Alignment quiz

[Yahzi]

In my world there are 6 alignments:

White = Pure Good
Blue = LG
Green = CG
Yellow = LE
Red = CE
Black = Pure Evil
Would you find the following quiz helpful in determining what alignment your character is?

QUESTION 1:
A fellow party member is accused by a merchant of stealing a ring.

White: Pay for the ring out of your own pocket to keep the merchant quiet. Question your party member later; if guilty, demand restitution; if innocent, demand the party locates the real thief for restitution.

Blue: Use a truth spell to determine if your fellow is guilty. If so, help the town guard subdue him and take him into custody. If not, charge the merchant for the cost of the spell for wasting your time.

Green: Loudly attest to your fellow's integrity, and threaten the merchant with reprisal if he persists in his baseless accusations. Privately, weigh all the other times your fellow has been accused and wonder if there might be something to it.

Yellow: Loudly attest to your fellow's integrity, and threaten the merchant with reprisal if he persists in his baseless accusations. Privately, demand half the value of the ring from your party member.

Red: Chortle at your fellow's difficulties. Later, reveal that you are the one who actually stole the ring.

Black: Murder the merchant. Then demand the ring from your party member, because you "earned" it.


QUESTION 2:
You come across a group of men attacking a woman. She is half-naked and armed with a bloody kitchen knife; they are wearing swords but using clubs to beat her.

White: Offer to disarm the woman for them. If they agree, arrange it so that you can privately interview the woman and ascertain the facts. If she is a victim, heal her and send her to safety, and deal with the men so as to guarantee they will not harm her again (ranging from promises, threats, greases, or death, as necessary). If she is guilty of a crime, see that she gets fair trial and punishment.

Blue: Demand the men cease at once and explain themselves. If they do not, attack them and drive them off. If they do explain themselves satisfactorily, still wonder aloud why it takes several swordsmen to capture a housewife.

Green: You already attacked the men after the first sentence.

Yellow: Stop the men long enough to determine if saving the girl yields a worthy reward. If capturing her yields a greater reward, drive the men off with threats or violence and take her captive yourself.

Red: If she's pretty, kill the men and take her for yourself. If she's not, tell them to stop making so much noise; if any take umbrage at your demand, kill them.

Black: Set the woman on fire, arguing that if she was innocent, you have spared her any further distress, but if she was guilty, she deserved to die. If the men complain, animate her corpse and have it carry out whatever action they were hoping for (if they were bent on immodesty, this is likely to require you to also kill all of them, and animate even more corpses to make sure things are done properly).


QUESTION 3:
A fellow party member has contracted an embarrassing situation after immodest behavior with a tavern wench. You have two potions of Remove Disease.

White: Give one to your fellow, and one to the tavern wench.

Blue: Sell one to your fellow (on credit if necessary), and warn the tavern wench to cease her illicit activities until she is cured (sell her the other potion if she can afford it, or if you aren't saving it for a specific purpose).

Green: Give one to your fellow, and complain to the tavern keeper about the quality of his inn.

Yellow: Sell one to your fellow at a high markup, and demand a bribe from the tavern keeper to keep you from notifying the constabulary or the other customers.

Red: Give one to your fellow, but only after he has defended his honor by killing the wench. Demand the price of the potion from the tavern keeper, and burn his inn down if he can't pay.

Black: You drank both potions yesterday, when you had a stomach ache. Suggest that an appropriate response is to leave without paying the bill. Set fire to the inn to create a diversion while you sneak out.


QUESTION 4:
You sneak into a castle to liberate a princess from her captor. But once in her presence, she explains that she ran away of her own desire, to marry the baron of this castle for love and to avoid the marriage her father has arranged to a neighboring king in the hopes that it would bring peace between their realms.

White: Leave and go to the neighboring king. Negotiate a peace treaty (by threatening to take sides, if necessary).

Blue: Determine if the king is a suitable match (i.e., if he is of the same alignment as the princess). If so, carry her off to do her duty. If not, return to her father empty-handed and question why he made such a bad match in the first place.

Green: Demand that the baron join you and the father in defeating the neighboring king.

Yellow: Demand that the baron double the father's reward. If he can't, capture both him and the princess, and return them to the father in the hopes of gaining an extra reward.

Red: If she's pretty, kill the baron and take her for yourself. If she’s not, kill the baron and take her to her father.

Black: Kill the princess and the baron, set fire to the castle, and make it look like troops of the neighboring king did it. Offer to fight for the father, taking command of a large portion of his troops. Secretly contact the neighboring king and betray the troops to their death in exchange for a huge bribe. Later, go to the neighboring king and set his castle on fire.

[Telonius]

For question 3: a Yellower response would be to set up a store selling Lesser Restoration potions (at high markup) somewhere in the vicinity, while bribing the tavern wench to not get a Remove Disease cast on her. (Offer her free Lesser Restoration if necessary).

[rockdeworld]

No, because it's very obvious what alignment I'll get based on my choices. I have the same problem with interest quizzes. They're more for helping me see what I think my interests are than to discover them.

On a side note, any alternate alignment system makes me think of this (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=23508), which I recommend (14th post down by Frank Trollman)

[Pickford]

I would also object to your characterization of what actions a 'true good' (i.e. neutral good despite you lacking neutral on the sheet) alignment would do.

In most cases the 'true good' character is acting almost neutral evil. (Assisting a gang of possible thugs in attacking a single person with no questions asked? Yeah...that's evil.)

Also, good does not equal stupid. Question 1: Paying for the ring, again no questions asked.

And blue (presumed lawful good) requires you to violate another person's personal freedom (subjecting them to a truth spell against their wishes) that's not lawful, nor is it good.

Edit:

For the later questions you're conflating legality with morality, so unless your characters inhabit a theocracy where it is the law to do 'x' it is not lawful behavior to scold someone for doing something. The unwarranted intrusiveness is more along the lines of lawful evil.

[Yahzi]

In most cases the 'true good' character is acting almost neutral evil.
Er... what?

What you read as assisting the gang, I read as taking control of the situation. Paying for the ring out of your own pocket is the good thing to do, because the merchant is suffering and you can alleviate it. Later you will make the evildoer pay for his crimes; that's kind of what good guys do, see, is wander around, finding acts of evil, and righting them...


And blue (presumed lawful good) requires you to violate another person's personal freedom (subjecting them to a truth spell against their wishes) that's not lawful, nor is it good.
You seem to have mistaken the 5th amendment for a moral principle. I suspect that if truth spells worked, the Founding Fathers would not have objected to self-incrimination; after all, courts take witnesses into the stand and compel them to tell the truth without compunction.


For the later questions you're conflating legality with morality,
What the quiz is supposed to illustrate is the expanding circle of rights; that is, how wide a net do you cast when deciding who is deserving of moral consideration.

White = everybody
Blue = everybody who follows the rules
Green = your friends
Yellow = anyone who can make you a profit
Red = anyone who scares you
Black = no one, not even yourself

If you got something else out of it, the test needs refinement.

[Yahzi]

set up a store selling Lesser Restoration potions (at high markup) somewhere in the vicinity
That's so wicked it almost seems Goldenrod. :D



rockdeworld
Ya, Frank Trollman is great. I love his Dungeonomicon.


(sorry for the double-post but clicked the wrong button)

[Pickford]

Er... what?

Neutral evil. Neutral in that the behaviors depicted are neither lawful nor chaotic and evil in that they are often evil. A neutral good character would seek to aid, not to aid others. The white option provided seeks to dominate others and impose their own will. That is evil.


What you read as assisting the gang, I read as taking control of the situation. Paying for the ring out of your own pocket is the good thing to do, because the merchant is suffering and you can alleviate it. Later you will make the evildoer pay for his crimes; that's kind of what good guys do, see, is wander around, finding acts of evil, and righting them...

Seeking to dominate others is evil as defined in the alignment section of the PHB. As the character in question is not a legal authority they have no right to detain, or magically question anyone.


You seem to have mistaken the 5th amendment for a moral principle. I suspect that if truth spells worked, the Founding Fathers would not have objected to self-incrimination; after all, courts take witnesses into the stand and compel them to tell the truth without compunction.

I was referring to the character lecturing the barmaid about morality, not the violation of a suspect's personal rights as defined 'in reality'. However, since you brought it up, if truth spells worked in real life it would be the moral equivalent of raping someone to use it on them without their permission.


What the quiz is supposed to illustrate is the expanding circle of rights; that is, how wide a net do you cast when deciding who is deserving of moral consideration.

White = everybody
Blue = everybody who follows the rules
Green = your friends
Yellow = anyone who can make you a profit
Red = anyone who scares you
Black = no one, not even yourself

If you got something else out of it, the test needs refinement.

You said White was 'good' (i.e. neutral good) but the answers as defined don't treat people as co-equal, and suspend good sense in many of them. (To paraphrase darth helmet, 'evil will win because good is dumb')

Blue was supposed to be lawful good, lawful good does not only give moral consideration to those who follow the rules, lawful good means 'you' act as a good person would while following the rules. An example: A kind officer of the law who treats his prisoners well, but never would let one go.

Green was listed as Chaotic Good, which definitely doesn't mean you only give moral consideration to your friends.

The rest suffer from similar deficiencies. Now, if you wish to completely alter the alignment system that is fine, but claiming the scenarios laid out are supposed to be representative of the original alignment system is misleading.

[White_Drake]

However, since you brought it up, if truth spells worked in real life it would be the moral equivalent of raping someone to use it on them without their permission.

Just going to point out that it's contested that real world morality even exists; I believe you mean ethical.

[Pickford]

Just going to point out that it's contested that real world morality even exists; I believe you mean ethical.

Morality is personal, ethics are social contract based. I would dispute the notion that morals can't exist, that would be to assume there are no people to have them.

But yes, you were right I should have said it was an ethical flaw, since presumably it would be society at large that would look down on the violation of the individual.

I suppose you could create a universe where the individual has no expectation of rights, but in that case no character would care if a party member stole because the shopkeeper has no expectation of anyone 'not' stealing.

[White_Drake]

Apparently, either I misinterpreted the source from which I originally learned the definition of morality, or they were wrong. Sorry, my understanding was that morality was objective, and therefore one could argue that it could not possibly exist.

[Phelix-Mu]

Apparently, either I misinterpreted the source from which I originally learned the definition of morality, or they were wrong. Sorry, my understanding was that morality was objective, and therefore one could argue that it could not possibly exist.

There are both subjective and objective morality, and these two things don't cohabitate well, if you know what I mean.

Subjective morality asserts that what are moral principles and behaviors among one group of people aren't necessarily moral principles and behaviors among a separate group of people. Right and Wrong are determined by culture and circumstance, and are reduced from the empirical to the circumstantial (right and wrong, not Right and Wrong).

Objective morality asserts that a given principle x is Right or Wrong, and must always be so everywhere, regardless of circumstance or culture or w/e. Right and Wrong, not right and wrong.

Upon reflection, it appears that they are mutually exclusive, as I'd suspected.

There are philosophical schools of thought that try to prove each position, as one would expect. I was a big fan of Kant's form of argument in high school, though I'm not sure I can cleave as tightly to his conclusion as he seemed to. Perhaps that is because I understand that my personal ability/right to judge the morality of others is extremely fallible, as am I generally, being but one person stuck in a moment in time, views colored by past experiences, as are everyone's. However, it doesn't hold that, just because true definition of Right and Wrong may be beyond the scope of individual human understanding, that there are therefor no Right and Wrong. It equally, though, doesn't imply that there is Right and Wrong, either. As a part-time fan of moral behavior, though, subjectivism is troubling, nowhere more so than when applied to morality.

[Yahzi]

Not quite the direction I was intending the conversation to go... :smallbiggrin:

I do have to say I find the distinction between ethics and morality to be disingenous, if it exists only to define morality out of existence. So I'm going to continue to talk about morality, meaning the principles that underlay specific ethical decisions.


There are both subjective and objective morality
There's actually a third category, called absolute morality. Generally speaking, people use objective when they mean absolute (as you have), but they're not quite the same.

