POLL: Alignment and RL

Remove all ads!

Some of the recent posts -- i.e., paladin behavior, what kind of feelings an evil character would have for little sis Imoen, etc -- have had to do with roleplaying alignment. This is an old, old discussion, but I though it would be interesting for discussion to poll what people thought the average or typical alignment was in society at large. For example, to say that an evil char would be incapable of caring for Imoen would seem to make evil relatively rare in RL; the figures in history we now see as being the most evil (aside from a few psychopaths that is) have most certainly exhibited some compassion in their lives for some people, even if this compassion was selective to say the least. Is evil rare or common in RL? Would it be difficult to attain the alignment of "lawful good" in RL, or is LG the basic (normative) alignment, with other alignments being rarer? And what would your alignment be?

So again: what would you say is the average or typical or mean alignment in RL society? Comments can deal with how this affects your view of roleplaying alignment.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 17 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Alignment and RL (17 votes.)

Alignment and RL (Choose 1)
* Lawful Good is the typical RL alignment - 18% (3)
* Neutral Good is the typical RL alignment - 12% (2)
* Chaotic Good is the typical RL alignment - 0% (0)
* Lawful Neutral is the typical RL alignment - 24% (4)
* True Neutral is the typical RL alignment - 18% (3)
* Chaotic Neutral is the typical RL alignment - 12% (2)
* Lawful Evil is the typical RL alignment - 12% (2)
* Neutral Evil is the typical RL alignment - 6% (1)
* Chaotic Evil is the typical RL alignment - 0% (0)

 

This is a tough question. I think there are a couple possible answers. I Chose Chaotic Neutral, because I think most people, at their basest levels, look out for number 1, so to speak. I think a lot of people would like to think they are good, and like the aspects of 'goodness.' But I think very few people truly act on that goodness. When it comes down to doing something good, or doing something for for themselves, I think most will do for themselves. Though as long as it doesn't conflict with what they want/need, then they are more wiling to do 'good things. Am I making sense here?

As for Law versus Chaos. Well, pretty much EVERYONE I know has broken at least SOME laws in their lives. Even if it's something small like speeding, or smoking weed, hardly anyone is truly lawful. Still, I guess if someone MOSTLY follows law and order, then maybe that would still make them more lawful than chaotic. So this part of the equation is pretty hard to say.

I definitely think evil exists in this world, but I also don't believe that being evil automatically negates any possibility of love for others. I've always thought that discussion odd. The people who think that if you're an evil char, that means you won't care about Imoen are being WAY too narrow in their definition of evil.

I don't know to be honest, it seems to me, from my personal experience, that people tend to be Neutral, and somewhere between Law and CHaos (Maybe True Neutral would fit best, I dunno). Course, I may be jaded from growing up in an area that I wouldn't frankly reccomend anyone living in. When you grow up around crime, people who don't even understand what simple politeness is, and don't EVER take others thoughts or feelings into consideration, I guess your perspective can be scewed(sp?). I moved to a much more pleasant area recently, and maybe after living here long enough my drab opinions of people will begin to improve.

 

(wasn't going to say anything on this poll, but hey, why not?)

it's interesting to think of America/Florida as being CN; it makes me wonder about the implications of the 2000 election with all these lawyers fighting over the votes. Would that be LE (like the most pessimistic voter has suggested), with people using laws to fight for their own advantage? Somehow the result was chaos in any case. I still don't understand the USA; on one hand individualistic, on the other deeply conformist. Also I think there's nowhere else where laws are so ingrained into people; put a Yank in a car in the middle of nowhere with no one in sight and I guarantee they still stop at the stop sign. But I suppose there's always Enron...

But back to the topic of being CN, I think in PS:T the town of Curst was supposed to be CN slipping toward CE, and it was a very grim place where no one trusted anyone and everyone is out for themselves. (Is Florida like that?) By contrast Athkatla in BG2 seems downright lawful and orderly...

 

Well, let me explain quickly. I just moved to Florida about 3 months ago. This is the area that I'm hoping will change my viewpoint on the 'typical' person. I spent my first 27.5 years in Maryland, sandwiched between Baltimore and Washington DC. Now THAT is where I developed my pessimistic view of people. Everywhere you went there was crime. I knew people who were shot in High School. I had friends up there who were completely strung out on any drug they could get their hands on (in fact, some of them still are). Cops didn't even waste time pulling people over for speeding unless they were going more than 10, or even 15 over the speed limit because NO ONE drove the limit. People were out for themselves first and foremost. Certainly not everyone, but the larger majority. It's one of the reasons I couldn't wait to get the hell out of there! So far, it seems to be a completely different environment down here, but I'm holding judgement until I've been here a while.

Listen, I love my country and am extremely proud to be an american. The real problem in this country is that there are WAY too many people who hate the country, and way too many who think the government is there to provide for them. There are so many folks who want everything handed to them on a silver platter and don't want to work honestly for what they get, that they are willing to do whatever it takes to make that happen (firvolous lawsuits, crime, welfare, etc.) I'm sure there are HUGE portions of the populace of this country that don't have that attitude, but I unfortunately grew up around that. It sickens me, quite frankly.

The 2000 election, and all the hoopla that went on, isn't really a fair reflection of the state of FLorida, I have to say. The votes came in, Bush was announced the winner, and Gore and his people refused to accept it. Now, I'm not going to get into a political debate with anyone here, but my point is that all the crap went on because of the NATIONAL election. Neither Bush, nor Gore, are Floridians, so it's unfair to lay that at Florida's feet, so to speak. I don't know if I would go so far as to call that a LE situation. People weren't trying to commit evil acts. No one wanted to destroy society, or anything to bad. But there was definitely no GOOD in it. There are those who refused to accept what happened, and they fought purely for their own benefit.

As for the comparison to Curst. Obviously, from what little I know of the people down here so far, I wouldn't say Florida is anything like that. The area where I used to live, well, there's definitely a lot more reason to make that comparison. There are always the good seeds and the bad seeds in any society. But where I grew up the bad seeds definitely outweighed the good, and the middle ground was certainly shifted more to the selfish side.

Oh, and I think Athkatla, in relation to a fantasy/medievil setting, is actually a very lawful place. oreso than most with the Cowled Wizards and the specific laws about magic. Theives and Thevies guilds were simply a part of society in places like that (including the real world's history), but guilds were also a way to keep that kind of activity to controllable levels, and keep things from getting out of hand.

 

You ain't kidding. I visited Baltimore last year to interview at a school I'd been accepted to - and it's a total hellhole. If God needed to give the country an enema, he would stick it in Baltimore.

It's amazing you can form a sentance. Bravo, old chap. Bravo.

 

Heh, thanks! I was lucky to be the 1 in 5 kids who had parents who stayed togther, provided for me as best as they possibly could, and set the right kind of example. I count myself VERY lucky!

 

Xindell- I didn't mean to give offense in comparing Curst to Florida, though it does sound slightly similar to what you describe in Baltimore! And the LE comment had more to do with lawyers than a national situation (and I suspect that would be a popular vote if a polls was done on lawyerly alignments!)

Be that as it may, and perhaps to turn the discussion more to BG2, it seems it could have some bearing on how alignments are roleplayed: Is your paladin a light in the darkness or a defender of the common man/woman? Is the church of Talos really as evil as it seems in the stronghold tests, and how long would a truly evil church last, and would it be so overtly evil? What's up with evil people wanting a bad reputation (I know the virtue mod dealt with this, tho I never was able to play it because Minsc and Jahiera would leave the party right after they joined, accusing me of being evil even with a LG character!)

 

The basic alignment would be True Neutral. As animals - survive by whatever means. Religion-based civilisations have provided some Lawful tuning and pointed people in general in the Good direction. Generally, any organised society with laws and regulations drifts towards lawfulness. One could say that urban jungles breed chaos and that would be right too. It depends on the environment. A bit one way or the other, I believe the average alignment is TN.

The question of "earning" Evil alignment is one of how much evil deeds are needed to make you Evil. I bet dim Evil, like your average orc, isn't so totally uncommon for humans. But the drow or duergar kind of evil is rare.

 

I know you didn't mean any offense. None was taken. Just wanted to point out that it is in fact more like the area I grew up, than where I am now.

When it comes to BG2. I look at paladins as both of the things you said. A true paladin is supposed to be a light in the darkness, and a defender of the common man. However, the strictures put on a paladin by their code may sometimes mean that there are situation where they simply CAN'T perform those roles properly. I think that's the rather interesting quirk involved in paladins, and why they are one of my favorite classes in D&D (RP-wise, not necessarily powergaming-wise).

As for Talos, in true D&D, I think the Chaotic aspect of his alignment is more relavant than the evil moniker he holds. Talos cares about destruction. Period. Unfortunately, the devs of BG only created three churchs, of good, neutral, and evil, though the differences of Law and Chaos are just as significant, if not moreso, in the D&D world. That being said, I think the devs of BG really could've been better served to use a different deity for their 'evil' church. Someone like Shar or Mask. Both Bane and Cyric would be MUCH better options when focusing on Evil, but I don't think Bane had been reborn yet during the time of the BG series, and a PC who worshiped Cyric just wouldn't make sense, since you're ultimately a threat to him as the game goes on. He wouldn't exactly be interested in granting you clerical spells and the like, so making one of the main churches in Athkatla worship him just isn't feasible. Going back to Talos, most of his worshipers are scattered, and formal churches are in fact rare, simply because societies condemn them too much.

As for Reputation, well, the entire reputation system in BG is just crap. One of the few aspects of this game that I truly hate. Great game, but that part of it is just lame and makes no sense.

@chev: Well said on the evil thing.

 

Alignment in D&D is absolute. I'm not going to argue whether morals in the real world are absolute, but I don't believe that alignment in D&D can ever be fully realized in the real world.

 

How do you mean they are absolute? Are you implying that a character with a certain alignment, in D&D, is incapable of performing acts outside of that alignment? Please explain what you mean.

[ February 02, 2004, 22:40: Message edited by: Xindell ]

 

I'm with Chev on this. The average alignment - acutally by definition - is true neutral. I may be able to say that some societies on Lawful Neutral, but anything else seems a bit of a stretch for me.

 

Bravo, Xindell.

 

What I mean by absolute is that good is good and evil is evil. There is no such thing as "this evil act is good because it's helps more people that that evil act."

Evil is evil, good is good, etc., etc. You can tell this since Paladins have to be LG, some magic items are objects of pure evil (or good), etc., etc. Is Irenicus evil because he tried to get back his soul at the PC's expense? Yes. It doesn't matter if what was done to him a million times worse, it's still evil.

People are not rigid in their alignment. Korgan doesn't kill children, for example, which I imagine is a lawful trait. People in D&D aren't beings of pure evil (unlike Demons).

What I'm saying is that you just can't apply D&D to real life. Or maybe you can, but I just find it way too confusing applied to the real world.

 

I see. It sounds more like what you're saying that various 'acts' are either evil or good. This is why I was a bit confused. Alignment is a way of defining what a character is likely to do and how they're likely to live their lives. I personally just don't see THAT as being absolute, because a good character can perform an evil act nd not suddenly be considered evil from the point on.
Maybe were saying more or less the same things, and this is a just an exercise in semantics.

@Klorox: Uh... thanks!

 

One disagreement here is between chevalier and Oaz; for chevalier, the alignment system seems to be mostly *relative* with respect to human society: the benchmark of human behavior is true neutral, with the other alignments showing up as exceptions to the norm. Thus, for example, a goblin society could average out to the LE side of human society (perhaps giving them a nine-square of they're own, with goblin TN where human LE would be). Oaz, in contrast, says that some actions are good and some are evil, in a way that doesn't really rely on human relativism. Aristotle/Plato anyone?

BTW chevalier (just saw the *substantial* ToB alignment discussion, and tried out the RP personality test, waiting for reply!): didn't the earlier AD&D books argue that TN was a very rare alignment for humans, as it was supposed to require a commitment to balance and neutrality to maintain it?