RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

FreelanceWizard · **07-21-2014, 01:56 PM**

(07-21-2014, 01:44 PM)ExKage Wrote: I don't think anyone here is saying most of Ul'dah, the Syndicate or the Blades are "Good" in alignment.

... but what is the line separation for Neutral and Evil?

Motivation and consequence, I'd argue, but Neutral on its own is very poor alignment descriptor.

I think this thread is a great example of the problems the D&D alignment system has, especially when dealing with settings without an objective good and evil. Palladium tends to deal with those better, but that's like saying Budweiser is better than Coors if you hate American mass market beer. Smile

EDIT: On the topic of Limsa, Limsa doesn't really have much in the way of refugees. Those it does have (ex-pirates in a lot of cases) are typically given jobs at places like Summerford Farms or the Moraby Drydocks. Some of them are resettled in areas that are kobold territory, which is one of many reasons why Titan is now a problem.

Warren Castille · **07-21-2014, 01:57 PM**

Alignment, especially when considering precipice points for someone's character arc, is fluid. If we're swinging D&D alignments around, someone who's doing knowingly-questionable deeds for the greater perceived good would lend more towards Chaotic Good than anything. Knowing you could save people's lives and opting out to potentially save more lives isn't an inherently evil act because it's done to save more people, which is an inherently good act, unless of course he's saving them so he can use that as a political instrument, because then it's an evil act because he's lying to people unless he's lying to them so he can combat an evil democracy from within, at which point it becomes good again because it's for the greater good. Unless of course...

To keep my sanity, I'd've just changed that dude's alignment on his sheet half a dozen times as the story unfolded. Alignment is as much rules to govern your character with as it is earned through action.

McBeefâ„¢ · **07-21-2014, 01:58 PM**

(07-21-2014, 01:56 PM)FreelanceWizard Wrote:
(07-21-2014, 01:44 PM)ExKage Wrote: I don't think anyone here is saying most of Ul'dah, the Syndicate or the Blades are "Good" in alignment.

... but what is the line separation for Neutral and Evil?

Motivation and consequence, I'd argue, but Neutral on its own is very poor alignment descriptor.

I think this thread is a great example of the problems the D&D alignment system has, especially when dealing with settings without an objective good and evil. Palladium tends to deal with those better, but that's like saying Budweiser is better than Coors if you hate American mass market beer.

This is a good point. D&D is a setting with rules and a cosmology that reinforce its alignment system. Good is a place, it's a thing. A celestial being of pure good can drop down and tell you if something is good or not. It's not complicated human morality, it's a system for streamlining if your paladin does bonus damage on his smite attack.

Out of that framework it tends to break down, and the waters muddy very quickly.

Kage · **07-21-2014, 02:00 PM**

I'd argue still that Gridania is still not doing anything to help, no matter what excuses they have for not taking in refugees. Fact of the matter is, they're still refusing them. The Twelveswood can't handle it..

Ul'dah's own resources can't handle it.

I'd almost say look at the Costa Rican? refugee issues and illegal immigrants that are trying to get into the United States. Yes, they need help. But if we tried to solve everyone's problems over our "first world problems" we'd be doing our own poor an even worse disservice.

Would Ul'dah do it for its own poor? Probably not. But if we were always to say "you left them in the state to get ____" then everyone would be guilty of everything. We'd all be evil.

LiadansWhisper · **07-21-2014, 02:02 PM**

(07-21-2014, 01:54 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: The issue is you can't save everyone. Even if you have the best of intentions. Resources are *always* limited, it's stated in the quests that Ul'dah is really draining it's coffers to help the refugees it already has.

Edit, and yes, I can. For example, if somone rents a property from me, and they don't pay, I'd kick them out. Maybe they'd be on the street, maybe they'd die, who knows? But if I don't pay my own bills, that would happen to me next.

Same thing with child molesters and serial killers. With any justice system you have to strike a balance between being sure you don't convict an innocent person, and wanting to convict the guilty. You might let someone go who might be a serial killer, because you believe it's important that you have more solid evidence. That serial killer might go out and kill someone. On the other hand, maybe you do convict them, but it turns out they are innocent, and they get the electric chair. Which of those would be evil? Would they both?

But that is not what's happening here, Natalie.

This isn't a case of someone not paying your rent and you evicting them (but my god, good luck with that, because unless you live in Arkansas, there are some strict laws on how you can evict people).

This is a situation where effectively homeless, destitute people have flooded an area that has systems in place (apparently - tho why the Flames are doing it I'm not sure!) to care for them temporarily. Â It's kind of akin to the refugee camps set up around the world, only in Ul'dah. Â And minus, you know, bare necessities like a roof over your head or clean water.

These people have no connections.
They have no power.
They have no say, because they are not citizens.

The thing is, your example doesn't work because the obligation of the government towards the destitute and needy is entirely different than the obligation of the individual towards those same people (unless, of course, you subscribe to those religious beliefs that say that, actually, yes you do have an obligation to help them).

You booting out a bad tenet is not the same as a city-state's government putting repeated roadblocks in the way of refugees integrating into society, finding jobs and/or getting out of the shithole they're currently in. Â And it certainly isn't the same as a politician using his political power to scam already weak and vulnerable refugees out of what little money they have.

It boggles my mind that you seem to be advocating that Lolorito is (or could be) this great leader because he makes "hard choices." Â Lolorito is a corrupt scam artist. Â Most people would agree that putting a corrupt scam artist into a situation where he can gain yet more power is a bad idea.

McBeefâ„¢ · **07-21-2014, 02:08 PM**

(07-21-2014, 02:02 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote:
(07-21-2014, 01:54 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: The issue is you can't save everyone. Even if you have the best of intentions. Resources are *always* limited, it's stated in the quests that Ul'dah is really draining it's coffers to help the refugees it already has.

Edit, and yes, I can. For example, if somone rents a property from me, and they don't pay, I'd kick them out. Maybe they'd be on the street, maybe they'd die, who knows? But if I don't pay my own bills, that would happen to me next.

Same thing with child molesters and serial killers. With any justice system you have to strike a balance between being sure you don't convict an innocent person, and wanting to convict the guilty. You might let someone go who might be a serial killer, because you believe it's important that you have more solid evidence. That serial killer might go out and kill someone. On the other hand, maybe you do convict them, but it turns out they are innocent, and they get the electric chair. Which of those would be evil? Would they both?

But that is not what's happening here, Natalie.

This isn't a case of someone not paying your rent and you evicting them (but my god, good luck with that, because unless you live in Arkansas, there are some strict laws on how you can evict people).

This is a situation where effectively homeless, destitute people have flooded an area that has systems in place (apparently - tho why the Flames are doing it I'm not sure!) to care for them temporarily. Â It's kind of akin to the refugee camps set up around the world, only in Ul'dah. Â And minus, you know, bare necessities like a roof over your head or clean water.

These people have no connections.
They have no power.
They have no say, because they are not citizens.

The thing is, your example doesn't work because the obligation of the government towards the destitute and needy is entirely different than the obligation of the individual towards those same people (unless, of course, you subscribe to those religious beliefs that say that, actually, yes you do have an obligation to help them).

You booting out a bad tenet is not the same as a city-state's government putting repeated roadblocks in the way of refugees integrating into society, finding jobs and/or getting out of the shithole they're currently in. Â And it certainly isn't the same as a politician using his political power to scam already weak and vulnerable refugees out of what little money they have.

It boggles my mind that you seem to be advocating that Lolorito is (or could be) this great leader because he makes "hard choices." Â Lolorito is a corrupt scam artist. Â Most people would agree that putting a corrupt scam artist into a situation where he can gain yet more power is a bad idea.

Could you explain to me why this is Ul'dah's problem? They are already doing more than the other city states to help the problem. Also how is lorilito a scam artist, or corrupt? He agrees to give the refugees food, he's not gaining anything from that.

How about this, you may be right that Syndicate is evil, but if so the Governments of Limsa and Gridania are even more evil by not even attempting to help the refugee problem. If you agree to that, then we'll be in perfect alignment (heh).

LiadansWhisper · **07-21-2014, 02:10 PM**

(07-21-2014, 01:56 PM)FreelanceWizard Wrote: Motivation and consequence, I'd argue, but Neutral on its own is very poor alignment descriptor.

