PDA

View Full Version : [3.5]To no extreme.



DemLep
2010-08-17, 10:35 AM
Okay last night when i typed this up I was tired and didn't go to much into the idea. Now that I am awake and have time to spare let me go deeper into the idea.

The basic idea is this: A character that strives to be moderate in ALL things. What alignment is he?

Now he's where I'm coming from before you brush him off as just evil or true neutral.

I believe the alignment system is a simplified look at the psychology of character and the world. Basically Character's internal ideals vs. cultural/world norms. This being said I look at each one of the nine alignments being a simplified, extreme of this. I know that there is flexibility and range with in the alignment system, but still how far away from the extreme can you go without becoming another alignment. At what point do you figuratively and literally cross the line? Can you be on the line? And if so what are you then?

I character truly devoted? to moderation would not be one to simply sit around as I see it. Taking no part in the world is an extreme as well, as you are going to the extreme of inaction. They would see the need of each "alignment" and the balance they create. Though they would neither seek to keep balance or disrupt it. Doing so would require them to actively push for extremes to (un)balance the extreme of others and themselves. I say this is an extreme because they would actively They would "routinely" make actions of all the alignments with little to no concern. Though against extreme they would also from time to time take extreme actions themselves, if not they would become an extremist of non-extremes, which would still be against their ideals.

Now I'm not saying they would live up to their ideal life style 100% of the time, but who does. It would be how they act the majority of the time. If done right though this should mean, in my mind, that they're alignment changes at least weekly. I don't think an alignment is based on a single act, but rather the majority of them. So has I see it as the character move closer to one alignment he would changes his actions to move away from it.

So I ask the question again, what would be the the alignment of such a character be? Could it be described as a singular alignment or would ir be closer to a floating alignment or maybe not aligned at all?

I'm not looking for a "right" answer, but more of peoples view of such a character.

hamishspence
2010-08-17, 10:40 AM
Sounds a little like the "evil choice" character type in Champions of Ruin:

"the character may be a sociopath equally capable of acts of extreme good or extreme evil, neither of which move him emotionally or spiritually, and in which he is incapable of seeing any contradiction"

Except for the "extreme" bit, they sound rather similar.

Daremonai
2010-08-17, 10:42 AM
He'd be True Neutral, in the sense of "no commitment", rather than the old Druidic "committed to Neutrality".


Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality

RMS Oceanic
2010-08-17, 10:43 AM
He sounds like the active sort of True Neutral, since he's actively pursuing moderation in every aspect.

kamikasei
2010-08-17, 10:45 AM
...if you think of it TN is the most extreme alignment of them all!
I'm not sure you're going to get any sensible result from your alignment system if this can truly be said of it.

Greenish
2010-08-17, 10:45 AM
He'd be N, but not sweatin' it.

dsmiles
2010-08-17, 10:46 AM
Personally, I think he would still be TN. TN in 3.5/3.0 doesn't have all the (puts on best Judge Dredd voice) "I am the balance!" that AD&D or 2e had. The farmer that gets up every day, goes to his dirt farm, and farms his dirt with no care for the world outside would be TN, and so would the person afraid to leave his house for fear of "upsetting the balance."

DemLep
2010-08-17, 10:50 AM
Sounds a little like the "evil choice" character type in Champions of Ruin:

"the character may be a sociopath equally capable of acts of extreme good or extreme evil, neither of which move him emotionally or spiritually, and in which he is incapable of seeing any contradiction"

Except for the "extreme" bit, they sound rather similar.

Agreed.


He'd be True Neutral, in the sense of "no commitment", rather than the old Druidic "committed to Neutrality".

But he would be committed to all alignments more than not committed to any.


He sounds like the active sort of True Neutral, since he's actively pursuing moderation in every aspect.

I could see this as well.


I'm not sure you're going to get any sensible result from your alignment system if this can truly be said of it.

Why? Some of the most extreme action people make are the ones they don't. This is even more so in the real world.

Psyx
2010-08-17, 10:51 AM
A character capable of doing good and evil, and seeing nothing bad in either has evil tendencies. Evil is -to some extent- is doing simply what you want (and that be the whole of the law...) and feeling no guilt about it. That certainly strays into evil.

Believing in moderation in all things and being disciplined about it may have Lawful leanings...

kamikasei
2010-08-17, 10:55 AM
Why? Some of the most extreme action people make are the ones they don't. This is even more so in the real world.
I'm afraid you're going to have to expand on this if you want your view of alignment in general to be at all clear (so that people can give answers useful to you).

DemLep
2010-08-17, 10:58 AM
Personally, I think he would still be TN. TN in 3.5/3.0 doesn't have all the (puts on best Judge Dredd voice) "I am the balance!" that AD&D or 2e had. The farmer that gets up every day, goes to his dirt farm, and farms his dirt with no care for the world outside would be TN, and so would the person afraid to leave his house for fear of "upsetting the balance."


A character capable of doing good and evil, and seeing nothing bad in either has evil tendencies. Evil is -to some extent- is doing simply what you want (and that be the whole of the law...) and feeling no guilt about it. That certainly strays into evil.

Believing in moderation in all things and being disciplined about it may have Lawful leanings...

Such a character to me is neither looking to disrupt the nature balance, as they see it all aspects are need it is the extreme that is bad. Nor would the seek balance for balance itself is an extreme.

dsmiles
2010-08-17, 11:01 AM
Then he'd be the aforementioned dirt farmer. Adventuring is, in and of itself, not moderation.

kamikasei
2010-08-17, 11:01 AM
Such a character to me is neither looking to disrupt the nature balance, as they see it all aspects are need it is the extreme that is bad. Nor would the seek balance for balance itself is an extreme.
If pursuing a balance between extremes is itself an extreme, then your system is simply incoherent.

Telonius
2010-08-17, 11:10 AM
If I could put it into a very few words, dear sir, I should say that our prevalent belief is in moderation. We inculcate the virtue of avoiding excesses of all kinds—even including, if you will pardon the paradox, excess of virtue itself.

I'd say your guy is a monk of Shangri-La. Doing his best to remain out of everyone's way, trying to practice moderation in all things.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-17, 11:33 AM
Why? Some of the most extreme action people make are the ones they don't. This is even more so in the real world.

This makes your character concept impossible. He is an extremist if he doesnt take extreme actions.

So, by definition, you've made your character impossible. Of COURSE the alignment system will be unable to represent him, if you start with such a silly definition.

Replace the word extreme with say, evil. Are people evil for not taking evil actions? Then why would they be extreme for not taking extreme actions?

dsmiles
2010-08-17, 11:44 AM
I still say he'd be the aforementioned dirt farmer.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-17, 12:17 PM
The character would probably have the biggest issue with TN. I know that's where a lot a people will want to say that is what he is, but if you think of it TN is the most extreme alignment of them all!
Considering the rest of your post is a textbook example of AD&D TN, this is an odd thing to say.

What I'm hearing here is a True Passive character - or N / UA in WotC D&D

SurlySeraph
2010-08-17, 01:05 PM
...but if you think of it TN is the most extreme alignment of them all!


Some of the most extreme action people make are the ones they don't. This is even more so in the real world.


...Nor would the[y] seek balance for balance itself is an extreme.

I'm not sure whether to say "What?" or "No, that's not true," as neither of them are sufficiently extreme answers.

FMArthur
2010-08-17, 02:28 PM
You are looking to make a character that... can't be anything?

You know, I think I can actually make a build for this:














.

Let me know if it's too extreme, I think there's some room for modification.

Rixx
2010-08-17, 03:12 PM
I think "making a believable character" is a bit more of a valid exercise than "making a character whose beliefs are only to mess with the alignment system".

Also, chaotic neutral, if he tries to express all alignment behaviors equally. True neutral if he actively seeks balance and moderation.

dsmiles
2010-08-17, 04:27 PM
You are looking to make a character that... can't be anything?

You know, I think I can actually make a build for this:














.

Let me know if it's too extreme, I think there's some room for modification.

roflmao (obligatory text)

DemLep
2010-08-18, 04:46 AM
Okay I think my new first post will help this out a lot more. As I said I was tired and merely expressing an idea. Now more awake I've expanded on the original post. For those I think need personal answers, here you go:


If pursuing a balance between extremes is itself an extreme, then your system is simply incoherent.

First, I'd like to say it's not in any way my system. Second, how is true balance not an extreme?


I'd say your guy is a monk of Shangri-La. Doing his best to remain out of everyone's way, trying to practice moderation in all things.

Wait, is this an actual class? If so where can I find more information on it?


Considering the rest of your post is a textbook example of AD&D TN, this is an odd thing to say.

What I'm hearing here is a True Passive character - or N / UA in WotC D&D

Ah. Okay.


You are looking to make a character that... can't be anything?

You know, I think I can actually make a build for this:














.

Let me know if it's too extreme, I think there's some room for modification.

That's extremely nothing.


I think "making a believable character" is a bit more of a valid exercise than "making a character whose beliefs are only to mess with the alignment system".

Also, chaotic neutral, if he tries to express all alignment behaviors equally. True neutral if he actively seeks balance and moderation.

This character concept is one founded in reality. The simple problem is that any alignment system that is simple enough to use in a game will have stuff missing. And now where do you put this left out stuff?

I'd also like to point out that I have no intention of breaking the alignment system. Nor creating a replacement. In the real world as I view "alignment" you would need a system capable of handling hundreds of thousands of alignments. completely unplayable with any kind of mechanics attach to it. D&D 3.5 system does well for archetype characters, but what about more natural characters. You could simplify my question further to "At what point does a CN character become CE?" for intense. And be able to replace the two alignments with any to adjacent alignments. My question is just taking such a thought to the extreme.

hamishspence
2010-08-18, 04:49 AM
Easydamus:

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

does have a tracking system, as well as the "alignment tendencies" system, that discusses this.

DemLep
2010-08-18, 05:10 AM
Easydamus:

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

does have a tracking system, as well as the "alignment tendencies" system, that discusses this.

Wait isn't that just straight have the PHB?

kamikasei
2010-08-18, 05:12 AM
First, I'd like to say it's not in any way my system.
It's your interpretation of "the alignment system". Alignment is vague and contentious enough that this means it's essentially your own system, defined by how you interpret certain aspects of it, and any general answer to a query about it may simply not apply because you make different assumptions to the person providing it.

Second, how is true balance not an extreme?
Pretty much by definition.

It seems you acknowledge the inadequacies of the alignment system when it comes to describing complex characters, but then want to know how it would describe a character whoes complexity consists of poking holes in the alignment system itself. The answer is: really badly. This is like asking a guy with a pathological fear of the word "phobia" what the scientific term for his condition is.

You could make an argument for the character you describe in your revised first post being true neutral (because he tends to no end of the alignment spectrum over another), lawful neutral (he follows strict rules), chaotic neutral (his behaviour is constantly changing and unpredictable), neutral evil (because evil deeds outweigh good)... but whichever one you peg him as, that is his alignment and all his actions, even the ones that seem to contradict it, flow from it. Alignment shouldn't change unless the person himself changes. If a person with a single consistent philosophy and ethics is a different alignment on any given day of the week, that simply means the interpretation of alignment you're using is screwy.

(Incidentally, off topic but a pet peeve of mine: please, if you feel the need to clarify something you've already posted, even though it may make sense to add the clarification to the original post, please don't erase what you already wrote to do so. It's annoying to find that the initial position you were responding to has been unpublished. Just put the first draft in to a spoiler for reference or something.)

Yuki Akuma
2010-08-18, 05:19 AM
Second, how is true balance not an extreme?

Because they're complete antonyms? They mean the exact opposite?

Do you know what "extreme" actually means? It means the far end of something. Meanwhile, "balance", in this case, means... the middle. Really.

kamikasei
2010-08-18, 05:31 AM
Do you know what "extreme" actually means? It means the far end of something. Meanwhile, "balance", in this case, means... the middle. Really.
Yeah, I'd like to get some clarification of what DemLep means by "extreme" here. Obviously you can be the most apathetic true neutral dirt farmer imaginable and yet do your dirt farming while snowboarding on fire through a forest full of grizzly bears, or be a highly zealous devotee of the god of clay, or whatever. But simply being extreme in some behaviour or attitude doesn't mean you're extreme with regard to alignment. You can be zealously neutral. You can be unconcernedly good or evil.

darkpuppy
2010-08-18, 05:32 AM
Yuki is quite correct. There are several definitions of True Neutral, many of which were explored in one of the planescape books (can't remember which one)... but the gist of it is this:

True Neutrals come into many categories, just as every other alignment. Remember that, for alignment, one can quite easily replace the word with two... World View. An Evil character is meant to see the world in a selfish way in some fashion, whether fairly sensible, or sociopathic. Good, on the other hand, can as easily be termed "altruistic", giving of themselves to others. Lawful and Chaotic mostly explain themselves... but True Neutral varies upon one single theme: balance. This can manifest in several different ways, from the aggressive pursuit of Balance (which can also be an act of any other alignment, if justified properly), to the more taoist viewpoint, which is to say that all things are one, and balance themselves. It can manifest as moderation in all things, as you describe, or apathy, or hatred of everything (including the self). Neutrality is nowhere near as clear cut as the "meh" choice.

DemLep
2010-08-18, 05:37 AM
It's your interpretation of "the alignment system". Alignment is vague and contentious enough that this means it's essentially your own system, defined by how you interpret certain aspects of it, and any general answer to a query about it may simply not apply because you make different assumptions to the person providing it.


I interpret everything I read or come into contact with. Does this mean everything is my in my view and everything is everyone else's in their view? If so okay. If not this I still say it's WotC's system as I would make a different system if I was the writer.

Yes, I could make ones answer wrong. Which to an extent was what i was doing last night under the haze of my sleepiness. But if you can't back an alignment with than he's TN because the book says, so then I will want to debate it. If a reason with so thought is given then I'm more likely to try and see from that view point, at least today I am.



Pretty much by definition.

Are you then not seeking the extreme of balance then?



It seems you acknowledge the inadequacies of the alignment system when it comes to describing complex characters, but then want to know how it would describe a character whoes complexity consists of poking holes in the alignment system itself. The answer is: really badly. This is like asking a guy with a pathological fear of the word "phobia" what the scientific term for his condition is.


I wonder what his response would be... No seriously. That really makes me wonder how he'd respond. As for poking whole in the system, I am simply seeing if a system can portray a complex character. I think it can, just maybe not as intended.



You could make an argument for the character you describe in your revised first post being true neutral (because he tends to no end of the alignment spectrum over another), lawful neutral (he follows strict rules), chaotic neutral (his behaviour is constantly changing and unpredictable), neutral evil (because evil deeds outweigh good)... but whichever one you peg him as, that is his alignment and all his actions, even the ones that seem to contradict it, flow from it. Alignment shouldn't change unless the person himself changes. If a person with a single consistent philosophy and ethics is a different alignment on any given day of the week, that simply means the interpretation of alignment you're using is screwy.


So a evil act is worth more than a good act? What would make them equal, saving a child vs. stealing food? I don't understand why evil must always be weighted. As so his alignment changing, I agree a more stable alignment makes more sense, but if that is what needs to be done to make a complex character with a simple system what's the harm?



(Incidentally, off topic but a pet peeve of mine: please, if you feel the need to clarify something you've already posted, even though it may make sense to add the clarification to the original post, please don't erase what you already wrote to do so. It's annoying to find that the initial position you were responding to has been unpublished. Just put the first draft in to a spoiler for reference or something.)

The original post was obviously not fully thought out and expressed properly. Since the new first post fixes these problems it made the original irrelevant. The fact that post remain from to are of also little importance. I fix the first post and got rid of what was not needed. The fact that this bothers you means nothing.

Yuki Akuma
2010-08-18, 05:41 AM
Are you then not seeking the extreme of balance then?

No, because that makes no logical sense. You can be "extremely balanced" (if you like abusing adjectives), but balance is not an extreme.

DemLep
2010-08-18, 05:47 AM
Because they're complete antonyms? They mean the exact opposite?

Do you know what "extreme" actually means? It means the far end of something. Meanwhile, "balance", in this case, means... the middle. Really.


Yeah, I'd like to get some clarification of what DemLep means by "extreme" here. Obviously you can be the most apathetic true neutral dirt farmer imaginable and yet do your dirt farming while snowboarding on fire through a forest full of grizzly bears, or be a highly zealous devotee of the god of clay, or whatever. But simply being extreme in some behaviour or attitude doesn't mean you're extreme with regard to alignment. You can be zealously neutral. You can be unconcernedly good or evil.

I'm using the same meaning you are. I'm just not limiting my view point to ignore that things at far ends of the spectrum can actually be right next to each other. This is not a view point that I alone have or came up with.


Yuki is quite correct. There are several definitions of True Neutral, many of which were explored in one of the planescape books (can't remember which one)... but the gist of it is this:

True Neutrals come into many categories, just as every other alignment. Remember that, for alignment, one can quite easily replace the word with two... World View. An Evil character is meant to see the world in a selfish way in some fashion, whether fairly sensible, or sociopathic. Good, on the other hand, can as easily be termed "altruistic", giving of themselves to others. Lawful and Chaotic mostly explain themselves... but True Neutral varies upon one single theme: balance. This can manifest in several different ways, from the aggressive pursuit of Balance (which can also be an act of any other alignment, if justified properly), to the more taoist viewpoint, which is to say that all things are one, and balance themselves. It can manifest as moderation in all things, as you describe, or apathy, or hatred of everything (including the self). Neutrality is nowhere near as clear cut as the "meh" choice.

I could see in such a view of him being True Neutral.

darkpuppy
2010-08-18, 05:49 AM
The amusing part, DemLep? That's pretty much what everyone else was trying to tell you, in different words, using different examples.

hamishspence
2010-08-18, 05:49 AM
the closest thing to "extreme balance" is "extremist in the service of the balnce"- somebody who is so obsessed with "the balance" that he will destroy good and evil groups alike in the service of it.

They might see a newly ascended Good (or evil) god as "upsetting the balance" and kill another god (or raise up a new one) to "balance it out"

Or, when a Good (or evil) city grows "too powerful" spreading its influence, they will destroy it, regardless of the innocent people they are destroying. Since innocence (or guilt) means nothing to them, since "The Balance must be restored"- they may have slight "qualms about killing the innocent" but do it anyway.

Mordenkainen is a bit like this, as are the Rilmani.

I'd say this is closer to NE though.

Yuki Akuma
2010-08-18, 05:50 AM
I'm using the same meaning you are. I'm just not limiting my view point to ignore that things at far ends of the spectrum can actually be right next to each other. This is not a view point that I alone have or came up with.

Regardless, balance is in the middle, not at any of the extremes. You still aren't making any sense.

You can be an extremist who works for the "Balance", but that's not the same thing. Extremist refers to his methods and beliefs (his beliefs being very extreme "The Balance must be preserved!" stuff). But he does not have an extreme alignment.

kamikasei
2010-08-18, 05:52 AM
I interpret everything I read or come into contact with. Does this mean everything is my in my view and everything is everyone else's in their view? If so okay. If not this I still say it's WotC's system as I would make a different system if I was the writer.
I'm talking about the alignment system specifically, because it is not a coherent thing. There's enough disagreement about fundamental aspects of it that you can't very usefully talk about "alignment" at all without first pinning those aspects down.

Are you then not seeking the extreme of balance then?
No.

I wonder what his response would be... No seriously. That really makes me wonder how he'd respond.
That's kind of the point. He would be unable to answer you because he'd be afraid of saying the word. (As a thought experiment, that is. I don't know anything about how actual phobias manifest.)

So a evil act is worth more than a good act? What would make them equal, saving a child vs. stealing food? I don't understand why evil must always be weighted.
I think most people would agree that someone who saves a child from drowning, then murders the child, is not neutral because they're balancing out good with bad. Knowingly doing evil makes you more evil than knowingly doing good makes you good.

As for poking whole in the system, I am simply seeing if a system can portray a complex character. I think it can, just maybe not as intended.
...
As so his alignment changing, I agree a more stable alignment makes more sense, but if that is what needs to be done to make a complex character with a simple system what's the harm?
Who said anything about harm? I'm simply saying it's pointless to take a flawed and simplified system, construct a character to embody those flaws and violate the simplifying assumptions, and then ask how the system would handle it. There's no useful answer beyond "yup, alignment sure is flawed".

The original post was obviously not fully thought out and expressed properly. Since the new first post fixes these problems it made the original irrelevant. The fact that post remain from to are of also little importance. I fix the first post and got rid of what was not needed. The fact that this bothers you means nothing.
As I said, it's a pet peeve. I consider it a matter of good form in discussion, intellectual honesty, and simple courtesy not to take something people have responded to and replace it with a version that makes it seems like the flaws they pointed to never existed. Certainly you have no obligation to behave differently, no more than you would for any behaviour I might point out is rude.

edit:

I'm using the same meaning you are. I'm just not limiting my view point to ignore that things at far ends of the spectrum can actually be right next to each other. This is not a view point that I alone have or came up with.
Huh?

DemLep
2010-08-18, 05:53 AM
The amusing part, DemLep? That's pretty much what everyone else was trying to tell you, in different words, using different examples.

~Shrug.~ The amusing part is that I'm not trying to argue that if you expand the view of the alignment wide enough he'll be neutral(or any other), but more see why people would see him as one over another.


the closest thing to "extreme balance" is "extremist in the service of the balnce"- somebody who is so obsessed with "the balance" that he will destroy good and evil groups alike in the service of it.

They might see a newly ascended Good (or evil) god as "upsetting the balance" and kill another god (or raise up a new one) to "balance it out"

Or, when a Good (or evil) city grows "too powerful" spreading its influence, they will destroy it, regardless of the innocent people they are destroying. Since innocence (or guilt) means nothing to them, since "The Balance must be restored"- they may have slight "qualms about killing the innocent" but do it anyway.

Mordenkainen is a bit like this, as are the Rilmani.

I'd say this is closer to NE though.

Thank you for an example. Why Neutral Evil? Is it because evil acts out weigh good ones?

Yuki Akuma
2010-08-18, 05:57 AM
Huh?

That is true, but it doesn't actually help his argument at all because it still wouldn't make balance 'extreme'.

darkpuppy
2010-08-18, 05:58 AM
In any case, each alignment has many different flavours, just as you have many different flavours of Fighter, or Wizard. Sure, the general idea is "I hit things" or "I kill stuff with magic"... but the devil's in the details.

For example, Palladium used a modified alignment system. It, also, missed quite a few things, but it essentially used different flavours of standard alignments. Selfish was low-grade neutral evil, Anarchist was chaotic evil, There was one which was a mid-grade lawful evil, Principled was a high-grade lawful good... and so the list went on. By using a simple axis like the G/E:L/C spectrum, you can build a lot from that. For example, here in Britain, we see many alignments in RL, as you should. Here in Pembs, for example, we have Neutral Struggling, But Mustn't Rock The Boat (LN), Selfish Stupid And Loud (CE) , the odd buddhist or taoist (generally LN, tending toward N) ... again, the list goes on.

The alignment system, DemLep, is nothing but a framework. Much like every other stat in the game.

hamishspence
2010-08-18, 06:02 AM
Thank you for an example. Why Neutral Evil? Is it because evil acts out weigh good ones?

Pretty much: if you're going by PHB, then "evil harms the innocent" means that people who harm the innocent regularly, for whatever reason, will be evil.

If you're going by Champions of Ruin, then "committing evil acts regularly is the sign of an evil character"-
and there is nothing saying "acts committed in order to protect the innocent, against the not innocent, are never evil"

Personally I prefer the Champions of Ruin take on alignment, which when combined with BoED and FC2 (some acts are evil regardless of the nature of the victim) means that a person who is completely unwilling to harm "the innocent" yet regularly commits evil acts against "the not innocent" will be evil-aligned.

kamikasei
2010-08-18, 06:02 AM
That is true, but it doesn't actually help his argument at all because it still wouldn't make balance 'extreme'.
I can't tell what it's actually saying well enough to determine if it's true or not...

Yuki Akuma
2010-08-18, 06:04 AM
I can't tell what it's actually saying well enough to determine if it's true or not...

He's saying that the two extremes of a spectrum can be right next to each other. This is true.

He's also saying you're closed-minded for not realising it, but you should probably ignore that part.

And then he goes on to say that he's not the only one to share his viewpoint, although he doesn't cite any sources so you can go ahead and ignore that too.

DemLep
2010-08-18, 06:43 AM
Regardless, balance is in the middle, not at any of the extremes. You still aren't making any sense.

You can be an extremist who works for the "Balance", but that's not the same thing. Extremist refers to his methods and beliefs (his beliefs being very extreme "The Balance must be preserved!" stuff). But he does not have an extreme alignment.

If you put balanced in the middle than it would be the very middle, or at least the most balanced you could be would be. This is the extreme middle. It is an extreme just one that is often over looked because it is not at an end.



That's kind of the point. He would be unable to answer you because he'd be afraid of saying the word. (As a thought experiment, that is. I don't know anything about how actual phobias manifest.)


Here you are wrong. It would be interesting because he would be able to respond. Probably not by saying the word, but that what makes it interesting. Is to see how he would respond when the nature response is so directly against his natural behavior.



I think most people would agree that someone who saves a child from drowning, then murders the child, is not neutral because they're balancing out good with bad. Knowingly doing evil makes you more evil than knowingly doing good makes you good.


So it would seem and yet no one can tell me why.



Who said anything about harm? I'm simply saying it's pointless to take a flawed and simplified system, construct a character to embody those flaws and violate the simplifying assumptions, and then ask how the system would handle it. There's no useful answer beyond "yup, alignment sure is flawed".


I guess I was hoping that someone would be able to come up with something a little better. What the hell was I thinking.



As I said, it's a pet peeve. I consider it a matter of good form in discussion, intellectual honesty, and simple courtesy not to take something people have responded to and replace it with a version that makes it seems like the flaws they pointed to never existed. Certainly you have no obligation to behave differently, no more than you would for any behaviour I might point out is rude.


I admit when i do wrong and if I can fix it a generally seek to. That's all I was doing.


Pretty much: if you're going by PHB, then "evil harms the innocent" means that people who harm the innocent regularly, for whatever reason, will be evil.

If you're going by Champions of Ruin, then "committing evil acts regularly is the sign of an evil character"-
and there is nothing saying "acts committed in order to protect the innocent, against the not innocent, are never evil"

Personally I prefer the Champions of Ruin take on alignment, which when combined with BoED and FC2 (some acts are evil regardless of the nature of the victim) means that a person who is completely unwilling to harm "the innocent" yet regularly commits evil acts against "the not innocent" will be evil-aligned.

Interesting. Though the system still uses, though who do evil are evil and those who do good might be good logic. From the sound of it.



He's also saying you're closed-minded for not realising it, but you should probably ignore that part.


Actually ignorant on the idea would be closer. Closed-minded would be once kamikasei understands the idea and then refuses that it could be true.



And then he goes on to say that he's not the only one to share his viewpoint, although he doesn't cite any sources so you can go ahead and ignore that too.

