Alignment and Sexuality

[Steampunkette]

Not a lot of games have alignments, and rather assume that a player is heroic or villainous and leave the details of how and why up to the player. But for those that try to enforce the idea of Universal Morality, like D&D and Pathfinder, alignment can mean the difference between being blinded and killed when someone says a single word.

Based on the Gender Conventions thread, I began to wonder about sexuality as relates to alignment. The statement "Rogues and Bards are more fluidly sexual than Paladins" made me think about it.

So. The first thing I'll do is describe some different sexualities by the analogy of Fast Food.

Heterosexuality: I'll have the Burger and Fries, please.
Homosexuality: I'll have the Burger and Onion Rings, please.
Bisexuality: Can I have a Burger with Onion Rings -and- Fries? Just mix 'em up for me.
Asexuality: I'm not really hungry. You guys go ahead.
Demisexuality: Burger? Nah... I'm not really very hungr-OH! Chicken Nuggets!
Pansexual: Just um... Y'know what? Surprise me.

And it works for Relationship types, too!
Monogamy: No. You can't have any of my fries.
Polyamory: Let's split some fries.

So one thing that has come up, recently, is the idea that, as noted, Paladins tend to be rigidly sexual. And as most (if not all) paladins are lawful, I think that makes a lot of sense. I feel like a Paladin would pick a sexuality and go with it, and be damn sure anyone they wanted to pursue a relationship with understood exactly what that sexuality was. Meanwhile Rogues and Bards might be a little more fluid with their sexualities, and only reveal it when it was -immediately- important. Not a lot of ground rules or clear guidelines with a Chaotic individual, after all.

So while the Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds tried to say that Chaotic individuals were more likely to be bisexual and Lawful ones heterosexual or homosexual, I have a different theory.

Lawfully aligned individuals: Very clear about the "ground rules" of their relationships. They want to know, without a shadow of a doubt, what their partner(s) are okay with and want their partners to know the same. If a Lawful Bisexual person enters into a Polyamorous relationship I feel like she'd want explicit rules on how to express romantic and sexual attention to all of her partners without making any of them feel neglected, for example. While a Lawful Bisexual person entering into a Monogamous relationship would want to make their partner aware that they are attracted to people of other genders, but will keep true to their lover.

Chaotic aligned individuals: Take it as it comes. While a Chaotic person could be straight and in a monogamous relationship with a beloved individual, there probably wouldn't be a whole lot of explicit rules of what to do when and how to proceed with the relationship. Instead it would be kind of a "Grab life by the horns" whirlwind romance. Similarly, a polyamorous chaotic individual might be fairly freewheeling. This might lead to overstepping of boundaries, but that's okay: They learn where the boundary is and make amends where possible.

Meanwhile, individual sexualities would complicate things a bit. For example a Lawful Polyamorous Bisexual character in a relationship with a Demisexual and an Asexual individual might have some pretty simple rules on when and how sex happens (Almost only with the Demisexual) but romantic contact in equal proportion with both partners to avoid jealousy or favoritism. After all, a relationship isn't only about sex: It's about love!

Just my two copper pieces. What do you all think?

[Maglubiyet]

What if you want the two burger meal with super-size fries and like to pick fries off of other people's trays too?

[goto124]

It makes sense that Lawful and Chaotic people would approach their relationships differently, and that hetero/homo/bisexuality should not come into the Law/Chaos axis.

Or the Evil/Good axis. Urgh.


Mag: That's a sexuality of 'Greedy Jerk'.
If you want someone else's fries, you should've at least asked. Even Chaotic people don't like it when you don't ask.

[Maglubiyet]

If you want someone else's fries, you should've at least asked. Even Chaotic people don't like it when you don't ask.


Yeah, sometimes you see fries that look so good you really want them, even if they're someone else's. And though you manage to resist them at the reception, they show up unexpectedly at your hotel room at 3am begging to be eaten. It's the stuff that causes paladins to fall.

[lytokk]

I wouldn't think anyone's alignment or class would have anything to do with sexuality. It could very well influence how the character approaches relationships but not really anything to do with sexuality. Paladins could very well sleep around as much as rogues or bards, but they'd never mislead a partner or make them think that there's a future in the relationship other than a 1 night stand, if that's what they intend.

[Segev]

Yeah, I don't think alignment really has a thing to do with sexual orientation. It would have a lot to do with your response to and behaviors in regard to your sexual orientation (no matter how much a horn-dog your paladin is, if his religion is one with traditional monogamy-and-marriage rules, he's going to strive to be the ultimate gentleman while wooing the fair maidens and he'll be strictly faithful to his wife when he finally marries one...and even if he's bisexual, if his faith says "hetero-only," he'll restrict his attentions to the opposite sex; swap genders as appropriate here. Heck; if he's in a religion that, for some reason, says "homosexuality only," he'll only go after the same sex. Because Lawful. Same for celebacy.)

A Chaotic Evil monster of a person can be straight. His alignment doesn't compel him to change preferences on a whim, nor to be less than picky. He's not a nice person, and likely will take sex from any woman he feels like (and has the power to do so, or skill to seduce), but he's not going to decide that he likes guys just because he's Chaotic. He'll be as turned off by it as any other straight person's alignment (and, I presume, as any homosexual would be by the opposite sex's effort's at seduction).

I won't bother going all around the alignment grid to illustrate the point further unless people really want me to. Suffice it to reitterate that alignment is related to behavior and principles, not personal preferences in terms of flavors of food nor sexual partners.

[The Evil DM]

Not a lot of games have alignments, and rather assume that a player is heroic or villainous and leave the details of how and why up to the player. But for those that try to enforce the idea of Universal Morality, like D&D and Pathfinder, alignment can mean the difference between being blinded and killed when someone says a single word.

- Snip -



Having spent far too much time in my life thinking about alignment - I would agree with Lytokk above, that while alignment might have some bearing on approach to relationships, it would not have a lot of bearing on sexuality.

The assessment I would use - in context of my own universe (role play and otherwise) is that while sexuality is often used as a moral bludgeon. It is a more emotional and base response. Philosophically, I adhere to the trinity of Body - Spirit - Soul which represents the Physical Me, the Primal and Emotional Me and the Conscious Moral Me. This is reflected in my role playing as well.

NPC's in the games I play have a decision engine based on moral/ethical alignment and an emotional equivalent I use to determine NPC actions. Alignment is a reflection of the conscious decision making while the second is more subconscious. The two together help provide me with a profile of the NPC character.

BIG NOTE: I don't make players adhere to an emotional alignment - or a moral one - but I do observe behaviors to see where players track. - These are descriptive not prescriptive, but it can impact you if your murderhoboing and someone casts holy word in the vicinity.

However, for NPCs I have built an engine to help me make consistent NPC decisions during play. The two axis for the "Emotional Alignment" are Introveted/Extroverted - and Aggressive/Passive. For use with my NPCs I have mapped various personality trends towards the combination of Emotional and Moral alignment systems. My goal has always been providing players consistent patterns so that they can better predict outcomes and think more strategically rather than just providing a series of tactical encounters.

So - matter at hand - Sexuality.

Sexuality would be much more emotional. The aggressive/extrovert would be much more likely to seek sexual encounters than the passive/introvert. The moral/ethical alignments would reflect more approach. A chaotic evil aggressive extrovert could be prone to violence with sexuality regardless of sexual orientation.

In any event. Sexuality is not built into my NPC decision engine. It hasn't come up enough for me to integrate the concept and it is an interesting thought.

[Lady Serpentine]

Lawful people also tend to be more bound by social conventions. This is especially true of Paladins and followers of deities. That might explain why other alignments would be freer to sleep around or act on their orientation. Which seems to be the OP's point; that a CE person isn't more likely to be bi and an LG Paladin isn't more likely to be straight appears to miss what they're actually talking about because of the name of the thread.

[Red Fel]

Interesting.


I wouldn't think anyone's alignment or class would have anything to do with sexuality.

Agree.


Yeah, I don't think alignment really has a thing to do with sexual orientation.

And agree.


It could very well influence how the character approaches relationships but not really anything to do with sexuality.

But most of all this.

Alignment is a mindset. It's about how you view the world, and everything in it - including relationships.

I'll agree that a Lawful person, being one who values structure, honor, and tradition, would want to have the relationship carefully defined, whatever its nature. Similarly, the Chaotic person, being one who values passion, individuality, and freedom, would want to have the option to explore different and new facets of the relationship. I do note that this creates challenges; a Lawful person in a relationship with a Chaotic person would be constantly frustrated by the latter's desire to change things, while the latter would be frustrated with the former's stagnant inability to explore their romance.

That said, there's another spectrum: Good and Evil. I'd like to explore that angle as well. I'd like to put forward that Good, given its nature as compassionate and selfless, would tend towards giving in a relationship - the Good partner is supportive, emotionally present, and willing to do what it takes to make his or her partner feel protected and provided for. The Evil partner, by contrast, tends towards taking, but not necessarily from his or her partner; instead, Evil takes from others to benefit the partner. (Or, in a more twisted relationship, Evil manipulates and takes from his or her partner directly.)

By way of illustration, a Good character finds that her partner was insulted or hurt one evening. She offers a shoulder to cry on, a warm embrace, and comforting words. An Evil character finds the same thing; she goes out to make the offender pay, returns home with the comforting statement that they will never hurt her partner again, and offers a motivational speech about strength and growth. The Good character is about strengthening his or her partner through compassion and warmth; the Evil character does so through power and manipulation.

This is a very interesting conversational topic. I agree with the idea that one's alignment should influence how one approaches relationships, and with the notion that it does not influence one's specific sexuality.

[Flickerdart]

That said, there's another spectrum: Good and Evil. I'd like to explore that angle as well. I'd like to put forward that Good, given its nature as compassionate and selfless, would tend towards giving in a relationship - the Good partner is supportive, emotionally present, and willing to do what it takes to make his or her partner feel protected and provided for. The Evil partner, by contrast, tends towards taking, but not necessarily from his or her partner; instead, Evil takes from others to benefit the partner. (Or, in a more twisted relationship, Evil manipulates and takes from his or her partner directly.)
It's interesting that you give Evil two modes (selfish together, or selfish alone) but Good only one. If an Evil relationship can be categorized by whether or not the partners act primarily to benefit each other vs themselves, why can't a Good one be characterized by that? For me, it's a much more interesting dilemma - while an Evil creature treats the entire world as a reserve and itself/its group as the beneficiary, a Good creature treats itself as a reserve and those suffering in the world as beneficiaries. But what side of the line does the Good creature's partner fall on - those sacrificing, or those benefiting? Will a given Good creature expect its partner to sacrifice alongside it for a greater good than just their union?

[Maglubiyet]

I agree with the idea that one's alignment should influence how one approaches relationships, and with the notion that it does not influence one's specific sexuality.

I would think that if your preference was at odds with society's belief about what is the "correct" way to have a relationship and you were forced to break laws to be true to yourself, then the converse may apply -- your sexuality may influence your alignment. Unless, of course, Lawfulness is based on some abstract universal constant instead of being culture-specific.

[Telonius]

With regards to alignment ... I'd say sexual orientation might have something tangential to do with the Law/Chaos axis, but extremely little to do with Good/Evil. It could crop up in the classic problem case, where a character's personal code of honor conflicts with society's rules. If a Paladin (or any other Lawful character) is anything other than straight, and living in a society where homo- (or bi-, pan-, omni-, whatever-) sexuality is acceptable, then there's no conflict. If the society doesn't accept it, there could be a conflict.

[Flickerdart]

I would think that if your preference was at odds with society's belief about what is the "correct" way to have a relationship and you were forced to break laws to be true to yourself, then the converse may apply -- your sexuality may influence your alignment. Unless, of course, Lawfulness is based on some abstract universal constant instead of being culture-specific.
Lawfulness is based on a group-first and rules-first mentality, but it absolutely does not require those rules to come from the laws of whatever government is over you. For instance, a knight traveling through a realm where the king considers it fine to pillage and murder everything isn't suddenly released from his knightly vows that forbid him from doing so, nor his conscience. Similarly, a homosexual couple living in a state that forbids it could still be Lawful and simply not recognize the state's authority in the matter, as long as they had a consistent outlook on the matter.

[Segev]

Part of the reason, I think, Red Fel's "evil" set has two modes is that evil can love, but also can just use others' love. Good cannot simply use people. Good cares about others, pretty much by definition.

So the evil person in love will want to make their beloved happy - such is the nature of love - even without any further reward to himself than to see his beloved smile (though getting into her pants or recieving other reciprocal gratification is certainly not unwelcome). But the evil person will still want to do this at minimal cost to himself, so will likely exploit others for his beloved's benefit.

The evil person simply exploiting another's love will manipulate, fake as much reciprocation as they need to, and take and take and take because they are selfish and the one who loves them is a tool for their own happiness and pleasure.

The good person in love will also want to make their beloved happy, even without further reward to himself. He also is likely to appreciate and not be ill-disposed towards reciprocating kindness and gratification. He will, however, want to hurt nobody else, if possible, so will seek to please his beloved through his own efforts and resources, not through the exploitation of others.

The good person who is loved by another but does not reciprocate will be mildly pained by this, rather than seeing it as an opportunity to use somebody. He empathizes with their pain at not having their affections returned. He may accept favors from them, but will be very careful of their feelings when he does so, and will at the LEAST strive to be friends if he participates in a relationship with them. Such things are awkward for the good and even the neutral, who typically do not like it when others are unhappy.

[dream]

I'll bite; how can one be lawful & break the law simultaneously?

[Segev]

I'll bite; how can one be lawful & break the law simultaneously?

I do'nt see where that came up here, but...

Paladin Joe is an adherent of the Code of Paladinal Goodness and Light. His adventures pursuing a terrible criminal who has murdered a high priestess and stolen her infant child for use in a horrid demon-summoning rite take him to Eville, a quaintly-named Lawful Evil city-state wherein the blaggart he's chasing has every legal right to keep anything he takes on a raid against enemies of the state (which, by the laws of Eville, the high priestess was), and even being a paladin is illegal.

Joe is still LG; he has no respect for the laws of Eville because they're in conflict with the laws to which he does adhere. He finds them reprehensible and in need of replacement with better, more virtuous ones. He hasn't got the power to do that, however, so for now, he contents himself with breaking a great number of the unjust and vile laws of Eville designed to protect its malign residents from retribution by those they wrong who are "beneath" them in the hierarchy. He must, in order to rescue that innocent child, whom his code tells him must be saved.

[Red Fel]

It's interesting that you give Evil two modes (selfish together, or selfish alone) but Good only one. If an Evil relationship can be categorized by whether or not the partners act primarily to benefit each other vs themselves, why can't a Good one be characterized by that? For me, it's a much more interesting dilemma - while an Evil creature treats the entire world as a reserve and itself/its group as the beneficiary, a Good creature treats itself as a reserve and those suffering in the world as beneficiaries. But what side of the line does the Good creature's partner fall on - those sacrificing, or those benefiting? Will a given Good creature expect its partner to sacrifice alongside it for a greater good than just their union?

I put it that way because a relationship in which a person takes from the other, manipulates the other, or hurts the other on a regular basis (even healthy relationships have some of this from time to time, but not constantly) is a pretty perverse relationship, and not generally the sort of thing that a Good character would do. (Also, we should probably avoid delving too deeply into the nature of such relationships in this forum.) By contrast, an Evil character is willing to use love as a tool.

With respect to expectations of partners, a healthy relationship has none except understanding. The Lawful character will not expect his Chaotic partner to comply with a Lawful code, although it might make him happy, because he knows it isn't in his partner's nature. Similarly, a Good character, although willing to make noble sacrifices, would not ask them of her partner, despite her belief that they are necessary. Even a Good character with a Good partner would not make such demands; it is the partner's voluntary choice to make such sacrifices. Evil, by contrast, is quite comfortable making demands - and demanding sacrifices - of others.

To illustrate it better, the occasional "You'd do it if you loved me" line is common across the alignment spectrum, but it finds more regular use among Evil characters.


Part of the reason, I think, Red Fel's "evil" set has two modes is that evil can love, but also can just use others' love. Good cannot simply use people. Good cares about others, pretty much by definition.

So the evil person in love will want to make their beloved happy - such is the nature of love - even without any further reward to himself than to see his beloved smile (though getting into her pants or recieving other reciprocal gratification is certainly not unwelcome). But the evil person will still want to do this at minimal cost to himself, so will likely exploit others for his beloved's benefit.

The evil person simply exploiting another's love will manipulate, fake as much reciprocation as they need to, and take and take and take because they are selfish and the one who loves them is a tool for their own happiness and pleasure.

The good person in love will also want to make their beloved happy, even without further reward to himself. He also is likely to appreciate and not be ill-disposed towards reciprocating kindness and gratification. He will, however, want to hurt nobody else, if possible, so will seek to please his beloved through his own efforts and resources, not through the exploitation of others.

The good person who is loved by another but does not reciprocate will be mildly pained by this, rather than seeing it as an opportunity to use somebody. He empathizes with their pain at not having their affections returned. He may accept favors from them, but will be very careful of their feelings when he does so, and will at the LEAST strive to be friends if he participates in a relationship with them. Such things are awkward for the good and even the neutral, who typically do not like it when others are unhappy.

Very much this. Now, it's one thing to be slightly manipulative. I could see a CG character gently teasing a wealthy patroness who loves him into dates and fine things. But it wouldn't be completely one-sided; although the CG character did not reciprocate romantically, the warmth and companionship would be genuine, and the character would never do anything to genuinely hurt his patroness.

Evil has the second option, because Evil is inherently selfish. When Evil loves, it loves fiercely and protectively, like a savage mother bear or lion. Love is in some ways weakness, which Evil abhors, and so it seeks to armor that weakness, to take that vulnerable point and make it completely impenetrable and invulnerable. But if Evil is loved, and does not love in return, it sees weakness that can be exploited; and as with everything, when Evil exploits weakness, it does so with gusto.


I'll bite; how can one be lawful & break the law simultaneously?

I've got this one. A Paladin enters a kingdom where all travelers must be accompanied by and own (for the duration of their stay) a guide-slave who has been trained to guide travelers through the cities, translate for them, aid them in understanding law and custom, and provide sexual favors. Slavery is explicitly Evil, and the notion makes the Paladin uncomfortable. He declines to accept the services of the slave, in violation of law. Is he still Lawful? Yes. Refusing to adhere to an unjust law does not make one un-Lawful. Lawful does not mean "obeys the law," it means "adheres to principles, traditions, and/or honor." The Paladin is adhering to his principles by rejecting slavery.

This is not, however, the topic of this thread.

[Lady Serpentine]

I think Red Fel's example isn't very... Nuanced? A Lawful Good person might immediately run out to bring the person who mugged their lover to justice, then return with news he was in jail, or challenge someone who insulted their lover to a duel over it as a matter of honor.

And what stops the Evil person who actually loves their partner from offering comfort and reassurance in either case, in order to make someone they care about happy?

[LibraryOgre]

I wouldn't think anyone's alignment or class would have anything to do with sexuality. It could very well influence how the character approaches relationships but not really anything to do with sexuality. Paladins could very well sleep around as much as rogues or bards, but they'd never mislead a partner or make them think that there's a future in the relationship other than a 1 night stand, if that's what they intend.

Exactly this. Sexuality is what you are; alignment (especially the lawful/chaotic aspect) is how you approach what you are. Chaotic people can have happy, committed relationships, but those are the boundaries they (and their partner[s]) agreed upon. Lawful people can eschew a committed relationship, but that would be because their definition of a committed relationship isn't one that others want.

[Knaight]

I'll bite; how can one be lawful & break the law simultaneously?

Lawful as an alignment and lawful as a categorization in regards to the law are different things. The alignment refers more to operating within ordered structure and preferring the existence of an ordered structure than following whatever local laws are.

More on topic, I see absolutely no reason alignment and sexuality would be related. Approach to relationships, sure - to use an extreme example, being a horribly abusive jerk is the sort of thing that tends to push one down a bit alignment wise, and that's not exactly likely to come up in the context of a Good character.

[Red Fel]

I think Red Fel's example isn't very... Nuanced? A Lawful Good person might immediately run out to bring the person who mugged their lover to justice, then return with news he was in jail, or challenge someone who insulted their lover to a duel over it as a matter of honor.

This is a fair point, although I'm inclined to think that the LG person you describe is focusing more on the L than on the G; one who focuses on the G cares more, in my mind, about the person, whereas one who focuses on the L cares more about protecting the person's honor. But certainly, as with all things alignment-based, there's not hard-and-fast rule of what is or isn't; most of these are more "general tendencies" than "mandatory restrictions."


And what stops the Evil person who actually loves their partner from offering comfort and reassurance in either case, in order to make someone they care about happy?

Priorities, mostly. That's not to say that Evil can't offer emotional support, comfort, and assurance; they can. Rather, that they have a different perspective of what constitutes emotional support.

A Good person might offer sympathy, warmth, and a listening ear; that's because of what Good values. Reassurance from a Good character comes from that. Comments like "You're good enough, you're smart enough, and gosh darn it, people like you," are designed to make the person feel good about himself.

Evil values power, in all of its myriad forms. Comfort and reassurance from an Evil person comes in that vein; remarks about "I will protect you, you don't have to be afraid," (read: others will fear my power) or "You are bigger than this, you can overcome it," (read: others will fear your power) are the kind of emotional support Evil can offer.

That said, sometimes, actions speak louder than words. And while some people need a hug when they're down, that's not the kind of action that produces immediate, dramatic results. Evil likes immediate, dramatic results. Evil is goal-oriented, Good is means-oriented. And the long-term goal of an Evil partner isn't just "make my partner feel better," it's "never let my partner feel hurt or vulnerable ever again." And few methods are more effective than an old-fashioned, conspicuous, summary execution.

[Reltzik]

So what about someone who orders a tofu burger with sauteed mushrooms, pepperjack cheese, ghost pepper sauce, and nothing on the side?

[Flickerdart]

I put it that way because a relationship in which a person takes from the other, manipulates the other, or hurts the other on a regular basis (even healthy relationships have some of this from time to time, but not constantly) is a pretty perverse relationship, and not generally the sort of thing that a Good character would do. (Also, we should probably avoid delving too deeply into the nature of such relationships in this forum.) By contrast, an Evil character is willing to use love as a tool.

With respect to expectations of partners, a healthy relationship has none except understanding. The Lawful character will not expect his Chaotic partner to comply with a Lawful code, although it might make him happy, because he knows it isn't in his partner's nature. Similarly, a Good character, although willing to make noble sacrifices, would not ask them of her partner, despite her belief that they are necessary. Even a Good character with a Good partner would not make such demands; it is the partner's voluntary choice to make such sacrifices. Evil, by contrast, is quite comfortable making demands - and demanding sacrifices - of others.

To illustrate it better, the occasional "You'd do it if you loved me" line is common across the alignment spectrum, but it finds more regular use among Evil characters.
I'm not talking about hurting the other person. I'm talking about a Good character having to choose between what's good for the SO, and what's good for other people. In the same way that an Evil character might add an SO to the set of people who deserve to take from others (formerly a set containing only himself), a Good character might add the SO to the set of people who are expected to sacrifice for others (formerly a set containing only himself). Hell, Evil's not the only manipulative one around - a Good character who's too into the self-sacrifice side of things might even use the love as leverage to get the other to "see how good it feels to help others."

[Steampunkette]

http://www.exisle.net/mb/uploads/monthly_12_2011/post-4397-0-40254200-1325001004.jpg

This thread went exactly where I hoped it would and no one has tried to burn it down. :)

And yeah, my basic premise is that sexuality, or even relationship-type, shouldn't be defined by alignment, but how one approaches their sexuality should. Specific shoutout to Lytokk for the mention of Lawful people making it very clear that the one-night-stand is all it is, and moving on afterward while still maintaining their alignment. Very insightful!

So here's a different angle for folks: Love is inherently selfish.

When you're in love, and thus most romantic and long term sexual relationships, you tend to put the people you love above others in value. When forced to choose between allowing your loved one to have their throat slit by the villain or dropping your weapon (and thus endangering yourself and others by letting the villain's plan proceed unopposed) the standard move for the lover is to drop their sword/gun/whatevs as an act of devotion to their beloved.

The hero would rather allow the city/party/world to come to harm than suffer the emotional pain of losing their lover, in this example.

With that in mind, is it a lawful act to maintain one's lover's life even at the cost of others? You're choosing what is best for yourself rather than others, but you're also upholding a deep emotional, spiritual, and likely legal/traditional bond which is definitely in line with being a lawful character. Is it a good act? Good is typically selfless, and choosing yourself over others is pretty selfish, but at the same time you're saving a life which itself is a good act...

I definitely agree that on the Good/Evil axis there's some seriously different ways to approach sexuality. I'd categorize it like this:

Selfish Evil: Take from the relationship what you want out of it. You're not in it for the other person, really. But for what it can give to you.
Bound Evil: It's you and your lover against the world.
Bound Good: You and your lover are closely linked and create a powerful bond that enhances your ability to improve the world.
Unbound Good: Your relationships are pretty shallow, but they're good for everyone involved. Leave 'em wanting more and maybe you'll stop by, again, someday!

[ShaneMRoth]

This entire thread is a very good premise for a thought provoking examination of the Alignment mechanic.

I, for one, am grateful to the OP.

In my campaign, Paladins have a "You can't handle the truth" understanding of their role in the world.

They know, for a fact, that sexuality is not alignment sensitive.

In my campaign, there are homosexual Paladins.

This alone is strong evidence that homosexuality is entirely compatible with the Lawful and Good alignments. This is my prerogative as DM. Other DMs are obliged to make their own judgments applying their own prerogatives.

But, a number of NPCs in the campaign, even Lawful Good ones... just don't want to hear this. Because in my campaign, there are also religious texts that condemn homosexuality in ways that are analogous to the Bible.

Paladins are constitutionally capable of "handling the truth" about the fundamental "fact" that sexuality is not alignment sensitive. (This "fact" is actually me asserting my personal beliefs to my fantasy milieu, just so we're clear. Other DMs are not just at liberty to make different judgments, they are obliged to do so. If sexuality is alignment sensitive in your campaign, you need to let the players know.) But most other NPCs in the world are not capable of this understanding. So Paladins conspicuously refrain from debating the issue, preferring instead to let their conduct inform public opinion.

A Paladin would not stand idle while a person was persecuted for her sexuality. A Paladin would intervene.

In my campaign, a Paladin would be capable of preventing a hate-crime with little more than a withering look. Provided she was interacting with a society that held Paladins in high regard.

Sexuality is not alignment sensitive, in my milieu, in part because I simply don't believe it's a choice. If a person can't choose to be gay, then being gay is simply not a measure of that person's moral or ethical inclination.

[dream]

There's a lot (a whole lot) of confusion here about what's "lawful" and what's "moral".

Anyone know the difference? And how can you be lawful and break the law?

[Steampunkette]

In D&D there is universal law and mortal law. Different kingdoms have their own laws, but the universe's laws are part of the fabric of reality.

If a kingdom makes sexual assault legal a Paladin devoted to Law and Good will still lose their powers for forcing themself on someone else because it is an evil and unlawful act as relates to the universe, regardless of whether the magistrate agrees.

So long as the universe itself doesn't apply moral judgment on different sexualities no amount of local ordinances against kissing your loved one in public will make a paladin lose their abilities from doing so.

Being Lawful means respecting tradition, authority, and just rule of law. It doesn't mean you have to accept unjust laws.

[ShaneMRoth]

There's a lot (a whole lot) of confusion here about what's "lawful" and what's "moral".

Anyone know the difference? And how can you be lawful and break the law?

Okay, fair enough...

It is my understanding that the tension between Law and Chaos is a matters of ethics. Morality is a better fit for the tension between Good and Evil.

I'm going to flip the question on it's head.

If it is possible to be Chaotic and obey the law, then it is possible to be Lawful and break the law.

A Lawful person and a Chaotic person both break the speed limit.

They both get pulled over and ticketed.

The Lawful person might be more likely to pay the ticket (plead Guilty), and a Chaotic person might be more likely to fight the ticket in court (plead Not Guilty).

[Segev]

Love is inherently selfless. It is the ability to extend to a being other than the self all of the same consideration and more than one would towards oneself.

The closest you can come to claiming love is selfish is to claim that being made happy at another's happiness is still making oneself happy. But by that point, the notion of "selfishness" has lost all meaning if one attempts to apply it. It's a silly, pointless game of semantics whose sole purpose can only be to obfuscate plain meaning behind a pseudo-philosophical wall in order to make a counterfactual claim seem credible.

[TheThan]

Go read the book of erotic fantasy.

Surprisingly, it's got alot of good info for running a game with romance (as well as sex obviously) in it. It has some pretty good advice about alignment and race. Although I don't really agree with some of their suggestions on racial relationships; it's at least a good jumping off point to develop it in your game.

[Steampunkette]

Love is inherently selfless. It is the ability to extend to a being other than the self all of the same consideration and more than one would towards oneself.

The closest you can come to claiming love is selfish is to claim that being made happy at another's happiness is still making oneself happy. But by that point, the notion of "selfishness" has lost all meaning if one attempts to apply it. It's a silly, pointless game of semantics whose sole purpose can only be to obfuscate plain meaning behind a pseudo-philosophical wall in order to make a counterfactual claim seem credible.

If that were true, abusive relationships wouldn't exist wherein one person loves the other but treats them like crap. There wouldn't be relationships wherein all of the work of the relationship is one-sided.

Unless you contend that, in those cases, it's not love.

There's also the example I put forth, wherein a person in love places their love above the needs of others. Fear of personal emotional trauma causes them to ignore altruism except when it applies to the person they adore in that situation.

It's this weird dichotomy of selfish and selfless that I find very interesting from a philosophical and moral standpoint. Is it more or less moral to allow others to come to harm to save the one you care about, personally? Does that emotional connection help deflect the moral weight of your actions or does it not matter a whit? If you let two people die to save the one you love, how do the scales tip? Do they?

Just neat things to think on!

[Maglubiyet]

Refusing to adhere to an unjust law does not make one un-Lawful. Lawful does not mean "obeys the law," it means "adheres to principles, traditions, and/or honor."


Being Lawful means respecting tradition, authority, and just rule of law. It doesn't mean you have to accept unjust laws.

Are you guys talking about Lawful Good or just Lawful? Pretty sure Lawful characters practice a strict adherence to the laws of the land, right or wrong. And if they don't, they follow the acceptable, lawful method for civil disobedience. Just deciding any particular law is unjust is more in line with Chaotic, otherwise how could you tell the difference?

"I only follow the laws that I think are fair," is not Lawful. It may be Good, but not Lawful.

In this case, what if tradition, authority, and principles also support the law? Like, in my fantasy campaign, if religious and secular leaders preach about the damage done to individuals and society via the evil of Anthropomorphic Cow on Anthropomorphic Chicken sex -- doesn't that make those laws prohibiting Cow-Chicken intimacy just laws?

Or could a paladin say, "No, it's not fair that these peoples can't enjoy the carnal bliss of a beak pecking an udder -- go ye forth, Cow and Chicken, and be fruitful, bringing your feathery bovine half-breed abominations into the world!"

[Segev]

If that were true, abusive relationships wouldn't exist wherein one person loves the other but treats them like crap. There wouldn't be relationships wherein all of the work of the relationship is one-sided.

Unless you contend that, in those cases, it's not love.That would, indeed, be my contention. Oh, something similar may be there, but one does not engage in such abusive, cruel behavior towards somebody one loves. There may be obsession and possessiveness, but those are not love.


There's also the example I put forth, wherein a person in love places their love above the needs of others. Fear of personal emotional trauma causes them to ignore altruism except when it applies to the person they adore in that situation.Prioritizing something other than love above your love is possible. Whether that makes it "not love" or not is actually irrelevant to this point. (And something else to discuss altogether: can love be anything but absolute and still be love?) --actually, rereading it, that's not even disproving love as selflessness. By not "ignoring altruism...when it applies to the person they adore," they are being selfless towards that person. Love==selflessness.


It's this weird dichotomy of selfish and selfless that I find very interesting from a philosophical and moral standpoint. Is it more or less moral to allow others to come to harm to save the one you care about, personally?Not really a single question, but the answers boil down to "not applicable." "Allowing others to come to harm" is not evil. It is neutral. It is up to you and your conscience whether you did all you could to help them, or all you could be expected to. Unless you have unlimited resources, expecting people to expend everything they have on uncertain salvation or to expend their limited resources one way instead of another is unreasonable (to put it mildly).

Which is to say: if you have to choose between expending resources to save somebody about whom you care personally and to save strangers, then do whatever you think will make you and your loved one happiest. (This is assuming no further hidden caveats, such as "and then they'll die anyway along with everybody else because plot.") This may mean that you save the strangers anyway; it may not. There is no morally wrong choice, here. Failure to save the strangers is, at worst, neutral. And saving your loved one is also, at worst, neutral. (Even evil people will saved those they love, and can do so without risking an alignment shift, even if they do it repeatedly.)


Does that emotional connection help deflect the moral weight of your actions or does it not matter a whit? If you let two people die to save the one you love, how do the scales tip? Do they?Irrelevant. While you would certainly, given the luxury of time and choice, engage in cold unfeeling calculus to save two people rather than one with the same limited resources if both groups were strangers, one is not "more good" than the other, and neither is evil. At worst, the choice is neutral; if you're saving somebody strictly to maximize personal gain (replace "your loved one" with "that rich guy who's offering you a billion dollars to save his life" and leave the two people as strangers, for instance), you're still saving somebody; you just are doing so for less altruistic reasons. If you would have saved somebody anyway, that's still a good deed.

