All About Alignment

[Irony's Acolyte]

While the alignment system isn't perfect, I still feel that it can give a good base to figure out how a character should act.

The interesting thing I find is that each alignment would look at the alignment system differently. Lawfuls and Goods would probably follow and apply it quite often (as they tend to have more black and white morals). Evils and Chaotics wouldn't really bother with it, either because they don't care (Evil) or they are against such black-and-white category systems (Chaotic). Neutrals of course could go a number of ways ("I'm True Neutral, I go both ways."). Either they think that they should go beyond morality (Lawful Neutral doesn't follow the law because its "right" or it benefits them, they do its because its the law), they don't care (True or Chaotic Neutral just don't care about the morality of a choice), they have other interests (they want money, they're looking for vengeance,[sub] or mastery of the arcane arts[/sub]), they're pragmatists (True and Chaotic again), they seek balance, or because they don't really think about (more True Neutral as they just follow their instincts).

There are a lot of fine lines and different interpretations of it (Chaotic Neutral vs. Chaotic Evil; Chaos for the sake of Chaos vs. Chaos because its fun), but I just find it more interesting. You have to think about certain actions to figure out what alignment it falls under.

And I like the idea of different societies having different alignment systems (Lawful Evil with its Slavish/Master and Honorable/Dishonorable axises (axi? axis?)).

Oh, and I figure I'm True Neutral (especially the way I live). Partly because I don't believe in any hard-and-fast rules that are never to be broken and partly because I just don't swing that hard either way on either axis. Is it any wonder that I like the color grey/gray?

 

[ZephrC]

Hmm... well according to those definitions, my personal moral compass and behavior are Neutral Good, while my ideal society would be Chaotic Neutral. That... actually sounds about right.

 

[Explorator Vimes]

Snip

Oh geez, that's why the guy's name sounded minorly familiar. I have played a bunch of Legend of the Five Rings, and well, it's an interesting system, not particularly well made or balanced, but interesting to say the least. Yeah, it sounds like we're in pretty much agreement about this because I would rate alignment on the same level as you do in importance. His series makes more sense now that I know what Santa Vaca means, Sacred Cow being him taking things held as core to this system and turning them on their head. Thanks for all that info.

 

[Carlan]

From wikipedia, here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_&_Dragons). OMG, someone who agrees with me.
Alignment is only a tool for guiding gameplay, not an immutable declaration of how a character must act, and is used only as a guideline. [5]

Actually, I tend to agree with your argument. Mainly because despite being a fairly rules-heavy system, D&D alignment has essentially no rules mechanics. Yes, there are classes with alignment requirements and spells that detect/affect alignment, but it ultimately boils down to "read the DM's mind". Is this a LG act? Does the DM consider that NPC to be CN?

I would argue that while there aren't mechanical effects on characters specifically there are mechanical rules for alignments, at least looking at many of the core settings for D&D:

The planes and their denizens. When the universe is designed to embody those alignments in an objectively observable form it tends to suggest such an objective morality exists.

Why doesn't this work in the real world? We don't have quantifiable gods and divine planes to observe; we don't have objectively true morality in any provable way. D&D does not work like this* and morals are shown to be objectively true. It adds a deeper fantastic element to the game and makes for a fun break from grey reality.

Anyways, I really enjoyed this article as it articulated well the alignment system that I, like so many others, had grown bored of. Damn you, though, for making me want to play D&D again.

*Though, of course, it can if one so chooses.

 

[Altorin]

Surely you're not suggesting there no place for a PC like that are you? ;D

I'm mostly saying that Evil tends to be solitary. That concept of a druid only works with other characters that follow that same creed, and would be wholly disruptive to a group that does not. As a DM it would certainly make me roll my eyes if my players were designing villains rather then heroes, because it makes my job a LOT harder.

I say 'generally', but I would also add that evil does not mean complete and utter douchebaggery.