Didn't know I need sources. Do you want some?

Yuki Akuma
2010-08-18, 06:49 AM
If you put balanced in the middle than it would be the very middle, or at least the most balanced you could be would be. This is the extreme middle. It is an extreme just one that is often over looked because it is not at an end.

That... really isn't what extreme means.

I'm serious here. You're misusing the word. Could you explain what you mean in simple terms so we can find the word you're looking for? :smalltongue:


Didn't know I need sources. Do you want some?

Appeal to popularity works better if you actually cite some sources. Anyone can say "eighty people agree with me". :smallwink:

kamikasei
2010-08-18, 06:51 AM
If you put balanced in the middle than it would be the very middle, or at least the most balanced you could be would be. This is the extreme middle. It is an extreme just one that is often over looked because it is not at an end.
This is not what the word "extreme" means.

To the rest of it: sorry, but if you ask incoherent questions and don't express yourself clearly, it's not a failing on our part if we point out the incoherence rather than answering, or tell you we don't understand what you're failing to convey.

I guess I was hoping that someone would be able to come up with something a little better. What the hell was I thinking.
I'm not sure. From where I'm standing it's like you're asking "which integer is pi?" and then getting frustrated that all the answers are "it's not an integer at all".

darkpuppy
2010-08-18, 07:02 AM
*chuckles* by trying to answer the question posed about the 'phobia' thing, you are, if you were a DnD character, be seriously considering a NE act... :P

In any case, yes, moderation is an extreme in the sense one can be extremist in their moderation... but this is not true moderation. True moderation, like truly normal, or truly average, generally doesn't exist. Not where people are concerned, anyways.

Your main problem with alignment is that you're trying to think of it like a numerical stat, a sort of "exact gauge of"... it's not... hell, not even stats are! What berk made a system where the average human is slightly weaker than the median score (White Wolf)... or the one where it requires huge numbers to represent relative strength to a human (most systems, but GURPS is especially guilty)... in the end, and I'm going to keep pointing this out until you get it, is that stats are a framework. They're not the be-all and end-all... and alignment is just another stat, another way of saying "my character is roughly like this."

Good example: My wizard, Alethor the Testy, calls himself Alethor the Well Travelled, and hates every fellow adventurer out there for being better at it than he is. Nonetheless, he's got a soft spot for the underdogs, and will always help those truly in need... except goblins. He hates goblins, even more than adventurers. Nonetheless, when you factor in all his background, personality, etc, the rough alignment is NG... because, in general, he tends to be pragmatic when it comes to following/breaking the law, like many mages, and tries his best to help others... despite being inept and irascible.

DemLep
2010-08-18, 07:11 AM
That... really isn't what extreme means.

I'm serious here. You're misusing the word. Could you explain what you mean in simple terms so we can find the word you're looking for? :smalltongue:


I don't know how to make it more simple, sorry.



Appeal to popularity works better if you actually cite some sources. Anyone can say "eighty people agree with me". :smallwink:

I never said it was popular or how many people share it. Though give me some time and I will produce sources.


That is true, but it doesn't actually help his argument at all because it still wouldn't make balance 'extreme'.

Oh look here is one.

Okay now I'll get other ones. Just couldn't help it.


This is not what the word "extreme" means.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extreme
3. very strict, rigid, or severe; drastic: an extreme measure

This one would be the closest one to simply explain it.



To the rest of it: sorry, but if you ask incoherent questions and don't express yourself clearly, it's not a failing on our part if we point out the incoherence rather than answering, or tell you we don't understand what you're failing to convey.

The question isn't incoherent to me, and I am trying to express it best I can. I would find this a failing on both parts. Me for not having what it takes to convey it, and on everyone who doesn't understand on not having what it takes to understand it.



I'm not sure. From where I'm standing it's like you're asking "which integer is pi?" and then getting frustrated that all the answers are "it's not an integer at all".


That was rhetorical. That's why I put a period. And from where I stand it more of arguing if pi is a number at all. No that's not quite right, more of arguing if an imaginary number is a number at all.


EDIT:


*chuckles* by trying to answer the question posed about the 'phobia' thing, you are, if you were a DnD character, be seriously considering a NE act... :P


So be it.



In any case, yes, moderation is an extreme in the sense one can be extremist in their moderation... but this is not true moderation. True moderation, like truly normal, or truly average, generally doesn't exist. Not where people are concerned, anyways.

Your main problem with alignment is that you're trying to think of it like a numerical stat, a sort of "exact gauge of"... it's not... hell, not even stats are! What berk made a system where the average human is slightly weaker than the median score (White Wolf)... or the one where it requires huge numbers to represent relative strength to a human (most systems, but GURPS is especially guilty)... in the end, and I'm going to keep pointing this out until you get it, is that stats are a framework. They're not the be-all and end-all... and alignment is just another stat, another way of saying "my character is roughly like this."

Good example: My wizard, Alethor the Testy, calls himself Alethor the Well Travelled, and hates every fellow adventurer out there for being better at it than he is. Nonetheless, he's got a soft spot for the underdogs, and will always help those truly in need... except goblins. He hates goblins, even more than adventurers. Nonetheless, when you factor in all his background, personality, etc, the rough alignment is NG... because, in general, he tends to be pragmatic when it comes to following/breaking the law, like many mages, and tries his best to help others... despite being inept and irascible.

I understand this. I was just trying to see how people would view such a character and debate the reasoning for my own amusement. I figure some one would eventually call up with an interesting why to play the alignment of such a character.

hamishspence
2010-08-18, 07:25 AM
Interesting. Though the system still uses, though who do evil are evil and those who do good might be good logic. From the sound of it.

Pretty much- though it effectively makes evil acts more important than good ones, and an unwillingness to harm the "innocent" less important than the PHB might imply, for the purposes of determining alignment.

In other words, no matter how self-sacrificing, heroic, and unwilling to harm the innocent you are, if you are doing things like routinely, horribly, torturing the "not innocent"- for pleasure, for info, for deterrence of crime, the alignment is probably Evil rather than Neutral.

I'd allow Neutral alignments if the regular evil acts are much more minor though- since Heroes of Horror strongly supports it.

Yuki Akuma
2010-08-18, 07:39 AM
I never said it was popular or how many people share it. Though give me some time and I will produce sources.

Saying "people agree with me" is an appeal to popularity. You don't have to say it's the most popular choice, or how many people agree with you. "People agree with me" is enough.

DemLep
2010-08-18, 07:48 AM
Saying "people agree with me" is an appeal to popularity. You don't have to say it's the most popular choice, or how many people agree with you. "People agree with me" is enough.

I meant it more along the lines of I'm not the only one or the first.

http://www.thelocal.se/26708/20100518/

This article though not strictly about opposites being close, uses the idea when talking about (Creative)Genius and insanity. I choose this because it uses the old idiom "There is a thin line between Genius and Insanity." Though probably not the best example, but there is little that directly talks about how opposites, in general, are close to each other. *Read I haven't found one yet.* Though this idea has occurred in common discussion throughout my life I have never actually read an article on it or search the internet before for proof. Most likely because its proof was all around me.

EDIT: Oh and on a side note I really wish to know why people see evil acts as out weighing good acts, but in real life people do acts that by cultural norms would be "evil" all the time and yet most people, as far as I understand it, aren't considered evil. In fact most would fall under some sort of Neutral leaning towards Good, when examples are stated.

darkpuppy
2010-08-18, 07:55 AM
There is a second definition. Extreme, a. - 1. Most remote in any direction; outermost or farthest

darkpuppy
2010-08-18, 08:00 AM
The why they'd play N? Coyote was N, Papa Guedhe is N... in fact, all the best tricksters, in myth and literature, are N, or rapidly become so. Silk (Belgariad/Malloreon), Conan through most of his middle age... the list goes on, the number of truly interesting N characters there are. But y'know the best why answer of all? because they think it will be fun. Simple as.

dsmiles
2010-08-18, 08:00 AM
EDIT: Oh and on a side note I really wish to know why people see evil acts as out weighing good acts, but in real life people do acts that by cultural norms would be "evil" all the time and yet most people, as far as I understand it, aren't considered evil. In fact most would fall under some sort of Neutral leaning towards Good, when examples are stated.

I'm eVil! (With a capital "V"!)

hamishspence
2010-08-18, 08:00 AM
EDIT: Oh and on a side note I really wish to know why people see evil acts as out weighing good acts, but in real life people do acts that by cultural norms would be "evil" all the time and yet most people, as far as I understand it, aren't considered evil. In fact most would fall under some sort of Neutral leaning towards Good, when examples are stated.

This may depend on how loosely or tightly some people use the term "evil".

Some splatbooks have a tighter definition than others.

In D&D "humans tend toward no alignment- not even Neutral"- hence, this may suggest that about two-thirds of people are not Evil. They might occasionally do Evil things, or hardly ever do Good things, but they aren't malicious enough to be Evil by the PHB, or do evil deeds enough to be Evil by CoR.

DemLep
2010-08-18, 08:04 AM
There are plenty of other definition that I didn't ignore just didn't fit what i wanted to convey. They have enough trouble understanding for me to list everyone definition, so they can pick the one that fit's their view best while ignores mine. Also using an indirect definition with "crazy" or non-simplistic logic would just confuse them more as well. And I could actually use scientific logic and prove that the middle a be the most remote in any direction. Wait I think math would work too. As for outermost well no d'uh it's not the outermost. It's the innermost.

hamishspence
2010-08-18, 08:09 AM
Though probably not the best example, but there is little that directly talks about how opposites, in general, are close to each other. *Read I haven't found one yet.*

In 40K, the opposite ends of the Inquisition (Radical and Puritan) can be surprisingly close to each other.

The Horusians and Thorians alike are obsessed with the idea of a superbeing that can reunite the Imperium and lead it into a new golden age- but the Horusians think of him as like a new Horus- who can wield Chaos without being mastered by it, and the Thorians think of him as the Emperor reborn.

Similarly, the most extreme "anti-psychic" Inquisitors are almost as dangerously "heretical" as the most extreme users of psychic powers- being on the brink of condemning the Emperor himself, for being psychic.

DemLep
2010-08-18, 08:12 AM
The why they'd play N? Coyote was N, Papa Guedhe is N... in fact, all the best tricksters, in myth and literature, are N, or rapidly become so. Silk (Belgariad/Malloreon), Conan through most of his middle age... the list goes on, the number of truly interesting N characters there are. But y'know the best why answer of all? because they think it will be fun. Simple as.

Wait what is that answering? I never asked why play neutral. Did I?


I'm eVil! (With a capital "V"!)

Not sure what that means, but duly noted.


This may depend on how loosely or tightly some people use the term "evil".

Some splatbooks have a tighter definition than others.

In D&D "humans tend toward no alignment- not even Neutral"- hence, this may suggest that about two-thirds of people are not Evil. They might occasionally do Evil things, or hardly ever do Good things, but they aren't malicious enough to be Evil by the PHB, or do evil deeds enough to be Evil by CoR.

So if most people are unaligned, could such a character be? And what would that do to things that effect alignment?

hamishspence
2010-08-18, 08:16 AM
Such a character would probably be unaligned (Neutral) at first, but eventually, the more he does Evil acts (regardless of the reasons) moving toward Evil alignment (unless he chooses to repent and atone)- so when the DM can say "Evil acts are now pretty much routine for you" the guy has finally crossed the line.

You could probably track their alignment with this:

http://easydamus.com/alignmenttracking.html

once you've examined the typical "sins" and "virtues" for all the alignments, and assigned typical values to them (maybe with +1 or -1 for aggravating, or mitigating, factors). Starting them off as Neutral.

DemLep
2010-08-18, 08:18 AM
In 40K, the opposite ends of the Inquisition (Radical and Puritan) can be surprisingly close to each other.

The Horusians and Thorians alike are obsessed with the idea of a superbeing that can reunite the Imperium and lead it into a new golden age- but the Horusians think of him as like a new Horus- who can wield Chaos without being mastered by it, and the Thorians think of him as the Emperor reborn.

Similarly, the most extreme "anti-psychic" Inquisitors are almost as dangerously "heretical" as the most extreme users of psychic powers- being on the brink of condemning the Emperor himself, for being psychic.

Interesting, thank you.


Such a character would probably be unaligned (Neutral) at first, but eventually, the more he does Evil acts (regardless of the reasons) moving toward Evil alignment (unless he chooses to repent and atone)- so when the DM can say "Evil acts are now pretty much routine for you" the guy has finally crossed the line.

Wouldn't make much of a difference to things that affect alignment.

So unaligned, is or would, be the same as neutral. Okay. Is atoning a good act?

hamishspence
2010-08-18, 08:21 AM
Evil people can atone for good acts too.

That said, using FC2, only Evil and Lawful acts seem to apply a "taint" that has to be removed via atoning.

Think of it as, not adding "Good points" but removing all your Evil points.

So, a Neutral person who commits an act of evil, than atones for it, is still Neutral- the atonement is not a good act in itself overall (though good acts may be a part of it) it's a "removal of the taint of evil acts".

darkpuppy
2010-08-18, 08:24 AM
I might have actually misread your question that time. but to be fair, I've answered your original question quite coherently for all that.

Btw, ladies and gents: New translation of original question for ya - "I want to discuss moral relativism and other philosophical concepts for a day or three."

The whole point of the alignment system is to a) give you a framework for your character's intentions/actions/background, and b) to allow certain system effects to occur in game without tedious lists. For example, why bother saying holy water hurts [long list o' creatures], when you can just say "It hurts evil things."?

But you are not technically true on the idea of N being extreme inwards. If you arrange the diagram slightly, you will instead have an XY graph. Evil is negative X (purely arbitrary), Good is positive X. Similarly, Chaotic and Lawful are negative and positive respectively. Neutral is at the middle, it is not, in fact, at the farthest possible edge. This is how most players really visualise the alignment diagram. But even if it were the original diagram, it is not at an edge, therefore it is not an extreme. It is at the exact median.

DemLep
2010-08-18, 08:26 AM
Ah. Okay that makes sense. What's FC2?
Sorry I don't remember all the aberrations.

hamishspence
2010-08-18, 08:32 AM
The abbreviation FC2 stands for Fiendish Codex 2.

Or, to give it its full name: Fiendish Codex 2: Tyrants of the Nine Hells.

It has a list of evil acts, called Corrupt acts there, enough of which will send the lawful character to Baator regardless of their alignment and the amount of Good they've done in life- unless they atone, or are repentant at the time of death.

And a list of Lawful (Obesiant) acts.

It describes typical LE "devil-influenced" societies in some detail- actually they sound a lot like typical medieval ones.

DemLep
2010-08-18, 08:33 AM
Btw, ladies and gents: New translation of original question for ya - "I want to discuss moral relativism and other philosophical concepts for a day or three."


Or a week it really depends on how assuming the topic is and what tangents it takes.



The whole point of the alignment system is to a) give you a framework for your character's intentions/actions/background, and b) to allow certain system effects to occur in game without tedious lists. For example, why bother saying holy water hurts [long list o' creatures], when you can just say "It hurts evil things."?


As I've said I understand that the alignment is there to simplify things and I'm fine with it.



But you are not technically true on the idea of N being extreme inwards. If you arrange the diagram slightly, you will instead have an XY graph. Evil is negative X (purely arbitrary), Good is positive X. Similarly, Chaotic and Lawful are negative and positive respectively. Neutral is at the middle, it is not, in fact, at the farthest possible edge. This is how most players really visualise the alignment diagram. But even if it were the original diagram, it is not at an edge, therefore it is not an extreme. It is at the exact median.

I think the example of a circle would be a good example of how I'm looking at it for the point of this topic. What are the two extremes of a circle?

DemLep
2010-08-18, 08:36 AM
The abbreviation FC2 stands for Fiendish Codex 2.

Or, to give it its full name: Fiendish Codex 2: Tyrants of the Nine Hells.

It has a list of evil acts, called Corrupt acts there, enough of which will send the lawful character to Baator regardless of their alignment and the amount of Good they've done in life- unless they atone, or are repentant at the time of death.

And a list of Lawful (Obesiant) acts.

It describes typical LE "devil-influenced" societies in some detail- actually they sound a lot like typical medieval ones.

Ah. I only have the first one.
Is there a CG book to show the opposite point of view?

EDIT: Sorry for the double post. Just not enough posting for me to wait until some else post again.

Amphetryon
2010-08-18, 08:38 AM
What are the two extremes of a circle?Any two points on the circle that are maximum distance from each other in either direction, when measured via the circumference. You can CHOOSE to measure it some other way, but then you're not measuring the same qualities of the circle. Similarly, when measuring Alignment via abstractions the system is plainly not meant to codify, the measurements will not have meaning relative to the actual Alignment system.

DemLep
2010-08-18, 08:42 AM
I see it as the circumference and the center. By any other means you are not looking at the circle, but points on it.

hamishspence
2010-08-18, 08:43 AM
Ah. I only have the first one.
Is there a CG book to show the opposite point of view?

Nope. Might be a bit problematic if there was:

"OK, I've done enough evil and lawful acts to get sent to Baator regardless of how much Good and Chaos I've done and I've done enough chaotic and good acts to get sent to Arborea regardless of how much Evil and Law I've done- PARADOX"

Simpler to just assume it's only Evil and Law that work this way, thanks to the Pact Primeval, which grants Asmodeus a claim on souls that do enough evil (or lawful) deeds.

A CE person who's done enough Lawful deeds and failed to atone- will go to Baator- if the Obesiance system is presumed to work the same way as the corruption system does.

darkpuppy
2010-08-18, 08:46 AM
sorry, sirrah, but I am afraid Amphetryon is also technically correct. As with moral relativism, it all depends on your point of view. All those who dislike philosophy or sociology, kindly [rest of post lost due to semantic corruption. Whether this corruption is purely textual in nature, or more implicative, also depends upon your point of view. :smallbiggrin:]

DemLep
2010-08-18, 08:48 AM
Nope. Might be a bit problematic if there was:

"OK, I've done enough evil and lawful acts to get sent to Baator regardless of how much Good and Chaos I've done and I've done enough chaotic and good acts to get sent to Arborea regardless of how much Evil and Law I've done- PARADOX"

And so the AfterLife War I begins. I mean it would make sense if your going to address one to address the others. As to possible paradox, I'm the writes, if not the DM, could have fun with deciding what happen to you if you qualify for more than one.

Yuki Akuma
2010-08-18, 08:48 AM
I see it as the circumference and the center. By any other means you are not looking at the circle, but points on it.

Those aren't the extreme points of the circle, though. The center of anything is never an extreme.

DemLep
2010-08-18, 08:50 AM
sorry, sirrah, but I am afraid Amphetryon is also technically correct. As with moral relativism, it all depends on your point of view. All those who dislike philosophy or sociology, kindly [rest of post lost due to semantic corruption. Whether this corruption is purely textual in nature, or more implicative, also depends upon your point of view. :smallbiggrin:]

Heh. Point taken... and quoted. Hope you don't mind.

darkpuppy
2010-08-18, 08:54 AM
*chuckles* you'd know if I minded. I'd remove your [further semantic corruption, but more obviously involving interrupted biological functions in extremely painful ways involving a gerbil and some cherries...]

DemLep
2010-08-18, 08:54 AM
Those aren't the extreme points of the circle, though. The center of anything is never an extreme.

A point a view I do not sure and could prove wrong. Though won't cause you would likely just disagree and say there was something wrong with how I proved it.

Yuki Akuma
2010-08-18, 08:56 AM
A point a view I do not sure and could prove wrong. Though won't cause you would likely just disagree and say there was something wrong with how I proved it.

"I could prove it, but I won't, because you'd say I proved it badly". Okay.

There are no "points of view" when it comes to geometry, sir.

DemLep
2010-08-18, 09:00 AM
"I could prove it, but I won't, because you'd say I proved it badly". Okay.

There are no "points of view" when it comes to geometry, sir.

Point of view. Looking at the circle as a whole. What it the opposite of the circumference? Like wise what is the opposite of the center?

Oh just thought of another way of looking at it. What is the farthest point that can enter into before they begin to leave the forest.

darkpuppy
2010-08-18, 09:04 AM
Silly boy! The center is opposite the center! You're not thinking in enough dimensions, m'lad! all this 2-dimensional thinking will hurt your head! :smallamused:

DemLep
2010-08-18, 09:07 AM
Silly boy! The center is opposite the center! You're not thinking in enough dimensions, m'lad! all this 2-dimensional thinking will hurt your head! :smallamused:

I was going to go with 4 dimensions, but I think that's a little off topic sense I 4D alignment system would be crazy!

darkpuppy
2010-08-18, 09:12 AM
No, three is fine, but for your average human, it's like watching a disco ball where every opposing mirror-piece shines simultaneously. Can you guess what shape I'm talking about, where the center of the circle is opposite the center of the circle? :P

DemLep
2010-08-18, 09:15 AM
No, three is fine, but for your average human, it's like watching a disco ball where every opposing mirror-piece shines simultaneously. Can you guess what shape I'm talking about, where the center of the circle is opposite the center of the circle? :P

Sorry, too busy staring at the shiny ball.

Toliudar
2010-08-18, 09:15 AM
I think that the problem with the question, as you post in the OP, is that "moderation" is difficult to define as either a moral or ethical term. A lack of commitment to an ideal, I understand. But a commitment to the lack of commitment to an ideal? Who does that? It's a bit like saying that your alignment is "badass". Sounds fun, but doesn't really convey game information.

I believe that this has been paraphrased on the first page, but then kind of glossed over in favour of geometry.

kamikasei
2010-08-18, 09:20 AM
EDIT: Sorry for the double post. Just not enough posting for me to wait until some else post again.
Try the edit function.

DemLep
2010-08-18, 09:22 AM
I think that the problem with the question, as you post in the OP, is that "moderation" is difficult to define as either a moral or ethical term. A lack of commitment to an ideal, I understand. But a commitment to the lack of commitment to an ideal? Who does that? It's a bit like saying that your alignment is "badass". Sounds fun, but doesn't really convey game information.

I believe that this has been paraphrased on the first page, but then kind of glossed over in favour of geometry.

It seems a "solid" idea enough for me, but then again I'm insane.

As for anything post that actually on topic. Yes, some people did address the idea and problems with it or how they'd rule it. However, since then this thread has derailed into a "Your wrong!", "Why?", "Because you are!", "No, I'm not." Thread.

Also, how does the BA alignment fair against Detect evil checks? Though right now I'd put my alignment at SA.

Toliudar
2010-08-18, 09:39 AM
"SA" - Slightly Ass?

Let's try to bring this out of the realm of highly abstract thought into a couple of concrete situations for this character you're describing. How would your 'moderate' view these scenarios:


Goblins have been raiding a halfling village. You have captured a goblin scout, and would like to know when and where the next raid is likely to happen. How would your moderate go about getting this information?
Your moderate is approached on a deserted street by a man dressed in monk's robes, holding a small coin-box. He says that he is collecting to buy food for a nearby district which suffered a loss of their winter stores after a dragon attacked. Your moderate is reasonably flush, and also feels that he could take out the man quietly and quickly, if there was a fight. What would he do?

DemLep
2010-08-18, 10:22 AM
"SA" - Slightly Ass?

I was thinking Smartass.



Let's try to bring this out of the realm of highly abstract thought into a couple of concrete situations for this character you're describing. How would your 'moderate' view these scenarios:


Goblins have been raiding a halfling village. You have captured a goblin scout, and would like to know when and where the next raid is likely to happen. How would your moderate go about getting this information?


Okay going to thow some stuff in to limit factor; I have the ability to do whatever I could possibly think of, that there is nothing that has happen before this that would be a factor to this situation, and I'm solo and cannot gain the help of another.

In such a case my character would probably start with a deal. Something reasonable, but not to much of a benefit to that singular goblin. If refused I would go with normal integration this might include trying to were the goblin down mentally and make better deals I have no intention of keeping as well as what ever else seems fitting at the time. If I continued to get no answer, and for whatever reason truly have decide to help the halflings, would try small amounts of torture. Not stray out beat him till he tells, but more along the wear down his defense more actively.

Now how I would deal with the goblin afterwards would depend on off the interrogation went. If he took the first deal I would honor it. If he did not take the first deal, but caved in eventually I would let him go as is, literally. Strip of all but the minimum clothing. If the goblin hold out till the end I would either keep him as a prisoner if I thought a deal could be struck with another goblin or kill the goblin if he was of no use, for at least it would be one less goblin attacking.



Your moderate is approached on a deserted street by a man dressed in monk's robes, holding a small coin-box. He says that he is collecting to buy food for a nearby district which suffered a loss of their winter stores after a dragon attacked. Your moderate is reasonably flush, and also feels that he could take out the man quietly and quickly, if there was a fight. What would he do?


In this situation with similar factors as the above situation my character would would seek a trade in services. I would do something for need for the village if the "Monk" would do something needed for me. The trade would almost certainly be an uneven one, whether it benefited me more or the village more would depend on other factors.

Rainbownaga
2010-08-18, 10:22 AM
According to the rules, TN can be the most extreme alignment (for varying definitions of extreme) because it is recommended that any character who's alignment is in a constant flux be classed as neutral.

The problem of 'extreme' is largely semantic since the word doesn't work so well without a context. If you mean 'diverse' I would agree since neutrality covers moral relativism (animals do things that are 'evil' but they get away with it since they're stupid), complete lack of moral direction action whatsoever, and as a stand in for an entirely labile alignment (including the one in the OP).

So in some senses TN is the most extreme alignment- It has the biggest variance within itself (ranging from holding no moral/ethical stances to having a flux of many or all moral/ethical stances) and both can be considered extremes of alignment.

The OP made my brain hurt and was so full of paradoxes that I don't think anyone would play such a character, but the alignment system does cover it (I would quote, but I can't even remember whether it was PHB or DMG)

DemLep
2010-08-18, 10:28 AM
According to the rules, TN can be the most extreme alignment (for varying definitions of extreme) because it is recommended that any character who's alignment is in a constant flux be classed as neutral.

The problem of 'extreme' is largely semantic since the word doesn't work so well without a context. If you mean 'diverse' I would agree since neutrality covers moral relativism (animals do things that are 'evil' but they get away with it since they're stupid), complete lack of moral direction action whatsoever, and as a stand in for an entirely labile alignment (including the one in the OP).

So in some senses TN is the most extreme alignment- It has the biggest variance within itself (ranging from holding no moral/ethical stances to having a flux of many or all moral/ethical stances) and both can be considered extremes of alignment.

The OP made my brain hurt and was so full of paradoxes that I don't think anyone would play such a character, but the alignment system does cover it (I would quote, but I can't even remember whether it was PHB or DMG)

I would, have, played such character. Normally I go with TN with such I character, because it is the simplest way to do such. But I wanted others opinions on the matter.

As for your use of extreme it is true and one other the reasons I normally go with neutral for such a character, but it is not the view of extreme that I meant.

If you do happen to remember where it's at please let me know.