For example, assume KuoTao reproduce by laying thousands of eggs, knowing only a handful of tadpoles will live long enough to grow out of the larval stage.

Among humans it is obviously considered immoral to eat babies, because any community that routinely did so would pretty quickly cease to exist. This is a fact that supersedes any local or arbitrary social standard.

However, among the KuoTao, the same act is merely rude.

Thus we have an example of an objective moral, in the sense that it is dictated by real-world concerns beyond the reach of social artifice; while not absolute, in the sense that there are moral agents who would not find it immoral.

So it's possible to discuss objective morality (is this act immoral for biological reasons), subjective morality (is this act immoral for cultural reasons) and absolute morality (is this act immoral for all moral agents everywhere, under any circumstances).

I agree that absolute morality becomes a pretty difficult or even meaningless concept under that definition. I also happen to agree that subjective morality doesn't seem to look much like what we mean by morality. Which leaves objective as the only interesting category.

In the D&D world, where moral development is an objectively measurable quantity (thanks, Detect Evil!), and yet at the same time there are species that clearly have different biological constraints, it all gets very interesting.

I do have a single ultimate moral principle that qualifies as absolute, in that it applies equally to all sentient beings (I hasten to add - this principle only exists in my game world!). In all other regards my alignment system is based of tiers of moral development, which are really just wider and wider circles of whom you count as worth moral consideration. Nobody includes rocks; everybody sane includes themselves.

So the KuoTao, who do not wish to have brothers eaten, recognize that for humans babies are more analogous to brothers than to tadpoles, and hence refrain from unsavory snacking.

Still, you know, with KuoTao, there are going to be... accidents.



my understanding was that morality was objective, and therefore one could argue that it could not possibly exist.
This makes sense if you mean absolute, rather than objective. However, in the D&D world, morality is pretty clearly objective, since some swords and books can discern whether you're moral enough for them.



Neutral in that the behaviors depicted are neither lawful nor chaotic and evil in that they are often evil. A neutral good character would seek to aid, not to aid others. The white option provided seeks to dominate others and impose their own will. That is evil.
Mmm... still with the "What?"

Killing someone is pretty clearly imposing your will on them. By your definition, anyone that kills anyone for any reason is therefore not good. This is going to come as a surprise to a lot of Paladins.

Also, with the "seek to aid, not to aid others..."? What are they aiding, if not others?

Finally, that's why I didn't call them Neutral Good. You will note that terminology appears nowhere in my post. There is a reason for this. The reason is that the term Neutral is too confusing, when what we are looking for is "Pure" good, untainted by concerns about Law or Chaos.


Seeking to dominate others is evil as defined in the alignment section of the PHB. As the character in question is not a legal authority they have no right to detain, or magically question anyone.
So, when orcs pour over the walls and start killing townspeople, your heroes stand there and wait to be deputized before they draw their swords?

I'm not sure why any Paladin anywhere really cares about legal authority. He has divine authority, which, frankly, is probably good enough for him. Clerics too, come to think of it: why should the servant of a god care about what some dude in a shiny hat said? Unless said shiny hat-guy can smash your face in, but then it's not really a question of morality anymore.


I was referring to the character lecturing the barmaid about morality,
You think it's beyond the pale to lecture someone on their alleged moral crimes? Man, you must really have a problem with Paladins. Or, you know, Clerics. Of pretty much any stripe.


However, since you brought it up, if truth spells worked in real life it would be the moral equivalent of raping someone to use it on them without their permission.
You neglect the fact (which I explicitly mentioned in my response) that courts already exercise the right to force you to testify to the truth. You need not even have committed a crime to be called in to court, sworn to truth, and faced with dire penalties if you lie or even remain silent. You need merely be a witness. Ergo, by your definition, courts already commit mind-rape.

The only time the 5th amendment applies is when your testimony is about you. You cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself (and by legal convention, your spouse is considered part of yourself), but you absolutely, most certainly can be compelled to incriminate others. I have never heard this practice characterized as immoral before, so points on originality.

The reason this amendment was adopted was to discourage the State from torturing people to get a confession; and the reason this was a problem was that people had noticed that those who were tortured often gave confessions even when it turned out they weren't actually guilty. If courts had a way to compel you to truth that was a) not physically dangerous, and b) reliable, they would jump on it in a New York minute.

The whole "concern for your dignity" thing kind of already went out the window when they dragged you out of your house, handcuffed you in front of your kids, strip-searched you and threw you in jail prior to any actual proof of guilt.


Green was listed as Chaotic Good, which definitely doesn't mean you only give moral consideration to your friends.
It is my contention that CG means exactly that. The standard interpretation, of a person who is usually good but randomly not, strikes me as worse than useless.

Instead, when one looks at what we intuitively expect of CG characters, we see a lot of concern for people they identify with, while a lot less concern for people they don't (orcs, goblins, the bad guys, etc.) Your typical murder hobo who nonethless gives to orphans, supports the king, and thinks of himself as Good while he's kicking down non-human's doors, stabbing them in the face, and taking their stuff is what I think of as CG.


The rest suffer from similar deficiencies. Now, if you wish to completely alter the alignment system that is fine, but claiming the scenarios laid out are supposed to be representative of the original alignment system is misleading.
I think your arguments have shown a certain amount of deficiencies themselves. That said, I'm not sure where I stated that I was attempting to establish the unarguable definitions of the original alignment system, given that I specifically used terms not found in the original alignment system to describe mine.

Indeed, the opening post says,


In my world, there are six alignments

That might have been a clue that, you know, I was talking about my alignment system. :smallsmile:

[TuggyNE]

(assorted cogent arguments)

Gotta say, that was pretty nicely done.

(In particular, the emphasis that CG inconsistency is found mostly in being selective about who they act Good toward is interesting, though potentially problematic. Still, it seems reasonable to a first approximation.)

[Pickford]

Sorry there is alot of territory to cover so I'll likely be updating this post:


Killing someone is pretty clearly imposing your will on them. By your definition, anyone that kills anyone for any reason is therefore not good. This is going to come as a surprise to a lot of Paladins.

It's one thing to kill in self defense or the defense of others, it is another thing to aggressively kill.

So yes, a Paladin who kills even an evil creature that has begged mercy or is a prisoner is committing a purely evil act. A Paladin who kills an evil thing that the Paladin can not prove has done something wrong is also comitting an evil act. Taking the Paladin code to it's natural ends restricts them pretty heavily and can require them to defend even an enemy against their own party if the 'enemy' is innocent of wrongdoing.


Also, with the "seek to aid, not to aid others..."? What are they aiding, if not others? Oops, I totally spaced here, sorry.


Finally, that's why I didn't call them Neutral Good. You will note that terminology appears nowhere in my post. There is a reason for this. The reason is that the term Neutral is too confusing, when what we are looking for is "Pure" good, untainted by concerns about Law or Chaos.

Yeah but that's the textbook definition of neutral good.


So, when orcs pour over the walls and start killing townspeople, your heroes stand there and wait to be deputized before they draw their swords?

Of course not, but surely you recognize the distinction between actively choosing to seek out and harm someone and acting to prevent harm to someone else? (Which I think the two examples in question highlight)


I'm not sure why any Paladin anywhere really cares about legal authority. He has divine authority, which, frankly, is probably good enough for him. Clerics too, come to think of it: why should the servant of a god care about what some dude in a shiny hat said? Unless said shiny hat-guy can smash your face in, but then it's not really a question of morality anymore.

This is really dependent on your conception of a Paladin's duties and what it means to be lawful. If the society has laws, then the 'divine authority' doesn't cut it.


You think it's beyond the pale to lecture someone on their alleged moral crimes? Man, you must really have a problem with Paladins. Or, you know, Clerics. Of pretty much any stripe.

No I just don't think sanctimony qualifies as good.

Edit:

You neglect the fact (which I explicitly mentioned in my response) that courts already exercise the right to force you to testify to the truth. You need not even have committed a crime to be called in to court, sworn to truth, and faced with dire penalties if you lie or even remain silent. You need merely be a witness. Ergo, by your definition, courts already commit mind-rape.

There's a difference between requiring someone to swear to the truth and actually forcing them to tell the truth.

For one thing, eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, whereas magically induced truth telling as far as this game is concerned is completely reliable.


The only time the 5th amendment applies is when your testimony is about you. You cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself (and by legal convention, your spouse is considered part of yourself), but you absolutely, most certainly can be compelled to incriminate others. I have never heard this practice characterized as immoral before, so points on originality.

The reason this amendment was adopted was to discourage the State from torturing people to get a confession; and the reason this was a problem was that people had noticed that those who were tortured often gave confessions even when it turned out they weren't actually guilty. If courts had a way to compel you to truth that was a) not physically dangerous, and b) reliable, they would jump on it in a New York minute.

The whole "concern for your dignity" thing kind of already went out the window when they dragged you out of your house, handcuffed you in front of your kids, strip-searched you and threw you in jail prior to any actual proof of guilt.

I'm not sure why you keep dragging the right to remain silent from real life into the discussion. Sure, you could develop a similar legal system in whatever setting you're playing in, but that wasn't explicitly mentioned.


It is my contention that CG means exactly that. The standard interpretation, of a person who is usually good but randomly not, strikes me as worse than useless.

Instead, when one looks at what we intuitively expect of CG characters, we see a lot of concern for people they identify with, while a lot less concern for people they don't (orcs, goblins, the bad guys, etc.) Your typical murder hobo who nonethless gives to orphans, supports the king, and thinks of himself as Good while he's kicking down non-human's doors, stabbing them in the face, and taking their stuff is what I think of as CG.

To paraphrase the PHB, Chaotic Good just means your moral compass is not aligned with societal norms. i.e. You violate the law to do good. By this you may seek to aid orcs living peacefully when their people are under bounty from a baron (state law). The term murder-hobo gets tossed around alot, those characters who actually view their actions that way have pretty clearly crossed the line from good to something else. (neutral or evil)


That said, I'm not sure where I stated that I was attempting to establish the unarguable definitions of the original alignment system, given that I specifically used terms not found in the original alignment system to describe mine.

Yeah and you provided a key to show what alignments each was supposed to line up with from the original system. Hence the feeling of being misled.

further edit:
It's my contention that any alignment can act in any manner so long as they can find a twisted enough justification for it. (i.e. a Lawful Good character 'can' kill innocents if they are convinced the people are in fact villains who commited awful crimes)

[White_Drake]

I feel a bit out of my league, so I'm just going to bow out. Many thanks to Phelix-Mu and Yahzi though, that was very informative.

[Yahzi]

CG inconsistency is found mostly in being selective about who they act Good toward is interesting, though potentially problematic. Still, it seems reasonable to a first approximation.
I mostly cribbed the system from Kohlberg's (http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/MPA%208300/theories/kohlberg.html) stages of moral development.



It's one thing to kill in self defense or the defense of others, it is another thing to aggressively kill.
I'm pretty sure any act of killing feels quite aggressive to all parties involved.

You've evaded the point, though. You defined imposing your will as evil, when I pointed out killing is imposing your will, you changed the topic.


I'm not sure why you keep dragging the right to remain silent from real life into the discussion.
Because you seem to think it is a moral absolute, as opposed to an objective moral principle arising from the fact that humans don't have truth spells.


No I just don't think sanctimony qualifies as good.
But you define sanctimony as exposing other people to your views on morality. In other words, if anyone ever tries to convince people of their point of view, it's automatically an act of evil. This kind of handicaps Team Good, don't you think?


There's a difference between requiring someone to swear to the truth and actually forcing them to tell the truth.
They put you on the stand, threaten you with fines and prison, ask you to swear on a holy book implying that if you lie you will be punished eternally; what do you suppose the purpose of all that is?

To most people, that feels like compulsion. Whether it is effective or not is really beside the point; it is the most effective compulsion we have available. Therefore to assert that if we had more effective compulsion, we would use it, is not far-fetched; nor does it invalidate the concept of morality to assert that the D&D world would not hesitate to do what we only dream of.

At this point I have to ask: why do you think polygraphs are not allowed as evidence?


A) because it would be an invasion of privacy
B) because they don't work

Your answer here will be instructive.


To paraphrase the PHB, Chaotic Good just means your moral compass is not aligned with societal norms
And now you're off discussing relative morality. Why, it's almost as if you haven't read the rest of the thread.

P.S. In D&D, morality is not about societal norms. It is an objective quality, stretching across planes of existence, measured by the same spell even when cast by members of radically different societies. Mind-Flayers do not Detect as Good to each other.


Of course not, but surely you recognize the distinction between actively choosing to seek out and harm someone and acting to prevent harm to someone else?
Stealing isn't harm? Stopping a thief after he steals but before he steals again doesn't qualify?


Yeah and you provided a key to show what alignments each was supposed to line up with from the original system. Hence the feeling of being misled.
You are now arguing that if I so much as mention D&D's alignment as a reference or starting point, I am misleading, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that I am actually talking exclusively about D&D's canonical rules.

There is another alternative; perhaps you just like arguing, and will willfully misinterpret anything as long as it gives you an excuse to argue.


It's my contention that any alignment can act in any manner so long as they can find a twisted enough justification for it.
Hmm. Several points spring to mind.

1) That is manifestly not what D&D intended by the alignment system.

2) That seems vastly less consistent, comprehensible, or useful than my system.

3) That seems a far more radical interpretation than my system, and far less likely to be what other people think of or are looking for in an alignment system.

4) Given that you are in an argument about the alignment system, you might have mentioned your wholesale repudiation of the entire concept a bit earlier.

5) Yes, you do in fact just like arguing.

6) You really don't understand alignment, or morality for that matter.

7) I think at this point we can all fill in what I'm thinking now.

[Baroncognito]

White: Pay for the ring out of your own pocket to keep the merchant quiet. Question your party member later; if guilty, demand restitution; if innocent, demand the party locates the real thief for restitution.

Why do you automatically trust the merchant when he/she claims that s/he ever had a ring in the first place?

And what if I actually believe the part member is innocent of the crime? I'm sorry, but the choices you're offering are kind of uniformly awful.

[Phelix-Mu]

I do like a thread that teaches me things. Thanks to the Yahzi for adding to my somewhat dusty tome of ethics and morality knowledge. I've been out of school for a bit now, and the precise terms are just not as useful as the underlying concepts.

The um, I haven't quite followed the precise argument, but I would like to add a comment about lack of clarity on the Law/Chaos axis as opposed to the Good/Evil axis. The latter is usually pretty easy to assess in game. The former is not always clear, as alignment is largely a construct on the individual level, while what most people think of when they hear "Law" operates on a societal level.

I have gradually come to the perspective that laws of society are only relevant insofar as the Lawful individual has adopted the personal rule of obeying the laws of society. As long as someone has a rule(s) and sticks to it as a principle, this can make them Lawful, regardless of if society approves or not. In this way we can avoid the problem that arises among societies that have radically different laws or, indeed, laws that run contrary to maintaining order. It also allows Lawful people to operate in lawless societies without being hunted down; Lawful drow may be rare (and probably sub-optimal), but if they act to uphold drow traditions or in defense of the church of Lloth, they can probably get by just fine. The generally chaotic drow society really doesn't give a damn about the alignment of individual drow, just that loyalty to their goddess be publicly unquestioned and the rule of the matriarchy sustained.

Not sure I can see why Pure Law and Pure Chaos were removed from your system. In particular, Chaotic Stu...*ahem*...Chaotic Neutral sees a lot of play in my setting, as many players just don't give a damn about what motivates their character, and the PC just acts as they see fit moment to moment. If the plot drives them toward acts of goodness, fine, go with the flow. Otherwise a bit of evil is always a good way to spice things up, if it suits them.

Do you equate this lack of principle with a particularly lazy brand of evil (the only viable alternative I can see)? And how about the opposite, someone that sees obedience to rules as the highest "good?"

[Oko and Qailee]

More please, this was hilarious to read.

[Yahzi]

Why do you automatically trust the merchant when he/she claims that s/he ever had a ring in the first place?
For the terms of the thought experiment, we can presume the situation is as presented. :smallsmile:



Not sure I can see why Pure Law and Pure Chaos were removed from your system.
Mostly because they don't fit in the "expanding circle" concept. However, I do have analogues: Purple is the color of magic (so constructs, magic items, etc. detect as that aura) and Orange is the color of nature (animals, etc.)


Do you equate this lack of principle with a particularly lazy brand of evil (the only viable alternative I can see)?
Absolutely. What you've described - doing whatever is the most amusing at the moment - is my definition of Pure Evil.

This stems not so much from the player's moral leanings as from playing a game. When you treat everyone else in the world as merely objects for your entertainment, you are evil. The fact that you can accomplish good things as long as you're sufficiently entertained does not change that. Exactly as you describe, the players are willing to do the noble quest and only turn to random acts of evil when they're bored.

So, the difference between bad role-playing, and role-playing a sociopath, are in fact not much. Because (as Kant said), the essence of morality is treating people as ends, not means; but in a game, the people can only be pieces to be moved around the board. This is what makes role-playing different than regular board games; no one feels moral attachments to the pawns on a chessboard, but you're supposed to feel some kind of attachment to the princess you're rescuing from the dragon.

Not to say I don't see the attraction; the Black choices I outlined above were clearly the most amusing. :smallbiggrin:


And how about the opposite, someone that sees obedience to rules as the highest "good?"
If it's untempered with concern about the effect of those rules, then it's just Yellow (Lawful Evil). The presumption is always that if everyone followed the rules to the letter, the LE character would profit; which is why he's a such a big fan of the rules. :smallbiggrin:

[Dark.Revenant]

Ultimately, it's up to the DM to define the alignments specifically and stay consistent with them. Obviously, they are open to interpretation. There are branches of philosophy, which are at least partly true, that state that good and evil are entirely relative to a given society.

In D&D lore, alignments should be judged by the Gods (or whatever is at the top of the celestial heap in a given campaign when it comes to the afterlife; Pharasma in Pathfinder is a good example). If the higher world order thinks you to be Evil, then you are Evil. No argument, no alternate interpretation, no exceptions.

The best you can get is a very rough generalization, i.e.:
Good: You cherish life.
Neutral: You cherish your* life and treat other life on a case-by-case basis.
Evil: You cherish your* life but disregard other life.

Lawful: You appreciate structure. (laws, honor, code, creed, mantra, etc. all work)
Neutral: You do your own thing, where prudent.
Chaotic: You do your own thing, no matter what.

*Includes friends and close associates

[JBento]

I had a very lengthy, option by option response to this, but then I deleted it because it was basically the same thing:

On Q1, you don't actually get to ask, and certainly not demand anything from anyone. There's not a SINGLE option there that doesn't scream "I'm an authoritative douche."

On Q2, Blue sounds like it should be White, White sounds like it should be Green, and Green sounds like you're probably hunted by the law for murder everywhere.

On Q3, Blue is certainly not good. It's also not important to give a cure disease anything to your fellow party member, because if he can't fight off any 3.5 disease that ISN'T Mummy Rot on his own, he's better off not adventuring anyway.

On Q4, Blue is Lawful Evil, Green is just you being a demanding douche again.

I'm not even going to TOUCH your Evil options, because they all sound like they should be followed by "...and that would be bad." and never mentioned again, as they would mostly get you hunted down by EVERY law-enforcement agency in the world. While they ARE Evil, what they mostly are is stupid.

[Pickford]

I'm pretty sure any act of killing feels quite aggressive to all parties involved.

Sure, nobody wants to die. But there is a massive distinction between killing in war, killing in self defense, or killing in defense of another and killing for sport, killing for gain, killing for joy, etc...

Only a very warped legal system completely ignores this distinction, and if it did it would create a strange (by any standard you and I know) society. I'm taking you at your word that you're just trying to streamline the alignment system so this is an important thing to consider if you're also planning on changing basic matters of what society considers right or wrong.


You've evaded the point, though. You defined imposing your will as evil, when I pointed out killing is imposing your will, you changed the topic.

I thought it was directly addressing it, but let me put this more plainly. When you kill in self defense you are NOT asserting your will upon someone else, you are denying them the theirs. The distinction may be a fine one but it is there.

I defined evil as imposing your will on others 'without their consent'. That's what domination is. Where doing what you want does not detract from another that isn't evil.


Because you seem to think it is a moral absolute, as opposed to an objective moral principle arising from the fact that humans don't have truth spells.

I consider bodily autonomy a moral absolute, yes.

And in a real world scenario you don't have the right to lie about witnessing a crime, doing so makes you culpable in that crime. However...we are not discussing witnessing of a crime, we're discussing self-incrimination which under our laws you never have to engage in, under any circumstances. Given that there are circumstances in which truth spells will fail to work properly, I would imagine they would be regarded as equally as unreliable as you mention torture to be.


But you define sanctimony as exposing other people to your views on morality. In other words, if anyone ever tries to convince people of their point of view, it's automatically an act of evil. This kind of handicaps Team Good, don't you think?

No I was using the normal definition: "Making a show of being morally superior to other people." Scolding others for their behavior strikes me as such. p.s. 'moral crimes' aren't crimes, hence it is, by definition, sanctimonious. I have no problems with clerics or paladins, but there's also no requirement for either to act in such a fashion. Indeed, a Paladin who does is treading 'very' close to violating their basic oath and a Cleric who did is unlikely to follow, for example, Pelor.


They put you on the stand, threaten you with fines and prison, ask you to swear on a holy book implying that if you lie you will be punished eternally; what do you suppose the purpose of all that is?

Despite the chaotic evil description, I would argue this is an attempt to ensure justice is accurate. If you lie, the wrong person may: Go free, die, be jailed, etc. So there is alot riding on the outcomes. However here you are assuming that people never lie when under oath or swearing on a religious text of their choice or that that is even compulsion. It is not compulsion, it is intended to underline that what they are saying is true.

Perhaps how one views this is largely dependent on their perceived relationship to the law of their land?


To most people, that feels like compulsion. Whether it is effective or not is really beside the point; it is the most effective compulsion we have available. Therefore to assert that if we had more effective compulsion, we would use it, is not far-fetched; nor does it invalidate the concept of morality to assert that the D&D world would not hesitate to do what we only dream of.

See above.


And now you're off discussing relative morality. Why, it's almost as if you haven't read the rest of the thread.

Morality, by definition, is relative. http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals
You can google the link as well, it gives a quick rundown on the distinction.

If you want something that is consistent across a society, you're looking for ethics. If you want something totally objectively universal...you're sol there is no such thing as objective morality. The best you can do is to say: That's immoral...as far as I am concerned. Understanding the distinction is important when carrying on a conversation about morality.


P.S. In D&D, morality is not about societal norms. It is an objective quality, stretching across planes of existence, measured by the same spell even when cast by members of radically different societies. Mind-Flayers do not Detect as Good to each other.

And even evil people do nice things. The Good/Evil axis in D&D is a measure of self-sacrifice vs. oppressing others. Even an evil person can simply be someone you wouldn't really like if you got to know them. (A bad landlord, a weasily merchant, and so on). They can very easily be 'innocent' of wrongdoing. And it is the Chaos/Law axis that covers societal norms. Hence the necessity of Neutral Good/Evil.


Stealing isn't harm? Stopping a thief after he steals but before he steals again doesn't qualify?

The characters in question had no reason to believe the merchant before they just start violating the persons of others or trying to dominate them. Those are not the marks of a good person as good is defined in d&d, as you said each color was intended to be equivalent to a particular alignment.


You are now arguing that if I so much as mention D&D's alignment as a reference or starting point, I am misleading, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that I am actually talking exclusively about D&D's canonical rules.

I'm not so much arguing it as pointing out that's what you (intended or not) did by putting up the chart of equivalencies. If you don't want the color-coded system to have any bearing on standard d&d alignment then you should eschew the comparison chart.


There is another alternative; perhaps you just like arguing, and will willfully misinterpret anything as long as it gives you an excuse to argue.

I enjoy healthy conversation, but I don't see where I misinterpreted anything. Please don't go off making wild accusations, it's unpleasant.


Hmm. Several points spring to mind.

1) That is manifestly not what D&D intended by the alignment system.

2) That seems vastly less consistent, comprehensible, or useful than my system.

3) That seems a far more radical interpretation than my system, and far less likely to be what other people think of or are looking for in an alignment system.

4) Given that you are in an argument about the alignment system, you might have mentioned your wholesale repudiation of the entire concept a bit earlier.

5) Yes, you do in fact just like arguing.

6) You really don't understand alignment, or morality for that matter.

7) I think at this point we can all fill in what I'm thinking now.

How did you plan on proving an intention without any direct textual evidence?

Your system as presented clearly allows 'good' characters to commit otherwise evil acts.

I did't argue there shouldn't be an alignment system at all, I argued that virtually any act can be justified, in the right circumstances, for any alignment. The only limitations are the capacity of a player to role-play the incident correctly.

I found the petty slights to be really uncalled for.

[lsfreak]

I'm not even going to TOUCH your Evil options, because they all sound like they should be followed by "...and that would be bad." and never mentioned again, as they would mostly get you hunted down by EVERY law-enforcement agency in the world. While they ARE Evil, what they mostly are is stupid.

I'm glad someone said it. Most of these aren't D&D Chaotic Good, Neutral Evil, etc, they're Chaotic Stupid, Stupid Evil, and so on.



QUESTION 1:
A fellow party member is accused by a merchant of stealing a ring.

White: Pay for the ring out of your own pocket to keep the merchant quiet. Question your party member later; if guilty, demand restitution; if innocent, demand the party locates the real thief for restitution. You have no reason to believe the merchant. This rapidly becomes Good is Dumb trope

Blue: Use a truth spell to determine if your fellow is guilty. If so, help the town guard subdue him and take him into custody. If not, charge the merchant for the cost of the spell for wasting your time. I have my own issues with using spells that force truth, and I doubt a LG society would force the use of spells on an unwilling person - especially when it's not a person of authority doing it. Charging the merchant for the cost of the spell if he's not malicious but just mistaken is Lawful Jerk, not Lawful Good

Green: Loudly attest to your fellow's integrity, and threaten the merchant with reprisal if he persists in his baseless accusations. Privately, weigh all the other times your fellow has been accused and wonder if there might be something to it. There's nothing good about this action. Needless violence, willing ignorance, and being loyal to friends to the harm of others are not traits of CG.

Yellow: Loudly attest to your fellow's integrity, and threaten the merchant with reprisal if he persists in his baseless accusations. Privately, demand half the value of the ring from your party member. This might be the first instance of one that fits. But this is a petty kind of evil that's not inherent to LE, NE, or CE

Red: Chortle at your fellow's difficulties. Later, reveal that you are the one who actually stole the ring. There's a difference between being evil and being a ****. Any of the evil alignments could fit this.

Black: Murder the merchant. Then demand the ring from your party member, because you "earned" it. Stupid Evil, plain and simple


QUESTION 2:
You come across a group of men attacking a woman. She is half-naked and armed with a bloody kitchen knife; they are wearing swords but using clubs to beat her.

White: Offer to disarm the woman for them. If they agree, arrange it so that you can privately interview the woman and ascertain the facts. If she is a victim, heal her and send her to safety, and deal with the men so as to guarantee they will not harm her again (ranging from promises, threats, greases, or death, as necessary). If she is guilty of a crime, see that she gets fair trial and punishment. Why offer to disarm the woman and not both? Why not get their stories right here and now, instead of a lengthy process of both ensuring one party doesn't escape while interviewing the other, and assuring the other party the first can't escape?

Blue: Demand the men cease at once and explain themselves. If they do not, attack them and drive them off. If they do explain themselves satisfactorily, still wonder aloud why it takes several swordsmen to capture a housewife.

Green: You already attacked the men after the first sentence. This is more Honorable Stupid than anything.

Yellow: Stop the men long enough to determine if saving the girl yields a worthy reward. If capturing her yields a greater reward, drive the men off with threats or violence and take her captive yourself. Being Lawful Evil says nothing about how you view certain people. A LE person may well have the exact same reaction as a LG person - innocent people are not to be harmed. You have confused LE with someone who is only after money.

Red: If she's pretty, kill the men and take her for yourself. If she's not, tell them to stop making so much noise; if any take umbrage at your demand, kill them. Without ascertaining what these men are doing or who they are working for, I think I can solidly say this falls under Stupid Evil.[/i]

Black: Set the woman on fire, arguing that if she was innocent, you have spared her any further distress, but if she was guilty, she deserved to die. If the men complain, animate her corpse and have it carry out whatever action they were hoping for (if they were bent on immodesty, this is likely to require you to also kill all of them, and animate even more corpses to make sure things are done properly). [b]Evil Stupid/Chaotic Stupid to the extreme.


QUESTION 3:
A fellow party member has contracted an embarrassing situation after immodest behavior with a tavern wench. You have two potions of Remove Disease.

White: Give one to your fellow, and one to the tavern wench. I fail to see what D&D's NG has to do with this. Any good alignment could do this.

Blue: Sell one to your fellow (on credit if necessary), and warn the tavern wench to cease her illicit activities until she is cured (sell her the other potion if she can afford it, or if you aren't saving it for a specific purpose). I fail to see what D&D's LG has to do with this. Any alignment could do this, except maybe CE.

Green: Give one to your fellow, and complain to the tavern keeper about the quality of his inn. I fail to see what D&D's CG has to do with this. Any alignment could do this, except maybe CE.

Yellow: Sell one to your fellow at a high markup, and demand a bribe from the tavern keeper to keep you from notifying the constabulary or the other customers. I fail to see what D&D's LE has to do with this. This is being greedy.

Red: Give one to your fellow, but only after he has defended his honor by killing the wench. Demand the price of the potion from the tavern keeper, and burn his inn down if he can't pay.Stupid Evil/Chaotic Stupid.

Black: You drank both potions yesterday, when you had a stomach ache. Suggest that an appropriate response is to leave without paying the bill. Set fire to the inn to create a diversion while you sneak out. Chaotic Stupid/Stupid Evil. Yawn. It's pretty clear you don't grasp that NE could be anything but Stupid, or have any concept of consequences or self-preservation.


QUESTION 4:
You sneak into a castle to liberate a princess from her captor. But once in her presence, she explains that she ran away of her own desire, to marry the baron of this castle for love and to avoid the marriage her father has arranged to a neighboring king in the hopes that it would bring peace between their realms.

White: Leave and go to the neighboring king. Negotiate a peace treaty (by threatening to take sides, if necessary).

Blue: Determine if the king is a suitable match (i.e., if he is of the same alignment as the princess). If so, carry her off to do her duty. If not, return to her father empty-handed and question why he made such a bad match in the first place. Because having the same alignment means you are a suitable match. Hahahahahaha. Nono, forcing someone to marry someone they don't want to is not a Good act, and if taken to the logical conclusion is closer to conspiracy to commit rape.

Green: Demand that the baron join you and the father in defeating the neighboring king. How is this any ANY way good? Or chaotic, for that matter?

Yellow: Demand that the baron double the father's reward. If he can't, capture both him and the princess, and return them to the father in the hopes of gaining an extra reward. And again, you've mistaken selfish greed for LE. Being greedily selfish is LE, but LE is not greedily selfish.

Red: If she's pretty, kill the baron and take her for yourself. If she’s not, kill the baron and take her to her father. You came so close, but you had to kill the baron. Stupid Evil.

Black: Kill the princess and the baron, set fire to the castle, and make it look like troops of the neighboring king did it. Offer to fight for the father, taking command of a large portion of his troops. Secretly contact the neighboring king and betray the troops to their death in exchange for a huge bribe. Later, go to the neighboring king and set his castle on fire. Stupid Evil/Chaotic Stupid

You seem to have very specific, very limited notions of what the alignments can possibly mean, especially when it comes to the evil ones. In these examples, LE is nothing more than greed, and NE and CE are little more than sociopathic stupidity. LG fails to be as good as NG a couple times, and CG seems to act a lot more as D&D's traditional CN.

[Phelix-Mu]

I'm glad someone said it. Most of these aren't D&D Chaotic Good, Neutral Evil, etc, they're Chaotic Stupid, Stupid Evil, and so on.

You seem to have very specific, very limited notions of what the alignments can possibly mean, especially when it comes to the evil ones. In these examples, LE is nothing more than greed, and NE and CE are little more than sociopathic stupidity. LG fails to be as good as NG a couple times, and CG seems to act a lot more as D&D's traditional CN.

He is trying to parse the nine alignments down into 6, though, so some uncharacteristic grouping is going to occur.

I may actually agree on some of the points, but the problem with an alignment quiz like this is that it is too specific in the solutions. Create simpler problems with shorter, more direct solutions. That way there will be less for people to take issue with. Additionally, a complex scenario encourages the respondent to enter into role play mode, and intelligent role players will take issue with the limited and sub-optimal nature of the solutions. Make it fairly simple and I think you might be able to avoid this.

Granted, I've never tried to change the alignment system. I basically only ever bring it up in-game if a character has blatantly and repeatedly acted contrary to their stated alignment. Something along the lines of "Your actions over the past couple missions are going to change how you register under detect spells," or "You are going to lose access to class ability x if your alignment shifts further, and it has been shifting." I prefer not to bring the hammer down on players action by action, but more in light of the gradual change that repeated actions has on their overall character. This allows them to role play remorse, contrition, or some such mitigation without my prompting, if they feel like they have exceeded the limits that their character should be observing.

[Lorsa]

If these choices represent what you think people with those alignments would do then I would not be able to make a character in your setting. As people already have pointed out, your choices are mostly stupid and the only consistency is in their stupidity. Why someone who is chaotic evil also is a pyromaniac is hard to understand.

Getting rid of the "neutral" axis is an interesting idea yet there is a reason why D&D has it there. Many people are neither good nor evil. But sure, I can see why you'd have to take a side.

Now your quiz though is strange at best. Why would someone who is "pure good" pay off a merchant at the first sign of complaint? He'd be broke in a heartbeat. Someone who is pure good would give his gold to the sick, wounded, crippled, homeless etc but not a random merchant who is accusing someone of stealing. That is just stupid, and the response from ANY good person would be the same in this scenario; they would ask for proof. An evil person would also ask for proof but (if their friend was guilty) help make sure the truth never see light of day. Unless it was too difficult or there was a reason to 1) stay below the radar 2) be friends with the general populace 3) make people believe they are friendly.

Similairly in many other of your questions, all good people would do the same whereas all evil might do the same (which in some cases might even be the same as the good people). But remember, just because you are good it doesn't mean you HAVE to help EVERYONE. Noone can do that and a good person understands it.

What you need to do is to design a questionnaire with first questions with only two answers that weights good vs evil. Then you have questoins (where the answers might assume you are either good or evil) that weights law vs chaos. Having a somewhat even number on the law vs chaos questions would simply make you "pure [whatever]". Something along these lines:

You are the lord of a fiefdom, and it is time to send out tax collectors. Do you...

...tell your collectors to take only what you need to keep the land protected and working and mostly from those wealthy enough to afford it.

...tell your collectors to take as much as you can get away with without starting a rebellion with little regard for people's individual situation.

(and one that I stole)

You are the lord of a fiefdom and someone brings to you a man who stole a horse and running it until its leg broke. He says he needed to horse to bring his sick child to a healer or else she would have died. He is unable to pay the horse's value. Do you...

...make him pay the full sentence according to the law.

...lighten his sentence.

Not sure those questions are much better but at least I think the theory behind them is better. 6 options is too many for a quiz I think, you need to weight only good vs evil or law vs chaos, not all at the same time.

[PersonMan]

I'll probably write up something more substantial later when I have a larger keyboard, but for now I'm just going to mention that you assume the 'you' is male or a bi-/homosexual female (all of the "if she's pretty" stuff) and that they're looking for partners.

If this is for your group, I wouldn't bother writing up replies, but just give them the prompts and all information they would realistically be able to get, then judge their replies. Less work, better result, IMO.

