Post by Frederic Bourgault-Christie on Feb 26, 2006 8:33:49 GMT -5
Alignments
It is tempting to say that the Grand Cosmos system has no Alignments. It only has personalities. After all, someone committing themselves abstractly to a notion of Good could commit tremendous evil and a lowlife scum could momentarily do quite a bit of good, maybe intentionally, maybe not. But I don't wish to suggest that ethical judgments are not made in any Grand Cosmos setting, CotG or otherwise. Clearly relationships of right and wrong govern and interplay with personality: The two are connected but somewhat distinct. So, instead of categorizing into Good/Evil or Lawful/Chaotic or other dichotomies, I will list a number of ethical outlooks PCs and NPCs might take, as well as noting some axes and philosophical debates.
One may note that I'm not including religious archetypes in here. That's an intentional omission, but one of scale, not philosophy: listing all the permutations of theologies and their associated ethical outlooks would take years to properly enumerate, especially if fictional ones are included. If someone wants to make a devout character, they can either fit them into an existing Archetype or append that religious devotion to another Archetype and note in what situations which part of the character will win over which other part. GMs will have the final say on how they treat matters of faith, spirituality and religion generally. If your GM wants to avoid the matter, run with it and simply choose the closest available Archetype. I prefer to include it because it artificially places a stop sign over a whole realm of human behavior, but do attempt to keep any conflicts that emerge in game.
Ethical Archetypes
The Ascetic: These are extreme religious or philosophical viewpoints. One could even argue that they are not ethical viewpoints at all. These individuals view a life of contemplation, meditation, thought, or similar as a high or the highest goal. Whether they be seeking nirvana, heaven, philosophy in the Aristotelian sense or just peace with themselves, they refuse to be involved in the matters of the world, to the point that they do not even make judgments about it and in general are irked by its being mentioned. Some view the real world as an illusion or distraction and refuse to have anything to do with it. If everyone else did the same, they reason, ethics wouldn't matter. They are distinct from Pacifists in that many Pacifists are quite concerned with the real world and from Scientists in that Scientists demand to interact with the existing universe, though they agree with both on the matter of leaving others alone and suspending ones judgment in favor of compassion (or, for some ascetics, dispassion). Ascetic PCs are quite difficult to play in most any setting: They want above all to be somewhere else but having an adventure. Nonetheless, some of the less extreme forms might work.
The Pacifist: Pacifists are what they sound like: People who have committed themselves to not harming other creatures. Some may only refuse to harm other sentient beings, some all animals and even plant life. (Note that a bare minimum is not to attack any sentients within a very broad definition of that term: Someone who is unwilling to harm humans but willing to harm elves is a racist, not a pacifist). Even in self-defense they will rarely if ever raise a finger to help themselves, let alone others. This is not to say they are necessarily non-confrontational. Some are additionally Ascetic and withdraw into their cocoons, but most are quite spirited individuals, holding onto beliefs about the betterment of life and of the spirit. They just go about this without resorting to violence. For them, the risk that seemingly justified violence will turn out to be wrong (and worse, that they may never see it) is so great that they refuse to even enter the arena. Pacifist PCs, like Ascetics, may have some problems in some campaigns, especially ones like CotG, but again some of the less extreme forms (say, some that refuse simply to kill but are fine with limited and sensible degrees of physical force like Vash the Stampede or some who are fine with defending themselves with abilities like Aikido or some who commit to healing and assistance roles exclusively) should work.
The Activist: Activists are first and foremost idealists. They have some notion about the way things should work: it might be very broad or very narrow, but they do have it. Usually this is an outlook that believes in the sanctity of life, avoiding killing and harm, compassion, etc. They are passionate and driven about their ideals. Some may be quite self-righteous, but most Activists try to moderate and tolerate to some degree. However, they are distinct from Pacifists in that, while they generally abhor and avoid violence, they are willing to use it as a tactic of last resort to accomplish something they view as a greater good if necessary.
The Anarchist (or Libertarian): Those of this ilk may not even speak in terms of good and evil but rather in terms of rights, rights conflicts, tyranny, domination, oppression, etc. To them, a murderer is not (or not just, or not primarily) a bad person, but someone violating another one's right to security and life. To them, interventions to stop rights conflicts are okay. Anything else is verboten and in turn must be stopped (i.e. paternalistic state intervention against drug usage, or possibly abortion, or...) Their view may be wholly negative (i.e. “I'm going to stop this”) or they may expound a positive alternative or vision, but in any respect their focus is liberty, not good. This isn't to say all anarchist or libertarian characters are amoral: not even close. In fact, many have a quite lofty personal ethic, even espousing it as the alternative to domination. They just feel that others can make decisions differently and they don't have the right to stop them. They feel that if they are indeed right they will convince others through appeals not force. Note that the Anarchist is not simply a modern or a political character. Ancient Tricksters can be represented by this archetype too, undermining social convention and accepted habits and norms to introduce a sense of freedom and even chaos back into life.
The Honorable: Instead of (or perhaps because of) a set of lofty dreams, the Honorable character has a strict code, sometimes quite archaic, that they follow. Depending on how self-righteous the character is, they may have absolutely no qualms about doing things outside of their honor code's purview, or simply view the honor code as the bare minimum and have additional ethical beliefs and outlooks. At least within the realm of the code, their beliefs tend to be quite black and white: one either follows the prescriptions and proscriptions or does not. These usually include tenets such as “Give to the needy”, “Do not harm the innocent”, “Do not torture”, “
The Vigilante: Vigilantes usually have a code of justice and ethics as stringent as the Activist's. However, their focus is far less upon what should be done rather than what shouldn't. A vigilante as a practical matter must in the vast majority of cases have a higher reference system that allows them to make judgments: Whether it be the law, religious tenets or commandments, or a set of principles, they must have something to determine who falls within their realm of corruption. Vigilantes are common anti-heroes and range from The Boondock Saints to The Punisher. Vigilantes often have quite dark outlooks on life: whereas an Activist might see the best in people, a Vigilante inerrantly identifies the worst. A vigilante is almost always violent to some degree.
The Intuitive: Badcat Xiang defines this archetype to a tee. These women and men distinguish themselves from The Unprincipled in that they have not eschewed ethics or ethical understanding. Make no mistake, these are people who are concerned with doing the right thing. But they do not define the right thing by hard and fast categories. They see far more gray than even The Activist or The Pacifist (see Tolerance v. Ethics) and are quick to bring up different feelings or perspectives. This isn't to say that they can't ever feel their ethics trump others': some may be thieves stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. But the general way that they view whether an action is wrong or not is based on an instinctive (but not necessarily thoughtless) reaction to each individual circumstance and not based on application of an overarching rule.
The Martyr: The Martyr is so committed to their idea of good that they are willing to sacrifice their wealth, health and even life for it. They tend to be driven by inner demons that seek them to make such sacrifices.
The Saint: This is perfect for a doctor-type character. These are compassionate individuals who focus less on changing the world and more on fixing the people within it.
The Unprincipled: There are many in this world who concern themselves primarily with their well-being and possibly of a few close friends (think Han Solo in the beginning of Episode IV). These characters are fundamentally good and are likely to oppose injustice... sometimes only because it hurts the bottom line, but sometimes out of a genuine desire to see people do better. They may not go out of their way to help other people, and their ethical opinions may be shortsighted or minimal in scope, but they usually have them somewhere. They also often have an honor code, not as inflexible as the Honorable Archetype, but with a few core rules that they accept as easily as a horse accepts water. Cowboy codes or outlaw codes are perfect examples.
The Scientist: A relatively rare ethical archetype; even most scientists don't actually follow this belief, though most try to do so in their role as scientists. A Scientist character concerns themselves exclusively with what is actually out “there”. They demand rigorous standards of logic, testing and adherence to scientific convention. They either have an explanation for something or do not: “Belief” is not within their philosophical universe. They in general view learning and discovery as a high end, if not the highest end, and avoid making ethical judgments about others, even refusing to proffer opinions when asked. They view themselves as providing options and information, not judgment and polemics.
