Sixteen tenets, one alignment

[hymer]

Here are sixteen tenets of faith from an old campaign of mine. I recently came across them again, and thought I'd ask you all: What alignment would you apply to them collectively (or individually if you like)? If you could say which edition's alignment system you're using, that would be nice. :smallsmile:
Other comments or thoughts are welcome as well.

The ones who lie to others are wise. Those who lie to themselves are weak.

The ones who stand alone are strong because they have to be. Everyone falls eventually.

The ones who hate have drive and focus. The ones who direct the hate of others and themselves have the advantage.

The ones who can grant life can be as useful as the ones who can take life. The first are less of a threat.

The ones who speak too much expose themselves. The ones who speak too little are powerless.

The ones who have principles believe that the ones without principles are weak. The wise practice principles in the open, but never let them govern their actions.

The ones with a clear conscience have not yet lived. The ones that let their conscience control their actions are in fetters made by another.

The ones who give many gifts expect many in return. The ones who give no gifts are despised. The wise make gifts of those things that are appreciated but useless.

The ones who have much will gain much. The ones who have little will lose it.

The ones who understand the motives of others see them as either obviously selfish or secretly selfish. The wise understand the strengths of both possibilities.

The ones who think they will get what they deserve misunderstand the arbitrary nature of the world.

The ones who know the truth can use it. The ones who win can choose their own truths.

The ones who bear false witness gain time. The wise understand that life is only a matter of time.

The ones who can touch someone’s heart have power over them.

The ones who commit crimes are rebelling against those currently in power.

The ones who would have power must have courage. The ones with courage are threats to those currently in power.

[Pleh]

The ones who lie to others are wise. Those who lie to themselves are weak.

Manipulative, but not compulsively deceptive. Probably Neutral trending LE.


The ones who stand alone are strong because they have to be. Everyone falls eventually.

True neutral. The more I think about it, thw more I could see any alignment making this statement.


The ones who hate have drive and focus. The ones who direct the hate of others and themselves have the advantage.

Baseless, unprovoked hate trends Evil, but hate towards evil and injustice pings Good.

This proverb trends evil, but could be adopted by any alignment sufficiently passionate in their agenda.


The ones who can grant life can be as useful as the ones who can take life. The first are less of a threat.

Manipulative view of others as tools with benefit vs liability. Trends LE.


The ones who speak too much expose themselves. The ones who speak too little are powerless.

True neutral. Anyone could recognize the need to balance speaking out and shutting up.


The ones who have principles believe that the ones without principles are weak. The wise practice principles in the open, but never let them govern their actions.

Mostly neutral, trending possibly chaotic. Seems like a general criticism of baseless submission to authority.


The ones with a clear conscience have not yet lived. The ones that let their conscience control their actions are in fetters made by another.

Just Evil. Suggesting that people should desensitize themselves to their sense of right and wrong is very steeply in the Evil alignment.


The ones who give many gifts expect many in return. The ones who give no gifts are despised. The wise make gifts of those things that are appreciated but useless.

True Neutral, but possibly trending lawful. "Make shrewd deals" is alignment neutral, but has the most resonance with law.


The ones who have much will gain much. The ones who have little will lose it.

Not quite enough context without the "why" behind it. Generally Neutral as it just observes the universal trends. If it is suggesting this is how things *ought* to be, then it trends Evil.


The ones who understand the motives of others see them as either obviously selfish or secretly selfish. The wise understand the strengths of both possibilities.

Not sure quite what this one is trying to say. What "strengths" are these "possibilities" supposed to have?


The ones who think they will get what they deserve misunderstand the arbitrary nature of the world.

Cynical, but neutral. Possibly trending chaotic.


The ones who know the truth can use it. The ones who win can choose their own truths.

Not technically evil, but practically evil. Trending lawful, too, so basically just LE.


The ones who bear false witness gain time. The wise understand that life is only a matter of time.

So undermining the judicial system to protect yourself is justified? Definitely chaotic. The minimizing of the value of life can sometimes trend evil.


The ones who can touch someone’s heart have power over them.

Presents as evil for subverting trust, but actually neutral, because the saying is still true even if you are benevolent in your power.


The ones who commit crimes are rebelling against those currently in power.

Chaotic.


The ones who would have power must have courage. The ones with courage are threats to those currently in power.

Technically neutral, but jumps quickly to evil or chaotic if pushed.

Overall, together they seem mostly LE, but soft LE so there's room to swing in any direction

[TheStranger]

Looks pretty solidly NE to me. Taken as a whole, the main message seems to be "It is wise to do what benefits you." There are variations on that theme, but that seems to be the overall thrust. There are elements that lean CE, and elements that lean LE, but IMO they balance out to a very pragmatic NE, recognizing that sometimes you'll benefit from playing by the rules and sometimes you'll benefit from ignoring them.

However, it's also a very "the ends justify the means" worldview, and could be interpreted to speak to how to go about accomplishing your goals rather than telling you what those goals should be. So it's possible for a Good person to acknowledge these tenets as a practical assessment of how the world works (which IMO it is not, but YMMV), and go on to do good things. Context is everything, especially in issues of alignment.

[Luccan]

LE/NE. Some of these lean Neutral or Chaotic and a few could be beliefs of Good characters depending on how they approach it, but it boils down to a fairly selfish philosophy that sees rules and morals as a way to manipulate others.

[Quellian-dyrae]

Operating under a more-or-less 3e view of alignments (as best I remember and interpret it, anyway).


The ones who lie to others are wise. Those who lie to themselves are weak.

Chaotic. Lying is generally an iconic Chaotic action and this presents it as a positive. The second part doesn't really have alignment implications.


The ones who stand alone are strong because they have to be. Everyone falls eventually.

Chaotic. Individualism as strength.


The ones who hate have drive and focus. The ones who direct the hate of others and themselves have the advantage.

Probably not hard aligned, but can easily be used to justify Evil. The emphasis on drive, focus, and directing others might tend somewhat Lawful, but it's more a use of Lawful buzzwords I think.


The ones who can grant life can be as useful as the ones who can take life. The first are less of a threat.

Non-Good.


The ones who speak too much expose themselves. The ones who speak too little are powerless.

No alignment implications.


The ones who have principles believe that the ones without principles are weak. The wise practice principles in the open, but never let them govern their actions.

Strong Chaotic. Can be used to justify Evil.


The ones with a clear conscience have not yet lived. The ones that let their conscience control their actions are in fetters made by another.

Hard Chaotic Evil. It actively invites not just doing unethical things, but doing things that will make you personally feel guilty. "No matter how bad you are, you haven't really lived until you've done worse" in essence.


The ones who give many gifts expect many in return. The ones who give no gifts are despised. The wise make gifts of those things that are appreciated but useless.

Non-Good. Unfortunately Cynical is not an alignment. :smallamused:


The ones who have much will gain much. The ones who have little will lose it.

No alignment implications, mainly just cynical. Can very, very easily be used to justify Evil, though, especially by people in power.


The ones who understand the motives of others see them as either obviously selfish or secretly selfish. The wise understand the strengths of both possibilities.

Lean Chaotic just because it basically says everyone is selfish (implicitly: so you might as well be too). Can easily be used to justify Evil.


The ones who think they will get what they deserve misunderstand the arbitrary nature of the world.

No alignment implications. World's kinda arbitrary, nothing right or wrong about stating a fact.


The ones who know the truth can use it. The ones who win can choose their own truths.

Chaotic. Strong emphasis on manipulation, delegitimizes truth as a concept.


The ones who bear false witness gain time. The wise understand that life is only a matter of time.

Chaotic. Really it's a more elaborate version of "snitches get stitches". :smallamused:


The ones who can touch someone’s heart have power over them.

No alignment implications.


The ones who commit crimes are rebelling against those currently in power.

Wants to distract you from how Evil it is with how Chaotic it is. Most crimes hurt the innocents they are perpetrated against, not the ones in power. This shoots right past merely justifying evil and actually calls for it by making it sound all cool and heroic and stuff.


The ones who would have power must have courage. The ones with courage are threats to those currently in power.

Tends Chaotic in itself, but when combined with the immediately above reemphasizes the Chaotic Evil (now committing crimes doesn't just make you a cool rebel, it makes you powerful).

--

Taken as a whole? Chaotic Evil the whole way. Basically drills down to "The world sucks, everyone sucks, there is no right and wrong, do whatever you want and don't care who you have to hurt to do it."

[Jay R]

The question is based on the false notion that alignment replaces thought.

Most of these can fit at least four alignments, and many of them can fit all nine.

My understanding of the world is not alignment based. What I will choose to do based on that knowledge is.

Arbitrarily choosing one of them:

LG: The ones who think they will get what they deserve misunderstand the arbitrary nature of the world. I must not aim for what I deserve, and aim instead for what will help others. Whether I get what I deserve does not matter; I will have helped others.

LN: The ones who think they will get what they deserve misunderstand the arbitrary nature of the world. I will never expect to get what I deserve, and will work for what I want, instead.

LE: The ones who think they will get what they deserve misunderstand the arbitrary nature of the world. I will carefully manipulate this misunderstanding to mislead people and achieve my own goals.

NG: The ones who think they will get what they deserve misunderstand the arbitrary nature of the world. So don't expect what I deserve, but do what will help make things better.

TN: The ones who think they will get what they deserve misunderstand the arbitrary nature of the world. I will work for what I want, rather than expecting it

NE: The ones who think they will get what they deserve misunderstand the arbitrary nature of the world. Its arbitrariness will help me to achieve my goals, by deliberately misleading the people around me.

CG: The ones who think they will get what they deserve misunderstand the arbitrary nature of the world. So making things better is not based on any rules about what people deserve.

CN: The ones who think they will get what they deserve misunderstand the arbitrary nature of the world. So there are no rules for what I deserve; just go for what I want.

CE: The ones who think they will get what they deserve misunderstand the arbitrary nature of the world. What a great tool for screwing people over!

[Satinavian]

Overall, i would say NE

[Whyrocknodie]

Obsessed with power over others and how useful and/or competitive people are suggests 'evil', but then as a whole it looks more like 'nobody believes all this'.

[Pleh]

The question is based on the false notion that alignment replaces thought.

Most of these can fit at least four alignments, and many of them can fit all nine.

That's why I described things as "trending" or "pinging" to alignments. Alignment have no hard set borders. I see it more like a venn diagram that gradients out at the border rather than hard circle edges.

Trending [alignment] (for me) means, "doesn't default into [alignment], but seems to work out that way on average." Kind of "the race doesn't always go to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."

Then Pinging [alignment] means "defaults into [alignment], but still flexible to peculiar circumstances."

I like the language because it eases the tension between being over applying the alignments (creating a bizarrely hyper moral world) and under applying them (neutering the value of the alignments entirely).

Things don't "become definitively" aligned (going stronger than "pinging") until they pass the threshold of ambiguity, like extraplanar creatures comprised of cosmic alignment and actions that can't be justified away.

[NovenFromTheSun]

I would vote chaotic evil, though not the unhinged version it's often seen as. Might be fun to play with.

[Jay R]

That's why I described things as "trending" or "pinging" to alignments. Alignment have no hard set borders. I see it more like a venn diagram that gradients out at the border rather than hard circle edges.

That doesn't change it. A belief does not determine your alignment.

What actions you take based on your beliefs determines your alignment.

[Pleh]

That doesn't change it. A belief does not determine your alignment.

What actions you take based on your beliefs determines your alignment.

Descriptive, not prescriptive. I agree. I just feel like we can swing too far in that direction and make the conversation moot when it doesn't need to be.

[hymer]

Descriptive, not prescriptive. I agree. I just feel like we can swing too far in that direction and make the conversation moot when it doesn't need to be.
I wonder what system the two of you are talking about, here. I'm thinking it's not D&D, at least not 3.5 or earlier. In those systems, objects and effects with no sentience can have alignments, as can philosophies and abstract concepts.

@ everyone: Thanks for your thoughts, I really appreciate it!

[Pleh]

I wonder what system the two of you are talking about, here. I'm thinking it's not D&D, at least not 3.5 or earlier. In those systems, objects and effects with no sentience can have alignments, as can philosophies and abstract concepts.

@ everyone: Thanks for your thoughts, I really appreciate it!

It is D&D, but it's a more nuanced perspective on alignment.

[Joe the Rat]

Pragmatic. Machiavellian. Power and Control over Principles.

Neutral. I might pink to LN(E) because it feels somewhat Acheron-bound.
Selfish - Unprincipled (Anarchic is too 'because I enjoy it').
Antiheroic Power Lust.
Not Chivalrous, at least not in the Christian virtue configuration.
Black/Blue.
Syndicate.
Renegade.

Did I miss any?