, for example: “Killing just because he's evil is evil too”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote: The separation of lawful/neutral chaotic comportment from good/neutral/evil comportment is largely artificial.

My point is completely valid: using TN instead of NN is to combine the two parts, which are separate. There is NO link between the two. N.B. The word comportment means 'bearing'; I assume you mean 'component'?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote: A character is a well-integrated entity and more likely a point on a plane rather than two independent points on two independent axes.

Yes, a character is a well-integrated entity. Why do you state the obvious? Are you trying to imply that I see characters as un-integrated simply because the alignments have two separate components? This specious rhetoric serves no argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KELDOR: The idea that alignment constrains and restricts is widespread, it would seem, but it’s incorrect.

Quote: Which presupposes you have a full grasp etc... you know the rest

I *do* have a full grasp of the alignment concept and I have explained why alignment doesn't make anyone feel constrained. I'll give you another example to further illustrate my point: When did you ever hear a person say, 'I wish I wasn't lawful, then I could steal those books I want. Oh, how constrained I feel!' or, 'I'm glad I'm chaotic neutral, because this means I'm free to drink and drive!’ Answer: NEVER; because people do what they do with no thought of 'alignment' which is nothing more than a *conceptual* tool of interpretation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KELDOR: is wrong. The neutral neutral character’s alignment (which can be seen as a meter of the sum of his actions) clearly states that the SUM of his actions = Neutral. Thus he must have less good than someone whose TOTAL = Good!

Quote: That's not even wrong. That's internally contradictory.

Firstly, what I wrote is categorically correct. I'll illustrate again: A person's alignment is the SUM of his actions, that is, 'what his actions add up to'. Thus, CN = CN. No more, no less. There are NO numbers involved Chev!

If you want to add numbers, it still works. Look: Let's say to be 'Lawful' you need 10 and to be 'Good' you need 10. Now 'counter' some of the 'Lawful' and some of the 'Good' i.e. take away *something* from them both. Let's take away 5 from each. What are we left with? Answer: 5 and 5. N.B. We aren't left with 'Lawful 5' and 'Good 5', we are left with just '5', twice.
Now, since we have said that to be 'Lawful' we must have 10, and we have only 5, we DON'T have 'Lawful', do we? What we *do* have we haven't named, but it ISN'T 'Lawful'. In fact, it is 'something LESS THAN Lawful'. As for 'Good', we also have 5 and since we have said that to be 'Good' we need 10, we therefore also DON'T have 'Good'. Again, what we *do* have isn't named, but it isn't 'Good'; it is ‘something less than 'Good'’.
I don't think I could be more obvious with my explanation. Please tell me what is 'internally contradictory' about this.


Quote: You can have more potential for good and do more good deeds than an LG and still remain TN for your prevailing commitment to balance. Let's say he's L50 G50 and C5 E10, N12 N 15. Lawful Good. You're L70 G70, C30 E10 and N95 N 120. True Neutral. Perhaps your personality is richer

Please explain where you get these numbers. It seems to me that you are assigning numbers to each alignment for each person, as if all people have a score for 'evil' as well as 'good', for example. You are then working out a 'sum' total. Using this method, it stands to reason that you might get the notion that a CN person can be 'more good' than a LG person! The entire scoring method is wrong for the concept of alignment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: Excuse me, but who has said contrary?

Scythesong said contrary. I thought I had clearly indicated to whom I was making my comment. Apparently I was wrong.

Quote: By the way, it's perfectly possible to have gradations (one LG may be 60% Lawful and 90% Good, another 90% Lawful 60% Good), tendencies (especially important for partially neutral characters),...

'Partially neutral characters! What are you talking about?

Quote: ...and even exceptions from alignments.

Again, what are you talking about?

Quote: Some people also argue for the possibility of conflicting alignments modifying a character's performance depending on special conditions such as danger or stress. I don't think that's necessary - alignment gradation suffices - but it's important enough to mention.

Like I said, many people misunderstand the concept of alignment and if what you are saying here is true, then you are proving my point since the idea of alignment being altered by danger or stress is preposterous! Alignment isn't *mood*! If you think 'danger' can affect alignment, then you might as well suggest that the level of light can too since danger must be perceived for it to alter a person's alignment and what we perceive is dependent on our senses, e.g. sight. In other words, if you can't see the danger, you can't experience it, so your alignment would alter in the dark! Clearly a ludicrous notion!

Sorry Chev, but to think that (it's perfectly possible to have gradations (one LG may be 60% Lawful and 90% Good, another 90% Lawful 60% Good), tendencies (especially important for partially neutral characters)) is to completely misunderstand the concept of alignments. If you don't believe me, write to the people who invented the game. What you are doing is making up your own concept of alignment that is, frankly, nonsense. I can only ask you to ask yourself if you've ever met a person who demonstrated behaviour that conformed to being a CN who was more good than a LG!
Furthermore, it’s unnecessary for you to make up another alignment system since the AD&D rules are perfect already.

May I ask, have you got a copy of the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook, 2nd edition?

 

Yes, I am against you two on that matter then.
If you have to ask why, ever heard of adolescence?

Both of you may agree that this is the time of appraisal, but if both of you agree that everyone has an alignment at every specific time that what is the alignment of a typical person of interest at this stage?
Saying "his original alignment of course" will get nowhere since doing so will imply the assumption of idioms which will only hold if everyone agreed on it anyway.
What if I asked to measure this person's alignment given his present actions, then? The result could be a contradiction of everything, 0 divided by 0.

That's why I tend to say I don't believe much in any single alignment, unless you based things from a general perspective - and an ideal one, at that.

Alignment change isn't as ludicrous as you say it is, keldor. Where I come from, I've seen several things happen to people that have altered them considerably, to the point that I barely know them.

[ January 31, 2004, 09:56: Message edited by: Scythesong Immortal ]

 

Scythesong, are you able to read posts properly? I never once said alignment changes are ludicrous. I said they aren't quick, easy to go through, or common. Sheesh.

Quote: Saying "his original alignment of course" will get nowhere since doing so will imply the assumption of idioms which will only hold if everyone agreed on it anyway.

If there's one thing that makes me mad, it's people who try to sound clever by saying things they know won't be understood. I'm going to call your bluff Scythesong: Explain the 'assumption of idioms' for me please.

Quote: What if I asked to measure this person's alignment given his present actions, then?

It's impossible to 'measure' alignment! I've been trying to explain this to Chevalier! Alignments are CONCEPTUAL! [Conceptual means 'a thing in the mind only'; an idea.]

Quote: The result could be a contradiction of everything, 0 divided by 0.

What a load of pretentious nonsense! O divided by 0, indeed! You're not Stephen Hawking expounding on theories of time travel, you know! And you're not communicating to anyone who understands your personal communication codes! Define your terms! Try to make sense! I have followed this thread and I have assumed that by 'you two', you mean me and Chevalier, in which case, you are assuming that I will understand your language i.e. 'gobbledigook'.
You seem to have lumped me with Chevalier as if we are both coming from the same place since we have both challenged what you have said, but don't make that mistake - I'm not with chevalier on his theories of alignments. Indeed, I think he is way off in his understanding of the concept.
So, if you *are* aiming any comments towards me Scythesong, please define your terms (or, to put it another way, teach me to understand you BEFORE you try to explain anything to me).

 

The problem with the 2nd Edition rules IMHO is that they are too extreme. Even the TN alignment is to extremely neutral. No living person would be corresponding to any of the 9 alignments in real life. This isn't exactly for the good-evil part but it is more for the lawful-chaotic.

One of the best things I can think of is this example. You have a person who does nothing else than being against the rules of society. Know is this person lawful or chaotic. IMHO the discussion can go both ways. He could be chaotic because he is against laws. On the other hand he isn't chaotic because his viewpoints are reliable and he is consequent in his behaviour, which is typical for lawful alignments. It is this kind of dilemmas that convince me that the alignment system isn't well based. How are you able to "roleplay" something that is incompatible with human nature.

Besides, roleplaying as "yourself" is still roleplaying. Your then playing the role you would fulfill if you were transposed into the world your playing in, or playing a character that has the same mindset as you have, but that was born in the game's fantastical world instead of in reality.

 

Scythesong, are you able to read posts properly? I never once said alignment changes are ludicrous.
--------->
Read your posts again keldor.

I said they aren't quick, easy to go through, or common. Sheesh.
--------->
So they're ludicrous. From the way you explain it given the posts above, I see no difference.

Quote: Saying "his original alignment of course" will get nowhere since doing so will imply the assumption of idioms which will only hold if everyone agreed on it anyway.

If there's one thing that makes me mad, it's people who try to sound clever by saying things they know won't be understood. I'm going to call your bluff Scythesong: Explain the 'assumption of idioms' for me please.
----------->
The question was addressed mainly to Chevalier, keldor, since I know he goes a little logic every now and then.
Most of the content, actually, was taking from an old post of an old friend who shared my thoughts about how alignments work.

It basically means that saying this means you have to assume somethings that will only be true if everybody agreed on it since there's no proper way to define/prove it. It's just too basic.

Quote: What if I asked to measure this person's alignment given his present actions, then?

It's impossible to 'measure' alignment! I've been trying to explain this to Chevalier! Alignments are CONCEPTUAL! [Conceptual means 'a thing in the mind only'; an idea.]
--------->
Well then, let me rephrase a question. What alignment alignment would you give the person mentioned earlier, then?

Conceptual? Elaborate please, since given all the posts about alignment you've made so far I'm beginning to get confused about how exactly you see an alignment in D&D is.

Quote: The result could be a contradiction of everything, 0 divided by 0.

What a load of pretentious nonsense! O divided by 0, indeed! You're not Stephen Hawking expounding on theories of time travel, you know! And you're not communicating to anyone who understands your personal communication codes! Define your terms! Try to make sense! I have followed this thread and I have assumed that by 'you two', you mean me and Chevalier, in which case, you are assuming that I will understand your language i.e. 'gobbledigook'.
--------> Let me rephrase then. How do you define the alignment of someone whose ideals, practices beliefs and way of living all contradict the way alignments work? How can you justify someone who acts like a chaotic evil character, thinks like a lawful neutral character, and lives a chaotic neutral lifestyle?
0/0 appeared because I was stressing the point that one way or another alignments will contradict the very thing that makes them tick in the first place and the result is a faulty way of classifying people (since that's what it basically does) better left as part of the gamer's creativity than anything.

You seem to have lumped me with Chevalier as if we are both coming from the same place since we have both challenged what you have said, but don't make that mistake - I'm not with chevalier on his theories of alignments. Indeed, I think he is way off in his understanding of the concept.
So, if you *are* aiming any comments towards me Scythesong, please define your terms (or, to put it another way, teach me to understand you BEFORE you try to explain anything to me).
------>
I have nothing against what both of you said earlier, except the part where both of you agreed on something that I didn't.
If you must be so hostile, go make a CE character and come back when you feel like explaining rather than giving sarcastic comments.

[ February 01, 2004, 09:56: Message edited by: Scythesong Immortal ]

 

Scythesong Quote: Read your posts again keldor.

Why? I know what I posted, for God’s sake!

--------->
Keldor: I said they aren't quick, easy to go through, or common. Sheesh.

Scythesong Quote: So they're ludicrous. From the way you explain it given the posts above, I see no difference.

When I said “they aren't quick, easy to go through, or common”, I was referring to alignment *changes*, not alignments themselves! Alignment *changes* don’t happen quickly, aren’t easy to live through, and don’t happen to people often.

And I knew that question about ‘the assumption of idioms’ was mainly addressed to Chev. I was making the point that that kind of BS nonsense not only confuses and irritates the sane members of the community, it can induce *others* to try to sound equally ‘clever’ and ‘profound’ with BS of their own. Communication utterly breaks down and the thread becomes ‘you said this’, and ‘no I didn’t, I said that’ etc.!

Note on the meaning of BS: I could use the word ‘nonsense’ which is what BS is, but I don’t because ‘BS’ more accurately describes the *pretence at intelligence* that is *behind* the nonsense. ‘The assumption of idioms’ is not a phrase in *my* dictionary, and I certainly can’t work out what it’s meant to mean. My main point however, is that it defeats the object of communication for anyone to use language the meaning of which has to be ‘worked out’.

Scythesong: Quote: Conceptual? Elaborate please, since given all the posts about alignment you've made so far I'm beginning to get confused about how exactly you see an alignment in D&D is.

Given your current erroneous interpretation of the alignment rules, you are *bound* to get confused!

Alignments aren’t real i.e. they cannot be touched, smelt, etc. Nor can they be ‘measured’ using numbers or scientific instruments. An alignment is *partly* a category of the way people *tend to* view another person. Of course, an ‘evil’ person will not be viewed as ‘evil’ by *another* ‘evil’ person because they share similar views e.g. that it’s not wrong to lie and cheat.
I’m not about to copy out the explanation given in the PHB; suffice to say that the explanation is not brief or simple to understand (or we wouldn’t be having this conversation!).

Scythesong: Quote: Let me rephrase then. How do you define the alignment of someone whose ideals, practices beliefs and way of living all contradict the way alignments work?

No such person exists. One or other of the given alignments covers all behavioural patterns. You just don’t seem able to understand this.
Maybe you don’t have an aptitude for abstract concepts; this doesn’t make the alignment concept incomplete or wrong. I don’t have an aptitude for understanding electricity but this doesn’t mean I question the way the experts understand it.

Scythesong: Quote: How can you justify someone who acts like a chaotic evil character, thinks like a lawful neutral character, and lives a chaotic neutral lifestyle?

No such person exists. To show this, I would ask you to try to explain what difference you think there is between ‘acts like’ and ‘lives the lifestyle of’. When you see that the two are the same, you’ll be nearer to seeing that no such person exists.
As for ‘thinks like’, this is irrelevant to alignment. Alignment is based on actions (NOT thoughts) relative to how this affects one’s life in terms of *other people*.

Example: Korgan can kill a man and *think* what he wants about it. He can *think* it was a good deed, for example. But if *other* people judge it as murder, and think murder is wrong, then they’ll see Korgan’s act as wrong and evil and act accordingly. Korgan’s alignment will grow accordingly – from what OTHERS think.

Scythesong: Quote: If you must be so hostile, go make a CE character and come back when you feel like explaining rather than giving sarcastic comments.

This further shows your confusion. One doesn’t have to be CE to be able to get hostile. [Not to mention that I’m not being hostile anyway – frustrated, yes, but not hostile.]

Meatdog: Quote: The problem with the 2nd Edition rules IMHO is that they are too extreme. Even the TN alignment is to extremely neutral.

The fact that neutral alignments are available proves that the alignment system *isn’t* too extreme. ‘Extremely neutral’ is very possibly a contradiction in terms. Using this phrase is to create a needless and stupid exercise in semantics (looking at the differences between words), like discussing whether a person can be slightly ambivalent or extremely ambivalent!

Meatdog: Quote: You have a person who does nothing else (sic.) than being against the rules of society. (Sic.) Know is this person lawful or chaotic.

Easy, he’s being chaotic.

Meatdog: Quote: IMHO the discussion can go both ways. He could be chaotic because he is against laws. On the other hand he isn't chaotic because his viewpoints are reliable and he is consequent in his behaviour, which is typical for lawful alignments.

His viewpoints are irrelevant! His alignment is determined by his *actions* not what he thinks, or how consistent his behaviour is! Inconsistence is chaotic by definition! Use a dictionary.
All this is clearly stated in the Player’s Handbook and not the BG2 rules (due to lack of space). If you want to get the facts (as opposed to opinion) read the PHB.

Meatdog: Quote: Besides, roleplaying as "yourself" is still roleplaying.

A statement of the obvious. My point is that it’s hardly challenging, or likely to make one see how *other* people experience life. The whole point of AD&D and, by extension, BG2, is to draw people into broadening their understanding of social intercourse through the requirement to consider alignment. The game could just as easily be played without any reference to it. Therefore, there must be a reason to demand of each player, that they select and conform to, a particular alignment.

Your post generally implies that the published writers of the AD&D alignment concept are wrong, and that *you* are right, that is, it is impossible to have a system that realistically reflects real-life personalities. Well, I’m sorry to tell you this but just because you don’t get it, doesn’t mean everyone else is wrong! The system does work, and works well. Either trust those who know, or learn to understand it. It makes no sense to try to convince those who fully understand alignment, that we are all wrong and that you are right. The rules are in their 3rd edition without alteration for crying out loud!

 

Look, I admit I base my opinion of whether the alignment system works, based on the knowledge given to me by the implementation of the system in the BG series and their description as given by the authors of the game. This is IMHO a correct point of view and what the Player's Manual has to say about it doesn't have anything to do about it as long as this thread stays in the ToB forum.

Well actually I find the descriptions of the alignments less extreme in NWN, which is based upon 3rd edition.

That was absolutely not what I meant. What I wanted to make clear, but obviously didn't succeed at is that your alignment isn't static. For example you have a neutral person who doesn't commit evil acts and doesn't help people, so no good acts either. This person is clearly neutral. On the other hand you have a person that does help people alot and does good deeds, but also has a very inflameble personallity which causes him to harm and even sometimes kill other people because of losing his anger, but inside he really is a good guy and this DOES reflect in his actions. Now this person should also be neutral. What I'm trying to say is that there is a lack of way too tell how fluctuous someones personality is.

And as such consistence is lawful. You just contradicted your own argument.

Now I don't know anything of PnP AD&D but there are two games based on 2ed. rules. BG and PST. IMHO and according to your quote also:

of this two it is PST that has the right implementation. Here your alignments is determined by your actions. The way alignment is implemented in BG is that alignment should dictate your course of action, which is totally irrational. There is no more point in roleplaying then since all of your decisions are already made the moment you choose your alignment in that case.

Now in BG the way others view you according to your actions is your reputation. The fact you choose your alignment is clearly stating that what others think of your character has nothing to do with your alignment since the only thing that is affected by how others view your actions is said reputation.

 

Meatdog has a way of explaining things much more better than me.

Anway, thank you very much keldor but I am able to grasp abstract concepts as well as the next person.
I wasn't aware my post was offensive to you, so for that I'm sorry. But you have no right to judge me, so don't.

It's like this keldor. From the way you defend your beliefs about alignment change, you'd think it was something so rare it happens only once every 50 years. Personally, given that I've seen too much change happen to persons in the real world (which is considerably less brutal than Faerun) I disagree.
It's not easy to live through, yes, but it does happen quick, and it does happen often.
I'm not asking you to understand this since given your ideals you probably wouldn't.

I'm still trying to lose that quality at the moment, but like I said this was specifically addressed to Chev, and not to other people.
If you knew who it was aimed at, why do you argue?
Because it "defeats the object of communication"?
Furthermore, I'm pretty sure you'll never be able to relate to what I'm trying to argue about here since you seem to have everything but an open mind.

Like I said, your zeal is so extreme you forget we're talking about an "abstract concept", as you put it.
Something that can never be defined truly. So why do you insist that we're wrong and you're right? Try to keep an open mind and swallow what we're saying for once, and discover the implications.

Let me put it bluntly for you, then. I've seen many examples of persons whose actions tend to destroy what keeps these alignments separate.

You'll be surprised with the difference.
Try a runaway Paladin who slays everything in sight because of a perverted understanding his vows.

Hence, they are measuring his alignment, or rating it, judging it, or whatever term that fits. This is what's making everyone dispute your views, keldor. Because sooner or later, you're contradicting them, causing the confusion I meant earlier.

You don't seem to get the point. Anyway...

 

Scythesong: Quote: Anway, thank you very much keldor but I am able to grasp abstract concepts as well as the next person.

Look, you asked me to clarify what I meant when I said alignment was an abstract concept! Now you’re getting defensive!

Scythesong: Quote: I wasn't aware my post was offensive to you, so for that I'm sorry.

It WASN’T offensive to me! I struggle to comprehend how you can think that!

Scythesong: Quote: But you have no right to judge me, so don't.

Ha, ha! I have no ’right’? FYO, you have no more ‘right’ to tell me what I can and can't do, than I have the 'right' to tell you anything!
I’ll say what I want, thank you very much - and don’t presume that what I have to say is therefore offensive - I don’t intend to hurt or offend anyone. Some people are very quick to take offence. I can’t help that. I certainly won’t alter the way I communicate just because some people don’t like it. I might just as ‘easily’ change alignment!

Scythesong: Quote: It's like this keldor. From the way you defend your beliefs about alignment change, you'd think it was something so rare it happens only once every 50 years. Personally, given that I've seen too much change happen to persons in the real world (which is considerably less brutal than Faerun) I disagree.
It's not easy to live through, yes, but it does happen quick, and it does happen often.

Bah! Well, I say that’s just plain stupid. Are you a psychologist? You say you’ve seen many people change their personality - how are you qualified to know exactly how a person’s personality has changed? I would say your assessment is nothing more than your lay opinion. What I’m telling you is not only what the AD&D alignment rules state, but also what psychologists say. What’s the extent of your experience of psychotherapy? How much do you really know about the extent to which change is possible? And how much do you know about the philosophical debates about free will? Do you think the free will debate would even occur if it were possible to change personality so easily? Why don’t criminals just ‘change from being evil’ since the benefits to themselves and their loved ones are so obvious? Why don’t people just quit all self-destructive behaviour if it’s so common?
I’ve given you plenty of examples to support my case. All you’ve done is say ‘I think it’s so’.

quote:

And I knew that question about ‘the assumption of idioms’ was mainly addressed to Chev. I was making the point that that kind of BS nonsense not only confuses and irritates the sane members of the community, it can induce *others* to try to sound equally ‘clever’ and ‘profound’ with BS of their own. Communication utterly breaks down and the thread becomes ‘you said this’, and ‘no I didn’t, I said that’ etc.!

Scythesong: Quote: I'm still trying to lose that quality at the moment, but like I said this was specifically addressed to Chev, and not to other people.

Fair enough, and good for you.J

Scythesong: Quote: If you knew who it was aimed at, why do you argue?

Because it irritated me – sorry, I’m human! J

Scythesong: Quote: Furthermore, I'm pretty sure you'll never be able to relate to what I'm trying to argue about here since you seem to have everything but an open mind.

I certainly don’t have an open mind for nonsense. I will not ‘open up my mind’ to ideas founded on opinion. I like to concentrate on facts where these can be ascertained. I wish more people would do the same but truly this is futile and I’ve got to try to accept and live with the way things are.

quote:

Given your current erroneous interpretation of the alignment rules, you are *bound* to get confused!

Scythesong: Quote: Like I said, your zeal is so extreme you forget we're talking about an "abstract concept", as you put it.

No, the alignment rules have been defined quite clearly in the PHB, as I stated. The concept is abstract; the definition in the PHB is not.

Scythesong: Quote: (of an abstract concept) something that can never be defined truly.

Please, please, please, check a dictionary! Abstract concepts can truly be defined! They just aren’t always truly understood!


quote:No such person exists. One or other of the given alignments covers all behavioural patterns. You just don’t seem able to understand this.

Scythesong: Quote: Let me put it bluntly for you, then. I've seen many examples of persons whose actions tend to destroy what keeps these alignments separate.

With respect Scythesong, no you haven’t! You’ve seen what you have incorrectly interpreted as examples of people whose actions tend to destroy…
This is clear to me because, for example, you come out with nonsense like this:

Scythesong: Quote: You'll be surprised with the difference. Try a runaway Paladin who slays everything in sight because of a perverted understanding his vows.

A ‘paladin’ doesn’t ‘run away and slay everything in sight because of a perverted understanding his his vows’ because he gets his paladin status from divine powers and as soon as he strays from the correct path – pow! – he's no longer a paladin. Thus, the figure you cite would, in fact, be a normal fighter who lost his paladin status the moment he strode into battle against the wrong person - NOT a mixed-up paladin! There is no such thing.

Example: Korgan can kill a man and *think* what he wants about it. He can *think* it was a good deed, for example. But if *other* people judge it as murder, and think murder is wrong, then they’ll see Korgan’s act as wrong and evil and act accordingly. Korgan’s alignment will grow accordingly – from what OTHERS think.
Scythesong: Quote: Hence, they are measuring his alignment, or rating it, judging it, or whatever term that fits. This is what's making everyone dispute your views, keldor.

Everyone? My views? I’m just trying to tell you how it is in the rulebook! A) This is, as I said (sigh), only a part of how alignment is implemented and B) You were discussing ‘measuring’ alignment with numbers, which is what I was saying is impossible. Besides, it’s still impossible to measure alignment. ‘Measuring’ isn’t a guess, as ‘gauge’, ‘rate’ or ‘judge’ is. You spoke of measuring.

Scythesong: Quote: Because sooner or later, you're contradicting them, causing the confusion I meant earlier.

Wrong. You’re the only one who’s confused. I don’t hold this against you, or judge you for it. You could be a brilliant writer or painter or mathematician, mechanic or whatever – not comprehending the alignment concept is no big deal – but you clearly don’t comprehend it.

quote:
This further shows your confusion. One doesn’t have to be CE to be able to get hostile. [Not to mention that I’m not being hostile anyway – frustrated, yes, but not hostile.]

Scythesong: Quote: You don't seem to get the point. Anyway...

No, you don’t get the point. BTW, this conversation (between you and me) has run its course. To think that you call me closed-minded; pot calling the kettle black?
I've nothing further to say to you on this.

Meatdog: Quote: Look, I admit I base my opinion of whether the alignment system works, based on the knowledge given to me by the implementation of the system in the BG series and their description as given by the authors of the game. This is IMHO a correct point of view and what the Player's Manual has to say about it doesn't have anything to do about it as long as this thread stays in the ToB forum.

The alignment system is intended to be a direct and complete version of the 2nd edition AD&D rules implemented in a computer game. The only reason you are coming from where you are coming from is because there are just too many rules to reproduce for the sake of the computer game!
To debate from only the BG2 standpoint is to debate with a very incomplete knowledge base. This topic is a much broader one than that.
quote:

Your post generally implies that the published writers of the AD&D alignment concept are wrong, and that *you* are right, that is, it is impossible to have a system that realistically reflects real-life personalities. Well, I’m sorry to tell you this but just because you don’t get it, doesn’t mean everyone else is wrong!

Meatdog: Quote: That was absolutely not what I meant. What I wanted to make clear, but obviously didn't succeed at is that your alignment isn't static. For example you have a neutral person who doesn't commit evil acts and doesn't help people, so no good acts either. This person is clearly neutral. On the other hand you have a person that does help people alot and does good deeds, but also has a very inflameble personallity which causes him to harm and even sometimes kill other people because of losing his anger, but inside he really is a good guy and this DOES reflect in his actions. Now this person should also be neutral. What I'm trying to say is that there is a lack of way too tell how fluctuous someones personality is.

Ah, then now you have made yourself clearer. You are absolutely right about that – which is why P&P AD&D is better for role-playing!
quote:

Inconsistence is chaotic by definition!

Meatdog: Quote: And as such consistence is lawful. You just contradicted your own argument.

Where have I contradicted my own argument? –sigh-
Lawful people can be inconsistent (from time to time); this doesn’t make them become chaotic.

His alignment is determined by his *actions* not what he thinks

Meatdog: Quote: “of this two it is PST that has the right implementation. Here your alignments is determined by your actions. The way alignment is implemented in BG is that alignment should dictate your course of action, which is totally irrational. There is no more point in roleplaying then since all of your decisions are already made the moment you choose your alignment in that case.
Now in BG the way others view you according to your actions is your reputation. The fact you choose your alignment is clearly stating that what others think of your character has nothing to do with your alignment since the only thing that is affected by how others view your actions is said reputation.”

Look, you’ve already said that your knowledge of P&P alignment is not extensive, and I said that I wasn’t prepared to reproduce it all for you. Please take it from me that when I said “His alignment is determined by his *actions* not what he thinks”, I was speaking about one aspect of how alignment works. Reputation is purely a BG2 factor to make alignment mean something tangible in the computer game. It’s just a means by which they have tried, in a limited way, to make use of the P&P alignment concept.

[ February 02, 2004, 16:58: Message edited by: keldor ]

 

First of all, Keldor, valid arguments cannot be substituted with high self-esteem and deep belief in your own being right. Please refer to this page for more detail. Neither does shouting make you right.

I am not willing to take your word on that you're right and I'm wrong. I'm going to ignore your impertinence a bit longer and still try to reason with you. Even though the statement:

makes it crystal clear that discussing with you makes no sense. For the sake of the rules, I'll reply, anyway. Wise men generally avoid making such claims. It displays nothing else than the closedness of your mind. Remember Socrates? Scio me nihil scire... :frown:

You have at best explained why you believe it to be so.

That's just your opinion. Mine is different. You clearly confuse your own opinions in facts. I suggest thinking before making affectionate statements. I do beg your pardon, but I'm not going to take your word on that you're right on everything and if I disagree with you, I'm wrong. N.B. points are either valid or not. 1 or 0. Not gradable.

N.B. The word comportment has several other meanings. Like aspect, for example. Or a chosen way. Which, essentially, is what alignment is. I can use simpler grammar and wording, if you prefer.

It is following patterns. Following patterns exhibits a fondness for orderliness and desire for order, which are the basics of Lawful alignment. QED

You say: alignment reflects actions.
People choose their actions, ergo actions are a result of people's choices. Ergo, alignment reflects results of people's choices. Ergo, people's choices shape their alignments. QED

Concepts of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos exist in our world too, and persons are good, evil, lawful, chaotic etc. Or neutral. Doing something that is harmful to me, but is the right thing, may at times appear to me as being restricted by a code. That's the point of any moral or honour codes whatsoever and of religious concepts of sin. If you choose to follow Good path and adopt Lawful comportment, and for that reason resist temptation to do evil or commit a chaotic act, you are restricted by your alignment. QED

I'm afraid I didn't misunderstand you. That sentence is not meaningless and doesn't have to be true in the sense of destroying whatever displays evil tendencies. Beating your wife is an evil act. Does it make you deserve being exterminated? Is killing you a good deed? I agree on one: there's no common for all people definition of good and evil. I further claim that absolute standards do exist but are impossible to discover for us.

You stated strongly that good standards for religious people are defined by their deities and therefore are different. If a deity may rule that killing children for dinner is good, and you're OK with the fact that the followers will consider it good, why can't you live with the knowledge that my standards of good and evil, law and chaos are different to yours?

With respect, is English your first language?

As above.

You're adrift. No offence intended, I don't care strongly about the evaluation of your experience. I don't claim your experience is otherwise, I merely claim your experience isn't the same as mine and that conclusions based upon your subjective experience cannot be rendered as ones based on factual premises.

Again, you're essentially saying "Take my word on that you're wrong". Sorry, that's not enough for me. You, however, are free to believe that everyone other than you doesn't understand ethics and/or morals. I am not willing to infringe upon this right in the slightest.

I hear you. Do you want me to show you where you are wrong? I'll do that for free. So, your theory assumes that the sum total of the actions of all people of a given alignment is equal, with no gradation. No such thing as strongly lawful, reasonably good, borderline chaotic etc. That is very... exotic

What else can't you see?

 

@ Keldor
The problem I have with your posts is that indeed you contradict yourself. On one hand you say that alignment is based on a persons actions and how other people view them, but on the other hand you keep referring to their state of mind and psychology when talking about their alignment.

The reason you don't see it is because I only quoted one sentence, instead of the whole text. On one hand your saying that the consistency of a persons actions isn't related to his alignment. On the other hand you say that inconsistent behaviour is chaotic alignment and thus consistent behaviour lawful and hence your saying it is related to alignment. That was the contradiction I was referring to.

The problem is that while you may have a better understanding of the alignment system then I have, you contradict yourself so much in your posts that nobody can make out anything about your way of viewing them except that you think that Scythesong and I both have a wrong interpretation of it.

Look, I'm not going to comment on whether you're trying to offence somebody or not and I'm not trying to make you change your way of communicating, but your post are very aggressive, and that is probably why Scythesong got the impression that your closeminded. Another point in that direction is that you continuously claim people are wrong in their interpretation without clearly stating what's the right interpretation according to you. At least not without contradicting your own statements.

Because alignment change, when it occurs, is almost never a conscious choice of the person but just a change of behaviour, introduced over a period of time by the shaping of the persons way of viewing things because of accumulated experience and the thereby going change of personality. Nobody reacts to the same sitution at every stage of his life because the mind is constantly remoddeld by things that happen to the person. And since a persons course of actions changes with age, so mostly also changes his alignment. It's never a choice the person makes but just the natural way of things to change.

Off course sometimes this change is concious, like when somebody is going through rehab, but indeed those cases are very rare, but everydays growing of the human mind is something that happens even every second and introduces over a lifetime several changes of alignment.

 

This arguement is getting nowhere. I would have been more patient but the previous post was the last straw.
As far as I'm concerned, I might have had better luck teaching Nalia's aunt how to eat rice with her bare fingers.

The only thing I hate more than sheer ignorance is zeal to match.

@keldor
Saying as that you've contradicted yourself so much on more than one respect, I'd say you've made yourself very clear as well.

 

Guys, guys, guys...C'mon, what's the world coming to? LG people fighting amongst themselves? This simply makes my plans of world domination/enslavement so much easier!

So chill out. And have an elven baby sandwich with halfling fingers as a side-dish!

 

How dare you call me LG. I'm TN if you want to know. I may sometimes have a tendency towards NG but never enough to be it and I'm definitely not LG. Leave that alignment to altruistic idiots, lol. No offense meant Chev.