PDA

View Full Version : Chaotic SMART! Destupidizing the alignments



Lord Raziere
2011-01-15, 12:44 AM
I have been thinking.

what my thoughts are, is that there is no such thing as chaotic stupid or lawful stupid or stupid good or anything like that. there is just plain Stupid, the tenth alignment, and that if you are Stupid, you don't belong in any of the other nine alignments, because you are being Stupid.

furthermore, I'm thinking that since good does what is Right, evil does what is Wrong, and Neutral is neither, Neutral must therefore not take any consideration of right or wrong at all. Neutral, must be thinking without any moral concern at all and must instead be thinking smart and logically. a neutral character does not care if an action is right- they care if it is smart. a good character would sacrifice themselves if it was the right thing to do. a neutral character wouldn't because sacrificing yourself isn't Smart, and therefore good does what is Right, Evil does what is Wrong, and Neutral does what is Smart.

A neutral character, would therefore save the world, because it is Smart to save the world- after all, you live in it, its only logical it make sure it keeps existing, morality has nothing to do with it. Neutral characters oppose evil characters because doing something Wrong is, most of the time, not Smart, however there are acts that Good does that is not Smart, which neutral doesn't do either. Neutral does not care about the morality of the action, but the logic of it.

a true neutral person is therefore purely rational and unbiased towards any beliefs others have in its assessment of what it does, doing purely what is considered Smart and Logical. a Lawful neutral person does what will logically keep the status quo running and the chaotic neutral will logically and rationally figure out the smartest way to enjoy and protect their freedom.

In short, Neutral characters figure out the smartest most logical/rational way to do what they want to do with morality taking a back seat. a hero that does more Smart things than Right things is neutral, as well as villain doing more Smart things than Wrong things.

what do people think of my interpretation here?

VanBuren
2011-01-15, 01:05 AM
What about a character who does smart things for the purpose of accomplishing the RIGHT thing, or a character who is neither smart or rational?

Silus
2011-01-15, 01:16 AM
What about a character who does smart things for the purpose of accomplishing the RIGHT thing, or a character who is neither smart or rational?

Like a low-wisdom Dwarf Fighter that uses an Adamantite axe to slow his fall by digging it into the leg of the giant turtle he just jumped off of?

God I hate low wisdom characters....

Psyren
2011-01-15, 01:17 AM
The problem is that you have to define "Smart." What is a good idea or even logical in the short term may not be so for the long term, and vice versa.

As an example, a red dragon has enslaved a village, and demands periodic sacrifice in the form of one of the village's virgin daughters every X years. Otherwise, he will brutally slay the oldest male child in each household. He will also do this if the village attempts to rebel. No one in the village is strong enough to defeat him, and the dragon (being a dragon and all) will live long enough to plague entire generations if he is not stopped.

What would the "Smart" solution be to such dilemma? A short-run uprising, resulting in the deaths of dozens or even hundreds, that isn't even assured of success? Acceding to his wishes while allowing the village youths to grow (hopefully) into dragonslayers? Risking the beast's wrath by putting out a call for adventurers? Resigning themselves to serving the vile creature's whims until it passes on?

I would wager that most people - across alignments - want the world to continue existing. That's not a source of conflict save for the mentally unstable. The difference between the alignments lies in what they feel is the best way of accomplishing that goal (or letting it accomplish itself.)

Talon Sky
2011-01-15, 01:29 AM
My two copper pieces.

Good and Evil often isn't about doing right or wrong. Good is often being Selfless, while Evil is being Selfish. There are exceptions and extremes, but this is often true. Very few bad people do bad things simply for the sake of Evil, they do bad things because it gets them what they want the fastest.

Good, on the other hand, is about sacrificing what one has, or being in service to, one's community and the world as a whole. People are Good because it's socially acceptable most of the time, and because it betters the lives around you. Say a person in a wheelchair falls: you don't help them up (once again, there are extremes) simply because it's socially the right thing to do. A truly Good person helps the fallen man because it will help and make that man's life easier....vs. trying to get re-situated himself, and losing his own time.

A truly Evil person would probably take advantage of the situation and, say, rob the fallen man. They don't do this simply to do Wrong, an Evil person does this to further their own goals (using the stolen money for whatever they desire to buy).

I agree with your assessment of Neutrality, though. On the Law-Chaos scale, a Neutral does what is smartest or most convenient at the moment, either not caring about social balance or doing what is needed to retain balance. The Good-Evil scale represents the same thought.

Don't rule out True Neutrals that are dedicated to neutrality as an ideal, after all. I love playing these kinds of characters ;p

Elfin
2011-01-15, 01:48 AM
The big, big problem here is that 'good', 'bad', 'smart', and 'stupid' are all entirely subjective. Essentially, you're judging the logic and morality of the entire world based on your own views - and yes, of course we all do that naturally, but in a shared activity it's bound to cause conflict.

Which is in itself, I think, a big problem with the alignment system.

That's why I'm a big supporter of the selfish vs. selfless rather than good vs. bad comparison.

JonestheSpy
2011-01-15, 03:17 AM
Well, first I think the premise that neutral = amoral isn't correct. It may apply to a few folks, but mostly I figure neutral is just average - knowing right from wrong, basically decent, but also likely to choose self-interest over the moral choice when push comes to shove. Not actively benevolent enough to be Good, not malevolent or selfish enough to be Evil.

Second, I don't think that amoral = smart and logical, either. Yes, an emotionless machine might be more "logical" than a person, but that can also mean that it realizes that the needs of the many are of greater value than the needs of the few, and therefore it is logical to act in a way that benefits the most people, not selfishly. There's a reason why the logical Vulcans are part of the Good Guys in the Trekverse, you know.

The idea that always putting one's self interest first=smart is also one rejected by lots of folks throughout history. In game terms, a smart character is one with a high INT score, not one who subscribes to a particular alignment.

Dienekes
2011-01-15, 03:28 AM
Jones says it better than I can, but I'll reiterate. Smart is not measured by alignment, it is measured by Int and Wis. Being neutral doesn't mean you follow your goals more intelligently it just means you have (overall) neutral goals or neutral reasons or means to obtain those goals.

If a good characters goal is to save as many people as possible, he will try to do that goal as intelligently as his modifiers allow. If a good character has to sacrifice some to save the many, or whatever, they will perform as their character allows. Just because a character is good, doesn't mean he'll hesitate to do the best thing overall, and just because a character is neutral doesn't mean he wont.

I also don't think that morals need to take a back seat in order to do the correct thing, as you seem to. Quite the contrary really.

ffone
2011-01-15, 04:44 AM
You've forgotten "reputation effects".

Consider the classic Lawful Good quandary of doing 'stupid' things like not slaying someone, which exposes you (and perhaps other innocents) to some future risk of the person escaping or doing more bad deeds.

(For this discussion I'll be speaking of this sort of Lawful Good, not the Crusade-Nazi-Fascist-Theocrat type that some people love to create characters of just so they can hate on it.)

For a random adventurer, this sort of behavior might be tactically suboptimal.

But if you're a paladin who is part of some defined, known-of order or church, it can have advanced: enemies are willing to surrender rather than fight to the death (which they won't if they expect to be slain if captured). They may be more willing to negotiate if they think the paladin won't attack unprovoked. Basically, the same practical concerns that motivate some of the 'rules of warfare' in RL.

Also, if you get a reputation for being a good person, to the point of sometimes making little sacrifices, other adventurers might be more willing to work with you. They might be more willing to let you take a bigger share of the loot when it consists of items you can make best use of, since they trust you'll make it up to them later.

Basically, the same practical concerns that motivate many RL social mores. "Reciprocity."

It's understandable that you've ignored reputation effects, b/c it's true they get ignored in most campaigns. Often, no matter how high level the PCs are, their 'reputation' in the campaign world is ignored, they automatically trust one another b/c of the PC Aura (metagaming), and are in some dungeon rather than having to earn quest-clients and make allies.

Also, IMO your arguments for Neutral would apply better to Neutral Evil. You seem to basically be arguing for 'pure rational self-interest'. A smart Neutral Evil character will act this way, but be smart about not being visible 'evil' when it might make them a fugitive or social pariah. A Neutral character will sometimes pass up opportunities that would be evil to act upon (although many may never be presented such opportunities). You seem to imply all Evil characters do some Wrong for the sake of doing some Wrong. That's true for some but not all.

Rainbownaga
2011-01-15, 04:50 AM
The fact that animals are by default neutral has made me view that a lot of people are too quick to throw others into the "evil" basket.

I can see why someone with Machiavellian methods may come off as evil, but, in a game world at least, I like to reserve Evil for those that delight and indulge in the suffering of others. This is stupid evil, but it's not unrealistic. There are those that delight in evil, and a fantasy world allows for creatures that delight in it even more than the real world.

A cat toys with mice for sport, but only a sentient being has the capacity to appreciate that others have feelings, and when you go against that you cause suffering in the other.

Thus there are four catagories

Good- Tries to avert suffering
Neutal- Neither tries to inflict nor prevent suffering
Evil- Knowingly causes suffering as a byproduct of some other action
True Evil- Causes suffering for it's own ammusement

ffone
2011-01-15, 04:52 AM
You don't have to delight in evil to be evil. Animals get a pass b/c they're not even smart enough to consider what they're doing might be evil, that the prey may feel fear and pain, etc. An intelligent creature that, like an animal, only slays for personal gain can still be evil. "You should know better," as they say.

PersonMan
2011-01-15, 05:23 AM
Thus there are four catagories

Good- Tries to avert suffering
Neutal- Neither tries to inflict nor prevent suffering
Evil- Knowingly causes suffering as a byproduct of some other action
True Evil- Causes suffering for it's own ammusement

I usually have neutral be more like an average person-they don't want people to suffer, but they aren't going to expend large amounts of effort or resources to help people they don't know.

I see the difference between Good and Neural as the difference between someone who donates some spare money to help victims of the latest natural disaster, while a Good person is more likely to be one of the people flying thousands of miles to help these people.

I agree with ffone. A Neutral person is probably looking out for themselves and their close friends/allies, but they're Neutral because they don't do the most logical thing even if it means the deaths of innocents-they might do some things that aren't Good, but they'll refrain from things that are too Evil just as they wouldn't spend their vacations helping build orphanages or something.

FelixG
2011-01-15, 05:45 AM
Good isn't right and Evil isn't wrong.

There can be times that both are reversed and they are purely subjective.

Killing that goblin that is stealing from the village may be Good and Right to you but the lil goblin family it was stealing to feed considers your actions neither good nor right.

Comet
2011-01-15, 08:08 AM
Good isn't right and Evil isn't wrong.


Actually, I'd argue that it sort of is. It's right there in the definition of the word and all.

You might be accomplishing good things with your Evil acts, but the acts themselves are still Evil and, as such, 'wrong'. It's a cosmic judgement, not based on culture or personal bias. Evil is Evil, there is little to redeem it from being such.
They might be okay with being Evil and think that it is necessary, but they are still, in a way, wrong. They could be Good, but either circumstance or choice have driven them over the threshold and now they are not willing to come back.
They are not only seen as Evil by the Good, they most often see themselves as Evil and understand what it means.

Slipperychicken
2011-01-15, 08:17 AM
As others have said, generalized intelligence/stupidity/rationality is already mechanically represented by things like Int, Wis, and Skills. I like to think that alignment should be an extremely generalized *reflection* of how individual characters have already acted, rather than being definitive of that characters personalities and saying "Oh no, you can't do THAT, you're not the right alignment" .