I think this thread is a great example of the problems the D&D alignment system has, especially when dealing with settings without an objective good and evil. Palladium tends to deal with those better, but that's like saying Budweiser is better than Coors if you hate American mass market beer.

EDIT: On the topic of Limsa, Limsa doesn't really have much in the way of refugees. Those it does have (ex-pirates in a lot of cases) are typically given jobs at places like Summerford Farms or the Moraby Drydocks. Some of them are resettled in areas that are kobold territory, which is one of many reasons why Titan is now a problem.

I like the Alignment system as a framework. Â It's a great place to start! Â That or you can use the..crap, I forget the name...there's a vaguely similar system in White Wolf's game system that combines personality traits with a humanity/morality system without bringing "Good" and "evil" into the equation.

(07-21-2014, 01:57 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: Alignment, especially when considering precipice points for someone's character arc, is fluid. If we're swinging D&D alignments around, someone who's doing knowingly-questionable deeds for the greater perceived good would lend more towards Chaotic Good than anything. Knowing you could save people's lives and opting out to potentially save more lives isn't an inherently evil act because it's done to save more people, which is an inherently good act, unless of course he's saving them so he can use that as a political instrument, because then it's an evil act because he's lying to people unless he's lying to them so he can combat an evil democracy from within, at which point it becomes good again because it's for the greater good. Unless of course...

To keep my sanity, I'd've just changed that dude's alignment on his sheet half a dozen times as the story unfolded. Alignment is as much rules to govern your character with as it is earned through action.

I'm pretty sure I could never play a D&D paladin. Â But I also think the alignment system is, as I said previously, designed to greatly emphasize how hard it is for a good person to stay good in a bureaucracy.

(07-21-2014, 01:58 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: This is a good point. D&D is a setting with rules and a cosmology that reinforce its alignment system. Good is a place, it's a thing. A celestial being of pure good can drop down and tell you if something is good or not. It's not complicated human morality, it's a system for streamlining if your paladin does bonus damage on his smite attack.

Out of that framework it tends to break down, and the waters muddy very quickly.

It's actually a pretty complicated framework, but...then again I spent a lot of time RPing on D&D servers in NWN. Â Smile

(07-21-2014, 02:00 PM)ExKage Wrote: I'd argue still that Gridania is still not doing anything to help, no matter what excuses they have for not taking in refugees. Fact of the matter is, they're still refusing them. The Twelveswood can't handle it..

Ul'dah's own resources can't handle it.

I'd almost say look at the Costa Rican? refugee issues and illegal immigrants that are trying to get into the United States. Yes, they need help. But if we tried to solve everyone's problems over our "first world problems" we'd be doing our own poor an even worse disservice.

Would Ul'dah do it for its own poor? Probably not. But if we were always to say "you left them in the state to get ____" then everyone would be guilty of everything. We'd all be evil.

From what I understand, the bulk of the refugees flooded to Ul'dah. Â Gridania took in some but stopped taking more after they hit their limit. Â I think the fact that Limsa is on an island discouraged a lot of others from trying there.

Why they picked Ul'dah is honestly beyond me. Â Sure, the city is rich, but it's in the middle of a damn desert. Â If you're a farmer fleeing the conflict, where the hell are you going to farm there? Â Where are you going to find water on a consistent basis? Â Wood for your fires and homes? Â I mean...

Some of the "crisis" is kind of manufactured from my perspective, because the logic of where they decided that everyone went doesn't really jive with me. Â It would have made more sense to me if they'd run to Gridania, tho I suppose that the bad blood between Ala Mhigo and Gridana + the mystique of the Black Shroud might have warned them away.

TheLastCandle · **07-21-2014, 02:12 PM**

Sometimes I think people have a serious persecution complex when it comes to criticism of Ul'dah/the Syndicate/Momodi's popoto souffle. Lolorito is pretty clearly acting selfishly for his own gain. I'd say he's hovering somewhere between Neutral Evil/True Neutral using the D&D scale. I usually hesitate to apply the system to characters not in a D&D setting where there is a very tangible presence of "good" and "evil."

But since that's the topic we're on, Neutrality actually isn't utterly lacking a motive, or being insane. That entirely depends on the character's ethos. For example, a Lawful Neutral leader tends to value law and order above all else, and will do whatever it takes to maintain that. They don't necessarily LACK morals, but they're overall not as important as obeying their ethos, whether it be dictated by law, tradition, or code.

A farmer who's only living his life and attempting to feed his family? True neutral, in most cases. Chaotic neutral tend to value personal freedom above all else - this can be something as extreme as an extremely erratic insane person, or just a free-spirit who prefers to live in the moment and doesn't give any thought to good or evil so long as he remains free to pursue his goal at the time. Jack Sparrow would be a great example of this, though I suppose it could be argued that he's insane as well. ;P

To sum up Neutral Evil, I'm just going to quote directly from the source.

Quote:A Neutral Evil character is typically selfish and has no qualms about turning on their allies-of-the-moment, and usually makes allies primarily to further their own goals. They have no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit to it. They abide by laws for only as long as it is convenient for them. A villain of this alignment can be more dangerous than either Lawful or Chaotic Evil characters, since she or he is neither bound by any sort of honor or tradition nor disorganized and pointlessly violent.

Aya · **07-21-2014, 02:13 PM**

As has been mentioned by a couple of people, reading too much into the D&D alignment system will result in nothing but trouble Smile

Gaspard has used "Lawful Neutral" has a very brief descriptor to take a stab at the philosophy he's looking for the group to possess.Â This is a terrific use of the alignments, because they have value in economizing space, but their utility ends once anything of depth or anything regarding motivation is plumbed.

Re: Lolorito: It may be a bad idea from an OOC perspective, but entirely more interesting IC!Â He's the kind of character that makes Ul'dah tick Smile

**Unnamed Mercenary** · **07-21-2014, 02:17 PM**

(07-21-2014, 02:10 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: Some of the "crisis" is kind of manufactured from my perspective, because the logic of where they decided that everyone went doesn't really jive with me. Â It would have made more sense to me if they'd run to Gridania, tho I suppose that the bad blood between Ala Mhigo and Gridana + the mystique of the Black Shroud might have warned them away.

We know what happened when refugees did flee to Gridania/The Shroud though. The sylphs freaked out. Assuming the elementals either allowed, put up with, or couldn't do anything about it, Ul'dah was made to be the manufactured choice because it has that "American Dream" idea of pushing up the ranks. ...they just don't tell people that it's probably impossible.

McBeefâ„¢ · **07-21-2014, 02:17 PM**

(07-21-2014, 02:10 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: From what I understand, the bulk of the refugees flooded to Ul'dah. Â Gridania took in some but stopped taking more after they hit their limit. Â I think the fact that Limsa is on an island discouraged a lot of others from trying there.

Why they picked Ul'dah is honestly beyond me. Â Sure, the city is rich, but it's in the middle of a damn desert. Â If you're a farmer fleeing the conflict, where the hell are you going to farm there? Â Where are you going to find water on a consistent basis? Â Wood for your fires and homes? Â I mean...

Some of the "crisis" is kind of manufactured from my perspective, because the logic of where they decided that everyone went doesn't really jive with me. Â It would have made more sense to me if they'd run to Gridania, tho I suppose that the bad blood between Ala Mhigo and Gridana + the mystique of the Black Shroud might have warned them away.

They came to Ul'dah because it was literally the only place that will take them. Gridania is Xenophobic, and turned away everyone they could, they probably couldn't afford the boat to Limsa, and Ishgard is closed. Ul'dah could have just turned them back into the desert, and they'd be nothing but a footnote in some quests. Instead it makes an honest effort to take care of them. While you say that Gridania took in some but stopped after they hit their limit. Ul'dah is way over it's limit, that's why there is so much turmoil. Ul'dah can't keep supporting these people, but they are trying as long as they can. So I don't get why Ul'dah and the syndicate get painted so unfavorably because of the refugee problem.

Edit: To those that think Lorilito is obviously evil, please show something evil he's done. He helps feed the refugees, so that's not evil.

LiadansWhisper · **07-21-2014, 02:20 PM**

(07-21-2014, 02:08 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Could you explain to me why this is Ul'dah's problem? They are already doing more than the other city states to help the problem. Also how is lorilito a scam artist, or corrupt? He agrees to give the refugees food, he's not gaining anything from that.

How about this, you may be right that Syndicate is evil, but if so the Governments Â of Limsa and Gridania are even more evil by not even attempting to help the refugee problem. If you agree to that, then we'll be in perfect alignment (heh).

As far as I know, both Gridania and Limsa actually took in some refugees, but the vast majority went to Ul'dah. Â There is one incident of Ala Mhigan refugees having issues in Quarrymill, but all you're ever told is that they "sinned against the forest." Â It's never explained what it was, and it's a single Conjurer who makes the decision that they have to leave. Â And yes, that system is ripe for abuse and actually figures into my character's backstory.

But - and this is a big "but," - Limsa taking in more refugees would absolutely lead to either a return of Leviathan or Titan, since in both situations it was Limsa either trying to reclaim land for re-settlement, or outright breaking their treaty with the Kobolds in an effort to secure land for - guess what - refugees.

In the case of Gridania, though they avoided a similar issue early on with their initial wave of refugees, when people started fleeing Uldah and heading into the Shroud, it freaked the Sylphs out so bad that they summoned Ramuh for a second time. Â That's not even touching the fact that the Gridanians live in the Shroud by the good graces of the Elementals. Â Now, we know that they're weakened by the Calamity, but we also know from the White Mage questline that they are still a serious problem. Â The major Elemental you're trying to keep asleep during that questline is described as something that could take an untold number of lives if he was allowed to wake and rage. Â If the Gridanians break their pact with the Elementals - which they would be if they took more Refugees than the Shroud can handle - then they would not only be dooming their own people to death, they'd be dooming the refugees as well.

That said, I don't recall that Gridania was even offered the refugees from Doma, and I thought that Frontlines was - ostensbily - being fought ICly to determine who will own what lands in Mor Dhona specifically to give TO the refugees to resettle (and yes, I know that's not the "real" reason, but that's the reason they claim IC up front before explaining what's actually going on).

As far as why it's Ul'dah's problem, my examples were entirely to your responses defending Lolorito's actions. Â That's why I framed them the way I did. Â As far as the Syndicate goes, I'm not going to go right out and say, "Oh, it's evil to the core," because we don't know enough about all of the members to say that. Â But I will say that it's corrupt to the core. Â Smile

Â All the way to the rotten core. Â Smile

Aya · **07-21-2014, 02:22 PM**

(07-21-2014, 02:12 PM)TheLastCandle Wrote: A farmer who's only living his life and attempting to feed his family? True neutral, in most cases. Chaotic neutral tend to value personal freedom above all else - this can be something as extreme as an extremely erratic insane person, or just a free-spirit who prefers to live in the moment and doesn't give any thought to good or evil so long as he remains free to pursue his goal at the time. Jack Sparrow would be a great example of this, though I suppose it could be argued that he's insane as well. ;P

See, herein lies part of the problem with the DnD alignment system.Â What is described is that the farmers behavior determines his alignment.Â He does not risk himself to do good, therefore he is neutral (out primarily for his own self-interest, which in this case is also family-interest).Â But what if he is personally religious, and believes in the concept of goodness, and wishes to see it succeed?Â What if he offers meager alms, or provides spare bread for those who cannot feed themselves?Â He is still unprepared to risk himself heroically, he is still not going to do anything that puts his farm or family at risk to accomplish "good" - but his heart is good, his intent is good, and in his actions he is good when he can be.

Is he still neutral?Â Or perhaps even more importantly: does it matter?

McBeefâ„¢ · **07-21-2014, 02:22 PM**

(07-21-2014, 02:20 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: Stuff.

I agree with all those reasonings, but at the same time Ul'dah has problems just as severe to deal with, but IT was the one that stood up and tried to do something about the refugee problem. Everyone else shook their heads and pushed them away, but Ul'dah is trying to help.

Maybe they are doing a bad job, maybe they could do more, but at least they're doing something.

Kage · **07-21-2014, 02:25 PM**

I'd wager more that Telediji is evil.

Lolorito himself is bankrolling the Brass Blades which is why they resort to bribes. A single man's company (especially an Ul'dahn man) cannot just fun an entire city-state's law enforcement. They still give their lives up for it. If they were evil, maybe I just don't know the D&D alignment system, but if they were they'd just let everyone die and say "yeah we couldn't save them."

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (6): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

Syndicate 'Lawful Neutral' group (some 2.3 story spoilers)

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes