What pathfinder alignment am I?

[ThinkMinty]

I think what he means is that the Order/Chaos axis is man's law, while Good/Evil is natural law

Don't call Good...that. It's more of an insult than you realize. Really, really sick of Lawfuls conflating Law and Good like they OWN Good and the other Goods are just inferior versions of them.

[Michael7123]

Hey, at least no one can say you have Red in your sig for nothing.

True enough.

On this note... I'm going to have to take a break from this thread for a few weeks. I've got finals coming up and papers to write, I don't have the time to spend on this thread. Most of my posts here take several hours to prepare, and I just can't spare that time.

If anyone has any questions about what I said earlier, feel free to ask them- it will just be a while before I get to them.

In the meantime, I would recommend that you folks look around into natural law theory. I didn't come up with it, and I will not the make the most eloquent arguments for it.

See all of you in two weeks or so.

[Norrefve]

True enough.

On this note... I'm going to have to take a break from this thread for a few weeks. I've got finals coming up and papers to write, I don't have the time to spend on this thread. Most of my posts here take several hours to prepare, and I just can't spare that time.

If anyone has any questions about what I said earlier, feel free to ask them- it will just be a while before I get to them.

In the meantime, I would recommend that you folks look around into natural law theory. I didn't come up with it, and I will not the make the most eloquent arguments for it.

See all of you in two weeks or so.

I have my exams today and tomorrow. Good luck, and happy studying!

[Michael7123]

I have my exams today and tomorrow. Good luck, and happy studying!

You too, friend!

[8BitNinja]

Don't call Good...that. It's more of an insult than you realize. Really, really sick of Lawfuls conflating Law and Good like they OWN Good and the other Goods are just inferior versions of them.

I'm just saying that all goods follow the "law", but chaotic good doesn't follow the law of man

You still have a code that restrains you from doing certain things, it's just that a man didn't make it

[Red Fel]

I'm just saying that all goods follow the "law", but chaotic good doesn't follow the law of man

You still have a code that restrains you from doing certain things, it's just that a man didn't make it

No. That's... Completely wrong.

Chaotic doesn't follow a code. Not personal, not external. Chaotic means you go with your feelings, your personal desires, your individuality and expressionism. A Chaotic character isn't about having an iron-clad list of principles forcing his actions; he's about allowing his passions and will to determine his fate.

Similarly, Lawful doesn't mean "follows man's law" either. Lawful means you follow a code. Could be the law of the land. Could be the law of your sovereign or patron deity. Could be your personal code of ethics or honor. For example, a Lawful Good character can stand up against a law he finds to be unjust - he isn't bound by the laws of man, but by his own laws.

These are concepts that are explicitly defined in PF (and, prior to that, D&D). It doesn't necessarily make sense. It doesn't have to.

[Blue Ghost]

Don't call Good...that. It's more of an insult than you realize. Really, really sick of Lawfuls conflating Law and Good like they OWN Good and the other Goods are just inferior versions of them.

You're going to have to take it up with natural law theory, which is thousands of years old. You don't have to believe in it, but it's a bit unrealistic to expect everyone to abandon a longstanding philosophical tradition just because you personally don't like it.

Furthermore, natural law as a philosophical concept has little connection with the law/chaos split in DnD as a fictional construct. One can be Chaotic in DnD terms without going against natural law.

[Lethologica]

It's possible to agree that there are moral goods that can be derived as laws from reason and nature, without concluding that moral good is laws derived from reason and nature. Thanks in advance for not being reductionist.

[8BitNinja]

You're going to have to take it up with natural law theory, which is thousands of years old. You don't have to believe in it, but it's a bit unrealistic to expect everyone to abandon a longstanding philosophical tradition just because you personally don't like it.

Furthermore, natural law as a philosophical concept has little connection with the law/chaos split in DnD as a fictional construct. One can be Chaotic in DnD terms without going against natural law.

Thanks for backing me up here, I never knew saying that Good is like Law in a way could be so offensive to some people

[ThinkMinty]

Thanks for backing me up here, I never knew saying that Good is like Law in a way could be so offensive to some people

I value Good more than I value Chaos. I have a very tangible, justified disdain for Law (as in, Order). Conflating Good, which is awesome, with Order, which is loathsome, and maybe you'll see why Chaotic Good people get cheesed off by anyone saying they're one and the same.

[8BitNinja]

I value Good more than I value Chaos. I have a very tangible, justified disdain for Law (as in, Order). Conflating Good, which is awesome, with Order, which is loathsome, and maybe you'll see why Chaotic Good people get cheesed off by anyone saying they're one and the same.

I never said that good was law in the same way law is, bit there are still similarities. In both law and good, there are rules and expectations, and breaking those will bring about punishment

[Lethologica]

I think it's interesting that no one has touched Red Fel's comment.

I never said that good was law in the same way law is, bit there are still similarities. In both pas and good, there are rules and expectations, and breaking those will bring about punishment

It's worth considering whether that claim is broadly true of morality. That is to say--is morality generally composed of rules and expectations, the breaking of which will generally result in punishment? Or is it just that we can identify some areas where morality behaves like the law (murder is both wrong and illegal), and we extrapolate from there without a solid basis for generalization?

[8BitNinja]

It's worth considering whether that claim is broadly true of morality. That is to say--is morality generally composed of rules and expectations, the breaking of which will generally result in punishment? Or is it just that we can identify some areas where morality behaves like the law (murder is both wrong and illegal), and we extrapolate from there without a solid basis for generalization?

The idea is there that morals are something that are expected to be followed, and consequences will come if not.

That is all I was trying to say with the whole "law" thing

[Norrefve]

I never said that good was law in the same way law is, bit there are still similarities. In both law and good, there are rules and expectations, and breaking those will bring about punishment

I have to agree with 8BitNinja here. IF Good had an ethical leaning, it would look more like lawful. IF Evil had an ethical leaning, it would look more like chaos. This is not to say that every good person must be lawful and every evil person must be chaotic (otherwise Red Fel and ThinkMinty wouldn't exist), but I think that they naturally lean that way.

Also, just out of curiosity (and because you've started posting a lot more), which alignment do you consider yourself, Lethologica?

[ThinkMinty]

I'm going to make perhaps the most childish argument I could think of in defense of my alignment.

Unicorns are generally regarded as one of the most iconic, enduring beacons of Good, and what us Goody-Goodies stand for, are they not?

Guess what team they play for? That's right, the Unicorns are Chaotic Good.

[8BitNinja]

I'm going to make perhaps the most childish argument I could think of in defense of my alignment.

Unicorns are generally regarded as one of the most iconic, enduring beacons of Good, and what us Goody-Goodies stand for, are they not?

Guess what team they play for? That's right, the Unicorns are Chaotic Good.

Just checked, they are neutral good

[YossarianLives]

Just checked, they are neutral good

Here's a link to the SRD page on unicorns. See that thing that says 'always Chaotic Good'?

Of course, I don't really expect the alignment of unicorns to be consistent through the many editions of D&D.

[ThinkMinty]

Just checked, they are neutral good

Unicorns have been rather consistently Chaotic Good through the editions as far as I'm aware, save for 4e (which didn't even have my alignment in it at all), which was so contentious that Pathfinder was created as a response.

Additionally, the thread's specifically about Pathfinder, and as per Pathfinder, well...pretty sure they're Chaotic Good.

[Norrefve]

I'm going to make perhaps the most childish argument I could think of in defense of my alignment.

Unicorns are generally regarded as one of the most iconic, enduring beacons of Good, and what us Goody-Goodies stand for, are they not?

Guess what team they play for? That's right, the Unicorns are Chaotic Good.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Unicorns are not a sentient race. As they are technically beasts incapable of forethought or planning, it makes sense that their actions will be based purely on instinct alone, and therefore can only be classified as chaotic.

This argument only works if there are sentient unicorns who also choose to be chaotic.

[5a Violista]

I'm pretty sure in Pathfinder "human-like sentience" is defined as anything with intelligence at a human level, such as 3 or larger.
See: Sentient Wax Golems and Awaken.

Unicorns have Intelligence 11. Almost positive that anything with intelligence 3 or higher chooses its own alignment.

[Blue Ghost]

It's worth considering whether that claim is broadly true of morality. That is to say--is morality generally composed of rules and expectations, the breaking of which will generally result in punishment? Or is it just that we can identify some areas where morality behaves like the law (murder is both wrong and illegal), and we extrapolate from there without a solid basis for generalization?

This is an interesting question you raise. I don't think it's one or the other. Natural law theorists use law as an analogy for morality, and there are several areas in which the analogy fits. But of course like every analogy, it breaks down at some point.

One sense in which we use law is in the sense of laws of logic, physics, and mathematics, which are factual descriptions of reality. Under some theories of morality, moral laws are descriptions of moral reality in the same way that physical laws are descriptions of physical reality. And just as we can use observation and reason to deduce the laws of nature, we can deduce laws about moral reality with the application of reason. I agree with this view, though it's by no means universally held.

The obvious difference between physical laws and moral laws is that physical laws are descriptive while moral laws are prescriptive. Physical laws describe the way things are, while moral laws describe the way things should be. And ideals can't be empirically measured in the same way as physical reality. In this way, morality has more in common with civil law, which also prescribes a norm for people to act.

Civil law is defined by society and is directed toward a goal, namely harmony and order within society. Some moral theorists hold that morals are also defined by society. I do not agree, but I believe that morals are also directed toward a goal, and the goal of an ordered society that civil law aims toward is a microcosm of the harmony and peace that is the ultimate goal of the moral law.

