Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site iddic.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!iddic!dorettas
From: dorettas@iddic.UUCP (Doretta Schrock)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: re: a new idea for alignments
Message-ID: <2318@iddic.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Dec-85 17:24:47 EST
Article-I.D.: iddic.2318
Posted: Mon Dec  2 17:24:47 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Dec-85 06:22:51 EST
References: <2271@iddic.UUCP> <6700007@uiucdcsp> <2301@iddic.UUCP> <172@mck-csc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 74

[I am really Mike Sellers, in a most ingenious disguise...]

>>    ...Also, can anyone think of a better name than
>> "alignment"?  Ethos, personality, morals, and others have been suggested,
>> but I'm not real happy with any of them.  Suggestions?  Comments? 

By current count, "morality" seems to be the most preferred.  I always liked
"ethos", an old Greek word, but then I tend to accumulate old words like that.
I don't know why the word "alignment" was first chosen, but I suspect that it
referred to how one's personality was *aligned* versus the forces of the 
cosmos (a.k.a. good/evil, law/chaos, chocolate/vanilla, etc :-) in much the
same way that a compass needle aligns itself with respect to the compass points
around it.  If this is true, it defuses the arguments and examples below.

>    ...Take the situation where Good Christian Knights were
> not allowed to shed the blood of Christians, but anybody else was ok.  What
> alignement would you give to the following character:
> 
> 	A strong believer in his faith which says that all humans have
>    soles [I won't even touch this one! MJS :-] but no other race does.  
>    The person is a pallidan of his temple.
>    He will never torture or fight deviously with another human, but when
>    dealing with non-humans, anything goes because they have no soles and
>    can be treated the same as cattle.  This means branding (torture),
>    ownership (slavery), etc. are perfectly ok.
> 
> The person is lawful good with respect to his temple but with respect to
> others he may be evil.  

This example uses the "cultural-dependence" model of good and evil:  what we 
say is good is good, even if it means torturing your children.  If you say
instead that there are (broadly based) universal standards of Good and Evil
then this problem disappears.  I did have a friend who once ran an "Inquistion"
adventure, where you were tortured until you blew your save and recanted your
old heathen life and took up the dominant religion, new alignment and all.
The new alignment, and that of your inquisitors? Why, Lawful/Good :-( !
I luckily (for me, my character, and my friendship with this guy) escaped this
fate.

> Another example:
> 
> 	A person inside an organization.  He will always obey his supiriors
>    and will always do as they say and will never lie to them.  If the same
>    person is dealing with outsiders, he is free to lie, cheat, steal, etc.

I hope this doesn't start a major psychology discussion, but I wonder how many
people there are like this in mainstream society.  Most people who lie, cheat,
steal, etc., in one part of their life carry this over to other parts as well.
Of course, you could say that this character is mentally a little off-balance
(who *else* would go adventuring so often?! :-), or that he or she is basically
neutral and is simply doing what is expedient without really hurting others.

> Until you can develope ways to allow for complex characters to believe that
> they are Lawful good even when you or I might not think so, it doesn't 
> matter how you describe it.  It's all just for your convinience, so don't
> worry about it.  Use whatever you like, but don't expect to be able to
> represent the true complexities of real characters. 

I think you can account and allow for the complexities of personalities in
characters, though certainly not with an inflexible prescriptive system such as
(I think) the classic AD&D alignment system is.  Characters *should* be able to
think of themselves as good and right, even if they are the most diabolical
things that ever walked.  You can't function well for too long if you believe
that your personality is flawed in a primary way.  They should also be able to
fool others if they want, with sufficient effort (none of this "no, you can't
give the beggar a generous gift; you're *evil*, remember?"), and with the 
chance that their actions will rub off on them ("sure, you can do that, but if
you blow the roll, you might find that you really *enjoy* mugging old ladies").

This is getting too long, so I'll finish it up in another posting with my view
of how to say what good and evil are and how to measure them in characters.

	Later days. Comments appreciated.
	   Mike Sellers