Okay it sorta does ... but an evil character does not have to be at odds with a primarily neutral party of adventurers who are in it to make some quick gp because of various reasons. There's no reason why alignment prohibits characters of varying moralities in taking up a sword in common purpose.

Lawful Good Fighter wants to end the tyrannical oppression, and rampant feeding, upon/of a group of people from town 'A' by a powerful vampire lord residing in a nearby castle 'B'.

A neutral evil druid picks up a sword and joins the fight becase ... hey ... he's undead and needs to be destoyed like the vile scum he is.

Similarly, Neutral Evil druid and lawful good fighter would have the same attitude to a cabal of evil wizards, underground infestation of aberrations, horde of orcs, Drow incursion, or even a ruthless gang of thieves and assassins (Druids might not care for coin, but who knows what pretty magical items these bandits have picked up over the years?).

You're morelikely going to have conflict between a neutral good and lawful good druid and fighter respectively over an argument about the rights for a town to clear a nearby grove then you are about moral inclinations towards specific aspects of the campaign.

Unless either the good player or the evil player are being douchebags by being stupidly good or stupidly evil, theres no reason why you can't have evil and good working for common goals ... atleast in the short term.

LG Cleric: "In Ilmater's name we shall deliver you from this vile demonic threat!"

NE/CE Druid/Cleric of Malar: "We shall drink blood and victory from a chalice of bones made from the broken bodies of our prey!" .. or if you're not feeling too wordy and dramatic for that particular gaming session, there's always the classic;

" A demon/Orc captain/Drow matriarch will make for a fine hunt and feast!"

Neutral characters in general : "How much do we get now, and how much after we do the job?" <.<

I'm not saying there is NO room for evil characters, but I am saying that it's a much larger hassle getting good and evil characters to want to do the same things then it is for a group of good characters. And the druid you described certainly wouldn't work well with others, unless they were members of their circle (and even then, they'd have to be weaker members - this neutral evil druid wants to dominate and wouldn't be happy in a subservient position). They're interested in destroying one small hamlet after another - either bringing icy winds to freeze them out - or my take on the "Neutral Evil Druid", the "Fire Cleanses All" type of scenario, where the druid burns civilization to the ground because it is an afront to nature.

These characters don't play well with people who they aren't leading to do wholly evil acts.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I'm not saying there is NO room for evil characters, but I am saying that it's a much larger hassle getting good and evil characters to want to do the same things then it is for a group of good characters. And the druid you described certainly wouldn't work well with others, unless they were members of their circle (and even then, they'd have to be weaker members - this neutral evil druid wants to dominate and wouldn't be happy in a subservient position). They're interested in destroying one small hamlet after another - either bringing icy winds to freeze them out - or my take on the "Neutral Evil Druid", the "Fire Cleanses All" type of scenario, where the druid burns civilization to the ground because it is an afront to nature.

These characters don't play well with people who they aren't leading to do wholly evil acts.

Well ... Neutral Evil Malarite is less 'Kill it with fire for attrocities against nature' and more 'let's make them suffer, or use them for sport'.

As I said I love 3.5 druid, and barring bard (and ocasionally monk if GM isn't a stickler on the 'lawful' adspect of monk) that pretty much all I play. And 80% of my druids are NE Malarites (In FR/PS campaigns)<.<

And frankly it suits me fine ... unless a player ius telling me he expressly wishes to play paladin I'll concede and play a CG character instead (Sunite Bard-Sublime chord, or CN Bard-druid-sublime chord-fochlucan lyricist) ... of course CN Bard-Druid and Paladin mix worse then my Sunite CG bards so generally the former.

Though the absolutely worst alignment based argument (roleplaying of course, we don't take it personally of course) I have ever had was actually between an anal Paladin of Tyr and my CG Bard of Sune.

That CG Bard of Sune (A strong second favourite... effete Sunite RP kicks arse) who cares only for his beauty and finery. Whilst seeming to indulge in nothing but whatever his passions should want and seems to be enraptured only by his own image in that jewel encrusted, polished platinum mirror....

Whilst fair-minded and kind who strives to see the inner beauty of all people whilst attempting to spread love, friendship and beautify the world wherever he goes .... he always shirked responsibility whenever it is laid to bare infront of him.

Naturally such roleplaying is going (and did x.x) to collide strongly with the ethics of that uptight, self-denying, overzealous Paladin of Tyr who he's 'buddies' with.

Frankly I find that alignment matters not in 90% of situations as most goals overlap, and some don't certainly don't regardless of whether both characters are 'good'.

Some combinations don't actually work however, and I will concede that;

A NE druid of Malar (yes, as you can tell I love Malar rp far too much than is healthy) and a NG werebear fighter of Selune ... diametrically opposed ... the two meet, they try to kill eachother with fire.

But that is to say my worse alignment scuffle rp moment (whilst enjoyable like all conflict and heated roleplaying) was between two good party members.

[Edit:] I will say that it was probably my fault because I interrupted a public proclamation of new tax reform outside a Temple of Tyr (of where it was being held) about how the local Lord shouldn't be taxing people for their hard earned coin ... given that if he truly needed finances to rebuild a damaged wing of said temple all he'd have to do is eat coal as he would shit diamonds due to how tight-arsed he is with the county's coffers ;P

 

[Scow2]

... I really, really like this explaination, as it sums up how I've always interpreted the alignment axis, with the "Empathy Disc" (Can't remember what you called it) for Good/Evil (Though I see Good as being the limited one, with no end to evil), and Action/Effect relationship between Law/Chaos.

The Nine Alignments are Distinct from each other, not

Spoilering a Wall of Text dissertion on my translation of Paladin:

Spoiler

A Lawful person does not mean he will always follow laws. It just means he's Deontological. The Paladin Code doesn't require him to act Good and in Line with the laws, it means he must act Good and not do evil. He can NEVER perform an evil Act even if it's for the greater good, because to do so would be consequentialist/chaotic. It is not an evil act to be unable to stop a greater evil without corrupting yourself (Paladins demand sacrifice before corruption). And it is wrong to sacrifice one's Paladinhood to save the world, because generally, there's ALWAYS another way. To a Paladin, evil Acts should not even be considered (He'd never torture the Drow, because he'd never even think of Torture as an option).

My problem with the Book of Exalted Deeds is it doesn't give Exalted characters enough punch (and Level Adjustment rears its ugly head again), because it had the potential to contain the the "Rewards" for playing a Good character. But, I like how it quite categorically defines the Good end of the axis in its "The Straight and Narrow" segment in Chapter 1.

The Zeroth Law Rebellion, caused when a Robot takes the second clause of the Zeroth law to mean it can kill any number of people to advance Humanity as a whole, is an Evil act and Event. It's a slippery slope argument. Our finger-cracking Paladin starts off breaking innocent's fingers in the name of the "Greater Good", and starts twisting his code further in desperation, until he's doing acts a Blackguard would shudder at in the name of the "Greater Good". Since a Paladin's code is Deontological, all exceptions made end up being encoded into it to permit them, which rots the code, and the decay takes off from there (The proper act is, when an act is not outright Evil, ensure it doesn't fall under the actions prohibited by the code)

Personally, I don't consider a Lie to be an Evil act unless its done with Malicious intent (And sometimes, lying is the Good choice of action, such as the Deacon covering the hero from Les Miserables). Also, it is an Evil Act to kill a prisoner, or someone who begs for mercy.

I believe Lawful Evil was removed from 4e because it doesn't really fit. The same reason St. Cuthbert did not permit Evil clerics, despite pretty much being the God of Knight-Templar types. Generally, evil Characters have corrupted their Lawful nature to no longer fit in it[
/spoiler]

Dissertion on Chaos

Spoiler

I don't understand how people don't get Chaos... Chaotic =/= Irresponsible, unstable, or completely unpredicable. They are only unpredictable insofar that they don't feel constrained by what Society tells them what to do or how they should act (deontological traits). They do what they need to to achieve a specific goal (Crossing the Street), and (especially in the case of Chaotic Good characters) not result in any undesirable consequences(causing a multi-car pileup resulting in multiple deaths and injuries). They are still mindful of laws, because "Getting locked up in the Slammer" is an Undesirable Outcome.

In matters that don't deal with Good and Evil, it's difficult to discern Chaotic Good from Chaotic Neutral. The Chaotic Good character can probably get away with torturing a Drow in extreme circumstances because it still lives, its body will recover, he'd get what he wants, but most importantly, he won't set a precedent for himself to follow that would lead to further corruption. However, I feel this is part of the reason the CG alignment got removed from 4e: A Good character will NOT commit an evil deed intentionally.

I like the Chaotic alignment because it's very resilient, while the Lawful alignment's rigid. However, playing the Lawful alignment properly and uncorruptibly is generally more awesome when you pull it off.

As far as Neutral goes, there aren't "Two" defintions. There are at least 3.
1. Balance [both axis] Those who seek "Balance" between Good and Evil and/or Law and Chaos (Usually, it means "Support the Status Quo" as well). This doesn't mean Stupid Neutral "Support the weaker side, and switch sides when it gets the upper hand". Nor does it mean they will automatically support the weaker side (especially if his support would make it much stronger). It means he'd support whichever side would be the least disruptive in its success. This is Standard Druid Alignment. (Its circle of Morality looks identical to Good, but only comes up about halfway)

2. Mediocrity [Good/Evil axis] Those who aren't compassionate and empathic enough to be "Good", yet aren't evil or notably selfish either (Average Person, and the Circle of Morality is as described in the article: Gently sloping away the further it gets) OR (Law/Chaos axis) Not steadfast enough to be Lawful, yet not so mentally flexible to be Chaotic, though they usually idealize and half-heartedly strive for one end(Average commoners).

3. Apathy. [Good/Evil] They generally don't care about anyone other than themselves of immediate family, but still respect the lives of others. It's a muted form of Evil's Circle of Morality. Default alignment of Hermits. [Law/Chaos] Same as Neutrality through Mediocrity, though without caring at all about the axis, instead of striving for one or the other.

So, default types of characters:
Lawful Good: Superheroes
Neutral Good: Saints
Chaotic Good: Action Heroes
Lawful Neutral: Middle Management (Law Enforcement usually acts very chaotic to counter criminals)
Neutral: Pretty much everyone.
Chaotic Neutral: Le Parkour practitioners
Lawful Evil: The Attorney profession (Though individual Attornies can be any alignment, the profession requires acting along a strict set of guidelines, and serving the Client at the expense of all others)
Neutral Evil: Sociopaths (by defintion of Antisocial Personality Disorder, though some end up Apathic Neutral)
Chaotic Evil: British Soccer Hooligans.

I could go into more detail about Evil and how the alignments interact, but the article does a better job (though I have a few details of mild quibbles where he's concerned)

 

[Archon]

Mutak, I like your ideas here. Questions for you:
1) Under your system, could a succubus who consistently opposed Entropy and Abyssal goals be stripped of her powers or demonhood?
2) Would a mortal man who consistently acts on behalf Entropy or Abyssal goals begin to be "marked" by those powers?

I changed anything that keyed off of Good or Evil to be Celestial or Abyssal, and everything that used Law or Chaos became Order and Entropy and treated them like elemental descriptors. Fire, Earth, Air, Water, Law, Chaos, Celestial, Abyssal - all were related to some intrinsic part of your physical being, not about how you acted.

Paladins were not paragons of virtue, but instead chosen and marked by specific gods. They were expected to act in their gods' interests at all times and could lose their powers if they strayed from that, but it wasn't nearly as straight-jacketing as traditional alignment.

An example of some of the interesting things this allows: A succubus who helped the party and tried to be a good person even though anyone who could detect abyssal would always be able to pick her out of a crowd. She understood her nature and used her powers when she deemed them necessary, but did not let them dictate who she was or how she behaved generally.

The best part about the whole thing was never having an argument about alignment or whether or not an action was in character. Of course, it helps to have mature players who are interested in more than just looting and pillaging.

 

[Archon]

Why is this series only focused on D&D? It's cool that you, obviously, put a lot of effort into analysing the D&D alignment system in the light of philosophy and all, but the subtitle of the article series is "Your introduction to tabletop gaming." and it's very rare that you DON'T focus on D&D. It's not the only tabletop game, you're just worsening an already bad tendency with not giving your readers a chance to broaden their horizons by referring to more RPGs. Please do? As it is, I'm a great RPG fan but there's really not much I can take out from your articles.

I'm not saying you focus ONLY on D&D - there's a fair amount of references to RPGs in general (though I find that most of the time I don't agree with your philosophy of gaming, but that's beside the point), but you really rarely call upon other systems when discussing stuff. I just think that's hurting people's views on the hobby, or at least puts them askew.

Kristof, great question. This particular article is *very* D&D heavy. That's because it was specific to the problem of alignment, and alignment system that has been both the best-known and most-influential is the D&D system.

For the rest of the articles, the D&D influence is because (a) I currently am running two D&D campaigns; (2) D&D was my gateway into gaming; (3) D&D is most other people's gateway into gaming; (4) D&D is the only tabletop RPG one can write about and hope to have a plurality of the audience familiar with it. This last point is particularly important. If I use a D&D game mechanic as an example to make a general point, I can feel confident that most people can reason from the example to then apply it to their system of choice. Whereas if I use a game mechanic from a less-popular system, then it can't be generalized from. (For instance if instead of talking about D&D's 'critical hits' I were to talk about Savage World's 'raises', would someone know what I meant? probably not.)

Where possible articles have had a broader focus (I've referenced Mutants & Masterminds, Cyberpunk 2020, Hard Nova, and many other games) but they will likely always be using D&D as the main touchpoint for discussion. Even the column name (Check for Traps) is derived from D&D...I didn't call it "Roll for Humanity Loss" or "Explode the Wild Die."

 

[Archon]

... I really, really like this explaination, as it sums up how I've always interpreted the alignment axis, with the "Empathy Disc" (Can't remember what you called it) for Good/Evil (Though I see Good as being the limited one, with no end to evil), and Action/Effect relationship between Law/Chaos.

Scow2, holy cow that was awesome! That was like having someone write a For Dummy's Guide to my article. I think I understand what I was saying myself better now!

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

snip

Personally I think people try to look at alignment in ways that are far too open to re-interpretation, and people then try to take these highly morphic concepts and try to cement them in ways that are either not fun to play, or have too many cracks in them that many player archetypes fall through them.

Frankly I think it's much easier to look at Good - Evil Axis in terms of motives, law-chaos in terms of ethics.

What are your motives/goals? How do you/wish to go about achieving them?

A person only needs to ask themselves these two questions and you'll get a pretty uniform answer whether it is the person playing the character or the DM.

Frankly it's much easier ... if you still can't decide whether a character is good or evil, or whether they are lawful or chaotic, then there's a good chance that they are gravitating predominantly towards True Neutral.

I find that players are most likely going to change their ethics on how they go about their operations more than they are core moral beliefs (or from Kant's perspective, how many times people deviate and justify their actions when they differ from the categorical imperative) ...

Rather than getting your players together and saying 'This is what makes someone chaotic neutral' (of which no one is going to play a character that is exactly alike in all forms and mannerism to 'set' qualities asigned to one particular alignment), but more get your players to constantly ask those two questions to identify both in the player's head and the GM's exactly how much the character is deviating from a set path.

that Paladin lied in order to save face ... well thats okay ... that not chaotic. She shouldn't do it again though ... of she's doing it again ... well twice aint bad in as many game time weeks ... oh no, now it's a daily thing ... better ask her how her character is acting ethically o.o

Far more natural than just saying "these are set qualities ... DO NOT TRANSGRESS EVER! Play that template and don't deviate!

CG Bard: Motives: Spread mutual love and affection throughout the world! Ethics: Any means necessary!

Being good doesn't automatically mean good conduct, it merely represents good intentions.

 

[Mutak]

Mutak, I like your ideas here. Questions for you:
1) Under your system, could a succubus who consistently opposed Entropy and Abyssal goals be stripped of her powers or demonhood?

No. Her powers are just a part of what she is. The paladin is entirely empowered by an outside source - his deity. The succubus just IS what she is. I did include ways for creatures to gain or lose the descriptors, but behavior by itself was not one of them. Think of the elemental descriptors as analogues. A fire elemental doesn't stop being fiery if it breaks a dam and floods a huge area, extinguishing a raging forest fire, nor does it gain the ability to survive underwater because of those actions.

2) Would a mortal man who consistently acts on behalf Entropy or Abyssal goals begin to be "marked" by those powers?

Not just by their actions, but it was possible to gain those descriptors or others if a powerful being took notice of the actions and chose to imbue you with that power or transform you into a new creature of the appropriate type. Mechanically, it usually happened via prestige classes (for characters) or the addition of templates to the base creature. Similar mechanics existed for losing descriptors too.

And oh, yes, you could potentially gain or lose a descriptor against your will, but that's some powerful mojo.

 

[kouriichi]

I personally like alignment, but i find it restricting.

Me and my friends came to the agreement just to put a question mark for my alignment. Its upside is that you never know what will happen with me. Because my alignment is constantly changing based on the situation, i cant use any alignment based items, which balances it out pretty nicely.

I guess you could call him Questionably Chaotic. You never know what hes going to do, until hes already thrown the thief who took his wallet into a well.

"Dam..... i forgot to get my wallet back!" *Jumps in after thief*

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Yoda is True Neutral(Wise). C3P0 is True Neutral(Coward). Most of the droids are TN, except IG-88 who's Lawful Evil, and R2 who is Lawful Good.

and what about Mr. "Shall I destroy this meatbags master" HK-47 himself?

La la la la not canon la.

But to be honest I actually wonder if droids are capable of understanding the concept of morality at all?

You don't have to really. Robots are Lawful Neutral, Droids - all having emotion chips like the Zeroids, tend to revolve around getting shit done.

On the topic: Personally I think that using the alignment system as "fluff" for the pole-playing part of a pen & paper and as a means to balance classes somehow breaks the system. I don't think it is able to perform well in both fields.

It doesn't. It's useful as a pointer, but anything that DEMANDS IT, is the same thing that is sadly lacking when your 13th level fighter falls from orbit, gets up and fights on.

 

[Scow2]

I personally like alignment, but i find it restricting.

Me and my friends came to the agreement just to put a question mark for my alignment. Its upside is that you never know what will happen with me. Because my alignment is constantly changing based on the situation, i cant use any alignment based items, which balances it out pretty nicely.

I guess you could call him Questionably Chaotic. You never know what hes going to do, until hes already thrown the thief who took his wallet into a well.

"Dam..... i forgot to get my wallet back!" *Jumps in after thief*

That sounds like Chaotic Neutral... Or Bloody Stupid. (Chaotic is about results, not random). I forgot to put that as one of the other definitions of Neutral (Uncommitted/Stupid Neutral), partially because it's usually unrealistic. In fact, the DMG and Players Handbooks say that a character who constantly shifts alignment (or acts in the extreme of both ends of the Alignment spectrum) defaults to Neutral.



And HK-47 is Chaotic Evil (Evil is obvious, Chaotic due to him doing whatever necessary to get the desirable outcome, though said outcome isn't his own). A chaotic character might still follow orders (And often make excellent commanders), as long as the orders don't tell them how to do it.

Generally, when I play, unless Exalted characters or Paladins are involved, I find alignments aren't that hard to figure out. If I can say yes to "Does he deserve the full blast of a Holy Smite", he's evil. I have good clearly defined in my mind.

And I find alignment VERY well implemented in D&D. What wasn't was the Paladin's failure to jump from AD&D to 3e, because I've always held to the belief that "Evil is easier, but Good is ultimately Stronger." I like Pathfinder's Paladin upgrade.

 

[kouriichi]

I personally like alignment, but i find it restricting.

Me and my friends came to the agreement just to put a question mark for my alignment. Its upside is that you never know what will happen with me. Because my alignment is constantly changing based on the situation, i cant use any alignment based items, which balances it out pretty nicely.

I guess you could call him Questionably Chaotic. You never know what hes going to do, until hes already thrown the thief who took his wallet into a well.

"Dam..... i forgot to get my wallet back!" *Jumps in after thief*

That sounds like Chaotic Neutral... Or Bloody Stupid. (Chaotic is about results, not random)

I forgot to put that as one of the other definitions of Neutral (Uncommitted/Stupid Neutral). In fact, the DMG and Players Handbooks say that a character who constantly shifts alignment (or acts in the extreme of both ends of the Alignment spectrum) defaults to Neutral.

Exacty! He cares about the outcome of every situation differently! Hence, Questionably Chaotic.

And i would set him to Neutral, but it feels to much like a lable. They see good and evil, while my character doesnt care for such things. He doesnt belive in law or chaos. Hence, he really isnt even Neutral.

Hes Questionably Chaotic. He does what he does when he does it. Good, evil, law, chaos, none of those effect he judgement. He could save the city. He could doom it. He could say, "I could care less what happens to you, i just like the adventure". Ofcourse, he could drink himself deep into the bottle and hit on the nearest living thing insted, costing dozens of people theyer lives. But hes not doing it because he wants to save people, or because he cares if people die or not. But because he does what he wants.

 

[Folio]

Spoiler: This was the best one I can find that would not mess up the page too much. I am Batman.

If you still can't read it, look up Batman Alignment on Google.

I think George W. Bush Jr. would be Lawful Neutral. If he benefits from it, he'll make a move. If he doesn't see the clue of it, he'll leave it be. But all within the laws and moves of his presidential power he had.

 

[SolaceAvatar]

I agree that the good/evil slider is inherently judgmental, and for that matter, not many real people would identify themselves as "evil" even if they where torturing orphans to death; one way or another circumstances demanded it. I think you could make the same sort of slider just based on what tenant actually separates good and evil as far as you're concerned; for example, altruistic/opportunistic.

If I am given 100$, and someone else needs it fairly badly, how will I divide it? A purely altruistic person will give it all away regardless of their need, a purely opportunistic person will keep it regardless, and in the middle, there's room for negotiation.

On the other hand, that also exposes a problem with using even these opposing views as a simple slider, because there's different actions you can take that should have the same level in that slider. If I am neutral in altruistic/opportunistic, would I split the money 50/50, or try to figure out who objectively needs it more?

 

[WillItWork]

This was awesome, thank you all, and I posted this to FB.

On the other hand, there are a few technicalities, that got glossed over:
Jews don't care. If it's life or death, you can do just about anything short of killing someone and it's cool.

Kant's imperatives only work if it presupposes universal acceptance (the categorical part). Otherwise, you're handing an axe to the person about to bury it in your skull and he admits it.

Lastly, instead of Singer's circle, what about Rousseau's social contract?

 

[randomID]

On his YouTube channel, John Wick addressed this recently, and suggested a possible solution:

The article was pretty good and for the first time, I kind of liked the idea of alignment. But the idea John Wick had is simply awesome. You could also use it to promote deity worship for non cleric/paladin characters.