Civil law is enforced by civil authorities with threats of punishment. Does moral law operate the same way? Whether or not people are directly punished for moral transgressions is a metaphysical and religious matter, which is beyond the scope of the current discussion. But most would agree that moral transgressions generally have negative consequences, whether for the individual or for the world as a whole. Consequentialists would define acts as immoral solely by the negative consequences derived, while others would say there is more to it. Civil law derives its power from external authority, while it is unclear whether it is the same for morality. Many moral realists would say that the moral law is itself the external authority from which it derives its power, that is, it's self-enforcing.

I believe that a major difference between civil law and moral law is that civil law is binary, while moral law is not. Under civil law, an action is either permitted or forbidden. There's a clear line separating legal from illegal, and as long as you stay on the right side of the line, you're in the clear. I don't believe morality works that way. There are varying degrees of morality, and actions don't fall under a binary of moral or immoral. There are a plethora of actions one might take, of all different shades of morality. Some, like murder, are so far below the moral norm of decent human behavior that they can clearly be labeled as immoral. Other actions are considered morally acceptable, but people can still do much better. Most people would say there's nothing morally wrong with spending money that you've earned on yourself, but it is morally better to use that money to help the less fortunate. Is it then immoral to spend money on yourself? I don't think that's the right question to ask. By treating morality as a binary, people tend to focus their moral development on avoiding "immoral" actions. I think it's far more freeing to take one's focus off the artificial line between moral and immoral and instead strive for the greatest moral heights one can achieve.

[ThinkMinty]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Unicorns are not a sentient race. As they are technically beasts incapable of forethought or planning, it makes sense that their actions will be based purely on instinct alone, and therefore can only be classified as chaotic.

This argument only works if there are sentient unicorns who also choose to be chaotic.

Did you miss the 11 Int and their capacity to speak both Common and Sylvan? Just because they're naked and live in the woods doesn't mean they're not sentient or sapient.

Unicorns are magical beasts, capable of reason and thought just as much as you are. Unicorns are intelligent beings of noble character, defenders of the innocent, protectors of the wilds, and moral exemplars for the children.

[Lethologica]

Also, just out of curiosity (and because you've started posting a lot more), which alignment do you consider yourself, Lethologica?

Hard to say. I am passionless, a creature of habit, but easily distracted; I am far more reactive than proactive. So perhaps call me a creature of convenience instead. I am morally inert in practice, and ethically ambivalent in theory. I recognize the value of values and principles, but I am myself unprincipled and uncertain of what I value, if anything. I'm not particularly courageous, or industrious, or even honest--or, more accurately, I'm bad at keeping commitments. I can and do perform kindness and caring, but my feelings are distant and infrequent, and the performance crumbles under pressure. A little fish lost in a big sea, that's me. Call it TN with C tendencies.

[Norrefve]

Did you miss the 11 Int and their capacity to speak both Common and Sylvan? Just because they're naked and live in the woods doesn't mean they're not sentient or sapient.

Unicorns are magical beasts, capable of reason and thought just as much as you are. Unicorns are intelligent beings of noble character, defenders of the innocent, protectors of the wilds, and moral exemplars for the children.

Sorry about that. When it said that it spoke Common and Sylvan, I thought it meant those were the languages it understood.

I have only actually played DnD two or three times, and it wasn't very serious. I have read a couple R. A. Salvatore books, but a unicorn was only featured once, and it didn't speak and seemed very much like a wild animal.

I wasn't intentionally dissing on Unicorns, I think they're great, I was just going off of the information I had.
Forgive me for presuming too much.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

How is this thread still going!?

[Lethologica]

How is this thread still going!?

You're asking how an alignment thread is still going, on the GitP forums? The last ripple of information that dissipates into the featureless entropy of the heat death of the universe will be a Playgrounder maintaining that Barbarians following the non-Lawful requirement makes them Lawful.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

You're asking how an alignment thread is still going, on the GitP forums? The last ripple of information that dissipates into the featureless entropy of the heat death of the universe will be a Playgrounder maintaining that Barbarians following the non-Lawful requirement makes them Lawful.

I wasn't aware that was a thing. I just kind of assumed alignment questions were open and shut. I came to terms with my LEness long ago.

[8BitNinja]

You're asking how an alignment thread is still going, on the GitP forums? The last ripple of information that dissipates into the featureless entropy of the heat death of the universe will be a Playgrounder maintaining that Barbarians following the non-Lawful requirement makes them Lawful.

This paradox is harmful to the AI members of the playground, please do not murder those without an organic brain

[Red Fel]

I came to terms with my LEness long ago.

Have a badge. Welcome to the party. Popcorn?

[8BitNinja]

I'm pretty sure this alignment thread is turning into a battle between good and evil thread