From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: Alignments
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 04:04:24 GMT

In article <1SEP199219354030@rosie.uh.edu> lib1p@rosie.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>I have a new topic if anyone would like to discuss it.  Alignments.
>
>
>Good and Evil:
>
>As stated, except that the question arises...What if someone uses
>evil as a means to a good end? Or vice versa?  Are they good because
>their basic nature is good, or are they good because the object of
>their lives is good?
>

My interpretation of good/evil is helping people rather than hurting
them. In GURPS an evil person would likely have the Callous, Greedy
and/or Sadistic disads (but not neccessarily), whereas a good person
would have the Sense of Duty (Fellow Citizens) and possibly Empathy.
   Of course, good and evil are in the eye of the beholder. Most people,
even the ones we think of as being evil, do not consider themselves to
be evil. An evil person with the above mentioned disads would think of
himself as being a paragon of virtue. By being quick to spot a profit,
inured to the emotions of those around him and quick to chastise those
in need of it, he is setting an excellent example of what everybody
ought to be (as he sees it). 
   A truly evil person is either crazy, hate-filled (and then he is only
evil towards the group he hates) or ignorant of the suffering he caused.

Hanna Arendt in "Eichmann in Jerusalem" (the story of the Israeli trial
of Adolf Eichmann for warcrimes) points out that Eichmann was not a
slavering monster, he was mearly a bureucrat who though he was doing an
excellent job of doing what his bosses told him to do. Her classic
phrase is "the banality of evil". Eichmann didn't bother to think about
what he was doing and who he was doing it to, because he didn't have the
moral courage and empathy to examine the morality of the situation. 

>Lawful:
>
>Here is where the fun begins.  In my definition, lawful means that
>you follow a code, not necessarily the law of the land.  A person
>that will not eat carrots on Tuesday and will not break that even
>if there is nothing but carrots to eat on Tuesday is a lawful person.
>They will not break their own code, no matter what.  If I am a lawful
>person and I promise not to reveal a secret you tell me and you then
>tell me that you killed someone, based on my code I cannot reveal
>that secret (provided keeping my word is part of my code).
>
I always got the feeling that "Lawful" vs. "Chaotic" meant group vs.
Individual rights. A lawful character would say "Do as you will so long
as it doesn't harm the group", a Chaotic character would say "Do as you
will, so long as you harm no one". 
   I always had my D&D lawful communities with organized militia,
regular hours for shops to open and close, lots of laws, organized
institutions and lots of petty bourgoise (sp?) values. Think of
Switzerland.
   I always had my chaotic communities being really laid back, stores
would open whenever, the streets were laid out at random, there were no
clock towers, government was by consensus, participatory democracy or
there was (violent or peaceful) anarchy, the inhabitants were laid back
and tolerant of major weirdness. As long as it didn't hurt them. Think
of a hippie commune.
>

>Neutral:
>
>This can be interpreted many ways.  I want to leave it up to you
>all to suggest some interpretations.
>
 
Several interpretations implicit within the D&D rules

1. Too dumb to care (Neutral Hungry)

2. Pragmatic (Neutral Greedy)

3. Crazy (Neutral Unpredictable)

Hence: 

Lawful Neutral: Whatever it takes to keep the group going. Think of a
colony of ants.

Chaotic Neutral: Selfish. Whatever benefits me at the moment.

I am also looking for other ways to devise alignment.  If you have
>any other ideas I would appreciate hearing that also.
>
 
The Palladium RPG (Advanced Recon, etal.) has a different treatment of
alignments. Their alignments are:

Idealistic: Help people, do good, trust your friends.

Karmic: Some people are true X (whatever profession), everybody else is
cannon-fodder, except your buddies, who you are loyal to and worthy
enemies who should be honored after you have defeated them.

Opportunistic: Whatever you can get away with, as long as you don't sh*t
where you live.

Malignant: They're all chunks of meat. F*ck 'em.

Obviously these are summaries, and I think I left one out, but I thought
that they were neat.                    

I have dropped alignments entirely. If somebody wants to be X alignment
in one of my GURPS adventures, that's a Code of Honor or a Vow.

Have fun, 

Tom
>Tammy
>
>lib1p@jetson.uh.edu
>
>I do not subscribe to rec.games.frp.dnd
>


Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc