New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678
Results 211 to 214 of 214
  1. - Top - End - #211
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Tevo77777 View Post
    People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

    Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

    Neutral, "Undecided"

    A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
    Why is it not letting me quote your quote? It alone seems to clear up so much about Alignment.
    Since you did quote their post, I assume you are asking why you can't quote the quote they included (edited in above). Giantitp excludes nesting quotes by default when you reply to a post by quoting them. You have to manually create them by writing the "[/quote]" tags and copy pasting the quote inside.
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2022-11-09 at 05:34 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #212
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don't take sides, doing what seems best at the time.

    Personal opinion only, that fairly accurately captures the typical behavior of more people than any other single 5e alignment's typical-but-not-constantly-required behaviors do ... it also captures the majority of people.
    See, I feel quite strongly that it hardly describes the behavior of anyone. Almost all humans have extremely deep-seated ideology that includes many moral questions. They may not raise those opinions in mixed company, because of an aversion to moral debate, but they still possess them.

    Almost all human beings want to live in a society with rules rather than one controlled by the capricious whims of those with a monopoly on the use of force. This makes them lawful. Now, they are generally weakly lawful, which it important.

    The alignment chart is a pie with a ring in the middle. Most humans are clustered in the lawful neutral and lawful good zones at least 2/3rds of the way into the ring, with the same thing true of most NG and CG characters as well in their respective sections. Very few people are moral paragons of anything, and in D&D even those that are aren't all the way to the edge, that's reserved for frightfully inhuman alignment exemplar outsiders. The most paladin-y paladin who ever went a paladin-ing is still significantly further inward than a garden variety Hound Archon.
    Now publishing a webnovel travelogue.

    Resvier: a P6 homebrew setting

  3. - Top - End - #213
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Neutral isn't just "perfectly in the centre" though - there's a broad zone around the centre for "Neutral with LG tendencies", "Neutral with LN tendencies" and so forth - both of which still count as TN for rules mechanics purposes - "you have lawful tendencies" doesn't mean you are Lawful.

    "Most humans have lawful tendencies" and "Most humans have good tendencies" can be true, without invoking "Most humans are LG".

    "Being LG" is not that easy, nor is "Being LN" - it requires a bit more commitment than just "tendencies".

    As The Giant points out:

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post

    In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

    Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

    Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

    A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

    People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.
    If you're "Lawful through following society's laws" you need to be the kind of person who will turn themselves in for breaking them. If you're lawful through following a personal code - you need to be the kind of person who punishes themselves when they break it.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2022-11-09 at 06:10 PM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  4. - Top - End - #214
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Alignment: Fall 2022

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    See, I feel quite strongly that it hardly describes the behavior of anyone. Almost all humans have extremely deep-seated ideology that includes many moral questions. They may not raise those opinions in mixed company, because of an aversion to moral debate, but they still possess them.
    If this was true, we wouldn't see such absolute trash numbers for percentage of voters voting. At the same time we would see more governments being overthrown, more resistance/devotion to various religions or organized churches, and so on.

    I can't count how many times I've read a well cited historical source or book about a period of history, where they make it abundantly clear that the largest position of people, is to care as little as possible about everything that happens outside their neighborhood or the space around their local village.

    There are massive, highly oppressive nations, with paper thin systems keeping them in power. There is almost no dispute that's a pure lack of caring from the population and a general "well the economy is good, so I'm completely fine with having zero rights and incredibly high corruption" mindset.

    There is so many statistics that show that most people, not the largest group, most people... Do not understand the ideologies of themselves, let alone others. If people actually cared, they would try to understand whatever position they are taking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    Almost all human beings want to live in a society with rules rather than one controlled by the capricious whims of those with a monopoly on the use of force. This makes them lawful. Now, they are generally weakly lawful, which it important.
    By this logic, the concept of a "Lawful" society didn't start till..... I want to say after 1650-1800s. Civilization has been around about 12,000 years, and the vast majority of nations do not have "Rule of Law".

    In fact the legal systems of most civilizations, throughout history, period, was de facto "Whatever the guy with the biggest army feels like this month, or week, or morning".

    The Greeks started writing down the laws around 650 BC, but most of those were just cementing the power of the people with all the spears and chariots.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    The alignment chart is a pie with a ring in the middle. Most humans are clustered in the lawful neutral and lawful good zones at least 2/3rds of the way into the ring, with the same thing true of most NG and CG characters as well in their respective sections. Very few people are moral paragons of anything, and in D&D even those that are aren't all the way to the edge, that's reserved for frightfully inhuman alignment exemplar outsiders. The most paladin-y paladin who ever went a paladin-ing is still significantly further inward than a garden variety Hound Archon.
    If this was remotely truly, we wouldn't be in a situation where leadership almost universally consists of murderers, thieves, war-criminals, and slavers; if we consider all of human civilization and the whole planet.

    Also, according to a lot of psychological studies and experiments, (that statistically, the bulk of people) if people spend just a few minutes thinking about a time they had the slightest amount of power (Like leading a board game or leader of a school project in 7th grade), they almost immediately don't think the rules apply to them.

    It's like a switch is flipped. People from go "The boss shouldn't freak out if I'm two minutes late, traffic happens", to "I'm the boss, I can be a whole hour late, but GOD HELP YOU if you're 5 seconds late!".

    There is a lot of evidence that humans, generally, are extremely flimsy about moral decisions. They'll be sticklers for the rules if it's to punish someone they don't like, but the instant the rules apply to them, they get mad. There are whole nations where this is the default position and it's blatantly the public, default position.

    The Bystander Effect however, is nonsense and journalists traced that back to an event that didn't happen the way people think. Tons of people called the cops, the cops were just really late and they lied to the press that no one called them.

    TLDR: Blah blah blah, at least 20-60% of people do not take a strong position or flip between strong positions easily. The bulk of the world right now is literally run by Warlords and their personal armies, this is how the Middle Ages was, this is how the Classical World was, and the last time this wasn't how the world worked was..... Like when people were nomadic...

    Seriously, nomadic cultures are generally, hyper egalitarian.

    This honestly explains why anyone would be Chaotic, Anti-Civilization, Libertarian or Anarchist. Women and men were more equal back then, there wasn't a lot of wealth disparity, and we were not ruled by Warlords. The Female sphere of power was very anti-war for many many cultures and tribes.
    If I ever think that I've gone too far in my Homebrew, I can just think about how Kane0 isn't considered crazy, so why would I be considered so?
    -
    D20 Modern's handling of shotguns is the perfect case of not balancing for fun OR realism OR efficiency.
    -
    Where would I go to get people to test mechanics? Reddit?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •