[Alignment Replacement] The Color Wheel - Now With More Green!

[Hyooz]

Selfish can be converted into "willing to help others (for what they perceive as their own gain)".

Some might (if they find helping others to be pleasurable enough) actually take considerable risks to help them.

That takes... a really bizarre mental state. "Selfish" implies self first. Sure, a selfish person might work as a mercenary and save a bunch of people because he's being paid, but the moment risk outweighs the reward, selfish gets out of there. Finding pleasure in helping others is a Good-aligned thing, and pretty much the antithesis of selfishness.

Even if this guy just enjoys helping people SO MUCH that he goes around performing random acts of charity for selfish reasons, that's still neutral at best. Lex Luthor is one of the DC universe's biggest philanthropists. Intentions are big for alignment concerns.

Amoral is harder to justify though- some kind of a morality needs to be used for the Good guy to justify not doing Evil acts, though "I personally find them emotionally painful and not pleasurable" might do as an "amoral reason for not behaving immorally".

Not behaving Evil-ly does not translate into behaving Good-ly. Especially when selfishness is the other cornerstone of your Color. Utilitarian concerns become the sole reason for not killing indiscriminately, for example, and that still strictly forbids any Good characters.

So, the person who subscribes to a generally Black ethic, might still have some of the traits associated with a Good alignment in D&D.

Specifically "takes risks to help others (strangers)" or "concern for life" or "respect for dignity".

Again, intentions are everything for these kinds of concerns. If you'll forgive a Manga reference - in Full Metal Alchemist, when Envy is impersonating the pope-guy, he runs the religion as normal, encouraging charity and all that good stuff, doing good things, etc. But, he was only doing these things because the cover gave them political power for later, more selfish reasons.

Similarly, a black character may be good if, despite being selfish, they feel that it is in their best interests to obey laws or other social conventions as it would cause too much trouble for them if they didn't do so. Thus they may act in the best interests of others as they consider such actions to be in their own best interests.

Again, doing things for others because it's in your own interests is strictly neutral at best. The Lex Luthor example is still pertinent. The combination of "selfish" and "amoral" being the main features of this color really kind of dooms it. At best, you have a character who just doesn't have inclinations to wanton murder and theft, and might help a guy out if it works for him.

Also a black characters may view others as means to their own entertainment (like many fey and the like). They may work hard to help and protect those that they find entertaining the way someone would protect a favourite toy or other prized possession. The motivating outlook may seem bad, but the actions it motivates could easily be good depending on who they help.

It is also likely that such a character would not see themselves as evil in either case.

Owrtho

Luthor doesn't see himself as evil. The Homunculi from FMA didn't see themselves as evil. They were working in their best interests and in the interest of those they feel loyalty to. Black characters aren't necessarily EVIL, don't get me wrong, because that requires an active inclination toward evil acts.

It really is the combo of selfish and amoral that makes this hard. A character can believe in no absolute good or evil but still have a charitable personality, or value others over himself. A selfish character can still believe in absolute morality and follow the good path, as much as it might grate on him.

[Owrtho]

First, it may be worth noting that falling into a particular colour's alignment does not mean you have to have all of the traits associated with it. A black character could simply have one or the other.
I also find that you seem to sell short how a selfish or amoral character may be good. While an amoral character may not believe in right or wrong, they may still choose to help people because they want to.
Similarly, a selfish person may help others because they find it brings them pleasure. Though bears noting that outside what D&D defines good as, the term is completely subjective.

Still it could be argued that all characters are selfish, with the only issue being what goal they work toward. Someone who helps others does so because they enjoy doing so (even if they are left worse off, they consider the feeling that they gain from it to outweigh the costs to themselves), they want to be 'good' (may be driven by the desire to reach a particular afterlife, or just the praise that comes with being good), they did so inadvertently (or it was needed to accomplish a goal they desired), they are being forced to, or some combination or middle ground of the other possibilities. In any case everyone has some reason they think it is worth helping others and all of them (except possible the accidentally doing so) could be considered selfish.

It is true though that intent plays a large part in determining if someone's actions are good or evil (though it also relies on the person's ideas of what are good and evil, as differing beliefs may result in one person doing what they consider a good act and another considering it an evil act).

Owrtho

[Lord_Gareth]

Though bears noting that outside what D&D defines good as, the term is completely subjective.

This. Very much this. I'm having trouble understanding why folks are getting hung up equating these colors to the system they're replacing.

[NineThePuma]

Simply put, this could SUPPLEMENT the Alignment system, but it is MUCH less retarded and is very good at what it is. Suddenly there are WIDE RANGES of interpretations for classes.

A thought: I would argue that secondary colors don't actually have any mechanical effects. If you're Blue Sec: Red/Black, you're treated as blue for all purposes.

[DragonOfUndeath]

A thought: I would argue that secondary colors don't actually have any mechanical effects. If you're Blue Sec: Red/Black, you're treated as blue for all purposes.

you are effected by all spells that target those colours

[NineThePuma]

I'm aware. I explicitly mean that it SHOULDN'T be that way.

[Hyooz]

First, it may be worth noting that falling into a particular colour's alignment does not mean you have to have all of the traits associated with it. A black character could simply have one or the other.

This is not an argument in favor of the system. If one black character cannot be relied on to share certain base philosophical standings as another black character, then what's the point? We have one guy who is true Black, and another guy who is true Black. One is a selfish bastard, but maintains there is an absolute cosmic order of morality. The other is altruistic because he wants to be, because there is no absolute sense of morality. Both are black, but one has the tendencies described by the Black descriptor from the OP, and the other doesn't seem black at all.

So the Black color loses meaning fast if one or the other applies.

I also find that you seem to sell short how a selfish or amoral character may be good. While an amoral character may not believe in right or wrong, they may still choose to help people because they want to.
Similarly, a selfish person may help others because they find it brings them pleasure.

Right, separately. An amoral person can be Good no problem. A person who can be defined/described as selfish, not so much. DnD Good isn't giving to the poor so you can get tax write-offs or whatever - DnD Good is giving to the poor because its the right thing to do. You can take pleasure in it or not take pleasure in it. Motive is absolutely key, though.

Though bears noting that outside what D&D defines good as, the term is completely subjective.

Right, and outside of DnD, my personal philosophy doesn't give me superpowers and hitting someone with a sword doesn't rely on a die roll. Since we're talking about DnD, I don't see how this bears noting.

It is true though that intent plays a large part in determining if someone's actions are good or evil (though it also relies on the person's ideas of what are good and evil, as differing beliefs may result in one person doing what they consider a good act and another considering it an evil act).

Yes, you could argue that every character is selfish, you're basically arguing that no character is Good. It's totally legit, too. DnD Good is really stupid hard to be effectively. PCs just don't fit in well.

This. Very much this. I'm having trouble understanding why folks are getting hung up equating these colors to the system they're replacing.

That's just it, though: if such equations exist, then what's the point of the new system? At the same time, you make your own equations, which might be encouraging others to do so. Paladins have to be white, monks can't be red: one of the biggest problems of the standard alignment system are these kinds of mechanical restriction issues. Color arguments would be just as common as alignment arguments, etc.

Don't get me wrong, DnD alignment is wonked to hell. I generally ignore it when I can. I just let Smite work on basically anything they'd end up fighting except for allies, potential allies (people they don't have to be fighting, basically. Works well as an in-game hint that they might be killing off an important NPC), and creatures that would be colorless under your system.

Your system certainly gives a little more leeway than the typical alignment system, but basically encourages the removal or reworking of anything that would require alignment anyway. It just makes more sense to me to totally drop alignment altogether, encourage in-depth descriptions of a character's personality and belief, as well as defining any particular campaign specific moral issues.

[NineThePuma]

Hyooz, I believe that you misunderstand. Lord Gareth is explicitly bemoaning the fact that people are making those connections, or trying. They aren't supposed to equate like that at all. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[Hyooz]

Hyooz, I believe that you misunderstand. Lord Gareth is explicitly bemoaning the fact that people are making those connections, or trying. They aren't supposed to equate like that at all. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Right, and I'm bemoaning the fact that, if I can, what's the point of the new system? If people like Thrice Dead Cat can make direct parallels to the alignments possible under the normal alignment system, then this becomes a renaming of the old alignment system.

[Owrtho]

Right, and outside of DnD, my personal philosophy doesn't give me superpowers and hitting someone with a sword doesn't rely on a die roll. Since we're talking about DnD, I don't see how this bears noting.

It bears noting because this system is intended to replace the normal alignment system and remove good and evil from alignments altogether. As such the standard D&D definitions become null and void when discussing it.

Yes, you could argue that every character is selfish, you're basically arguing that no character is Good. It's totally legit, too. DnD Good is really stupid hard to be effectively. PCs just don't fit in well.

I wasn't just talking about player characters. This was a statement about helping people in general (and selfish is quite different from not good). There is no choices that can willingly be made that can't be considered selfish. Everyone makes choices in their own best interest. Even placing other's interests above your own is done for selfish reasons, though the ones doing it may not consider it such.

That's just it, though: if such equations exist, then what's the point of the new system? At the same time, you make your own equations, which might be encouraging others to do so. Paladins have to be white, monks can't be red: one of the biggest problems of the standard alignment system are these kinds of mechanical restriction issues. Color arguments would be just as common as alignment arguments, etc.

There aren't really equations between them. The requirements made just happen to make sense. Paladins tend to believe in some form of order or working for the good of the group, which is white, and if they didn't they'd likely be some other martial group. Monks usually are focused around not being controlled by their emotions while red is about following your emotions with total abandon. Hence the restrictions. They are however much more open than the normal alignment system.

Also, while there are possible connections between this and the old system, they aren't direct connections. Most any alignment could be any colour, there are just some that are more easily seen than others.

Owrtho

[NineThePuma]

White isn't just "good" because it can be horribly horribly Evil. It can also be very very Chaotic, with Freedom Fighters and everything, ruining the tendency toward Law people are harping on. Yes, it's about Law and Good, but that's because of the idiotic way that the alignment system is built, not because of the way that the color wheel is set up. You CAN draw those lines, but they are only just barely accurate.

[hamishspence]

Good in what sense? Clearly not as in "acts selflessly", a utilitarian approach which only considers your own good is actually egoism which is... questionable; a deontological approach which only considers your own good is either very complicated and far-seeing or also egoism.

Good in the sense of "takes risks to help strangers" and "makes sacrifices to help strangers".

Plus "does not do Evil things"

Combine the two- and they fit Good alignment rather than Neutral, since according to the PHB, Neutral people will generally not take risks, or make sacrifices, for strangers.

The fact that, from their point of view, the risks are "worth it" and the sacrifices are "Not really sacrifices, since I'm trading something of value to me for something of greater value to me" is irrelevant- they are acting in a fashion that's consistant with D&D Good alignment.

Finding pleasure in helping others is a Good-aligned thing, and pretty much the antithesis of selfishness.

Even if this guy just enjoys helping people SO MUCH that he goes around performing random acts of charity for selfish reasons, that's still neutral at best. Lex Luthor is one of the DC universe's biggest philanthropists. Intentions are big for alignment concerns.

These two contradict each other. Either finding pleasure in helping others (and pain in the sight of others suffering) is a potential sign of a Good alignment, or it's not.

If it is, then "doing Good because it's pleasurable to do Good" is Good behaviour, not Neutral behaviour.

Evil intentions for Good behaviour, might make it cease to be Good.
But "It is pleasurable, therefore I do it" is not "Evil Intentions".

Might be interesting to sum up the colors:

Red- Emotion
Blue- Logic
Green- Natural
White- Community
Black- Individual

However, they can be combined in interesting ways:
Blue-Red-Black: It is logical to do what is emotionally enjoyable- when it's in your own individual self-interest.

Blue-White-Black: It is logical to support a community that protects individual rights- because it's in your own individual self-interest, to be a part of that community.

And so on.

[Lix Lorn]

Any colour can be slanted as good or as evil. Imagine a cult of smiling, blood covered children working for 'the good of all' White evil right that.

Then again, there's Toshiro Umezawa, of kamigawa. Hello, good mono-black.

I'd also point out that most of the argument about black is calling selfishness and amorality as its cornerstones. I'd point out that black values ambition and power just as much.

[hamishspence]

I'd also point out that most of the argument about black is calling selfishness and amorality as its cornerstones. I'd point out that black values ambition and power just as much.

Also a little tricky to justify in a Good mindset.

Still, a person who believes that wealth and power are not a zero-sum game, and that everybody can become more wealthy and powerful "if the cake is made bigger" might pursue an agenda that benefits both the individual and the group-

with their ambition and desire for power, actually leading to everyone else benefitting as well.

[Lix Lorn]

(nods in agreement)
I'm not saying Black being good is easy, just that it's possible. Sane as evil White is possible. (And far more often, IMO)

[hamishspence]

Yup. In D&D, intentions may matter, but not that much.

An evil act (torturing the innocent) done with Good intentions (to get info needed to save the community) may still be Evil.

Conversely, a Good act (making a sacrifice for a stranger) done with Neutral intentions (personal pleasure/avoiding personal pain) can still qualify as a Good act.

The Colour Wheel, is more useful for identifying why people tend to do things, rather than what they tend to do.

[Havvy]

I'd say that being black and good is extremely easy if you truly know what is in your best interest. Seriously though, I could create a sentence I believe in that uses the five words suggested:

Red- Emotion
Blue- Logic
Green- Natural
White- Community
Black- Individual

I am an individual, but by using logic, I find that their is a natural order of humans to create a community so that they may improve their efficiency at getting emotions satiated.

Red blue combo is not one who logically chooses to follow his emotions. Any logical person would do so. Red blue would be somebody who chooses what to think about based on their emotional attachment to the idea.

[hamishspence]

Red blue combo is not one who logically chooses to follow his emotions. Any logical person would do so. Red blue would be somebody who chooses what to think about based on their emotional attachment to the idea.

Possibly. Vulcans have very very strong emotions- but they choose to suppress them in favour of logic- might they be Red/Blue in certain ways?

A person who trusts both logic, and their "gut feelings", might be Red/Blue, depending on which they tend to favour more.

Seriously though, I could create a sentence I believe in that uses the five words suggested:

Red- Emotion
Blue- Logic
Green- Natural
White- Community
Black- Individual

Which may actually make sense, if you allow a "multicolored" person to draw from all five,

rather than assume no multicolored people exist, only people who draw from a few colors, or people who are colorless and draw only very weakly from any of the colors.

"The Balance" in this case, can actually work with the Color Wheel.

[Havvy]

Suppressing emotions is basically saying "I'm not red."

[hamishspence]

But having them, and needing to suppress them in order to prevent them going out of control (and releasing them under certain special circumstances), is a sign that there's at least some red in there.

Spock: "Logic is the beginning of wisdom- not the end"

That said "intuition" "feelings" "instincts" and so on, might be closer to green than red.

[gkathellar]

I've brought years of lurking to an end so that I can make an argument about Vulcans.

Possibly. Vulcans have very very strong emotions- but they choose to suppress them in favour of logic- might they be Red/Blue in certain ways?

Vulcans make logicians cry. Their logic is just thinly veiled utilitarianism built on a powerful mold of repression.

Logic is a means, not an ends. Your culture can't be "built on logic," because logic is just a way of finding expedient paths to a goal. True, a culture can be more or less logical in its behavior, but that's a methodological concern, not a priorities one. The same applies for individuals - you can behave logically or illogically, but only in the context of what you are actually trying to achieve.

From the perspective of the color wheel, that means logic is in some ways a property of Blue as a secondary alignment (secondaries being explicitly defined as methodology), since logic basically means "pursuing a goal using the knowledge available to you." As a primary, Blue seems to be more about placing a high premium on knowledge and progress, even potentially valuing them over everything else. And ... vulcans don't really care about that all too much.

So where would we put Vulcans? Blue is right out. Their whole culture is about suppressing the Red virtues of passion, spontaneity and emotion. Part of Green's doctrine is "be yourself," which is pretty much the opposite of repression. Some of them have Black as a secondary alignment, embodied by occasional willingness to lie and cheat for the "greater good," though it's definitely never a primary with its focus on individualism. But they're utilitarian, hung up on rules, and they value the community over the individual. Solid White.

Hopefully, this is helpful beyond the context to Vulcans. The Color Wheel idea is elegant precisely because it maps to concrete objectives and behavior, not a set of weird abstracts that don't really tell you anything.

[hamishspence]

From the perspective of the color wheel, that means logic is in some ways a property of Blue as a secondary alignment (secondaries being explicitly defined as methodology), since logic basically means "pursuing a goal using the knowledge available to you." As a primary, Blue seems to be more about placing a high premium on knowledge and progress, even potentially valuing them over everything else. And ... vulcans don't really care about that all too much.

So where would we put Vulcans? Blue is right out. Their whole culture is about suppressing the Red virtues of passion, spontaneity and emotion. Part of Green's doctrine is "be yourself," which is pretty much the opposite of repression. Some of them have Black as a secondary alignment, embodied by occasional willingness to lie and cheat for the "greater good," though it's definitely never a primary with its focus on individualism. But they're utilitarian, hung up on rules, and they value the community over the individual. Solid White.

So, always White as primary, possibly with traces of Blue or Black as secondary, then?

Jedi vs Sith in terms of the Color Wheel might be something like this:

Sith are very Red, and very Black. They draw their power from passion, and they prize ambition and power considerably.

(Some Sith might value the pursuit of knowledge, or the strength of the group, and lean to White or Blue as secondary)

Jedi are very anti-Red, and anti-Black. Ambition, and passion, are strongly disapproved of.

They also lean toward White virtues (guardians of the Republic, selflessness highly valued) and Green teachings "Let go your conscious self and act on instinct" "Trust your feelings" and so on.

"A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge (and defense)" might imply Blue as a secondary.

[gkathellar]

Well, the more complicated a fictional group's ideology is, the more variation and ambiguity you're going to get. To wit, your example: in the EU, Exar Kun founded the Sith tradition we see in the original trilogy, and his sole concern was advancement and mastery of the force within the Sith tradition. That sounds Blue to me, with Black and possibly White as secondaries. Palpatine and Dooku, on the other hand, are probably the worst kind of Black primary (possibly with White as a secondary), whereas Vader and Maul are pretty much driven wholly by rage and would likely be Red, secondary Black. Revan from KOTOR was ostensibly an ends-justify-the-means type. He might be primary White, secondary Black.

Of course, characters in popular fiction aren't necessarily the best representation of any "moral system" because writers don't usually create them with such a system in mind. People have concluded that Batman is every alignment in the traditional nine, and I'm sure you could do the same for this. But we can make generalizations, and those are more useful in constructing characters - Sith, for example, are pretty much Not Green, because in canon the dark side is pretty much totally unnatural. Vulcans are Usually White, because they have a well-defined set of rules and ethics. Hobbits are Unlikely Blue, because they prefer stability to progress. Ad nauseum.

[Glimbur]

Ok, example time. There is a person who works at an orphanage. This person seems to really enjoy the work and refuses offers for more prestigious and lucrative positions in favor of helping orphans. What alignment is this person?

Spoiler

Show

White, of course. Helping orphans is good for society as a whole, as it reduces their odds of turning to thievery.

Spoiler

Show

Red, of course. This person is filled with compassion and sees a need in these orphans which they help fulfill.

Spoiler

Show

Blue, of course. This is a superb chance to examine how children develop and thereby understand adults.

Spoiler

Show

Green, of course. Animals care for their young, and everything is connected so kindness is important.

Spoiler

Show

Black, of course. It will be useful later to have a group of adults who feel indebted to you, and the reputation for altruism is valuable.

Spoiler

Show

If the exact same action can be justified by every color, this suggests that motive and not actions are what matter. I've lost track of what I was trying to prove here but this example will stir further discussion.

[hamishspence]

Motives play a big part in Color Wheel-based descriptions of actions.

But one might say that if the overall result of actions is antithetical to the motive, that might also be relevant for Color.

A person who seeks knowledge- but only in order to profit from it- might be closer to Black than Blue in action. Especially if, once they have knowledge, they take steps to prevent others from getting it.

And the previously mentioned "Hedonistic, altruistic Black character who does what's in his emotional self-interest" might have a lot of Red, rather than being purely Black- with his reasoning being:

"Being happy is in my interest, being sad is against my interests. Other people's happiness makes me happy, other people's unhappiness makes me sad. Therefore, I will be acting toward my own interest by maximizing my happiness and minimizing my sadness".

[Leliel]

I think people are forgetting the fact that most people are going to have secondary colors, which interact with the primary in ways that well...are nigh-infinite.

Take a priest of Pelor. From the outside, he looks exactly like the stereotype-kind, wise, freedom-loving, and forgiving. Sounds like White, or at least Green with White secondary, right?

Nope. His primary is pure Black, with Red and White secondary. He just uses the latter to draw power from.

See, he might believe in random acts of kindness and good deeds, but it's not because he thinks his religion mandates it. Rather, it's because he thinks a strong, happy society is a far more nice place to live and thrive in, and he also thinks true freedom requires a modicum of order. Can't live for yourself if you're just struggling to survive, after all.

That said, he's not dishonest, or even manipulative-he geniunely wants to do good for the world, albeit only the parts he likes (a perfectly valid Good philosophy in D&D; no one wants Mind Flayers to get the upper hand). However, he also believes to his core that there is no true good or evil in the world-as Terry Prachett would say, there is no Atom of Justice, or Particle of Altruism. They're lies. They also happen to be very productive lies, necessary to the world for actually improving.

[gkathellar]

A person who seeks knowledge- but only in order to profit from it- might be closer to Black than Blue in action. Especially if, once they have knowledge, they take steps to prevent others from getting it.

Right, that seems like pretty much the definition of Primary Black, Secondary Blue. Said individual is motivated by a desire for power, and uses knowledge as the means to achieve that power.

And the previously mentioned "Hedonistic, altruistic Black character who does what's in his emotional self-interest" might have a lot of Red, rather than being purely Black- with his reasoning being:

"Being happy is in my interest, being sad is against my interests. Other people's happiness makes me happy, other people's unhappiness makes me sad. Therefore, I will be acting toward my own interest by maximizing my happiness and minimizing my sadness".

Self-interest isn't necessarily the exclusive province of Black, though. If the character was acting mostly based on how they felt about things, that's a Red trait. Black is about power, both over the outside world and over oneself, and the freedom of the individual that comes from power. Red's emotional fulfillment and Blue's self-actualization through knowledge aren't necessarily opposed to that, but a Primary Black character would never put them first.

I would see it like this: An altruistic Black character is more interested in the action they are taking than the positive benefits that result. The behavior itself is a statement of power and autonomy: "I can influence the world," "I am in command of my own behavior," "in doing this, I define myself by my actions." White helps others because doing so is moral and fosters social good, Green helps others because it's natural and essential behavior, Black helps others because it's an affirmation of selfhood and capacity to influence the world.

[IcarusWings]

I think what many people aren't realising, is that people are ot going to be the embodiment of these colours. A black primary person doesn't have to value themselves no matter the cost to other people. They just value and think of themsleves first, before other people. I myself am a little selfish, and I would probably be Black (probably not primary though) and I will still do stuff for the good of others, and I'm definitely not evil.

I'd also chip in that black being selfish makes it evil. IMO I believe that selfishness is more of a neutral trait, looking out for yourself. Evil, in itself, does not actually mean anything. It's just a label people created to slap on people they don't like to try to get others to not like them either.

I'll also say that people keep talking about summarizing colours with one word, but it actually takes about two in my eyes.
Blue: Logic (thinking coolly and planning ahead, knowledge is just a small facet of this) and Progress (moving forward civilization, changing things).
Green: Instinct (acting on your intuition and gut) and Tradition (things are fine as they are, we don't need to change it).
Black: Freedom (nobody can tell me what to do) and Selfishness/Ambition (I'd like to have that, I want to be that).
White: Order (organization, can apply to tyrants too) and Community (two heads are better than one).
Red: Freedom (nobody can tell me what to do) Emotion ( angry, hit stuff)

[Jallorn]

I like this system, and I think, personally, that I fall under:

Primary: Blue, I am smart, and it has kind of overtaken my life. Not bad, just is. When I was younger my primary was Red, as to be expected
Secondary: Red, I'm pretty sure about this. I value individuality and freedom.
Other Secondary: I'm not sure, but probably Green, just because the other two don't really fit. I don't believe in predestination at all, but I definitely feel that everyone can find a place in the world where they can be happy.

[Lix Lorn]

I'm Red-White primary, with red just edging it out, and (choose any colour) tertiary.