[absolmorph]

I ran through this with a character who works as muscle for, basically, a mafia family.
He's also willing to, basically, throw a large island under the bus and allow it to be taken over and ruled however for his own goals (which is books [and the knowledge they contain, but mostly books)].
He would take literally none of the options provided.

For Question 1, he would ignore the merchant. If he and his companions are in a hurry, he would tell the merchant to shut up, possibly threaten the merchant if he didn't immediately comply, and hurry the party onward.

For Question 2, he would ask why the men are attacking the woman. Should he find their justification insufficient and have confidence in his victory, he'd kill/disable them, then care for the woman until she's in good health and take her on as an apprentice (or become her apprentice, as appropriate for given levels of skill). He might also wait until the woman is dead, then kill the men for being incompetent criminals.

For Question 3, if the disease is a handicap for his companion, and his companions' competence improves his own chances of survival, he would give his companion the potion. Otherwise, he would offer a trade for both his companion and the tavern girl.

For Question 4, probably figure out how to negotiate a peace between the two kings without the marriage. Get paid in books and training.

Basically, there only seems to be options for extreme, disturbing stereotypes of Good and Evil, with nothing less as an option.
Shoot, Black's choice for Question 3 is just plain stupid.

[SowZ]

But here's the thing. Someone who is totally evil, willing to murder and torture and extort, etc., can be CG by these definitions. Someone who is despicable can still treat their friends 'Good.' Evil people can still be loyal to their friends and family, willing even to fight and die for them.

And Chaotic Evil doesn't mean they will burn down an inn because the bartender insulted them, or murder a prostitute after sleeping with her for fun. Those are CE behaviors, but someone who does it is Chaotic Stupid. You can be much, much milder than that and still be CE.

Also, some of the good options are very much evil. Carrying off the princess to marry someone against her will is equivalent to both kidnapping and rape. Kidnapping, because you are stealing someone and forcing them to be locked away somewhere because of what you want for their life, and rape because you are forcing her to marry someone against her will, (which includes sex, that you are forcing on her against her will.)

[absolmorph]

(which includes sex, that you are forcing on her against her will.)
While forcing someone to marry against their will is a pretty bad thing to do, a legal relationship (which marriage is) does not require a romantic or sexual relationship at all.

[Acanous]

I would not find this quiz helpful.
Too many of the questions are...Opaque.

I don't think any of the characters I've played would take any of the options listed in any of the questions, excepting Green's option in question 2.
Which most of my characters would take, regardless of alignment, unless the men in question are in law-enforcement uniform.

[Wardog]

I was going to critique the OP, but Isfreak just said pretty much exactly what I would have said.

Also, Black is clearly Richard from LFG.

[Elycium]

The answer to everything of the black color was put everything on fire lol

He lacked originality.

[Yahzi]

Ultimately, it's up to the DM to define the alignments specifically and stay consistent with them.
The point of the quiz was to help players understand the alignment system, so they (and the DM) could figure out how to apply it consistently. An alignment system that is merely the arbitrary judgement of the DM is not very helpful.

I thought this was a rough approximation.



On Q1, you don't actually get to ask, and certainly not demand anything from anyone.
Why not?

The view that because the characters don't have badges, they shouldn't be involved in any kind of conflict resolution, sounds like a Lawful position. There are, however, other positions.


EVERY law-enforcement agency in the world
I think I see the problem. You play in a very different game world than I do. In my faux-medieval world, their aren't any law-enforcement organizations. There are barons and kings and the occasional bardic college or church.



You have no reason to believe the merchant
It's a thought experiment. Not every single detail has to be spelled out. It is safe, for the purposes of the thought experiment, to assume the facts as presented.

That said, your focus on being suspicious of everything is itself an alignment position. There are, however, other positions. :smalltongue:


I have my own issues with using spells that force truth, and I doubt a LG society would force the use of spells on an unwilling person - especially when it's not a person of authority doing it. Charging the merchant for the cost of the spell if he's not malicious but just mistaken is Lawful Jerk, not Lawful Good
1) As I pointed out earlier, our own society already does its best to force truth.
2) There is no particular reason to think one is entitled to deceive; this is not likely to be a moral principle embraced by Lawful Good deities.
3) Charging the merchant is what makes the character Lawful Good, as opposed to Pure Good. Even a Pure Good person would not want to throw around spells free of charge; at some point you want people to take it seriously.


being loyal to friends to the harm of others are not traits of CG
On the contrary, that is exactly what I am presenting CG to be. So, I can see the test is working.


You seem to have very specific, very limited notions of what the alignments can possibly mean
Why, yes. The more specific the better. A categorization system that operates as Pickford suggests - i.e. any alignment can do anything - is not very categorical, which suggests that as a categorization system it is not particularly useful.


In these examples, LE is nothing more than greed, and NE and CE are little more than sociopathic stupidity. LG fails to be as good as NG a couple times, and CG seems to act a lot more as D&D's traditional CN.
Thank you! This suggests my quiz is quite effective, as that was pretty much exactly what I was going for. With the exception of "stupidity;" CE was supposed to demonstrate that strength was the only arbiter of behavior. I agree that the NE examples were a bit stupid, but they were intended to be funny. Although I am not sure why you classified the last act (of betrayal and bribery) as stupid; if the player gets away with it, is it still stupid?



Create simpler problems with shorter, more direct solutions
You may have something there.... :smallwink:


I basically only ever bring it up in-game
Given that the gods are constantly meddling in my game-world, alignment (i.e. what team you are on) is kind of important. That said, only clerics and paladins suffer any mechanical effect from changing their alignment.



As people already have pointed out, your choices are mostly stupid and the only consistency is in their stupidity.
The quiz was not a challenge; the goal was not to spark readers into finding better ways to resolve the problem. It was simply meant to be illustrative.

I confess that I probably should have expected this kind of response on a RPG board, though.


Why someone who is chaotic evil also is a pyromaniac is hard to understand.
Repeating a theme inappropriately is a staple of humor.



you assume the 'you' is male
Again, it's supposed to be illustrative, not definitive.



But here's the thing. Someone who is totally evil, willing to murder and torture and extort, etc., can be CG by these definitions
Exactly!

The average D&D player tends to play CG (or CN, if they want to do what they want without being harrassed by the DM). And the average D&D player spends a lot of time murdering sentient creatures in their homes and taking their stuff.

How are we to reconcile the fact that these people (who are only channeling the actions of other heroes, like Hercules, Beowulf, etc.) are clearly "Good," as in they act with honor and compassion, and yet have no problem with murder-robbery as a career choice?

The answer I provide is that they are selective in who they allow to count as moral agents. Greens care about their peers; their family, their clan, their buddies; possibly even their race. Everything else is fair game unless it somehow gets elevated to the status of "buddy." This describes PCs quite well, I think.

The other alignments are different sizes to that circle; Blue is wider, Yellow is narrower, etc.

The point is that this is supposed to be a useful definition for the players and the DM. The players understand they can stab the goblin in the face for the shiny in his pockets, but they can't attack the barkeeper without a darn good reason, and they have to be careful about merely insulting other nobles in good standing with the king. They understand this because they understand where those NPCs live in their circle.


Carrying off the princess to marry someone against her will is equivalent to both kidnapping and rape
The D&D world is supposed to be faux-medieval. Thus, marriages (particularly between nobles) will be viewed as State policy, without regard to either party's personal feelings. The view that marriage should be for romantic reasons is a thoroughly modern one.

The White character is concerned about the personal feelings of the princess. The Blue character is only concerned if she has legitimate cause to complain; i.e. forcing her to marry is perfectly OK (its what princesses are for, after all), but forcing her into a bad match is a failure on the part of the State. The Green character finds he identifies with the princess, and thus puts her personal interest higher than the State; the Yellow is again unconcerned with personal feelings; the Red is concerned with personal feelings, but only his own.

It is no accident that the White character most closely agrees with our modern sensibilities; if you would play a character who lived by our modern understanding of morality, you would be a goody-two-shoes that would cause even the average Paladin some eye-rolling.

Try reading "A Game of Thrones" and you'll see what I mean. :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

The D&D world is supposed to be faux-medieval. Thus, marriages (particularly between nobles) will be viewed as State policy, without regard to either party's personal feelings. The view that marriage should be for romantic reasons is a thoroughly modern one.

Heavy on the "faux"- as is pointed out in DMG2, a perfectly medieval world is likely to grate on the sensibilities of the players- and the default assumption is that socially it's closer to modern.

[Yahzi]

Heavy on the "faux"- as is pointed out in DMG2, a perfectly medieval world is likely to grate on the sensibilities of the players- and the default assumption is that socially it's closer to modern.
Well, that's the DMG for you - coddling the damn players. Makes me puke, I tells ya. :smallbiggrin:

[JBento]

You don't get to ask anything from anyone not because you can't be involved in conflict resolution, but because you don't actually have any authority. The correct response to a chump demanding payment for a spell you never asked him to cast is to tell him to go jump into the nearest Aboleth pool.
As an addition, the correct response to a party member making demands of you out of the blue is to drop him right there and then.

And Barons and Kings (and possibly churches) ARE law-enforcement agencies. Even if they don't care about their people they care about their bottom line, and hobos running around killing and stealing from your people hurts your bottom line. That means you get a target painted in your forehead, fast.

I would also like to point out that you can't get medieval out of the D&D rules no matter how hard you try. The ideals of chivalry and male-dominated societies only came about because it's easier for men to become physically powerful. But in D&D that doesn't happen (there's no ability adjustment for genders), and even if it did it wouldn't matter, because being physically powerful means diddly squat when the woman you threaten to beat can scorching ray your ass before you're even finished completing the threat.

[Gildedragon]

So I find your quiz and its answers problematic. But on the question you actually ask: Do I find it a helpful tool to evaluate a character's morality?
Yes and no. No because, well, the answers are pretty much Snafu, and even then if one picks from more than one category there is no way to determine the end result. You constantly state this system represents widening circles of caring, so depict it as a range. A "black" answer nets you -10, a yellow answer 0, and so on. At the end you define ranges that correspond to each alignment.

On the "yes" side of things. I guess that these behaviours are indicative and representative of your views on the alignment system. As you seem to take umbrage at the slightest critique and take refuge in saying "that's how it works in my system", it is tautological to say they work. These are good tools to use when playing your game, because in your game they are good markers of ethical inclinations.

******

As to what I found problematic, particularly problematic, that is.
So you criticize the tavern wench and tell her to stop her "illicit activities" (I presume out-of-wedlock-sex, because really, must all casual dalliances be numismatic in nature?) and do not do the same to the, presumably as illegal actions of your party member. Why not entreat her to be more careful and discerning of her partners?
Also, interestingly absent is the "eeeevil" option of "I was the one that gave the lady her condition. Chortle in delight as disease is spread through the land. Which is less obtuse than the "I drank the potions 'cause I had gas" option

[Magikeeper]

What the quiz is supposed to illustrate is the expanding circle of rights; that is, how wide a net do you cast when deciding who is deserving of moral consideration.

White = everybody
Blue = everybody who follows the rules
Green = your friends
Yellow = anyone who can make you a profit
Red = anyone who scares you
Black = no one, not even yourself

If you got something else out of it, the test needs refinement.

...Then why not put the above in your OP instead of listing the more vague alignment terms? I think much of the argument on this thread comes from disagreeing with the OP's take on the D&D alignments.

Since you are using your own alignment system anyway, why use terms whose meaning is contested when you have a way of defining your morality colors that avoids that issue entirely?

This is assuming you want people to talk about whether the examples fit your system and if this is a good quiz for that system instead of arguing whether your descriptions fit their preconceived notions of what 'CG' and the like mean.

[lsfreak]

Why, yes. The more specific the better. A categorization system that operates as Pickford suggests - i.e. any alignment can do anything - is not very categorical, which suggests that as a categorization system it is not particularly useful.
But if it's so specific it fails to be able to account for the variety of possible reactions, it has likewise become completely useless.

For example, a character I've played:
1) Ignore the merchant. If they are insistent, try and ascertain whether or not my party member did steal the ring. If they did, berate them for stealing from someone so poor their livelihood depended on the ring, or someone powerful and cruel enough for minor thefts to still be punished, and being stupid enough for getting caught. Depending on the merchant's standing, how long I plan on being in the area, and so on, force the partymember to give up the ring, or simply threaten the merchant with violence and continue on.

2) He'd want to get involved, but would carefully see if the men had any obvious marks of someone of power - symbols of a certain organization or city, etc. He'd demand they stop briefly for an explanation and under whose authority they are acting. If he has no problem with being on the wrong side of their employer (if there is one), he'd happily and mercilessly kill them, and ensure the woman reaches safety. If they're too powerful, he'd walk away but feel bad, going out of his way in the future to subtly screw up their employer's business (taking jobs that go against him, "random muggings" of those under his employ, getting a group of raiders to hit a caravan). If they had a good reason, offer to help them, probably with a backhanded compliment or disguised insult as to how well they're doing.

3) Tell my friend to be more careful if he's unwilling to deal with the consequences. Keep both potions unless he offers to buy one. If in the area for some time, possibly come back to tavern regularly for the girl's nightly company, taking a potion upon leaving the town.

4) Leave the princess with her love. Attempt to broker peace between the realms in another manner if there's a worthy reward; if necessary, advice the king to ally with the baron and simply overpower the warring kingdom. If the king is mad at me failing to return his daughter to the point my life is in danger, see if instead the warring kingdom and the baron will ally, especially if the baron is lead to believe the king is willing to go to war over the return of his daughter.

What alignment is this character using your system?

[Yahzi]

You don't get to ask anything from anyone not because you can't be involved in conflict resolution, but because you don't actually have any authority.
One of the values of role-playing games is that you get to interact with worlds that are different.

For example, the Iron Age that D&D is modeled after defines authority as two things: the favor of the gods or the strength of the sword. Like Jason or Odysseus, sailing around the world, meeting strange beings, and ganking them is a perfectly heroic thing to do. Even the faux medieval world that D&D pretends to be modeled after defined authority by strength of arms; the King of England's claim to the French throne was only as strong as his armies.

Your notion that there is some kind of international standard of authority is certainly a legitimate game concept, but it's a bit out of the ordinary, I think. Barons and kings are not law-enforcement agencies, even though they enforce law; the difference should be obvious.

Yes, of course, the local Baron might object to something you do. But his authority is only as strong as his sword and his alliances. There is no particular reason to think the next Baron over won't laugh at what you did to his neighbor.


The correct response to a chump demanding payment for a spell you never asked him to cast is to tell him to go jump into the nearest Aboleth pool.
I think the character is letting the merchant off rather easily, considering he falsely accused a compatriot of theft.


As an addition, the correct response to a party member making demands of you out of the blue is to drop him right there and then.
Well, I think that explains a lot.


I would also like to point out that you can't get medieval out of the D&D rules no matter how hard you try. The ideals of chivalry and male-dominated societies only came about because it's easier for men to become physically powerful. But in D&D that doesn't happen...
1) You don't know how hard I can try.
2) Who even brought up chivalry?
3) Every one of my examples works just as well if you reverse all the genders.
(Edit: or, for that matter, only some of the genders.)


As you seem to take umbrage at the slightest critique
Here are some examples of those slight critiques:

Also, good does not equal stupid

what they mostly are is stupid

your choices are mostly stupid and the only consistency is in their stupidity
And yet you find the tone of my posts to be the problem. :smallannoyed:



This is assuming you want people to talk about whether the examples fit your system and if this is a good quiz for that system instead of arguing whether your descriptions fit their preconceived notions of what 'CG' and the like mean.
I was, in fact, assuming that a discussion about preconceived notions was possible and even potentially fruitful. What I got was a page of "stupid." Somehow I don't think the fault is entirely mine.



What alignment is this character using your system?
1) Yellow; their is some generalized concern for economic order and stability, but the chief issue seems to be with getting caught. The character evaluates his response based on his own expected profit/discomfort, but recognizes that conforming to local law might be more profitable than a display of pure strength.

2) Yellow; the character's chief concern is "what can I get away with," rather than "what is right." It does lean Red but the careful foresight pushes it into Yellow for me.

3) Yellow; the character's only concern is himself, nor is he willing to break social rules for such a trivial problem. A Red would think breaking the rules was the point, to show that his personal concerns trumped the petty rights of a tavern wench.

4) Yellow; tending to Green. The character shows concern for others, but not enough to disturb his pragmatism. Of course, Red and Green are each one step away from Yellow, so it's no surprise that some of the character's actions will bleed up or down to those. It is, after all, a rough approximation of a complex phenomena. :smallbiggrin:

Based on what those arguments, would you agree that your character was Yellow (essentially, Lawful Evil)? More importantly, would you find the above analysis helpful in trying to predict how the DM would interpret your next action?

I'm less interested in defining "Lawful Evil" as lawful or evil than I am in defining a system where the players and DM all agree on that category means.

[Pickford]

Here are some examples of those slight critiques:

We were calling out the behavior of the 'good' responses as acting like suckers. They believed everything they heard without question and even acted expending time, energy, resources, and good will.

So...yeah, I would still construe those as mild critiques. Please bear in mind these aren't attacks against you personally, just the behavior of those characters.

Based on the examples provided I would have to wonder where is the ethos in which you uphold justice/protect the weak/innocent? i.e. where are the choices a Paladin would make?

[Lorsa]

You asked if these questions would help us determine the elignment of our characters. Since it is posted on a 3e board I can only assume the meaning and interpretation of the alignments are as those described by the Player's Handbook. If that is not the case then perhaps we should discuss the interpretation of alignments instead.

Now as people have pointed out, what I was trying to say was that the actions taken by some of these alternatives are not very clever. And as they are meant to find your alignment, not your intelligence level, it means a person might be more inclined to choose the few alternatives that are more clever in nature rather than those appropriate for their alignment. Looking at the questions, one might reach the conclusion that being good for example equals being dumb. Same goes for being chaotic evil. You will avoid certain answers not because the alignment doesn't match but because your intelligence is higher and there is the problem and why the quiz would not be very helpful.

It also has the problem of being too specific I think. Reading your questions it gives me the feeling that if I was a chaotic evil character I should kill everyone I meet, burn down everything (yes, humor is good but something as important as alignment is worth taking serious) and, as the quiz says nothing about what happens after, I am going to assume my character should get away with it. The implications of the quiz is that someone who is chaotic evil also by default is strong and skilled enough to do all these things. That certainly doesn't have to be so.

I believe that just because you are evil it doesn't mean you murder everyone you see and run in to. Nor do I believe being lawful good makes you a jerk and a bully or that pure good makes you gullible. Many stupid monsters in the D&D world are chaotic evil but that doesn't mean chaotic evil makes a person stupid.

A good aligment quiz should hold each answer on the same level of intelligence (be it either high or low) with the only difference being the moral standpoint. Also, I still believe strongly that you can not have 6 choices per question. Forcing someone to choose between one of two options is better. Take a look at the Virtue / Vice test in the Ordo Dracul book made for Vampire in new World of Darkness. A character can choose between 7 virtues and 7 vices making a total of 49 combinations. That is a lot but they solved it by having questions with only two alternatives, weighing 1 virtue against 1 virtue or 1 vice against 1 vice. Yes, the quiz also assumes you are a man, a lord even in midieval Europe but the assumptions are clearly stated before the test and a person taken it is expected to have enough creativity as to answer what their character would do if he was in that situation.

So, is it possible to have an alignment quiz at all? Yes I believe it is. But for a group of people to be useful in helping with such a project, they must first agree on what the different alignments mean and imply. Maybe we should start there?


As a sidenote, the ability of any law enforcement agency, modern or historic, to enforce law is in its strength of arms. Nothing has changed there.

[Yahzi]

We were calling out the behavior of the 'good' responses as acting like suckers.
No, you just looked for excuses to pick an argument. Here's an exercise that will prove it: write up your own scenario in such a way that it explicitly contains every possible or imaginable fact so as to admit of no ambiguity no matter how uncharitably it is read.

Oh. You can't. Because it is impossible.


They believed everything they heard without question
Because the DM told them. When your DM tells you there's a 10 ' ft corridor with a door at the end, do you assume its a hallucination/ illusion/ monster/ extraplaner trap/ mime in disguise/ polymorphed banana? Every single freaking time?

Because, you know, that explains a lot.


So...yeah, I would still construe those as mild critiques.
I would construe your comment as stupid.

Wait for it... wait for it... wait.... OK. Now. Have the lights gone on yet?


Based on the examples provided I would have to wonder where is the ethos in which you uphold justice/protect the weak/innocent? i.e. where are the choices a Paladin would make?
The classic Paladin is Blue. Which could possibly be derived by my noting that Blue was analogous to LG. I don't know, that seemed kind of obvious to me.


Now as people have pointed out, what I was trying to say was that the actions taken by some of these alternatives are not very clever
They're not supposed to be clever. It is not a challenge. You are not expected to prove your vast superiority by coming up with cleverer responses.

They were supposed to be illustrative. Instead, you chose to complain about the colors, line, and form of the illustration rather than attempt to see the picture.


Reading your questions it gives me the feeling that if I was a chaotic evil character I should kill everyone I meet, burn down everything
And, in your opinion, CE should... give people tea and cookies?

See, in my world, when you're the servant of madness, chaos, evil, darkness, and death, killing people is kind of the thing. You know? Possibly even more important than amassing huge quantities of gold. See, if the only thing you are interested in is more wealth and prestige, you're Yellow; if all you want is more raw personal power, you're probably Red. On the other hand, if you're a psychotic murderer out to destroy the whole world, you might qualify for Pure Evil.


as the quiz says nothing about what happens after, I am going to assume my character should get away with it.
Why not assume a 1965 Chevy Nova? The quiz said nothing about that, either.

If you want to criticize what I wrote, you kind of have to confine your criticisms to what I wrote. See how that works?

[Pickford]

No, you just looked for excuses to pick an argument. Here's an exercise that will prove it: write up your own scenario in such a way that it explicitly contains every possible or imaginable fact so as to admit of no ambiguity no matter how uncharitably it is read.

Oh. You can't. Because it is impossible.

With respect, this was not a happy to glad discussion, because there are no such differences that are not, in fact, qualitative. The example options provided were not satisfactory in describing the sum possible set of moral outlooks.

The scenarios need not have 'every' set piece, simply be vaguer about the outcome and allow the player to use their imagination.

But in regards to your challenge off the top of my head I would use a series of binary questions intended to determine what traits/qualities the personalities of the characters possess.

A classic duty/compassion fork (answers altered to fit the alignment system)
1) You are a diplomatic courier traveling by horseback to deliver a message of acceptance of terms from your liege lord to end a war and prevent the the execution of royal prisoners in two days time. When you are one day away from your destination you hear cries for help and the howl of wolves in the woods as you pause to water your horses. Do you:

A) Mount up and continue your quest you gave an oath to protect your liege, send aid back from the next town you arrive at, or go yourself after completion of your mission. (LG)
B) Mount up and continue your quest, your given word and your liege are more important, if there is time later come back to see if the situation remains. (LN)
C) Mount up and continue your quest, take note of the location to investigate later, there may be something of interest once the wolves have finished their work. (LE)
D) Mount up to continue your quest, the lives of many hang in the balance against the one, send back aid from the next town and upon completion of your mission immediately return to give aid. (NG) Is this really that surprising?
E) Mount up and continue your quest, there could be alot of wolves and you don't feel like getting eaten too, if you encounter a group of people spoiling for a wolfhunt, send them this way. (N)
F) Mount up and continue your quest, royals are more likely to be grateful than some rube who went wandering in the woods with wolf packs. (NE)
G) Move into the brush to give rescue, there is an innocent at risk here and now and that overrides other concerns. If there is more than one wolf, lead them on a merry chase to give the victim time to escape. (CG)
H) Move into the brush to see what is going on, the royals can wait, they probably wouldn't execute someone worth that much over a few hours delay. Besides, maybe it's not a whole pack of wolves. If it is, decide that duty is the better part of valor today, sorry kid. (CN)
I) Move into the brush those royals can wait. If it's only a single wolf kill it for fun and a nice rug and if the person is rich maybe they'll reward you. If there are several wolves, wait for them to finish and loot the body before carrying on. (CE)


Here would be my proposed edits to one of your original scenario answers:

Question 4
You have been hired to rescue a princess from her captor. However, once in her presence, she explains that she ran away of her own desire, to marry the baron of this castle for love and to avoid an arranged marriage.

White: Attempt to persuade the princess to return, noting the difficulties that her people may encounter without her leadership. If she continues to refuse, respect the choice of the princess and abandon your quest, give warning to her that others will likely be sent who may have fewer scruples.

Blue: Attempt to persuade the princess to return noting her responsibility to her people, and the difficulties that her rash decision will cause for those she gave an oath to protect. If even after this she refuses, return and explain her decision and offer to refund any payment already given.

Green: Respect her choice and return to report (falsely) that the princess was not to be found in the keep, diverting the search for a while.

Yellow: Take the princess back against her will, you gave your word and once you've been paid, you always follow the job through.

Red: Attempt to guilt the princess into returning by exploiting her compassion and ignorance, tell her that her father is dying if necessary. If all else fails, ignore the princess and her whining about love, take her back, be certain to kill her baron so this situation can't repeat itself... bloody waste of my time. (grumble grumble)

Black: Knock the princess unconcious, brooking no argument, loot the castle, kill any who stand in your way, return the princess post haste for a large reward. After the princess is returned request to annex the ex-baron's territory as your own holding (if you want it).

[Yahzi]

With respect, this was not a happy to glad discussion, because there are no such differences that are not, in fact, qualitative. The example options provided were not satisfactory in describing the sum possible set of moral outlooks.
No set of examples can fully describe that sum; therefore, the definition "satisfactory" is entirely personal. I did not write the piece as an exercise in fulfilling your personal definition of completeness.



The scenarios need not have 'every' set piece, simply be vaguer about the outcome and allow the player to use their imagination.

Did you not read the post immediately after yours, where someone took the freedom of imagining that no acts would have consequences because I failed to explicitly specify the outcomes?


But in regards to your challenge off the top of my head I would use a series of binary questions intended to determine what traits/qualities the personalities of the characters possess.

And when you take a quiz at school, where you have to choose which is the best answer or which answer best fits, do you argue that none of them are adequate? Are you Sheldon at the Driver's License Bureau?


1) You are a diplomatic courier traveling by horseback to deliver a message of acceptance of terms from your liege lord to end a war and prevent the the execution of royal prisoners in two days time. When you are one day away from your destination you hear cries for help and the howl of wolves in the woods as you pause to water your horses.
I can't answer this because you failed to specify certain crucial points.
1) What is the reputation of the royal prisoners? Would the world be better off if they were dead?
2) What is the nature of the war? Perhaps my liege lord started it and deserves punishment.
3) What are the nature of the terms? Is it a dishonorable peace that will shame my lord's family and he only made it out of sentimental weakness? Do I suspect it's just a ruse and thus I will be used as a pawn in a game of deceit?
4) How do I know the terms aren't merely "Nuts!" written in fancy language, which will anger the warlord so much he executes me as an example? Does my liege lord want me dead for some reason, or has someone else altered the terms on the treaty without his knowledge?
5) What is my character's relationship with wolves? Does he have a blood-pact with them, or a phobia of them? Is he part werewolf or does he suspect anyone in his family of being part werewolf?
6) How do I know the wolves have the keys to my 1965 Chevy Nova?

Darn... I worked so hard at that that I didn't have enough energy left over to actually read your answers. But if I did, I'm sure I could pick holes in them too.



Here would be my proposed edits to one of your original scenario answers:
Here are the reasons I didn't make those edits in the first place.


respect the choice of the princess and abandon your quest
So your moral scruples are strong enough to cause you to abandon your quest and leave a war ongoing, but not enough to cause you to actually give a damn. You walk away without helping anyone. How is that a Paragon of Good?


Blue: Attempt to persuade the princess
Even though you're a Paladin with sword and a warhorse, the only thing you're allowed to do with people whose rash, irresponsible behavior is actively getting people killed is to... argue with them.


return to report (falsely) that the princess was not to be found in the keep, diverting the search for a while.
Your honor means so little to you that you lie, even when the lie is guaranteed to be found out and won't ultimately help.


Take the princess back against her will, you gave your word and once you've been paid, you always follow the job through.
This is essentially my answer, minus the part where you are open to accepting new jobs. So your character is just dumber, but otherwise the same motivation: self-interest.


Attempt to guilt the princess into returning by exploiting her compassion and ignorance, tell her that her father is dying if necessary.
Not sure why you're assuming the princess cares if her father is dying; or why a character who lives by strength would be able to frame arguments based on duty and compassion, let alone assume anyone else would be swayed by such arguments. But at least the ready lying sounds evil.


After the princess is returned request to annex the ex-baron's territory as your own holding (if you want it).
Well, that would be a fair answer too. Although I would also accept it for Red.

Interestingly, the closer to evil you got, the closer to my own answers you got. The one thing that every one of your answers contained was an overwhelming sense of self-interest. Every single answer starts off with, "what is convenient or easy or profitable for me?"

The point of my Good answers was to show that some characters are not primarily motivated by immediate personal gain. Thus the White routinely inconveniences himself for others; the Blue subjects himself to truth regardless of what difficulty that might impose; the Green gets carried away with the romance of the cause and impulsively pledges himself to noble quests.

Basically, this "quiz" (and how I wish I had never used that particular word) demonstrates that you would be most comfortable playing an adventurer who is almost solely concerned with his own well-being, to the exclusion of any other concerns. You are not going to be the quixotic, romantic adventurer that throws his body into the breach in a almost certainly vain attempt to stop a horde of demons. Whereas a player who routinely played as White or Blue could be expected to do so, sacrificing his life in defense of an ideal or a hope. This is useful information for a DM to have about your character, don't you think?

[Gildedragon]

You seem not to be getting what the criticism of your alignment system/evaluation system is.
Some of the points:
The morality system does not map well onto 'standard' D&D style systems
The questions present rather obtuse and narrow portrayals of the alignments
The scenarios are vague to the point of lacking context, and the answers have little to do with internal motivations
The moral value of the answers is presented before the answers are
The homebrew moral system prevents any meaningful discussion on the assessment of morality
The alignments are portrayed to cartoonish extents, allowing no nuanced interactions
The portrayal of sexes in the 'quiz' is problematic, to put it mildly

[PersonMan]

The point of the quiz was to help players understand the alignment system, so they (and the DM) could figure out how to apply it consistently. An alignment system that is merely the arbitrary judgement of the DM is not very helpful.

Yet I can't really read much about the alignments out of the quiz. Ok, I can, but only by applying "interpretation skills" i.e. reading way too deeply into every little thing. Could be a personal thing, though, I generally don't like painting a person based on 4 actions.

Anyways, you want the DM and players to have an understanding of the system and be on the same page, right? Ok, then, pretend I'm one of your players. Having received the quiz, I make conclusions about the alignments. Ignoring the "x = y" at the top, I get something like:

White: Commanding, helps others in a very "you can't handle this, I'm taking control" manner. Cool guy to have around if your village is in ruins, but if he sticks around in one place for all that long you'll be under the iron (but with a cushioned sole) boot of a benevolent dictator. Their competence determines whether this can lead to a safe haven or a hellhole.

Blue: Even more commanding. This is the "I AM IN COMMAND" alignment. Doesn't give a damn about what you think, they're in charge and it's their way or the highway. Doesn't seem interested in the happiness or health of others beyond some internal code; mercurial and unpredictable, dangerous.

Green: Loves conflict, seeks it out gleefully and regardless of the consequences. Main goal seems to be to participate in as much of it as possible, whether mundane (arguments about the quality of an inn) or over-the-top (War! War! War!).

Yellow: Only this person and a close group around them matter, everyone else is a target for extortion at the slightest provocation. Hell, even his own comrades are subject to his attempts to gain wealth and influence. Greed and contempt for others are high driving force.

Red: There's a German saying, "nach mir die Sintflut", what basically means "I don't care what comes after my life is over". Change that to "I don't care what happens after this brief moment of enjoyment" and you have this one pinned down. Easy to manipulate, if you can position the trail of cookies properly. Build your base underwater and laugh when he comes for revenge.

Black: Greatest goal is bloodshed, beyond even self-preservation. Similar to Green, but not interested in conflicts apart from killing and destroying. Seems to be interested in wealth, but only as a secondary aspect. Perhaps seeking wealth because he squanders it at the earliest opportunity.

---

Unless these are exactly what you think these alignments are, we have a problem.


I agree that the NE examples were a bit stupid, but they were intended to be funny. Although I am not sure why you classified the last act (of betrayal and bribery) as stupid; if the player gets away with it, is it still stupid?

Such things are easily lost over the internet. If you inject humor into an otherwise entirely serious quiz, especially if it fits with a theme of 'extremely unpragmatic actions', it can very easily be interpreted as serious.

Also, "but I got away with it" does not make something less stupid, it just means that they were somehow able to get away with it anyways.


The quiz was not a challenge; the goal was not to spark readers into finding better ways to resolve the problem. It was simply meant to be illustrative.

[...]

Again, it's supposed to be illustrative, not definitive.

I still think that "give prompts, get replies" is the better option. It lets the players show behaviors they would in-game, rather than sticking to really really really specific "illustrative" answers.

Also, if you make a quiz and load it up with a massive amount of assumptions and then give very specific answers, under the heading "what would your character do?", you need to communicate something like "this doesn't have to be what you would do, just check the one closest to what you would do" or the test is missing something important.

EDIT: There's a massive difference between a school/state given test and a quiz given by the DM. The latter is something you can talk to the quiz-maker about to improve it. The rest are made by a system you can't just communicate to the head of quickly and easily.

If I take a test where I must choose one of X answers and none fit, I do complain that none are adequate, but I still fill it out. It's just a bad test, even if I need to take it.


The point is that this is supposed to be a useful definition for the players and the DM.

See above. Generally, if you think "evil" and I think "wow this guy is stupid, how did he make it to adulthood?" there's a problem with the material because it's sending entirely different messages.

Especially if the "I" is multiple people.

1

I like quizzes. I enjoy answering questions and getting to know my character better. What I want is to communicate the perceived problems with this quiz so it can be improved. Arguing about random details isn't useful with this goal in mind (most of the time).

So, here are some examples. Lots of text ahead.

Case one: Airis
Airis has a moral code typical of her homeland, Aurelia: strength above all else. Of course, their definition of strength includes things like "the strong must protect the weak" and "those who exploit those not as strong as they are are weak". She worships a goddess of duelists; important morals here are "killing outside a blessed field of battle is blasphemy" and "if you prove yourself stronger than another, do not kill them, for that shows that you fear them and do not trust your power". She's something like LG, perhaps LN due to the ferocity with which she destroys those dubbed 'weak' by her morals and the lack of strong altruism behind her actions.

Let's go through the quiz as if I was planning on playing her in this game. I'm including some of her thought process here and there. The answers are split into "Free Response" which doesn't stick to the answers, followed by a section about which best fits.

Question 1:

Free Response: If Airis thinks the merchant is trustworthy, go over the evidence presented by either side and come to a conclusion. If the party member did it, pressure them to return the ring and be angry at them for a while.

If the merchant isn't trustworthy, request some kind of proof. If none exists, leave.

Closest given response would be a combination of white/blue. She can't cast spells, though, but if she could she would announce that she will use one to solve the issue. If either party resists, pressure them as to why. If the party member is guilty, demand the return of the ring and be angry at them for a while.

Question 2:

Free Response: Charge in from above (Airis can fly) and, making a suitable dramatic entrance, get between the two parties. Demand an explanation from everyone involved, keeping an eye on everyone, especially the woman. She considers her to be the greatest potential threat for cultural reasons (and because she was both 4v1ing and has a bloodied weapon).

If the men have a good reason (the woman is a murderer or otherwise needs to be brought in to custody) to be fighting her, turn on and disable/disarm the woman. If not, help her take down the men nonlethally. Prevent any bloodshed.

Closest given response would be be blue, mixed in with "force them to cease at once" rather than demanding it.

Question 3:

Free Response: Have a long laugh about it, but give both a potion. Tell the party member to pick better partners. Find out if the girl is particularly promiscuous, if so tell her to pick better partners.

White fits her response basically perfectly.

Question 4:
Free Response: Airis isn't the sneaky type most of the time, but assuming she decided it was appropriate, she does sneak in. When the princess explains her situation, have a brief (probably) confusing discussion about religion (Aurelian religion is very different from that of the outside world) and swear to aid her. It's only proper for a dashing duelist to aid the princess, after all!

Airis would try to settle the conflict between the two realms without a political marriage, which should be easy as a marriage is just the wax on the deal, not the deal itself, in most cases. The important stuff is already taken care of.

Closest answer is white.

[Baroncognito]

There's a German saying, "nach mir die Sintflut",

That's not a German saying. That's the German version of "Apres moi le deluge." (Unless you're suggesting that the Germans coined it first)

[PersonMan]

That's not a German saying. That's the German version of "Apres moi le deluge." (Unless you're suggesting that the Germans coined it first)

I'm suggesting that I'm a German speaker who heard it in German and am calling it a German saying as a result, which is true.

Or do the French say "nach mir die Sintflut"? No? Then it's German. :smalltongue:

I'm not sure which came first, if it matters the German one specifically references the biblical flood rather than just a flood. But 'le deluge' could refer to the same thing, I dunno, my French sucks.

[The Random NPC]

And when you take a quiz at school, where you have to choose which is the best answer or which answer best fits, do you argue that none of them are adequate? Are you Sheldon at the Driver's License Bureau?

I would like to point out that I know many people (myself included) that have argued that no answers were correct, and have gotten the question stricken from the test.

[Yahzi]

you need to communicate something like "this doesn't have to be what you would do, just check the one closest to what you would do" or the test is missing something important.
I thought that was obvious. So help me Pelor, I thought it was obvious.

I should not have used the word "quiz." Mea culpa!

For the record, I should have said, "Here are some sample actions. How would you classify each?"


White: I'm taking control
These are heroes, acting heroic. Of course they're take charge. And yes, if you are not White, then having a White run your village will feel like a benevolent dictator. If you are, on the other hand, you'll know he will always be fair to everyone, and you'll think that's great.


Blue: Even more commanding. This is the "I AM IN COMMAND" alignment. Doesn't give a damn about what you think, they're in charge and it's their way or the highway. Doesn't seem interested in the happiness or health of others beyond some internal code; mercurial and unpredictable, dangerous.
Half-right. Yes, a person who believes there is a Cosmic Order that is best for everyone will tend to seem quite commanding. And yes, they will be dangerous if you disregard their sense of order, but then, all adventurers are dangerous.

I don't know where you got the "uninterested in happiness or health of others," or why you think they are mercurial and unpredictable. They follow the rules of cosmic order precisely because it leads to the greatest good for the greatest number; their actions are entirely predictable since they are based on cosmic order rather than personal interest.


Green: Loves conflict, seeks it out gleefully and regardless of the consequences.
I am sensing a theme here. You seem to define Good as passive. This is precisely the notion I am trying to combat with my alignment system.

But yes, the idea is that Green is so enamored of honor that he is willing to engage in conflict for its sake. Like an adventurer, or any of the Knights of the Round Table.


Yellow:
Spot-on.


Red:
Spot-on!


Black:
Spot on!


Unless these are exactly what you think these alignments are, we have a problem.
Again, like Pickford, the evil alignments seem clear enough. So: why is it so difficult to characterize Good alignments?

Part of the problem is because most players play Good, and most players spend most of their time stabbing people in the face and taking their stuff. This is a automatically confusing set of affairs.

Hence my attempt to reduce the alignment issue to two simple principles:

1) Moral behavior is being fair to people on your list.
2) Who is on your list determines what your alignment is. White = everyone, Blue = everybody who plays fair, Green = your tribe, clan, or family, Yellow = everyone who follows the rules, Red = people who can kick your butt, Black = yourself.


strength above all else.
That's Red, in a nutshell. All of her "concerns" about others are really just ways of demonstrating her own power. I would assume she thinks the weak deserve their station in life for being weak. Hence any Good is out. And I can't stand LN or CN as alignments; they either mean robots or nut-jobs. I just folded those into LE and NE.

If the quiz gave the impression that Red could not be honorable, that is not what I meant; I do recognize I need to work on that part a bit. It's just that their sense of honor extends only to those strong enough to warrant it.


be angry at them for a while.
There is no white/blue here; if someone stole from her, she would not be merely "angry for a while" at them or their associates. Thus, she is giving her party members special treatment. At best that is Green.

As for going over the evidence, sure: You can imagine Conan listening to evidence to try and uncover the truth. That's not outside of Red. But when he's done, he's going to do something other than be a little angry; someone is going to pay with blood (if nothing else, for making him waste his time dealing with it!). In her case, I would expect her to apply some serious punishment to whoever reached above their station; the merchant, for pressing a claim against a stronger (and thus more noble) person, or the party member, for being so weak as to have been caught.


keeping an eye on everyone, especially the woman. She considers her to be the greatest potential threat for cultural reasons
Look what you did there. You elevated the woman to a position of parity. In Airis's eyes, every armed woman is potentially able to hurt her; that is, she puts every armed woman on her "list." Once that is established, the rest of her behavior is perfectly understandable, even as a Red.

You may even go so far as to state that she considers all armed people as "equals;" again with the "strength is what defines you as worthy of moral consideration." In this context, yes, she is acting blue/white, because she is treating the woman fairly; but it is not fairness that changes with alignment, but rather who gets it.


give both a potion
Again, once she put the woman on her "list," everything makes sense. Not sure why the woman makes it on the list here, though. Surely there are a lot of diseased tavern wenches; why does this one deserve an expensive potion? Because her fellow party-member (who is on her list) was involved?


It's only proper for a dashing duelist to aid the princess, after all!
This seems to be more about Airis demonstrating her power (that's what powerful duelists do!) than it does about making sure someone else is happy. And presumably the enemy king is expected to demonstrate his strength by defeating her.

You do seem to have a conflicted character here; on the one hand, she wants to act nice and fair to everyone; on the other hand, she defines the entirety of her experience by strength. I would have NPC priests telling her that her aura is shot through with weak, sickly streaks of milk; that such tenderness is like a flaw in the metal which will cause a sword to break just when you need it most. It would be an interesting game, watching the player have to meter her acts of kindness, or make up for them by ruthlessly seeking out battle to prove her strength.

But the religion of Aurelian, despite its civilization-enabling sops to the rights of the weak, is a religion of Might makes Right. Admittedly, it wouldn't take much to convert it into Blue; but the emphasis, the centrality of strength as a component of moral value, strikes me as necessarily Red.

[Pickford]

No set of examples can fully describe that sum; therefore, the definition "satisfactory" is entirely personal. I did not write the piece as an exercise in fulfilling your personal definition of completeness.

I assumed you wrote it to have utility in determining what types of actions a player is likely to take. If you don't take into account world views where the character actually 'is' good then you're going to get bad data.



Did you not read the post immediately after yours, where someone took the freedom of imagining that no acts would have consequences because I failed to explicitly specify the outcomes?


If there are no consequences, there's no point in picking any answer at all.



And when you take a quiz at school, where you have to choose which is the best answer or which answer best fits, do you argue that none of them are adequate? Are you Sheldon at the Driver's License Bureau?


The snide remark aside, yes I would (and have) argued that the answers provide no fit at all. Being able to ascertain this is helpful when displaying ones critical thinking skills.


I can't answer this because you failed to specify certain crucial points.
1) What is the reputation of the royal prisoners? Would the world be better off if they were dead?
2) What is the nature of the war? Perhaps my liege lord started it and deserves punishment.
3) What are the nature of the terms? Is it a dishonorable peace that will shame my lord's family and he only made it out of sentimental weakness? Do I suspect it's just a ruse and thus I will be used as a pawn in a game of deceit?
4) How do I know the terms aren't merely "Nuts!" written in fancy language, which will anger the warlord so much he executes me as an example? Does my liege lord want me dead for some reason, or has someone else altered the terms on the treaty without his knowledge?
5) What is my character's relationship with wolves? Does he have a blood-pact with them, or a phobia of them? Is he part werewolf or does he suspect anyone in his family of being part werewolf?
6) How do I know the wolves have the keys to my 1965 Chevy Nova?

Darn... I worked so hard at that that I didn't have enough energy left over to actually read your answers. But if I did, I'm sure I could pick holes in them too.

I like how you assume a bunch of irrelevent things to try and ignore the criticisms. Wait...no I hate that.



Here are the reasons I didn't make those edits in the first place.

So your moral scruples are strong enough to cause you to abandon your quest and leave a war ongoing, but not enough to cause you to actually give a damn. You walk away without helping anyone. How is that a Paragon of Good?

I was operating off the definition of good given in the PHB: Altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. In otherwords, the princess has a right to what she wants. So yes, oppressing the princess is an evil act.


Even though you're a Paladin with sword and a warhorse, the only thing you're allowed to do with people whose rash, irresponsible behavior is actively getting people killed is to... argue with them.

Yes, that's pretty much what you're limited to, Paladins don't get to do evil acts (on purpose) nor oppress people, so kidnapping the Princess back against her will is right out. Indeed, as she willingly went there, the Paladin is pretty much resigned to begging the princess/returning and using diplomacy to try and halt the impending war.


Your honor means so little to you that you lie, even when the lie is guaranteed to be found out and won't ultimately help.

Honor? It's a chaotic good character (green), honor as a binding thing is a lawful concept, not chaotic.


This is essentially my answer, minus the part where you are open to accepting new jobs. So your character is just dumber, but otherwise the same motivation: self-interest.

The answer you gave originally wasn't lawful evil, it was neutral evil. Being willing to subvert their word is not a lawful act (even if the result is evil, that didn't cut it). So no, my answer maps to lawful evil, yours did not.


Not sure why you're assuming the princess cares if her father is dying; or why a character who lives by strength would be able to frame arguments based on duty and compassion, let alone assume anyone else would be swayed by such arguments. But at least the ready lying sounds evil.

I'm not assuming the princess would or wouldn't care, I'm assuming the chaotic evil character type would be willing to prey upon her possible affection for her father. Chaotic evil is about being selfish, cruel and willing to do anything to achieve your goals.


Well, that would be a fair answer too. Although I would also accept it for Red.

I suppose it would be allowed, however the lawful evil character is more likely to place importance in the pecking order and would not step above their position as easily. Neutral evil on the other hand would.


Interestingly, the closer to evil you got, the closer to my own answers you got. The one thing that every one of your answers contained was an overwhelming sense of self-interest. Every single answer starts off with, "what is convenient or easy or profitable for me?"

I think you do a pretty good job with evil, it's the good answers where you tend more towards well...evil as well.


The point of my Good answers was to show that some characters are not primarily motivated by immediate personal gain. Thus the White routinely inconveniences himself for others; the Blue subjects himself to truth regardless of what difficulty that might impose; the Green gets carried away with the romance of the cause and impulsively pledges himself to noble quests.

I disagree with the notion that the white/blue/green answers I gave displayed any paramount self-interest. I would also argue that truth without concern for consequences is lawful neutral (see: Planescape Torment character Vhailor)



Basically, this "quiz" (and how I wish I had never used that particular word) demonstrates that you would be most comfortable playing an adventurer who is almost solely concerned with his own well-being, to the exclusion of any other concerns. You are not going to be the quixotic, romantic adventurer that throws his body into the breach in a almost certainly vain attempt to stop a horde of demons. Whereas a player who routinely played as White or Blue could be expected to do so, sacrificing his life in defense of an ideal or a hope. This is useful information for a DM to have about your character, don't you think?

Who me? I prefer playing a character that is altruistic and seeks truth (read: Paladins). And it is my position that one should never give up (which tends to lead to either death in the face of insurmountable odds or incredibly lucky wins). If that's not what you think the quiz shows, there is pretty clearly a flaw in the quiz.