It is more an interesting curiosity to me that we atribute any thought to personal gain as a bad thing, or at least something which taints things. This is foolish. Going into the "cold calculus" of "utility of my good deed," the same guy who can afford to offer you a billion dollars probably impacts more lives positively as an employer, philanthropist, and stabilizing figurehead of a financial empire than those two strangers; letting him die could ruin far more lives than letting those two, and saving him could preserve far more lives and ultimate happiness than saving the two strangers.

I don't suggest this as a literal moral calculus, but rather to point out the pointlessness of such moral calculi as weighted against personal desire. They're your resources to expend to hypothetically save one group or another. Choose however you like. Ensuring you cost yourself the most you possibly can does not make it more moral.

(Similarly, if you save those two strangers rather than the one stranger, and one of them turns out to be a multi-billionaire who wants to give you fabulous financial rewards, there's really no nobility in turning that down, either. Not if it's just because you think it somehow taints your good deed. Not saying there aren't valid reasons to do so, but most given to showcase the hero's moral fiber are foolish pride, not humble altruism.)


In short, this isn't selfishness. That you would give up your resources to save your loved one is selflessness willingly and even eagerly given to them. That you value them over strangers doesn't mitigate the altruism of your action.

[Segev]

Are you guys talking about Lawful Good or just Lawful? Pretty sure Lawful characters practice a strict adherence to the laws of the land, right or wrong. And if they don't, they follow the acceptable, lawful method for civil disobedience. Just deciding any particular law is unjust is more in line with Chaotic, otherwise how could you tell the difference? No. Lawful characters practice strict adherence to the set of laws for whatever organization or hierarchy from which they derive their authority. This need not be the nation in which they happen to currently be physically located. Lawful alignment is about orderly behavior and respect for rules and authority. Where rules and authorities come into conflict, the Lawful person follows and enforces those of the organization to which he belongs. It is possible for a Lawful person to decide that his current legal structure is flawed, and that another is better, or that another needs creation. It is not an easy decision, nor one he makes lightly, but is not INHERENTLY Chaotic. Law is not blind foresaking of free will; it is structure and honesty and holding to agreed-upon guidelines. It does inform all who need to know when it can no longer agree to those guidelines, and seeks to work in an orderly fashion to change them or to separate itself from the order of which it cannot be a part.


"I only follow the laws that I think are fair," is not Lawful. It may be Good, but not Lawful.Absolutely. But that's not the argument being made. The hypothetical Paladin entering Eville is not refusing to follow Eville's laws merely because he thinks them unfair, but because they conflict with the set of laws to which he does adhere. If they did not, he would likely be predisposed to follow local laws where they do not conflict with his own, though he still may not feel obligated to.

Think of Lawfulness as having a code of honor to which one adheres faithfully, not as having to obey any arbitrary authority figure who sets himself up as a "local ruler."


In this case, what if tradition, authority, and principles also support the law? Like, in my fantasy campaign, if religious and secular leaders preach about the damage done to individuals and society via the evil of Anthropomorphic Cow on Anthropomorphic Chicken sex -- doesn't that make those laws prohibiting Cow-Chicken intimacy just laws? If your hypothetical paladin belongs to this order which adheres to these laws, then yes, he'd follow them. No, it wouldn't matter if he didn't understand why those rules exist; as long as he felt that order was the one he was going to uphold, he'd follow their laws to the best of his ability.


Or could a paladin say, "No, it's not fair that these peoples can't enjoy the carnal bliss of a beak pecking an udder -- go ye forth, Cow and Chicken, and be fruitful, bringing your feathery bovine half-breed abominations into the world!"He does not. If he feels those laws are wrong, he may seek to get them changed in an orderly, legal fashion, but he would not condone breaking them while they existed as long as he was a part of that organization.

If he believes those laws to actively be evil, he probably seriously considers leaving the organization entirely if he can't fix them. He'd then find a code to live by that made more sense to his noble heart, and seek to follow it rigidly while probably founding an organization dedicated to them so that others would be able to agree with his principles and they could work together in harmony.

[Maglubiyet]

Lawful characters practice strict adherence to the set of laws for whatever organization or hierarchy from which they derive their authority.

Yeah, this is what I was getting at. If any particular kind of sexual relationship is criminalized by the society which a LG character is a member of, then that character is not going to allow this law to be broken just because he doesn't like it. He may campaign against it, find a legal loophole that allows violators to avoid prosecution, or if he feels strongly enough, move to a different society where the act is legal.

Deciding that you can ignore some laws because you don't like them strikes me more as NG than LG. I'm not talking about the rules in some foreign land. If the authority that a LG character recognizes deems something to be illegal, then that character can't just ignore it on principle. Willy-nilly disregard for laws is the path to Chaos.

[Steampunkette]

That's the thing, Segev: It totally does mitigate.

How many lives are you willing to risk, or even sacrifice, to save your loved one?

One? Ten? A hundred? The world?

We routinely watch heroes put the whole world in jeopardy in order to try and save the one they love rather than saving the world and losing the one they love. That's selfish, not selfless. It's even -more- selfish in a world where Raise Dead exists, but that's a different matter!

Motivations play a key part in morality. If I kill a man to save another person's life that killing is moral. If I kill a man to steal his wallet that killing is immoral. If I save someone and let a hundred others die because I prefer that one person to the hundred others... that's less clear cut. You've got a moral responsibility (in any morality system worth a darn) to do the most good possible.

The needs of the many, after all, outweigh the needs of the few.

Though the thing about the Billionaire you suggested is morality of consequences. I'm talking about choice based reasoning morality in the immediate sense.

[Maglubiyet]

That's the thing, Segev: It totally does mitigate.

How many lives are you willing to risk, or even sacrifice, to save your loved one?

One? Ten? A hundred? The world?

We routinely watch heroes put the whole world in jeopardy in order to try and save the one they love rather than saving the world and losing the one they love. That's selfish, not selfless. It's even -more- selfish in a world where Raise Dead exists, but that's a different matter!


The thing is, is the world ours to save? If someone is going to die through no fault of our own, why is it our responsibility to save that person rather than someone else with whom we already have an established relationship?

If we were the cause of the initial threat to those strangers' lives, then yes, we may have a moral responsibility to them. But to say it's an evil act to neglect people who were going to die anyway is going a bit far.

[Steampunkette]

If you see a man hanging off of a bridge, it is your moral responsibility to save him if it is within your power to do so.

If you see a man held at gunpoint by a murderer and you have the ability to stop the murder from happening it is your moral responsibility to stop it.

That is pretty basic morality. Watching someone die when you have the ability to save their life (barring the death being justified) is immoral.

If the world is threatened and you have the ability to save it you are obligated to do so.

[Segev]

That's the thing, Segev: It totally does mitigate.

How many lives are you willing to risk, or even sacrifice, to save your loved one?Entirely a different question than the one originally posed. There is a distinct difference between saving one life or another (or group of others), and actively endangering lives that were not already in danger to save another.

The latter can easily be evil, though specific circumstances can also vary: a whole squad of people willing to risk their lives to save one person is not their commander risking their lives in a callous or evil way, and risking the life of somebody you were going to kill anyway for perfectly Good reasons is also probably not something you have to feel too badly about. Risking the lives of people who put your loved one in harm's way is also not evil, and is at worst neutral, if you're acting to save him (or her) from the very danger into which those people put him.

Note, however, that there's a lot in place to change it from "risking (presumably innocent) lives."



We routinely watch heroes put the whole world in jeopardy in order to try and save the one they love rather than saving the world and losing the one they love. That's selfish, not selfless. It's even -more- selfish in a world where Raise Dead exists, but that's a different matter!Foolish, not selfish. Unless the "hero" actively puts the world into that danger in order to save their loved one, he is not committing an evil act to work to save his loved one.

Now, if you're talking hostage-situation mechanics, that's... another, more interesting question. One usually sees those where the hero has put himself in the position of being the sole person who can stop the villain, and more than likely has committed to much of the world (with non-insignificant support therefrom) to save it. That's no longer a position of lack of responsibility; he has taken upon himself that duty, that responsibility, and shirking or reneging will cause harm to those who've trusted him wtih it (making it not just an ethical but moral matter).

But if it's simply, "My beloved vs the world, and I can save either but not both," then it's not really selfish. It's a selfless act one way or the other.

I mean, let's turn this on its ear: Hero chooses to save the whole world except for his beloved. Surely, he loves some other people in the world; does that make it selfish? Does the fact that the world is saved means that he, himself, still has a place to live make it selfish? Does the fact that he can look upon the happy innocents of the world and recieve joy in knowing that he let them keep living to have that happiness make it selfish?

No. The hero is making a choice; he will reap sorrow and joy from it either way. Either way, he is helping somebody and receiving joy only because he is happy that another person is alive and happy. That is not selfish. (Now, if he then goes on to demand that the one(s) he saved owes him something... It may not be wrong, especially if he'd made a bargain for it, but it is self-interested, at the least. Nothing wrong with self-interest, but it is by definition no longer altruistic.)


Motivations play a key part in morality. If I kill a man to save another person's life that killing is moral.Not necessarily. It is necessary that the one you kill be responsible for the impending doom from which his death saves the other. Killing, for instance, a to-you random person on the street so a hostage-taker won't kill somebody else is not moral.


If I kill a man to steal his wallet that killing is immoral.Right.


If I save someone and let a hundred others die because I prefer that one person to the hundred others... that's less clear cut.There is no moral duty-to-rescue. Failure to rescue people to whom you have no responsibility (i.e. you neither put them in danger nor took responsibility for them onto yourself in some fashion) is, at worst, neutral. Not evil. Saving somebody for no reason other than that their life and happiness makes you happy - i.e., you love them - is probably good, and again, at worst, neutral (barring actively bringing innocents to harm to do so; note, actively).


You've got a moral responsibility (in any morality system worth a darn) to do the most good possible.Except "good" is not quantifiable in raw lives saved. Good isn't about calculus. And you are not evil for failing to live up to every jot of good conceivably possible. Certainly, striving for it is Good. But one should not hold it against anybody if their choice of how and who to save is not one's own.

Remove the loved one from the equation: I assert that it would not be evil - it is at worst neutral - for you to refuse to sacrifice your own life to save the lives of any number of people, so long as you in no way put them into that danger by your own volition, nor took upon yourself responsibility to save them (again by your own volition). If you want to get into the calculus of it, you know that you have potential to do a lot of good for those who will still be alive, and you don't know that you aren't saving horrible, rotten people who'll make everybody's life worse by sacrificing yourself. But that's really just a smoke screen: the core of it is that none of those people have a right to demand you sacrifice yourself for them, which means you have no moral responsibility to do so. Doing so could be a good, noble thing! But it is not in any way evil, nor should it pull your alignment "down," to refuse to do so.


The needs of the many, after all, outweigh the needs of the few.Quothe a villain in a transformers movie. :smalltongue:

More seriously, when Spock says that line, he is explaining his own sacrifice. When Sentinel Prime says that line, he is explaining why others must sacrifice for his cause.

If at any point you find yourself judging somebody else for choosing themselves or anybody else over those you think they should have chosen (again, assuming no unlisted sources of responsibility or culpability), you are being the villain, not the hero.


Though the thing about the Billionaire you suggested is morality of consequences. I'm talking about choice based reasoning morality in the immediate sense.In that case, if you didn't put those people in danger in the first place, it's noble of you if you do save them, but you are not culpable if you do not. And if you choose based on how much you personally value one group over the other, that's your choice, not anybody else's, and neither choice can be evil.




Now, a brief aside: if it's genuinely choosing "my beloved or the entire world," and it's such that your beloved will die anyway when the world does, at that point it does become a bit of a stupid choice to save your beloved instead of the world. Because in the end you saved nothing.

[ShaneMRoth]

...
"I only follow the laws that I think are fair," is not Lawful. It may be Good, but not Lawful.
...


...
Lawful characters practice strict adherence to the set of laws for whatever organization or hierarchy from which they derive their authority.
...


...
If the authority that a LG character recognizes deems something to be illegal, then that character can't just ignore it on principle. Willy-nilly disregard for laws is the path to Chaos.
...

The problem with sweeping and definitive statements on alignments is that they come into conflict with the following plain read of the SRD:


...
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
...


So, there's that.



...
In this case, what if tradition, authority, and principles also support the law? Like, in my fantasy campaign, if religious and secular leaders preach about the damage done to individuals and society via the evil of Anthropomorphic Cow on Anthropomorphic Chicken sex -- doesn't that make those laws prohibiting Cow-Chicken intimacy just laws?

Or could a paladin say, "No, it's not fair that these peoples can't enjoy the carnal bliss of a beak pecking an udder -- go ye forth, Cow and Chicken, and be fruitful, bringing your feathery bovine half-breed abominations into the world!"
...

Bear in mind that half-breed abominations are actually a thing in D&D. *cough*owlbears*cough*


If the Cow and Chicken are anthropomorphic, this suggests that they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores of at least 3. This allows for the possibility they are capable of consent as understood by humanoids. Do two anthropomorphic creatures have the legal standing to enter into a consensual intimate relationship, or is that legal standing restricted only to humanoids? If so, do those humanoids retain this legal standing if they use polymorph to take the shape of a Cow and Chicken before entering into an intimate relationship?

A paladin could determine whether or not the Cow and Chicken were evil. So, there's that. But beyond that a paladin would probably just say "EWWWWWW."

[Maglubiyet]

If you see a man hanging off of a bridge, it is your moral responsibility to save him if it is within your power to do so.

If you see a man held at gunpoint by a murderer and you have the ability to stop the murder from happening it is your moral responsibility to stop it.

That is pretty basic morality. Watching someone die when you have the ability to save their life (barring the death being justified) is immoral.

If the world is threatened and you have the ability to save it you are obligated to do so.

Only if it's cost neutral. But it rarely, if ever, is. When you insert yourself into these types of situations you are usually taking some risk yourself.

The first rule of helping someone else is that you first need to ensure your own safety. If you can't, then the rescue should not proceed. And failing to act does not mean you've committed some evil. It just means that the cost to yourself is too great.

[Segev]

If you see a man hanging off of a bridge, it is your moral responsibility to save him if it is within your power to do so.

If you see a man held at gunpoint by a murderer and you have the ability to stop the murder from happening it is your moral responsibility to stop it.

That is pretty basic morality. Watching someone die when you have the ability to save their life (barring the death being justified) is immoral.

If the world is threatened and you have the ability to save it you are obligated to do so.

All false. It is heroic to do each of these things. But you have no moral obligation to do so.

There does reach a point of "depraved indifference," but it has to basicaly amount to costing you little to nothing to save the person(s) in question and still standing by to watch/refusing to do so.

None of those are in evidence save, possibly, the "man hanging off a bridge" scenario, and even then only if it's a bridge where you don't have to endanger yourself to get to him.

You are under no moral obligation to risk your life climbing out on the bridge's latticework in a precarious fashion on the chance that, if you don't die, you could save his life. You are heroic if you do so.

You are under no moral obligation to throw yourself in between the mugger's gun and his victim, nor even to try to wrestle the gun away and risk getting shot. You are heroic if you do so.

You are under no moral obligation to save the world at the cost of your own life...however, if you're going to die anyway if the world is destroyed, it seems a bit silly not to.

[Steampunkette]

No action is without risk, Maglubiyet.

Though you're right. It's why I put "Ability to do so" rather than "Chance to do so" as it implies that you're capable of saving the other person's life.

It's why Batman saves the Joker's life when the Joker falls off a cliff. Or Superman and Spider-Man both stop runaway trains. Allowing someone to die when you've got the power to stop them from dying is wrong. Regardless of whether you put them into that situation or not.

And yeah, Segev. The impending doom killing the killer was, I thought, pretty heavily implied from the whole thrust of my argument, there. I wasn't advocating Organ Theft.

[Segev]

No action is without risk, Maglubiyet.

Though you're right. It's why I put "Ability to do so" rather than "Chance to do so" as it implies that you're capable of saving the other person's life.

It's why Batman saves the Joker's life when the Joker falls off a cliff. Or Superman and Spider-Man both stop runaway trains.This makes them heroes. These are Good acts. Failure to do so - particularly if they could instead, say, save Barbara Gordon or Gwen Stacey - would not make them "wrong."


Allowing someone to die when you've got the power to stop them from dying is wrong.What if it would 95% chance cost you your own life? What if it would render you destitute and unable to support yourself or your family? What if it costs you your house?

What is the "acceptable" cost that "requires" you to commit to this, lest you be "wrong?"

I contend that you have no right to judge that for another. Nor do I. Society does, in "depraved indifference" laws, but that's set at a pretty lax standard (basically, it has to have cost practically nothing unrecoverable save time).


Regardless of whether you put them into that situation or not.If you put them in the situation, then you're fully culpable for what happens, and you should do whatever you can (with your own resources) to save them. If you did not, then it is up to you to judge whether what you will expend is worth it. It is a Good act to do so. It is not Evil nor "wrong" to determine that you cannot do it without unacceptable losses.


And yeah, Segev. The impending doom killing the killer was, I thought, pretty heavily implied from the whole thrust of my argument, there. I wasn't advocating Organ Theft.I figured, but I've been in enough of these discussions where somebody has tried to move the goalposts after the fact in order to create "moral dilemmas" of exactly the sort I specifically excluded with my "not this" example.

[Maglubiyet]

Allowing someone to die when you've got the power to stop them from dying is wrong. Regardless of whether you put them into that situation or not.


There are people starving right now in whatever region of the globe you call home, not to mention the less stable areas of the world. Yet you are doing nothing to help them right now. You aren't putting your life on hold to fly off and take care of Ebola patients in West Africa. Yet you have the power to help them. Does that make you evil?

There will always be more people to save, so as a rescuer (and as a person), you need to prioritize your life. You cannot save anyone else if you're dead or incapacitated, if your finances force you to live on the street, or you neglect your relationships to the point where your spouse and children abandon you. You are allowed to put yourself and your loved ones first -- it's not evil to do so.

[ShaneMRoth]

If you see a man hanging off of a bridge, it is your moral responsibility to save him if it is within your power to do so.

I am assuming the man is a stranger, and that the act of helping him off the bridge is a manageable risk (the action might call for a die roll to see if the rescue is a success (Strength check) but the roll fails, then the DM isn't bother rolling to see if the PC takes damage or falls.)

If a PC were able to save the man without risking her personal safety, that action would seem to be out of character for an Evil PC.

If a PC risked her own personal safety to save the stranger (in game terms, there will be a die roll to see if the character takes damage), then it could be deemed to be In Character for a Good Alignment and Out of Character for an Evil Alignment. And a wash for a Neutral character.

A PC who risks her personal safety to rescue a man who is an enemy of hers, that seems strongly consistent with the Good alignment, and would seem out of character for a morally Neutral or Evil character.

A PC who risks her personal safety to rescue a loved one might not even be out of character if the PC were Chaotic Evil.




If you see a man held at gunpoint by a murderer and you have the ability to stop the murder from happening it is your moral responsibility to stop it.


Again, assuming a stranger.

An act that requires you to risk your life (enter into combat) for a stranger seems ostensibly altruistic. A strong case could be made that this would be out of character for an Evil PC, or even a Neutral PC.

An act that doesn't require you to risk your life(make a Diplomacy Check to persuade the murderer to let the man live) might out of character for an Evil PC, but doesn't seem like it would normally conflict with a Good or Neutral moral code.


...
Watching someone die when you have the ability to save their life (barring the death being justified) is immoral.
...

This seems like a good starting point for determining roughly where Evil begins and Neutral ends on the moral spectrum. But it would only be a starting point.


...
If the world is threatened and you have the ability to save it you are obligated to do so.
...

There's a strong "ends justify the means" undertone to this last one.

This last statement is so open ended that I would not be able to make an alignment ruling without more info.

[Steampunkette]

Segev: Now who's doing moral calculus? :P

Maglubiyet: I don't have the ability to help people who are starving or infected with deadly diseases on the other side of the world. If I had more money I could at least donate (which would be morally appropriate) to help them, but I don't. Attacking me for not having the ability to help doesn't change the morality of my inability to do so.

And yes. You have the moral responsibility to keep yourself alive. The hero in the hypothetical situation we're discussing is not the person in danger so it's freaking irrelevant to the equation. To get back to that:

Villain has hostage.

Hostage is love interest.

Hero stops thwarting villain's plan to save love interest.

Other people die.

Moral Implications on Hero are...?

The hero could have saved those other people instead of his lover. Or he could let them die and save his lover, instead. The greater good, and most morally sound move, would be to save as many people as possible.

In most stories the question is moot, because the hero saves everyone so that no moral quandry is left in the end. But in stories where the villain kills the group of innocent civilians while the hero saves his girlfriend, the moral implications for the hero is that he has made a selfish choice, rather than an altruistic one. Rather than sacrificing his own feelings to save as many people as possible he's condemned a group to die in the place of his loved one.

[Steampunkette]

Okay, Shane... Here's the situation.

The villain is a Bond villain. He's got the hero's girlfriend at gunpoint and demands the hero surrender. The hero is standing next to the big red button that will stop the giant death laser from destroying Washington DC (and all the people who live there).

If the hero pushes the big red button his girlfriend dies.

If the hero doesn't push the big red button his girlfriend lives, but everyone in DC dies.

The villain is a clear enemy of the hero and a danger to everyone. He has one bullet. When the button is pushed the Death Laser will self-destruct and stop the villain forever.

What do?

[Seto]

Okay, Shane... Here's the situation.

The villain is a Bond villain. He's got the hero's girlfriend at gunpoint and demands the hero surrender. The hero is standing next to the big red button that will stop the giant death laser from destroying Washington DC (and all the people who live there).

If the hero pushes the big red button his girlfriend dies.

If the hero doesn't push the big red button his girlfriend lives, but everyone in DC dies.

The villain is a clear enemy of the hero and a danger to everyone. He has one bullet. When the button is pushed the Death Laser will self-destruct and stop the villain forever.

What do?

Assuming he has to pick one of those two options, the red button is the Good act. Option two is the Neutral act (undoubtedly selfish, but not Evil to me). This is actually easier than the classic dilemma "kill an innocent to save countless others" ; the responsibility for the obviously Evil act of demolishing Washington DC cannot be said to be the hero's in the case you're discussing, it is the villain's.

[Lord Raziere]

Okay, Shane... Here's the situation.

The villain is a Bond villain. He's got the hero's girlfriend at gunpoint and demands the hero surrender. The hero is standing next to the big red button that will stop the giant death laser from destroying Washington DC (and all the people who live there).

If the hero pushes the big red button his girlfriend dies.

If the hero doesn't push the big red button his girlfriend lives, but everyone in DC dies.

The villain is a clear enemy of the hero and a danger to everyone. He has one bullet. When the button is pushed the Death Laser will self-destruct and stop the villain forever.

What do?

I'm not shane but I'd say:
"I'll only surrender if you allow me to push the button first. Surrender doesn't mean its unconditional."

[Hawkstar]

I'll bite; how can one be lawful & break the law simultaneously?
Because nobody fits their alignment 100%, especially on the Chaotic and Lawful axis.

A truly lawful character does their best to minimize social disruption. In Red Fel's "Lawful Good character is given a guide slave" example (Paladin isn't really a good example, because Paladins follow their own sense of order decreed through their Oath in their adherence to Good, and are permitted to burn down Orders they disagree with), the character would accept the slave's services to avoid causing a fuss/scene, and treat that person well (Giving payment if allowed, and treating the guide with respect and dignity and offering service in return).

Likewise, when it comes to sexuality, a truly lawful character would stick with society's conventions (Taking advantage of loopholes where possible), to avoid disrupting the social order if for no other reason. Because a lot of societies restrict sexualities to normalize interactions, enforce gender roles, and regulate sexual proclivities in society and decrease the majority of 'uncomfortable' situations that occur in minority orientations (A lot, if not most, straight guys and straight women are extremely uncomfortable with gay men and women making advances on them, even merely curious "Are you a compatible orientation?" ones. It's not even necessarily something against the person making the advance. A society that enforces Heteronormality may simply be one that decided the desires of a minority of its population is worth severely inconveniencing to avoid the discomfort caused by said minority barking up the majority's wrong tree. The hows, whos, and whens of sexual expressions are all issues Society can and will regulate)

[Steampunkette]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Edmund Burke

Save the girl, allow great evil. I could definitely see an argument that it's not an evil act but rather a neutral one, but the motivation behind saving the girl in this instance is selfish, not selfless...

Which was the whole thrust of my argument, upthread.

[Maglubiyet]

I don't have the ability to help people who are starving or infected with deadly diseases on the other side of the world. If I had more money I could at least donate (which would be morally appropriate) to help them, but I don't. Attacking me for not having the ability to help doesn't change the morality of my inability to do so.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to attack you. I was trying to point out that not helping others doesn't make you evil. Anyone could decide to go to school to become a nurse and spend their life helping others, but if you don't, it doesn't mean you're a bad person.

(Full disclosure, I ride an ambulance as a volunteer EMT. The very first rule they teach you is that you always take care of yourself...and your partner...before anyone else. "Scene size-up"...)


And yes. You have the moral responsibility to keep yourself alive. The hero in the hypothetical situation we're discussing is not the person in danger so it's freaking irrelevant to the equation.

But it's not irrelevant. The hero's loved one is part of his life and support network. He has likely invested considerable resources into establishing and maintaining the relationship. If it's his lover and children involved or may potentially be in the future, then the lover is a resource for the hero's progeny as well. If the person in danger is his child, then it's a biological imperative that he save her -- that's his legacy. Choosing to save your loved one over someone else makes sense emotionally and logically. That person's well-being is wrapped up in your own.

Furthermore, the hero has not condemned anyone to anything. That was the villain. The bad guy alone carries the blame for any death and destruction that occurs by his hand. Just by showing up to the game the hero has done more than 99.99999% of the population of the planet. Is everyone else in the world to blame too for not becoming heroes themselves and trying to battle villainy and rescue people in distress? Trying and failing must be better than not even trying. It's certainly better than being so wrapped up in your own life that you didn't even notice there was anything to be trying in the first place.

[Steampunkette]

So you're suggesting that a person's emotional investment in another person is worth more, morally speaking, than other people's lives... That the expended resources (food, money, clothing, time) outweigh the existence of other individuals on a cosmic scale.

It's an interesting proposition, don't get me wrong. I just disagree with it. But at least I understand your rationale, now.

[Hawkstar]

So you're suggesting that a person's emotional investment in another person is worth more, morally speaking, than other people's lives... That the expended resources (food, money, clothing, time) outweigh the existence of other individuals on a cosmic scale.

It's an interesting proposition, don't get me wrong. I just disagree with it. But at least I understand your rationale, now.

Welll, considering the only thing that give's people's lives any value is emotional investment in the first place...

[Lord Raziere]

.....guys? there is such a thing conditional surrender guys. you don't have to completely give up the saving the lots of people thing by surrender, you can dictate terms of surrender....third option right there...

[ShaneMRoth]

Villain has hostage.

Hostage is love interest.

Hero stops thwarting villain's plan to save love interest.

Other people die.

Moral Implications on Hero are...?

...

The moral implications on the Hero might not be as serious as they seem.

I'm going to up the ante here.

The Hero is a Paladin.

The Villain starts Gloating...


Villain: Let your True Love die, or let countless others die. Either way, there will be blood on your hands, Knight.

Paladin: I don't think so.

Villain: So you must chose, do you save-- Wait... what do you mean 'I don't think so'?

Paladin: I'm not killing anyone. I'm not letting anyone die.

Villain: But this is a moral dilemma... your decision will determine who lives and who dies.

Paladin: Yeah, about that. It reminds me of an old Paladin saying.

Villain: Which saying is that?

Paladin: "No, you're the ."

Villain: You can't call me an [Bad Word]. That's a violation of your Code.

Paladin: Don't tell me about my Code, [[B]Very Bad Word]. All of the blood shed today, every drop of it, will be on your hands. You made a series of choices long before I even came along that led up to today.

Villain: That's not how it works.

Paladin: Actually that is how it works. If I had stayed home today, you were still going to kill all those people, right?

Villain: I-- uh...

Paladin: [mockingly] I-- uh...

Villain: But-- the moral dilemma...

Paladin: Seriously, if you and I had never met, you would have still killed all of these people today. You would probably have killed more people. That's how it works. You are the [Bad Word], and I'm not. [Bad Word.]

[Maglubiyet]

So you're suggesting that a person's emotional investment in another person is worth more, morally speaking, than other people's lives... That the expended resources (food, money, clothing, time) outweigh the existence of other individuals on a cosmic scale.

It's an interesting proposition, don't get me wrong. I just disagree with it. But at least I understand your rationale, now.

You still haven't established the reason for saving the other people in the first place. No act is purely altruistic, so what do you get out of it if you save a bunch of strangers? There must be some compulsion for you to act in the first place beyond "you're obligated to help".

Your argument seems to be that the hero's actions aren't good -- they are evil or at best neutral. But in this hypothetical situation you've constructed, no one would live without the hero's intervention. So by acting, the hero has done some good. Maybe it doesn't help as many people, but it's certainly not evil if the hero didn't place those people in danger in the first place.

[Steampunkette]

Ehhhh kind of, Shane.

The villain is still the one killing.

The Paladin character has the power to minimize the killing, and the responsibility to do so.

You can go Uncle Ben for the big quote but I prefer Ben Franklin (Gates).

"If there's something wrong, those who have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action."
— Thomas Jefferson paraphrased by Gates.

[Closet_Skeleton]

One might assume that lawful people are more likely to be closeted or repressed than chaotic people, but that could be prejudice based on the old 'anal retentive Paladin' stereotype.

A CG Drow elf who grew up among sexually open CE and LE people would view sexual morality very differently to a CG rogue in a strictly monogamous patriarchal LN society.


I'll bite; how can one be lawful & break the law simultaneously?

You can okay the law and break it simultaneously due to inconstant law codes, so its not hard.

I'm pretty sure Lawful Evil people are great at tax evasion.



With that in mind, is it a lawful act to maintain one's lover's life even at the cost of others?

Law doesn't care about selfishness or selflessness. A LG or LE person might have an alignment answer to that but a LN person would not.

It really depends on the specific vows and code of the person.

A LG woman with a TN Husband's marriage vows explicitly state that she has to obey her husband and put him first. If he tells her to not share out their food supplies in a time of famine then it would be Lawful to obey him.

A CG man makes his LG boyfriend are both bodyguards of a princess. The CG man makes his boyfriend promise to keep the Princess safe even if it means sacrificing himself. If the man endangers the princess to protect his boyfriend, that's not lawful.

A LG knight has a LE magic user wife. As a Knight he has a vow to serve the king, as a husband he has to protect his wife. The King demands the wife be locked up for being evil. His conflicting obligations basically give him no good option so its not lawful or chaotic either way he acts.

Unless you're Chaotic Evil, being chaotic does not mean you're happy to throw your lover under a bus for little reason. A chaotic man isn't necessarily more likely to break his wedding vows than a lawful man is. More chaotic people are going to elope or avoid marriage than lawful people, but not every chaotic person is going to have so dramatic a love life.

Alignment doesn't override over emotions. A LG man in a matriarchal polyandrous society can still be jealous and spiteful towards his wife's other husbands. If the social norms expect secondary spouses to be constantly scheming and competing against each other then it isn't chaotic to do so.

[ShaneMRoth]

Ehhhh kind of, Shane.

The villain is still the one killing.

The Paladin character has the power to minimize the killing, and the responsibility to do so.

You can go Uncle Ben for the big quote but I prefer Jefferson.

"If there's something wrong, those who have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action."
— Thomas Jefferson

Spiderman might internalize the actions of the Green Goblin, but my foul-mouthed Paladin is not Peter Parker, the untrained misfit with a Heart of Gold. This Paladin is a rigorously trained murderpope who doesn't intimidate worth a damn (fear immunity) and learned all of the Oldest Tricks in the Villain Handbook when he took Paladin 101.

He will still try and save who he can, but the first thing a hostage negotiator learns is that the hostages are probably already dead. Save who you can.

Also, I will counter your dude-who-never-freed-his-slaves with a quote from Schindler's List.


"Whoever saves one life saves the world entire."

[Maglubiyet]

"If there's something wrong, those who have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action."


Your hero did take action. You're just being overly critical of the choice he made in a tough situation.

If the hero just stayed home and let everyone die then you could say he didn't take responsibility.

[Steampunkette]

Jefferson's quote was actually a lot longer winded and that was a Nic Cage reduction of his overall point. Though you're definitely right that Jefferson was a slave owning jerkwad in several respects!

And I'm not being overly critical of his choice, Maglubiyet... I'm pointing out that his choice (if it's to save one life and let thousands of others end) is a selfish choice. Because love, itself, is pretty selfish.

It's not evil, by a long shot. And it's a foundation upon which we build society. But it is definitely selfish.

[Pex]

In one of my group's games (Pathfinder) my paladin is gay, and he's not a virgin. I didn't intentionally create him that way, but it fit naturally with his perspectives.

A paladin's job is to die. He knows it. There just aren't elderly retired paladins walking about. He is stupid enough to get into the faces of demons, dragons, and undead so that others can be safe. It's going to get him killed one of these days. In the meanwhile, his body gets pummeled. He gets cut, bruised, bleeds all over, and feels a lot of pain. Zealous as he is in his endeavor, he still can only take so much punishment. His body needs to rest. He needs to be able to enjoy himself. Have fun. Cherish being alive. As such, he'll drink at the tavern, attend a party, listen to bards, play cards with friends, and all sorts of relaxing things. Getting that respite heals the body and spirit to fight the next fight to come.

Then there's the ultimate pleasure of the body, sex. The opposite of pain, he's permitted to have this too. The trouble is, he's a paladin. The trouble is not in any religious tenet but in the profession itself. His job is to die. His job is to face Evil out there so that it doesn't come here. To have sex with a woman is to risk pregnancy, and he cannot burden her with a child to raise alone while he's out there getting pummeled and could die. A child is a person's most precious treasure. To have a child my paladin would want it to be with a woman he loves deeply worthy to be a mother. There would have to be a proper courtship and marriage, to show commitment, before baby-making, so recreation sex is out of the question.

What is the meaning of shaking hands? It is a greeting, an act of friendship, a symbol of agreement between two individuals on a done deal. Why is shaking hands given this honor? When you reach out to someone to shake his hand you are showing you have no weapon in it. You are a friend not a foe. The clasping of hands is a bond of friendship. Why do soldiers salute each other? When you are in full armor your helm is down. When you see a fellow soldier you both raise your hand to lift your visor and reveal the friendly, familiar face. If they don't do that they're probably enemies. That tradition carries over to when not wearing a helm. The salute is a military sign of respect.

If my paladin can't have sex with a woman, then the alternative is with a man. It's the logical follow-up step from the shaking of hands and the salute. It is also a perfect expression. He is unarmed, unarmored, completely vulnerable with another man giving each other pleasure. What would be the alternative? Fully armed, fully armored, completely battle ready with another man trying to kill each other. He gets enough of that fighting Evil all day. He needs the break.

[Steampunkette]

That's... a very interesting take on how sexuality works, Pex...

[ShaneMRoth]

Jefferson's quote was actually a lot longer winded and that was a Nic Cage reduction of his overall point. Though you're definitely right that Jefferson was a slave owning jerkwad in several respects!

And I'm not being overly critical of his choice, Maglubiyet... I'm pointing out that his choice (if it's to save one life and let thousands of others end) is a selfish choice. Because love, itself, is pretty selfish.

It's not evil, by a long shot. And it's a foundation upon which we build society. But it is definitely selfish.

The problem with the Sadistic Choice is that it really isn't a choice at all. It's a false choice. It generally doesn't say much about morality or ethics.

The Wrath of Khan case springs to mind. The only thing I can say for certain about Spock's decision to sacrifice himself was that his decision was entirely in character. Maybe it was Lawful, Maybe it was Chaotic, Maybe it was Neutral. But it made complete sense in context.

When Re-Kirk made the same decision in the reboot (Not-Wrath of Not-Khan), was it Lawful? was it a Chaotic act? A Neutral Act? Perhaps. All I can say for certain is about Re-Kirk's decision to sacrifice himself was that his decision was entirely in character. It made complete sense in context.

The Sadistic Choice would have been to make Spock (or Re-Kirk) chose to sacrifice someone else.

Kobayashi-Maru tests might seem like good tests of character in fiction, but when sorting out how the alignment system works, they have limited probative value.

Paladin or not, a Good character would probably save the person he could get to first. There is always the possibility that the villain is lying. That the nearest person is a loved one really doesn't change the equation. If the loved one is among the thousand nameless faces doesn't really change the equation. The Hero will save someone, even if it's only one person. Insecure characters might struggle with it after the fact, but only because of their doubts, not because of their ethics.

As far as Taking A Third Option, in my Vulgar Paladin example, the Paladin was attempting a Third Option. He began with a Shut Up, Hannibal! speech which was intended to undermine the Villain's confidence. It was a long shot, but all Third Options are supposed to be long shots... right up to the point where they work.

[Maglubiyet]

I'm pointing out that his choice (if it's to save one life and let thousands of others end) is a selfish choice. Because love, itself, is pretty selfish.

It's not evil, by a long shot. And it's a foundation upon which we build society. But it is definitely selfish.

You say it like it's a bad thing. A loved one is in a higher circle of responsibility. "Self" is at the center of that circle, so yeah, you could call it "selfish".

[Steampunkette]

The Third Option is generally the Doctor Who.

Just this once, nobody dies.

Which, of course, is what happens in every third act sadistic choice. First act sadistic ends with fridged girlfriend.

[goto124]

My first thought was 'As a GM, don't put the PCs in such morally ambigous situations in the first place. If unavoidable, just allow whatever that can be argued for and isn't completely idiotic. It's ambigous anyway.'

The gay paladin: Is there no contraception, mundane or magical? Did he just magically decide that he 'likes' men due to his moral obligations? That's not how sexuality works.

[Steampunkette]

I feel the same way, Goto... I was just trying to be more polite.

[Pex]

I do not need your approval.

[Hawkstar]

You say it like it's a bad thing. A loved one is in a higher circle of responsibility. "Self" is at the center of that circle, so yeah, you could call it "selfish".

Not to Cosmic Good. to Cosmic Good, "Good" is the center of that circle of responsibility, and "Self" is flung far, far away.

[Maglubiyet]

Not to Cosmic Good. to Cosmic Good, "Good" is the center of that circle of responsibility, and "Self" is flung far, far away.

No mortal creature could come close to serving "Cosmic Good". Things like eating, brushing your teeth, and sleeping would apparently be considered "selfish" because they detract from saving baby kittens, or whatever.

[ShaneMRoth]

No mortal creature could come close to serving "Cosmic Good". Things like eating, brushing your teeth, and sleeping would apparently be considered "selfish" because they detract from saving baby kittens, or whatever.

I would go so far as to assert that few immortal creatures with Divine Ranks could consistently hold themselves to a Cosmic Good standard. Only the abstract concept of Cosmic Good itself could routinely rise to such a standard.

[Steampunkette]

Mags, you're going to extreme hyperbole, there. It doesn't help the discussion in any way. There is a huge gulf between "Make a decision that immediately affects the life or death of people that you know are at risk" and "Brush your teeth while something, somewhere, far away goes bad." No one in any reality expects a person to go beyond all ability or hope of sensible reality to eradicate all evil in the world (unless there's macguffins to do it with) to the exclusion of all considerations.

Cosmic Good exists in basically every game with an alignment system, because that is how the system functions: Objective Good and Evil. Otherwise you can't have spells to smite bad people since everyone would be "Bad People" relative to a Smiter with a specific moral viewpoint.

And because Cosmic Good exists there are people who serve it, or try to hold themselves to it. Paladins, Clerics, CG Freedom Fighters. They may not sit down and map out their whole day around the Cosmic Good, but that's because any good hero is reactionary rather than proactive. Instead they run into evil, objective and physical evil, and destroy it with pointy objects.

[goto124]

Or blunt and heavy objects.

Or words.

But carry on.

[Milo v3]

Otherwise you can't have spells to smite bad people since everyone would be "Bad People" relative to a Smiter with a specific moral viewpoint.
Just want to say that even pathfinder has rules for subjective morality while keeping the ability to smite evil people, what is evil just depends on who is doing the smiting.

[Sith_Happens]

When you're in love, and thus most romantic and long term sexual relationships, you tend to put the people you love above others in value. When forced to choose between allowing your loved one to have their throat slit by the villain or dropping your weapon (and thus endangering yourself and others by letting the villain's plan proceed unopposed) the standard move for the lover is to drop their sword/gun/whatevs as an act of devotion to their beloved.

Your first problem in attempting to present this scenario to this thread is that most games that use the alignment system are also ones in which it's quite possible to run across the room and stab the villain in the face faster than they can slit the hostage's throat.:smalltongue:

(Before anyone says "readied actions," the rules for those function specifically in the context of a scenario in which initiative order has already been determined.)


This "fact" is actually me asserting my personal beliefs to my fantasy milieu, just so we're clear.

It's also RAW. Yay harmony!:smallbiggrin:


If you see a man hanging off of a bridge, it is your moral responsibility to save him if it is within your power to do so.

If you see a man held at gunpoint by a murderer and you have the ability to stop the murder from happening it is your moral responsibility to stop it.

That is pretty basic morality. Watching someone die when you have the ability to save their life (barring the death being justified) is immoral.

If the world is threatened and you have the ability to save it you are obligated to do so.

This is where the difference between Evil and Neutral comes in, though. Sure, it still only takes Good doing nothing for Evil to triumph, but the nothing-doing in and of itself is almost never Evil.


Villain has hostage.

Hostage is love interest.

Hero stops thwarting villain's plan to save love interest.

Other people die.

Moral Implications on Hero are...?

Small. In all iterations of alignment I know of the blood of a victim is always on the hands of whoever shed it, and the non-Evil answer to the Trolley Problem is always to do nothing.


That's... a very interesting take on how sexuality works, Pex...

When in Rome.:smallwink:

[Steampunkette]

To get back on topic, I think most of us agree that alignment should probably shape how a character approaches their sexuality and relationships rather than defining them?

[Sith_Happens]

Seems that way. Also, pro tip: ignore everything the 3e Book of Vile Darkness has to say about BDSM.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Cosmic Good doesn't mean Utilitarian Good. Intentions and goals matter more than success or failure. A paladin faced with the choice of a 20% chance of saving 100 civilians or a 70% chance of saving 20 fellow Paladins or a 100% of them all dying if he does nothing isn't evil as long as he picks one of the first two and if he fails and they all die that isn't the same as if had picked the third evil choice. His code might favour one of the good choices over the other but that's a lawful thing not a good thing.

Saving someone's life is a good act, it doesn't matter if its the best good option available. As long as your choosing a good option you're still good. Otherwise wasting time on fighting villains who aren't Asmodeus (or other biggest villain in setting equivalents) is an evil act somehow.

A person is not equally responsible to everyone. A Bodyguard who saves 10 lives while letting their charge die in a bad bodyguard, a parent who loses a child failed as a parent no matter what else they did. A knight sworn to protect the weak who defends one of his rich buddies against a peasant revolt is going against his vow. A King who sacrifices his entire country of one million people to give a neighbouring country of 10 million time to prepare their defences against a orcish horde can be both a hero and a failure as a King.

Relationships aren't just about emotions, they're also about trust and promises. If your marriage vow is to protect your spouse then they're your first responsibility. Breaking a vow for the greater good is CG, dooming the world to destruction rather than break a promise is still LG just like refusing to use evil magic or artefacts to save the world is LG.

[Vknight]

Mags, you're going to extreme hyperbole, there. It doesn't help the discussion in any way. There is a huge gulf between "Make a decision that immediately affects the life or death of people that you know are at risk" and "Brush your teeth while something, somewhere, far away goes bad." No one in any reality expects a person to go beyond all ability or hope of sensible reality to eradicate all evil in the world (unless there's macguffins to do it with) to the exclusion of all considerations.

Cosmic Good exists in basically every game with an alignment system, because that is how the system functions: Objective Good and Evil. Otherwise you can't have spells to smite bad people since everyone would be "Bad People" relative to a Smiter with a specific moral viewpoint.

And because Cosmic Good exists there are people who serve it, or try to hold themselves to it. Paladins, Clerics, CG Freedom Fighters. They may not sit down and map out their whole day around the Cosmic Good, but that's because any good hero is reactionary rather than proactive. Instead they run into evil, objective and physical evil, and destroy it with pointy objects.

And this is why I try to not start topics about alignment. Though initial ok start it always leads to alignment debates and other issues

And this is why I don't play things with absolute good guys and evil guys... and I run superhero games!
And also a good reason why one really shouldn't tie, or try to connect sexuality to alignments.

But let me give my two cents because I'm back after spending the last few months finally getting some work done.


Lawful
Follow the rules, set ahead of time or over time. If they wish for a relationship to be open they will establish this. If they wish to try something they will establish it. They will not force, push or etc for that. They will establish it and either continue knowing it is unavailable and may inquire later or leave it rest for the other half of a relationship to decide. Nominally speaking Law has a group of set parameters for how the relationship progress's and won't break them.
The key aspect is though this contract need not be written or verbal.

Chaos
They have there own rules but they are flexible and fluid. A chaotic person may enter a relationship looking for commitment but change there opinion and mind. They will experiment and play with there partners sometimes pushing boundaries. This does not mean they break them or they force things merely they are more willing to bend what the established rules were/are. A Chaotic Good King may have never thought the need of a Countess but his opinion changed. He may inform the queen he may not. The important note is that Chaos won't be destructive just fluid.

Good
Always look to maximize for both parties. A good person wants the most for both, whatever the established relationship may be. The other important thing is good likes stability not commitment but stability. Good wants a person it can trust and that can trust them, they want to build together.

Evil
Not selfish per say. No evil wants to enjoy a relationship for what it is, this can include exploiting others. Evil does not mean cruel, or malicious, or cold though. Evil is simply open to possibility and a certain willingness to try. A evil lover could surprise there lover with something new and maybe they don't bring it up further maybe they slowly introduce it teasing and testing. Good offers a choice and maybe accepts the results, evil introduces and shows what is being missed and then gives a choice
This does not mean evil cannot want to build and establish a long lasting relationship

Neutrality
Neutrals well like all things with alignment are the middle of two extreme's. Nothing further to note really.

So an example a Lawful Evil person may establish rules and play with the other side showing them things and leaving it a tantalizing window, things are established brought into play and maybe discarded with ease
Lawful Good will make a groundwork and work through each issue one at a time. This can often mean the other side does not get a full view of the relationship
Or at least that is my interpretation

[Red Fel]

To get back on topic, I think most of us agree that alignment should probably shape how a character approaches their sexuality and relationships rather than defining them?

I agree.


Evil
Not selfish per say. No evil wants to enjoy a relationship for what it is, this can include exploiting others. Evil does not mean cruel, or malicious, or cold though. Evil is simply open to possibility and a certain willingness to try. A evil lover could surprise there lover with something new and maybe they don't bring it up further maybe they slowly introduce it teasing and testing. Good offers a choice and maybe accepts the results, evil introduces and shows what is being missed and then gives a choice
This does not mean evil cannot want to build and establish a long lasting relationship

To me, this just sounds more like a teasing version of Chaos. I'm not sure that I agree with it.

As I've expressed, in my mind, Evil is about power, and Evil in a relationship is about power dynamics. Evil sees love as both a weakness and a chance to exercise strength.

In the former case, Evil recognizes that being in a relationship means exposing a vulnerability - namely your partner. Evil will often seek to compensate for this, either by concealing the relationship, or by a surprising overprotective streak that could accurately be defined as "deterrence by disproportionate retribution."

In the latter, Evil sees love as a chance to do, in order to show strength. That may mean crushing those who have hurt your partner. It may mean showering your love with lavish gifts and opulence, not just out of affection, but to demonstrate just how much you can and will do for your love. That's an alignment distinction: Good gives gifts out of genuine affection, ("You said you liked boating, so here's a boat,") Evil gives gifts as a form of posturing. ("How much do I love you? How about a yacht's worth?")

[Maglubiyet]

There is a huge gulf between "Make a decision that immediately affects the life or death of people that you know are at risk" and "Brush your teeth while something, somewhere, far away goes bad." No one in any reality expects a person to go beyond all ability or hope of sensible reality to eradicate all evil in the world (unless there's macguffins to do it with) to the exclusion of all considerations.


Yet you still consider the hero who saves his lover to be selfish. On the continuum of selfishness, he should be the LEAST selfish, but you only single that one guy out for some reason. There were probably thousands of other people who could've saved the people had they not made such "selfish" choices in their lives. Here are some in ascending order:

-The guy who decided early on to become a lawyer instead of a hero because there was more money in it. Had he continued in the hero career, he would've been poised to make the save.

-The hero who retired a few years ago to take care of his drinking problem and spend more time with the kids. Totally could've rescued everyone.

-The hero who stayed home the morning of the kidnapping because he had a doctor's appointment.

-Our hero's partner who fled the fight after he got his face melted. He is selfishly taking care of himself instead of thinking of others.

-And then we have our hero, who continued on the hero's path and actually showed up on fight day, but then had to take care of his friends and/or family first before trying to save the hostages.

The only person left would be the hero who showed up and didn't have any other responsibilities so was able to rescue everyone. Everyone else was too selfish, taking care of their own business.

I wouldn't consider the motive for rescuing someone close to you to be love -- it's duty. When you know people you have certain obligations. I would save my wife and kids before a mistress, if I had one. I'd save my mother-in-law, my boss, and my weird neighbor before a stranger, even though they're not my favorite people in the world.

[Hawkstar]

Yet you still consider the hero who saves his lover to be selfish. On the continuum of selfishness, he should be the LEAST selfish, but you only single that one guy out for some reason. There were probably thousands of other people who could've saved the people had they not made such "selfish" choices in their lives. Here are some in ascending order:Nah. Those people's decision points were unrelated to the situation that arose. Now, had one said "Screw it, I'm done with this hero business and will be a lawyer instead" at that decision point? That would have been a ding against Good. Of course, it could be argued that the people being held hostage should Act if they wish to be "Good".

What's really important to keep in mind is context of the situation (Of course, the internet is violently opposed to the idea of context).


I wouldn't consider the motive for rescuing someone close to you to be love -- it's duty. When you know people you have certain obligations. I would save my wife and kids before a mistress, if I had one. I'd save my mother-in-law, my boss, and my weird neighbor before a stranger, even though they're not my favorite people in the world."Obligation" and "Duty" are meaningless outside of a Lawful alignment, and Lawful-affiliated Neutrals.

[Vknight]

I agree.



To me, this just sounds more like a teasing version of Chaos. I'm not sure that I agree with it.

As I've expressed, in my mind, Evil is about power, and Evil in a relationship is about power dynamics. Evil sees love as both a weakness and a chance to exercise strength.

In the former case, Evil recognizes that being in a relationship means exposing a vulnerability - namely your partner. Evil will often seek to compensate for this, either by concealing the relationship, or by a surprising overprotective streak that could accurately be defined as "deterrence by disproportionate retribution."

In the latter, Evil sees love as a chance to do, in order to show strength. That may mean crushing those who have hurt your partner. It may mean showering your love with lavish gifts and opulence, not just out of affection, but to demonstrate just how much you can and will do for your love. That's an alignment distinction: Good gives gifts out of genuine affection, ("You said you liked boating, so here's a boat,") Evil gives gifts as a form of posturing. ("How much do I love you? How about a yacht's worth?")

More I was going for control actually though teasing does work.
I also would point out evil can give gifts for simple affection as it all depends upon relationships

[Hawkstar]

More I was going for control actually though teasing does work.
I also would point out evil can give gifts for simple affection as it all depends upon relationships

I'd say that doing so requires them to be evil in other ways. The ability to care about another is inherently Good. But one redeeming quality is not enough to stop someone from being seen as Evil(Just as one Nongood or Evil quality is enough to stop someone from being seen as Good, such as the hero who will stop trying to save others to save himself after a certain threshold, such as face-melted.)

[goto124]

Guys. People aren't 100% Lawful or Chaotic.

People who are overall Evil can still be genuinely good to the people they love, whether father or boyfriend.

Red Fel is talking about the Evil approach to romantic relationships. Not all Evil people have to take that approach.


"Obligation" and "Duty" are meaningless outside of a Lawful alignment, and Lawful-affiliated Neutrals.

Similarly, one who believes strongly in freedom and individuality can still be loyal to loved ones.

[Vknight]

Guys. People aren't 100% Lawful or Chaotic.

People who are overall Evil can still be genuinely good to the people they love, whether father or boyfriend.

Red Fel is talking about the Evil approach to romantic relationships. Not all Evil people have to take that approach.



Similarly, one who believes strongly in freedom and individuality can still be loyal to loved ones.

Thankyou goto that was my key point is that I was going with a relationship where that was a factor.
Now we can talk about people that exploit those that love them but care not. But that is not the discussion in question

[Red Fel]

I'd say that doing so requires them to be evil in other ways. The ability to care about another is inherently Good. But one redeeming quality is not enough to stop someone from being seen as Evil(Just as one Nongood or Evil quality is enough to stop someone from being seen as Good, such as the hero who will stop trying to save others to save himself after a certain threshold, such as face-melted.)

See, I wouldn't go so far as to say that "the ability to care about another is inherently Good." I would say that the ability to love selflessly - or indeed, to do anything selflessly - is hard for Evil, because it goes so contra to an Evil world view.

But love also serves some self-satisfying functions, which is very much in line with an Evil mindset. Making the one you love happy makes you happy. Protecting and providing for the one you love makes you feel strong and important. Being comforted by the one you love when you're sick or in pain makes you feel better. And while there are other ways to get similar feelings, getting them from a loved one feels more "real" somehow, more satisfying. And even if Evil borders on a sociopathic inability to simply love another for love's own sake (and I don't think it does), it can enjoy the feelings that come with doing things for a loved one; these feelings are, in part, self-serving.

Now, I seem to remember one image (maybe it was in BoED?) of a Paladin coming upon to Succubi in love, and having to choose between slaying two inherently Evil creatures, and upholding the value of love, which the book described as a paramount virtue of Good, or somesuch. I have issues with that, because I do believe that love transcends alignment, it just expresses in different ways.

I will agree with you, however, that one virtue does not turn Evil into Good, anymore than one vice turns Good into Evil.


People who are overall Evil can still be genuinely good to the people they love, whether father or boyfriend.

*SNIP*

Similarly, one who believes strongly in freedom and individuality can still be loyal to loved ones.

So true. Love makes one do crazy things, which one might otherwise never do, and might never do again. How we express love and loyalty may vary, of course, but the feelings are still there.


Red Fel is talking about the Evil approach to romantic relationships. Not all Evil people have to take that approach.

This, too. I have often noted (and more often forgotten to note) that I have a particular approach to Evil, that is simultaneously idealized and very human. There are so many ways to play Evil, however, and I can't claim to have a monopoly on the "right" way to do so, anymore than anyone else can.

One Evil approach might be a perfectly normal, healthy relationship, where the character keeps his sinister dealings completely separate from home life. Another might be that of the corruptor; he loves his partner, but continually offers temptation to join him in the darkness. Another might be that of the whimsical abuser, who alternately offers genuine affection and frustrated abuse. Yet another might be the coldly distant, the one who wants to love, but is incapable of something so selfless. Another might be Jareth, who is awesome and has the best codpiece in cinematic history. Another might be Erik, who believes himself incapable of love and crumbles at the first sight of genuine affection.

Point is, your mileage may - and probably should - vary when it comes to how Evil, or any other alignment, experiences love.

[Maglubiyet]

Nah. Those people's decision points were unrelated to the situation that arose. Now, had one said "Screw it, I'm done with this hero business and will be a lawyer instead" at that decision point? That would have been a ding against Good. Of course, it could be argued that the people being held hostage should Act if they wish to be "Good".

I disagree. The obligation to act started a long time ago. The hero was the only one with the foresight to be proactive enough to set himself in the situation with the requisite skills to do anything, but he didn't need to be. Anyone else could've intervened at earlier stages. Villains don't just spontaneously appear in a vacuum -- many people along the way would've known something was up yet chose to do nothing.

Blaming the hero who shows up at the last minute to help is like blaming your doctor for being selfish for stopping to eat a granola bar before performing an angioplasty on you. A lifetime of neglect on your part, eating fatty foods and not exercising, in no way constitutes a last-minute emergency on someone else's.

[GungHo]

Seems that way. Also, pro tip: ignore everything the 3e Book of Vile Darkness has to say about BDSM.

Or Terry Goodkind, for that matter.

[Segev]

Yeah, you have to ask: Why is the hero next to the Big Red Button That Saves Washington in the first place? How did he get there? Why did he strive to get there?

Did he take on responsibility to save Washtington as his goal, or as part of it? Then yes, it's his duty to do so. This is, however, more a matter of Law than of Good. The will to save somebody at the risk of his own life is probably Good, and Neutral at worst. WHo he chooses to save is his own choice.

Turn the situation around:

BadGuy: Kill your sidekick, and I will spare Washington!
Hero: What? I would never kill the Girl Wonder! She's like a daughter to me!
BadGuy: Then Washington's people will die by your choice! Their blood is on your hands! Bwahahahaha!

Is it the Hero's moral imperative to kill the Girl Wonder? Is it the Girl Wonder's moral imperative to beg the Hero to kill her? (The bad guy didn't say he'd spare Washington if she died, only if the Hero killed her.)


Going back to the Hero-next-to-the-big-red-button example, it is perfectly heroic for the hero to try to save both. It is not EVIL for him to choose to save his beloved. It is, perhaps, foolish, if he doesn't have very good reason to trust that the villain will keep his word, however.


I do think most Good people would strive to save Washington over their own beloved. It is probable that their beloved would even agree with the choice, which might be part of the motive to make it. While good people can love evil people (and neutral people) who would not make the same choice, usually such situations arise because the hero and heroine share the desire to save the city even at the cost of their own lives.

But that doesn't make saving one's beloved Evil.

I don't think the guilt over "I could have saved them" is any more or less valid here than the guilt over it if the hero arrived in the room, dashed for the red button, and was a half-second too late to push it. There's always something he could have done a half-second faster. So each thing he did that was not just that much faster must have been Evil, if the choice to save his girlfriend over pushing the button would be evil.

[Hawkstar]

Or Terry Goodkind, for that matter.

What does the BoVD have to say about Terry Goodkind? :smallconfused:

[ShaneMRoth]

...
Turn the situation around:

BadGuy: Kill your sidekick, and I will spare Washington!
Hero: What? I would never kill the Girl Wonder! She's like a daughter to me!
BadGuy: Then Washington's people will die by your choice! Their blood is on your hands! Bwahahahaha!

...

Ah, the Sadistic Choice...

This entire exchange hinges on the credibility of the Bad Guy in the eyes of the Hero.

If I kill Wonder Girl, then Bad Guy will not kill an entire city. I know this because Bad Guy... never... lies?

Seriously?

If I murder Wonder Girl right now... forever... I have an absolute guarantee, from BAD GUY... that he won't kill any one in Washington... forever?

Did he pinky-swear he wouldn't destroy Washington?

That's not Lawful Stupid Hero, that Hero is Too Stupid To Live.

If Hero kills Wonder Girl, the only thing Hero can count on is that Wonder Girl will die. Bad Guy could still murder an entire city. The notion that Wonder Girl's death guarantees the safety of anyone simply does not follow.

The only thing that will guarantee the lives of the city is the death of Bad Guy.

This is the problem with the Sadistic Choice. It really isn't a choice. The Sadistic Choice has to control for so many obvious things that the choice itself becomes absurd.

And, most Sadistic Choices compromise Willing Suspension of Disbelief...



Person A: Two of your children are drowning, you can only save one. Which one do you chose?

Person B: The one I can get to first.

A: They are both the same distance from you.

B: Okay... how does that work?

A: It doesn't matter.

B: Actually, it does. They aren't near each other?

A: No.

B: And they are so far apart from each other that I can't save both of them?

A: That's right.

B: So they are really far apart from each other... but close enough to me that I can get to one of them and prevent a drowning.

A: Yes. Look, the point is... which one do you chose?

B: No, the point is that I'm assuming I'm governed by the laws of physics. So they are both close enough to me that I can see they are drowning and both far enough away from each other that I can't get to both of them. And I see them both at the same time so they are both in my field of vision. Because once I see one of my kids drowning, I'm going to act immediately. I don't have time to save my kid and perform a 360 degree Sherlock Scan to see how many other of my kids might be drowning.

A: But you are getting lost in the details...

B: I'm not, actually. I see my kid in danger, I act. I don't think. You don't have kids, do you?

A: That's not relevant.

B: I'll take that as a No.

[goto124]

I guess the above post is why questions of morality rarely actually come up the way we discuss them?

Theory vs practice?

[tomandtish]

So what about someone who orders a tofu burger with sauteed mushrooms, pepperjack cheese, ghost pepper sauce, and nothing on the side?

You mean Captain Jack Harkness?

[The Fury]

Ah, the Sadistic Choice...

This entire exchange hinges on the credibility of the Bad Guy in the eyes of the Hero.

If I kill Wonder Girl, then Bad Guy will not kill an entire city. I know this because Bad Guy... never... lies?

Seriously?

If I murder Wonder Girl right now... forever... I have an absolute guarantee, from BAD GUY... that he won't kill any one in Washington... forever?

Did he pinky-swear he wouldn't destroy Washington?

That's not Lawful Stupid Hero, that Hero is Too Stupid To Live.



That's why the earlier example in this thread with the hero at the doomsday weapon's self destruct button with the bad guy holding a gun to the hero's love interest was a better setup. If the hero pushes the self-destruct button (s)he can be assured that the bad guy will not destroy Washington because he no longer has the means to do so. (Unless bad guy manages to build another one later on, but I digress.) Though there's still a pretty big credibility problem:

"OK, if I back away slowly from the self-destruct button and surrender, the bad guy will absolutely not kill my love interest? Not even if he thought it would be really, really funny if he did?"

Though before I start calling Hypothetical Hero Person "Too Dumb to Live," I'll freely admit that questioning Bad Guy's credibility probably would not occur to me if he had a gun to the head of... well, anyone.

[Lady Serpentine]

Though there's still a pretty big credibility problem:

"OK, if I back away slowly from the self-destruct button and surrender, the bad guy will absolutely not kill my love interest? Not even if he thought it would be really, really funny if he did?"


Assuming fantasy/superhero things are going on, it's possible to have passive truth sensing abilities, potentially. Now, not every hero will have these, and it's possible the villain might have come up with a way around them if they do (if they operate on truth as a binary, rather than on intent and implication, for example, 'I won't shoot her if you do this' doesn't prevent him from stabbing her) but it's reasonable to assume there's a fairly reliable way of verifying.

For that matter if the villain is LE it's entirely possible they do have a personal code such that they're highly unlikely to break a deal made like that, even if they'd have no qualms about destroying a city or shooting her, and also possible for the hero to know this.

This isn't to say that that's going to be the case every time, of course, but the hypothetical assumes that you can in fact save the girl (or guy), since otherwise the only sane choice is to hit the button, since it's the only way that saves anyone.

[Maglubiyet]

Ah, the Sadistic Choice...

Shouldn't that be "Sophie's Choice"?


And, most Sadistic Choices compromise Willing Suspension of Disbelief...


Two kids drowning shouldn't be too much of a stretch. Both out past the breakers in a rip current, equidistant from shore, high surf, confused seas, no floatation devices or watercraft available. Not that difficult of a scenario to imagine.


That's why the earlier example in this thread with the hero at the doomsday weapon's self destruct button with the bad guy holding a gun to the hero's love interest was a better setup.


It works even better if the two outcomes are mutually exclusive and interdependent, without further input from the bad guy. Like Wonder Girl is trapped in a stealth bomber flying over Washington. The hero is in the position to shoot it down before it drops its nuclear payload. If he does, Wonder Girl dies, but the city is saved. If he doesn't, the bomber flies off safely, Wonder Girl lives, and Washington is leveled.

[Hawkstar]

Ah, the Sadistic Choice...

This entire exchange hinges on the credibility of the Bad Guy in the eyes of the Hero.

If I kill Wonder Girl, then Bad Guy will not kill an entire city. I know this because Bad Guy... never... lies?

Seriously?

If I murder Wonder Girl right now... forever... I have an absolute guarantee, from BAD GUY... that he won't kill any one in Washington... forever?

Did he pinky-swear he wouldn't destroy Washington?

That's not Lawful Stupid Hero, that Hero is Too Stupid To Live.

If Hero kills Wonder Girl, the only thing Hero can count on is that Wonder Girl will die. Bad Guy could still murder an entire city. The notion that Wonder Girl's death guarantees the safety of anyone simply does not follow.

The only thing that will guarantee the lives of the city is the death of Bad Guy.

This is the problem with the Sadistic Choice. It really isn't a choice. The Sadistic Choice has to control for so many obvious things that the choice itself becomes absurd.
I don't understand why the standard sadistic choice is set up like this, instead of something where both the villain and Hero are in a point of decision making.

For example - to stop the hero from stopping him from blowing up Washington, the Villain throws Wonder Girl off a cliff/shoots her and puts her in critical condition, so that the hero is forced to either stop and save Wonder Girl, or body-check the villain and stop him from blowing up Washington. Or, it's against a nonsapient ad uncaring environmental effect (In order to develop a cure for a disease rampaging through the city, one or more living people, possibly children, need to be subjected to lethal experiments.)

In fact, I think that had the adventure not ended with the loose thread just dropped, a character I'm playing would have been in a position to put an undercity Gang Leader in the position of a Sadistic Choice - give up his quest for vengeance against the Murderbot that killed one of the kids under his protection, or lose even more by refusing to back off and let said Murderbot finish its investigation into cult dealings and then leave the city.

[Segev]

Actually, the reality of the "lethal plague" scenario is probably closer to the efforts and experiments to save the first victims will probably fail, but will lead to better methods for future patients. It's almost never the case that you'd really need to perform "cruel and sadistic" experiments on somebody with literally zero chance of saving them (and the implication that you're dooming them; they would otherwise have been more or less okay or at least have gone more peacefully) to find a cure.

Sadistic choices almost always have to be deliberately constructed for them to even come close to having the moral weight they're meant to, once objective examination of the situation as a whole is performed.

[Roxxy]

What if you want the two burger meal with super-size fries and like to pick fries off of other people's trays too?You'd be a whore. :smalltongue:

[Frozen_Feet]

You'd be a whore. :smalltongue:

Only if other people are paying you to eat all of those.

If you do it for free, you're just a slut.

[Sith_Happens]

You mean Captain Jack Harkness?

Nah, Captain Jack would order one of everything then sneak off without paying the bill.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: I would suggest dropping exploration of the metaphor before we stray into Inappropriate territory.

[ShaneMRoth]

Back to the OPs original query...

I would get the impact that sexuality might have on alignment clear in my head and then write it down.

I would not err on the side of brevity or readability. I would write for clarity in a manner that reduces the need for interpretation. This sort of writing is all clunky and sounds like legal-ese. That is a feature, not a bug.

I would express the relationship between sexuality and alignment with words like "ostensibly" and "leans" rather than words like "always" or "inherently".

Monogamy might "lean" Lawful, but it should be possible to be Lawful and not be monogamous. A Chaotic person should be able to be monogamous without needing Atonement spells to keep from drifting out of Chaotic territory. Monogamy might be expected from a Lawful character, and might be a "quirk" for a Chaotic character, but it shouldn't define their entire ethical code.

BDSM as it is understood in popular culture (like 50 Shades of Brain Bleach), may be ostensibly Evil and if you decide that is how your campaign works then make that decision and write it down. But if you decide that BDSM as it is actually practiced is how you want to model your campaign, then decide what that means in alignment terms... write it down... and make that writing available to your players. Call it Lawful, call it Chaotic. When in doubt, fall back on Neutral. But call it something, or detach it from the alignment mechanic.

The only "sexuality" that I would declare to be Evil would be things that are acts of violence that masquerade as sexuality (rape and pedophilia). This may be so obvious that it would seem to never come up, as I assume that none of the players at any given table want to play rapists or pederasts. Villains, on the other hand, might at least be implied to have committed such acts. Sometimes there is no substitute for just calling something Evil and moving on.

EDIT: Another member pointed out that rape is not sexuality, and this post was edited to clarify this.

[Fyndhal]

The only sexuality that I would declare to be Evil would be things that include violence against innocent people (rape and pedophilia).

Rape isn't about sexuality. I agree with you, other than that.

[Red Fel]

Back to the OPs original query...

I would get the impact that sexuality might have on alignment clear in my head and then write it down.

I'm not sure that's what the OP is saying. The OP seems to be suggesting that sexuality, or any desired form of relationship (e.g. monogamy, polyamory, etc.), is independent of alignment; that rather, alignment helps to define how that person approaches the relationship, rather than the unique species of the relationship itself.

Are you proposing otherwise, then? If so, it makes for an interesting discussion. (I might go so far as to suggest that BDSM is more Lawful than any other alignment, as it is defined by careful structure, trust, and agreed-upon roles. But that's another matter from sexuality and romantic relationships entirely.)

[Nizaris]

How I look at it is that is all comes down to the interactions between the two or more individuals and what expectations there are between them. (Note that I'm talking from a Cosmic perspective and not cultural one)

Sexual orientation and fetishes are completely independent of alignment, you like who/what you like, it just is what it is. There is no Good/Evil or Law/Chaos involved. Sex itself is neutral, how you get there though may be more reflective on alignment.

As previously mentioned, Lawful would trend more to relationships that are stable and have a clear system of what is and isn't allowed. Spontaneity is not as much of a thing since they want to make sure the other person is aware of it first, though that is not to say full disclosure is always given. This is not to say the relationships are monogamous, if two people decide they want to be swingers or polyandrous and set rules, then it would be Lawful. This applies to multiple facets of a relationship. If Bob enjoys dressing up in drag and going to a LGBT club to hang out and party and his partner is fully aware and they have a system for this to happen, say once a month Bob dress up and goes out while the other goes to see some of their friends, then I would say it's Lawful.

Chaotic is less about commitment and established rules and more about what strikes their fancy at the time. Friends with Benefits and quick hook-ups would fall under this more. They will push the limits of what rules there are, how far depends on Good/Evil. Going back to Bob, if Bob doesn't tell his partner about his drag but still goes out when he wants, then he's in Chaotic territory. How Good/Evil Bob is is reflected in his actions knowing his partner's approval/disapproval of it in general and the frequency thereof.

Good and Evil are easy, does your action act in the interest of all parties involved in the relationship or does it place your desires ahead of the other.

LG: Person seeking a relationship with rules that each party is in agreement to
CG: Person looking to enjoy themselves but still keeps the other person't interests in mind
LE: Person seeking relationship with rules that favor their interests
CE: Person wanting to enjoy themselves with no regard to others

As for BDSM, I see it as Lawful in nature. In Good relationships, the Submissive is in control and the parties involved have an agreement what can and won't happen. In Lawful Evil relationships, the Dominate is in control with little input from the Submissive, who gave at least some kind of consent. The Dominant will stop at some point if the Submissive tries to end it but there will probably be some kind of punishment. Chaotic Evil BDSM is torture porn/rape, period, full stop.

[Frozen_Feet]

Rape isn't about sexuality.

You shouldn't conclude that so easily. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biastophilia)

If you want to plumb "evil sexualities", there's also hybristophilia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia).

[Fyndhal]

You shouldn't conclude that so easily. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biastophilia)

If you want to plumb "evil sexualities", there's also hybristophilia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia).

Interesting! I stand (er, well, sit really) corrected. Thanks for broadening my knowledge!

[Steampunkette]

Paraphillias are not sexualities.

Sexuality is based on attraction, paraphilias are secondary characteristics that still hinge on sexuality but are specific to sexual arousal. People who can't have sex without the presence of a rubber ducky for erotic purposes still want to have sex with people of a specific gender or one of several genders.

A Heterosexual Biastophile won't feel attraction to a member of the same gender and probably won't consider them a "Target" for their paraphilia, instead choosing targets they find more sexually attractive to attack.

[Frozen_Feet]

Sexuality is typically used to refer to more than just sexual orientation, hence my mention of paraphilias. From the earlier talk on BDSM, I gathered this thread had already moved past just sexual orientation.

[Coidzor]

What do you all think?

I think this way lies madness. And probably an equal amount of chortling and raised eyebrows from LGBTA individuals. :smallamused:


If that were true, abusive relationships wouldn't exist wherein one person loves the other but treats them like crap. There wouldn't be relationships wherein all of the work of the relationship is one-sided.

Unless you contend that, in those cases, it's not love.

That's the safest position to take, I've found.


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Edmund Burke

Save the girl, allow great evil. I could definitely see an argument that it's not an evil act but rather a neutral one, but the motivation behind saving the girl in this instance is selfish, not selfless...

Which was the whole thrust of my argument, upthread.

The villain is a bond villain. Our hero is a hero. The premise fails, hero wins and both saves the girl and saves D.C.

Hooray.


So what about someone who orders a tofu burger with sauteed mushrooms, pepperjack cheese, ghost pepper sauce, and nothing on the side?

Probably a demisexual with enough paraphilias and fetishes that one could mistake them for an allosexual with very specific tastes.

Also, just terrible, terrible taste. Everyone knows you don't mix pepperjack and tofu without sweet potato to round it out.

[Hawkstar]

That's the safest position to take, I've found.
So.... No True Scotsman? (Or No True Love in this case?)

Human social and emotional interaction (Hatred, love, lust, all that stuff) can be extremely difficult to understand, and there isn't any word other than 'love' to describe the often sick and twisted attractions some people have for each other.

[ShaneMRoth]

On the matter of the Book of Vile Darkness and this entire thread... something has gone unsaid for too long.

WotC and Hasbro are not interested in getting sued.

The notion that WotC or Hasbro was going to publish any work that even looked like it endorsed the BDSM lifestyle was never going to happen. And slapping a "For Mature Audiences Only." sticker on the book cover was never going to change that.

Google the following: "Dungeons and Dragons" and "Lawsuit"

D&D has been scapegoated by people for decades. Some of those people have gone to court on the matter. None of those people were particularly reasonable.

The reason that Devils are called Baatezu and Demons are referred to as Tanar'ri, is from the time when D&D was trying in vain to appear less "anti-Christian".

Hasbro has the deepest pockets of any owner of the rights to publish D&D in the game's history. Every word that is published as an official D&D product is subject the due diligence of someone with a law degree before it ever goes to print.

No lawyer with any sense of duty to her client is going to allow Hasbro to publish anything that even implies an endorsement of the BDSM lifestyle.

I recommend that the OP be informed by this fact when reading any official published word from Hasbro and WotC if she is going to make an informed and prudent judgment on how to handle sexuality in her campaign.

[Steampunkette]

I didn't actually touch on BDSM in the OP as relates to the BoVD/ED. I was referring to the BoVD/ED stance that alignment determines (to some degree) sex and sexuality. Mostly through references to minor deities of sex and intimacy and discussions of temptation and chastity.

That said, I agree that BDSM would probably fall outside of the alignment spectrum as well. Alignment would likely determine how people approach it, though. With Lawful people being more careful about boundaries beforehand and Chaotic people making general guidelines and then finding the happy medium through sexual experimentation.

[Coidzor]

So.... No True Scotsman? (Or No True Love in this case?)

Human social and emotional interaction (Hatred, love, lust, all that stuff) can be extremely difficult to understand, and there isn't any word other than 'love' to describe the often sick and twisted attractions some people have for each other.

You can call it a fallacy and I can say you're wrong and that drawing a line between different emotions and behaviors is not fallacious at all and then we can have a big row and put one another on ignore, I suppose.

Or we can agree that we'll just always disagree with 100% absolititude on the subject and move on. :smalltongue:

[Milo v3]

On the matter of the Book of Vile Darkness and this entire thread... something has gone unsaid for too long.

WotC and Hasbro are not interested in getting sued.

The notion that WotC or Hasbro was going to publish any work that even looked like it endorsed the BDSM lifestyle was never going to happen. And slapping a "For Mature Audiences Only." sticker on the book cover was never going to change that.

Except they had no reason to portray BDSM as evil. They could have simply not mentioned BDSM at all, and everyone would be happy.

[Steampunkette]

You can call it a fallacy and I can say you're wrong and that drawing a line between different emotions and behaviors is not fallacious at all and then we can have a big row and put one another on ignore, I suppose.

Or we can agree that we'll just always disagree with 100% absolititude on the subject and move on. :smalltongue:

Do you believe people can act on their emotions in different ways while still consistently feeling the emotion?

If that is true, then you've got the chance for someone who is abusive, or more likely unaware of the fact that what they're doing is abusive (very common in emotional and mental abuse, less so in physical abuse), who is still in love with someone else.

And the same goes for people who commit suicide out of love for someone they can't be with, people who slavishly devote all of their time to the target of their affection, people who can hardly wait to rip off each other's clothes as soon as they get home so they can get intimate, people who hide their love for someone under aggression or behind walls of emotional barriers, and grumpy old people who sit in a room without saying a word to each other for days on end (and who haven't been physically intimate since their third grandchild was born) who are still in love.

The emotion is there in these examples, it's just how it's acted upon that is different.

There's also different 'cultures' around love depending on the way people are raised to view and interact with love.

[Coidzor]

Do you believe people can act on their emotions in different ways while still consistently feeling the emotion?

I was voting against the having a big row option, myself. :smallwink:


Except they had no reason to portray BDSM as evil. They could have simply not mentioned BDSM at all, and everyone would be happy.

Damn skippy. On the other hand we wouldn't be able to complain about it, which would make D&D sexuality and D&D alignment threads a little less weird.

So, y'know, tradeoffs! :smallamused:

[Red Fel]

Do you believe people can act on their emotions in different ways while still consistently feeling the emotion?

If that is true, then you've got the chance for someone who is abusive, or more likely unaware of the fact that what they're doing is abusive (very common in emotional and mental abuse, less so in physical abuse), who is still in love with someone else.

It's a definitional issue. If you define love as the affection, regardless of how it's manifested or acted upon, then yes, love can include abuse. But I think that's an awkward definition, and certainly an uncomfortable one; I would instead define love not only as the affection, but the desire to act upon it in a positive manner. Now, bringing this back to the topic, not every character can act upon love in a wholly positive manner. For example, an Evil character isn't going to act on love by suddenly becoming a saint. But he might act on love through disproportionately violent protective acts, or by lavish displays of wealth and power, or anything that will make his partner feel more secure or devoted.

And might that include some abusive behaviors? Possibly. An Evil character might react harshly to his partner's remarks or actions, or try to make his partner feel sufficiently isolated as to make him the most desirable choice. A Lawful character might respond sharply to a perceived betrayal of trust or violation of the relationship paradigm. And these reactions and responses might be upsetting by our standards. They might involve painful words or even blows. But these are isolated reactions, and the character will likely genuine regret (or something approaching it, in the case of Evil) about them. They would generally be peppered among acts of affection, warmth, and companionship, not highly concentrated.

However, under the definition that I prefer to use, a character who routinely engages in abusive behaviors towards his or her partner may feel love, but is not demonstrating love. And to say that such a character is acting on his or her love the only way he or she knows how strikes me as disingenuous; unless a very serious mental disability is involved, few and far between are those who would mistake genuine abuse for a demonstration of affection. (And as a rule, I don't like my players RPing characters with serious mental disabilities. It tends to fall somewhere between offensive and disruptive, generally both.)

[Amphetryon]

In general, I'd argue that a person who conflates a BDSM relationship with an abusive one is misunderstanding, or deliberately misapplying, one or other of the those concepts.

[Lady Serpentine]

I will note that it's a lot easier to mistake mental/emotional abuse for, not necessarily a demonstration of love (even a Lawful Good Paladin who follows a love deity isn't doing that all the time because relationships don't work that way), but a reasonable reaction, than it is physical abuse, especially if it's a result of the person's own insecurities (or something similar) in reaction to circumstances rather than endemic to the relationship as a whole. (There's also a cultural factor : A half-dragon might punch their human partner and then be baffled by why they don't punch back, because at a certain level of stress a brawl to let both parties let off steam was considered healthy.)

I'll say more later. Blah on PS3 typing right now.

Edit: Amphetryon - Did someone do that then?

[Amphetryon]

Edit: Amphetryon - Did someone do that then?
As I read several responses in the thread, it would seem a reasonable interpretation of some of those responses.

[Lady Serpentine]

As I read several responses in the thread, it would seem a reasonable interpretation of some of those responses.

Huh. May have missed some; which?

[goto124]

'BDSM' and 'abuse' are completely different things. A relationship may happen to have both out of sheer coincidence, but it's perfectly possible to have BDSM without abuse, and abuse without BDSM, and they have little to do with each other.

[Segev]

So.... No True Scotsman? (Or No True Love in this case?)

Human social and emotional interaction (Hatred, love, lust, all that stuff) can be extremely difficult to understand, and there isn't any word other than 'love' to describe the often sick and twisted attractions some people have for each other.

"No True Scottsman" is a fallacy because the definition of "Scottsman" is "a man from Scottland," with possible argument as to whether being "from" there is a genetic (i.e. family history) or social (i.e. "I grew up there") or even birth (i.e. "I was born there") trait. The biggest examples of "No True Scottsman" are generally using the "social" definition, and then overly-narrowing it such that highly specific behaviors (usually stereotypes) become necessary conditions when they really aren't.

"No True Christian would condone rape" is a fallacy if the accepted definition of "Christian" does not preclude condoning rape. However, because of the nature of the faith and the teachings at its core, it is not a fallacy: condoning rape is a non-Chrisitian thing to do, so somebody who does so is not behaving in a Christian fashion.

"No True Scottsman hates golf" is a fallacy if the accepted definition of "Scottsman" is to include people born, raised, or with family history from Scottland, because while liking golf is stereotypical and it is probable that most Scottsmen do, and unlikely that even a plurality actively hate it, there is nothing about not hating golf that is necessary for being "a Scottsman."


A decent - but not perfect - litmus test would be if you could reasonably say, "That man is a ______," even if he does not fit whatever trait "no true ______" would not fit.



The reason, therefore, that "such abusive relationships are not love" is not a fallacy is simply that desire is not the sole criterion for love. Love, by definition, includes charity and empathy. It is not simply possessiveness. Abusive relationships are about possessiveness and control, not about love. They disregard the happiness of the abused one; they disgregard all of their feelings, really, as it's only the abuser's perception of their feelings that even slightly matters. Many an abused spouse has done his or her best to please the abuser, only for the abuser to attribute a lack of caring/gratitude/respect simply based on the fact that the abuser is looking for an excuse to take out anger on the abused.

[Seto]

Love, by definition, includes charity and empathy. It is not simply possessiveness. Abusive relationships are about possessiveness and control, not about love. They disregard the happiness of the abused one; they disgregard all of their feelings, really, as it's only the abuser's perception of their feelings that even slightly matters. Many an abused spouse has done his or her best to please the abuser, only for the abuser to attribute a lack of caring/gratitude/respect simply based on the fact that the abuser is looking for an excuse to take out anger on the abused.

I respect your argument and I, for one, agree with your vision. However, your claim is objectively unsupported.
Thing is, love doesn't have a definition. Or, better said, it has a lot of contradictory definitions. It's such a personal matter and so imbricated with personal experience (itself informed by conscious or, most often, inconscious cultural/moral/religious stances) that a dictionary will never suffice.
I stand for the subjective route. I personally believe in something that I call love, and for which I have a concept involving several criteria, including selflessness, charity and empathy. But I have no right to claim that feelings/relationships that do not fit these criteria are not love, for what do I know about love, other than it being elusive to the mind.
If we really wanted to take the experimental, objective, route to examining your claim, the closest we could come to a definition would probably involve a statistical cultural survey that would lead to an archetype. This archetype would have characteristics of "love", and something could be judged to be more or less "love" according to the number of characteristics it possesses. Very roughly (and without having done these studies), I think what is commonly referred to as "love" requires two of the following :
- sexual desire
- passion (measured as the intensity of what you feel and the actions you are ready to take, the miles you're willing to travel, etc.)
- selflessness and charity, to want what (you feel) is truly good for the other person.

As only two of those are required, this attempt at a definition covers (some) abusive relationships, selfish and selfless passion, etc. while keeping the possibility of having all three (which would be a more complete use of the word "love") and barring the possibility of defining "love" as everything and anything. I'm not quite satisfied, but it's the best proposition I have so far.

[Segev]

I respect your argument and I, for one, agree with your vision. However, your claim is objectively unsupported.
Thing is, love doesn't have a definition. Or, better said, it has a lot of contradictory definitions. It's such a personal matter and so imbricated with personal experience (itself informed by conscious or, most often, inconscious cultural/moral/religious stances) that a dictionary will never suffice.
I stand for the subjective route. I personally believe in something that I call love, and for which I have a concept involving several criteria, including selflessness, charity and empathy. But I have no right to claim that feelings/relationships that do not fit these criteria are not love, for what do I know about love, other than it being elusive to the mind.
If we really wanted to take the experimental, objective, route to examining your claim, the closest we could come to a definition would probably involve a statistical cultural survey that would lead to an archetype. This archetype would have characteristics of "love", and something could be judged to be more or less "love" according to the number of characteristics it possesses. Very roughly (and without having done these studies), I think what is commonly referred to as "love" requires two of the following :
- sexual desire
- passion (measured as the intensity of what you feel and the actions you are ready to take, the miles you're willing to travel, etc.)
- selflessness and charity, to want what (you feel) is truly good for the other person.

As only two of those are required, this attempt at a definition covers (some) abusive relationships, selfish and selfless passion, etc. while keeping the possibility of having all three (which would be a more complete use of the word "love") and barring the possibility of defining "love" as everything and anything. I'm not quite satisfied, but it's the best proposition I have so far.

I actually think "love" does not require sexual desire. Romantic love does, but, say, fillial or fraternal love do not. Platonic love also does not. Passion is mainly the guage that measures the difference between "like" and "love," I think. Selflessness and charity for another combined with sufficient passion qualifies as "love."

Sexual desire + passion is just passionate lust. Lust is not love. (One can be in both lust and love, and hopefully that is the case for romantic pairings!)

[Seto]

I actually think "love" does not require sexual desire. Romantic love does, but, say, fillial or fraternal love do not. Platonic love also does not. Passion is mainly the guage that measures the difference between "like" and "love," I think. Selflessness and charity for another combined with sufficient passion qualifies as "love."
So we agree. Such love has themes 2 and 3 and lacks theme 1 ; since it requires two of the three, it qualifies as "love". (Of course, beforehand you'd have to resolve the question of "are we right to call such different feelings by one name ?", to which we apparently both answer yes, so let's not discuss it).


Sexual desire + passion is just passionate lust. Lust is not love. (One can be in both lust and love, and hopefully that is the case for romantic pairings!)
By your standards (and mine), certainly. But what you call passionate lust is usually called love, many (if not most) people think of it as love, and it would be too easy to just dismiss that on the grounds of a "definition" that is actually the subjective elaboration of a concept based on personal experience and moral stances. I'm talking theoretically ; of course, in practice, everyone is free to pursue the kind of engagement/relationship they feel is most appropriate.

[Segev]

But what you call passionate lust is usually called love, many (if not most) people think of it as love, and it would be too easy to just dismiss that on the grounds of a "definition" that is actually the subjective elaboration of a concept based on personal experience and moral stances. I'm talking theoretically ; of course, in practice, everyone is free to pursue the kind of engagement/relationship they feel is most appropriate.

I disagree. While "passionate lust" is often the first symptom/sign of love, and is likely what "love at first sight" really means, I do not think it is a commonly-accepted definition of "love" when it does not immediately also include that charitable desire to help/please/make happy the object of the affections. Every time "passionate lust" is conflated with love in common speak, it is expected inherently that the one experiencing it is aching for the other's approval, hopes to impress/attract them (i.e. make them reciprocate), and generally wants to do things to make the other one happy.

Where "passionate lust" lacks these drives, it's rarely really considered "love" even in pop culture. It's considered something altogether different, more predatory and perverse. Therein lies the province of creeps, rapists, and stalkers. None of which are really "in love;" it's almost universally portrayed (and agreed) that they might THINK they are, but they're really deceiving themselves. All they care about is their own gratification, not the other person. Which is, as they say, not love.

[Seto]

I disagree. While "passionate lust" is often the first symptom/sign of love, and is likely what "love at first sight" really means, I do not think it is a commonly-accepted definition of "love" when it does not immediately also include that charitable desire to help/please/make happy the object of the affections. Every time "passionate lust" is conflated with love in common speak, it is expected inherently that the one experiencing it is aching for the other's approval, hopes to impress/attract them (i.e. make them reciprocate), and generally wants to do things to make the other one happy.

Where "passionate lust" lacks these drives, it's rarely really considered "love" even in pop culture. It's considered something altogether different, more predatory and perverse. Therein lies the province of creeps, rapists, and stalkers. None of which are really "in love;" it's almost universally portrayed (and agreed) that they might THINK they are, but they're really deceiving themselves. All they care about is their own gratification, not the other person. Which is, as they say, not love.

Ok, fair enough. Point taken. Let's take into account the implication that "make them reciprocate" is involved. Doing that, even making the other happy, doesn't necessary rely on selflessness/charity. Sometimes I'd put that in the category of "passion". You can care much about someone without being willing to change your life/your ways/make your own happiness take a back seat for them. That's what I was trying to say, I guess.

[allenw]

If the world is threatened and you have the ability to save it you are obligated to do so.

That doesn't mean doing so is necessarily Good, though. (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/dcmoment16b.jpg)

[CWater]

I agree that the word 'love' is very difficult to use just for the reason that people have so different ideas of what it means. (Whenever someone asks 'do you love X?' they should first define what exactly it is that they are asking.:smallwink:)

But seriously, is the desire to bed someone really a important part of love to you? Really? In your above definition you are basically implying that asexual people cannot truly love, which is somewhat insulting to me. Not to mention wrong. Ace folks can love and care about others (yes, romantically too) and experience all the other related feelings that have been mentioned just as anyone else, with just the exception of sexual desire. (There are of course aromantic ace too, but not all are such.)

I would personally not combine Love and Lust at all, but call them fundamentally different feelings. After all, as an example of the opposite, all around the world people desire and sleep with people they don't love (one night stands, with prostitutes, heck a lot of people desire idols they have never even met). And not to mention the horrific crimes people do when lust is combined with complete disregard for the well-being and will of others.

I am demisexual myself, and have only once been sexually attracted to another person, the only one I also have romantically loved, and I still wouldn't call these feelings the same. They are intertwined of course, but no, lust is not love, in my definition anyway, and I must say it makes me uncomfortable how many people wish to lump them together.

[Seto]

CWater --> as said above, no. I apologize if you felt offended, but you read me wrong. My attempt at an objective definition (and remember that I stand for the subjective route, that's to say that how everyone defines love is their business) is that love requires two of the following : sexual desire, passion, selflessness/charity. Therefore my definition allows for love without sexual desire.
(I'm primarily targeting romantic love there, I think the definition can also apply to other bonds of love but that would require re-examining it to make sure).

[CWater]

CWater --> as said above, no. I apologize if you felt offended, but you read me wrong. My attempt at an objective definition (and remember that I stand for the subjective route, that's to say that how everyone defines love is their business) is that love requires two of the following : sexual desire, passion, selflessness/charity. Therefore my definition allows for love without sexual desire.
(I'm primarily targeting romantic love there, I think the definition can also apply to other bonds of love but that would require re-examining it to make sure).

Ah okay, I misunderstood your intent.:smallsmile: Although I am not sure if I would call it objective, more like a collage of what falls under the word. I suppose if one made up a deity of love for a ficitional world, it could be a way to describe their portfolio.

[Seto]

Ah okay, I misunderstood your intent.:smallsmile: Although I am not sure if I would call it objective, more like a collage of what falls under the word. I suppose if one made up a deity of love for a ficitional world, it could be a way to describe their portfolio.

That's about it. "Objective" in this context is pretty much "how people use the word", because that's the extent of objectivity when discussing such a thing as love. :smallbiggrin:

[Coidzor]

My attempt at an objective definition (and remember that I stand for the subjective route, that's to say that how everyone defines love is their business) is that love requires two of the following : sexual desire, passion, selflessness/charity. Therefore my definition allows for love without sexual desire.

But is also flawed because sexual desire and passion alone would frequently fail to qualify as love even in common parlance.

People can have a passionate desire for people who they have a solely sexual relationship with, for example.

[Seto]

But is also flawed because sexual desire and passion alone would frequently fail to qualify as love even in common parlance.

People can have a passionate desire for people who they have a solely sexual relationship with, for example.

If it's passionate enough, I'd call that love for lack of a better term, and that's what many people do. Not in the sense of a relationship, but in the sense of a sentiment, why not ? (as Segev pointed out, that's pretty much the only credible meaning of "love at first sight". Now, whether "love at first sight" etc. is to be distinguished from "real love" is up for discussion, but we're already creating/amending a concept, and thus have gone beyond common use).
Admittedly I don't know if, and can't prove that, that acception is common enough to fall under "what people usually refer to by 'love'", but that's my impression. It's very present in works of literature (think French 19th century, I'm not as good with English literature). Most of all, passionate physical desire is the concept of love presented by people who want to debunk the idea of "Love" as a blurry concept informed by social/moral norms/romantic ideals (chivalry, fair love, idealistic love and their avatars). I'm not among them, but I think their opinion is prominent and important enough that it should be made possible by a definition of love trying to reach a consensus.

P.S. But you and Segev are right, there may be a problem with the following fact : my definition of love easily extends to take into account bad/possessive/abusive/harmful relationships/feelings/behaviors. My answer to that is : there's no reason why love couldn't turn sour, or have terrible consequences ; there's no reason why, when it happens, it should suddenly stop being "love" and be something completely different. But this does conflict with common parlance, as the word "love" has heavily positive connotations and it just feels weird to be using it when talking about wrong/immoral things.

[dps]

The gay paladin: Is there no contraception, mundane or magical? Did he just magically decide that he 'likes' men due to his moral obligations? That's not how sexuality works.

Even if there's no artificial contraception available (of whatever origin), he could just hit on post-menopausal women.

[Steampunkette]

That doesn't mean doing so is necessarily Good, though. (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/dcmoment16b.jpg)

He didn't save the world. He slaughtered a bunch of innocent people. It happened to end the immediate threat but that's not the action he took. It's the reaction other people took.

Very different! Being the villain in order to push others to step up and be heroes is not a good act and it doesn't save the world, it threatens it. What if all the nations of the world attempted to nuke the aliens and wiped out their own major population centers? Or, hell, if Russia alone had tried to destroy the monsters...

It happened to work out, but that's because of the power of plot.

[Segev]

Um, yeah. Ozymandius was inequivocably a complete monster of a villain. He was a madman mass murderer who thought little of mankind and felt it was his right to toy with and kill them as he would "for their own good." He may have thought he was doing the right thing, but his thinking was so twisted that he was evil.

[Lord Raziere]

....now I think about it, there WAS a third solution in Watchmen that might've worked.

Ozymandias was studying teleportation technology. he could've, instead of teleporting a tentacle monster to new york, simply teleported the nukes out of both the US and USSR's hands. if he wasn't so caught up in his delusions that he is Alexander the Great come again, he could've developed the technology to simply get rid of the nukes so that no one would be able to use them, sure, it would've been hard seeing as how there were THOUSANDS of nukes on both sides or something, but it wouldn't be any less hard or improbable as bio-engineering a giant custom-made tentacle monster meant to make everyone think its an alien invasion. I mean as long as we're talking about implausible supervillain schemes....

[Icewraith]

....now I think about it, there WAS a third solution in Watchmen that might've worked.

Ozymandias was studying teleportation technology. he could've, instead of teleporting a tentacle monster to new york, simply teleported the nukes out of both the US and USSR's hands. if he wasn't so caught up in his delusions that he is Alexander the Great come again, he could've developed the technology to simply get rid of the nukes so that no one would be able to use them, sure, it would've been hard seeing as how there were THOUSANDS of nukes on both sides or something, but it wouldn't be any less hard or improbable as bio-engineering a giant custom-made tentacle monster meant to make everyone think its an alien invasion. I mean as long as we're talking about implausible supervillain schemes....

But to make sure he gets ALL the nukes, he basically has to pick them out of the air in midflight. What he SHOULD have done was say "hey..... Doctor Manhattan... why don't you use your incredible ability to bend space and time and exist in multiple places at once to take everyone's nukes simultaneously and teleport them to the surface of Mars?"

[Lord Raziere]

But to make sure he gets ALL the nukes, he basically has to pick them out of the air in midflight. What he SHOULD have done was say "hey..... Doctor Manhattan... why don't you use your incredible ability to bend space and time and exist in multiple places at once to take everyone's nukes simultaneously and teleport them to the surface of Mars?"

because Dr. Manhattan apparently claimed he could not do that and also might respond "I'm not seeing myself doing that in what you call the future anyways."

[Hawkstar]

... all getting rid of Nukes does is pave the way for conventional warfare to start up again.

[Steampunkette]

Conventional Warfare with Russia versus Nuclear Annihilation. I'll take it!

[Hawkstar]

Conventional Warfare with Russia versus Nuclear Annihilation. I'll take it!

But what if they start playing Hell March?

[aspekt]

TL;DR

Sorry if this has been said, but the OP really got to me.

The only thing a paladin would insist upon in intimate, romantic relationships would be that all parties involved understood the boundaries of the relationship and then abided by them.

Unless you're playing a game whose mechanics are determined almost solely by its setting/genre, (Pendragon comes to mind), the concept of what chivalry and lawful behavior might entail in a fantasy world setting is completely up to the storyteller.

There is no reason to think that the temple prostitutes of the ancient western world were never visited by persons that we might reasonably compare to Lawful Good in alignment. In point of fact such visits carried with them a certain force of proper devotion to be offered to the gods or goddesses.

The issue is the OP is projecting sexual stereotypes onto the game setting. Which is fine, but certainly doesn't reflect either our reality or the reality in the myths we create together.

[Steampunkette]

Actually, no.

I was pointing out that the old BoVD and BoED both treated Lawful people as eternally monogamous monosexuals while Chaotic individuals were the polyamorous bisexuals. I disagreed with that in the OP and described my own view.

Which is that sexuality and relationship types have nothing to do with alignment, but that alignment informs how a person approaches their relationships.

You completely misunderstood the original post.

[Seto]

I was pointing out that the old BoVD and BoED both treated Lawful people as eternally monogamous monosexuals while Chaotic individuals were the polyamorous bisexuals. I disagreed with that in the OP and described my own view.

As a few people have said, you would probably find some parts of the Book of Erotic fantasy an interesting read (and then there are the revulsing parts... Pleasure Golem, eeeeugh ! This thing creeps me out to no end). There's a part in particular which deals with exactly the topic of that thread, giving rp examples of alignment-informed sexuality. You wouldn't necessarily agree with everything, but it is interesting. The LG section describes a lesbian (or possibly bisexual) Paladin having a one-night stand, which, even though it's not the most progressive thing you could think of, already goes a long way towards reconciling Lawfulness with less traditional sexual behavior.

[aspekt]

Actually, no.

You completely misunderstood the original post.

I thought that's what forums were for.