Chaotic Evil doesn't mean Chaotic Stupid. Think of the [Dark Knight] Joker: he's definitely CE, but he's extremely intelligent and well-spoken, makes plans that work, and *is* goal-oriented; it's just that his goal is Truly Epic Lulz amusement from violently murdering and humiliating other people. This comes as a problem only when people a) use it to justify being obnoxious OOC, or b) start thinking that chaotic means lethally impulsive.


But more importantly: You should try your best to create and roleplay your characters personality without taking alignment into account, and THEN look at the guidelines and ask "Hmm... which of these fits my character concept best?". This will probably get rid of most of your Stupid issues, as players will be trying their darndest to RP Larry the Swordsage rather than Larry the LG-Perfect D*****bag or Larry the Lethally-Impulsive Kleptomanic.

You can also mandate your players get DM approval for potentially-horrifying characters, and cherrypick the worst examples out

Tengu_temp
2011-01-15, 09:30 AM
I usually have neutral be more like an average person-they don't want people to suffer, but they aren't going to expend large amounts of effort or resources to help people they don't know.

I see the difference between Good and Neural as the difference between someone who donates some spare money to help victims of the latest natural disaster, while a Good person is more likely to be one of the people flying thousands of miles to help these people.

I'd say that donating even some money counts as a good act here, even if a minor one. A neutral character will most likely not do anything, thinking that it's not their business - they might help someone with some minor things if approached directly, but other than that they look out for themselves and their friends and family.


But more importantly: You should try your best to create and roleplay your characters personality without taking alignment into account, and THEN look at the guidelines and ask "Hmm... which of these fits my character concept best?".

Indeed. In fact, this approach lets you eliminate alignment entirely, which most RPGs other than DND did already a long time ago.

hamishspence
2011-01-18, 03:19 PM
You don't have to delight in evil to be evil. Animals get a pass b/c they're not even smart enough to consider what they're doing might be evil, that the prey may feel fear and pain, etc. An intelligent creature that, like an animal, only slays for personal gain can still be evil. "You should know better," as they say.

Agreed. Indeed, a being might genuinely hate the thought of others suffering- yet believe that inflicting a large amount of suffering is "necessary for the survival of society".

At the most extreme, you can end up with a state that tortures people to death for relatively minor offences- as "deterrent"- and the judges in this state could qualify as Lawful Evil.

Even if the judges hate the thought of imposing such sentences, or the sight of the victims suffering- it doesn't matter what they think about it, only that they do it.

Evil acts, and evil alignment, don't have to be tied to selfishness, or sadism, after all.

Foryn Gilnith
2011-01-18, 03:48 PM
Logic isn't a thing that's just floating out there on its own. It requires premises to build up from - morals, so to say. If you don't have bias you don't have jack squat; you need a bias towards taking action, at the very least, to do anything. If characters see "what they want to do" as the highest good, which should have all of their mental capacity dedicated to it, then that's a moral principle right there.

"Neutral does not care about the morality of the action, but the logic of it" is an unusual comment. So a neutral character is fine with any action as long as it logically follows from the philosophical assumptions of the person taking that action? Most great philosophers were "logical", i.e. they constructed arguments competently, yet they arrived at entirely different conclusions due to their divergent premises. Would a neutral person have no grounds to choose between them?

PersonMan
2011-01-18, 03:57 PM
I'd say that donating even some money counts as a good act here, even if a minor one.

Yes, but unless they consistently do good acts, they'll stay neutral.

It depends if you say that a minor good act every now and then will eventually stack up and make a person Good, or if they need more consistent Goodness to become Good.

hamishspence
2011-01-18, 04:04 PM
It depends if you say that a minor good act every now and then will eventually stack up and make a person Good, or if they need more consistent Goodness to become Good.

Consistant minor good acts?

The sort of person who always, whenever the opportunity comes up to help someone in a minor way, does it? Opening doors, helping someone lift something if they're struggling (ask if they want help first)- picking up litter, volunteer manual work at various charities, and so on?

Such a person, while they might not be "taking risks to help others" are genuinely "making sacrifices to help others".

Sacrifices of one of the most irreplacable resources- their time. They only get so much of it.