The Helper: This guy mostly sleeps through the high-flying lectures on morality and righteousness issued by their allies of the above Archetypes. They are usually fundamentally good people, but their ethical lens is mostly focused on helping their teammates and friends. They tend to think in concretes rather than abstracts: they will refuse to donate to charity but give money generously to a bum they find on the street. This is perfect for a team mechanic, doctor or so on.
The Hedonist: Oh, girls just want to have fun. The Hedonist is concerned with pleasure, first and foremost. All this ethical stuff is boring. Just do what makes you happy! Go with the flow! Hedonists differ from Anarchists in that they not only support the right to do activities (say, controversial sexual acts or relationships, or usage of drugs) that some call unethical but also say that doing so is for the greater good. Hedonists are not always villains or amoral pigs, and some are deontological (i.e. if one person's time is ruined, it doesn't matter how many people are made happy by it). Some are, of course, but many just feel that pleasure of all kinds is the highest good and that depriving oneself of fun out of guilt is misplaced and stupid. If all people just watched out for each other and made sure everyone was having a good time, they reason, there wouldn't be a need for the other Archetypes. Some are fairly pacific, but some will fight very hard for their right to party (for a humorous example, see Austin Powers).
The Insane: Every one of these classes can have psychoses, neuroses, obsessions, etc. But the Insane takes this to another level. The way they relate to the world and think about right and wrong is heavily modified by their insanity.
The Nihilist: This character simply doesn't believe actions are right or wrong. They may be villains or heroes, or just handle their own affairs, but their concerns are not with justice, ethics, etc., and they typically love to undermine mealymouths who talk about those things.
The Sporting Villain: The villains we know and love, who on occasion are quite heroic. Whatever ends these villains have chosen to commit themselves to, they do so with an uncanny ruthlessness. But there are certain boundaries they do not cross. For many this takes the form of not victimizing certain groups (perhaps a culture or group they belong to – this is a great archetype for many military men; or women or children or other groups they view was defenseless). Many are generous and even compassionate in the right circumstances. However, at the end of the day (barring their growth as characters) they are still villains. The heroes may end up calling one of them ally, and in rare cases even friend, but the Sporting Villain will always be at best a justiciar who makes even the Vigilante of a team cringe.
The Powermonger: Powermongers are not necessarily evil, but they usually are or have lost a lot of their soul to get what they want. For whatever reason, a Powermonger believes that the way to achieve her highest goals (whether those be emotional, physical, spiritual, etc.) is the amassing of power over the world at all costs. Pacts with demons, deals with unsavory political, economic or criminal forces, and learning abilities and practices that are of questionable character at best are all their forte. Some less extreme versions of the character will, for example, learn necromancy and justify it by the logic that the lesser crime of violating the sanctity of the dead is a minor crime compared to the benefit that employing the dead might have.
The Dark Spiritualist: These people have found some strange code of behavior that seems to give them license to commit horrific atrocities, or pursue horrible hedonisms, or exercise black magic and abilities. These are very difficult for most good-aligned people to deal with, for they seem like a bodhisattva yet are complete inversions of such values. It can be hard to pull this character off successfully. Some can be even more difficult than Diabolic Archetypes to integrate with PCs.
The Diabolic: This person is simply, well, evil. Whether they think of themselves as amoral or are proud of their immorality, these miscreants will kill, rape, torture, assault, steal, and attempt to dominate the world, whether for some kind of broader “goal” (rarely a lofty one) or just for the fun of it. Unless the character is very strange or not very extreme, it is unlikely that most campaigns can tolerate her. Even Powermongers, Dark Spiritualists or Sporting Villains rarely kill their teammates for the fun of it. However, the more rational of them will work within an organization to accomplish their ends. Ironically, they can be among the most trustworthy of all people: when their ends require cooperation, they are enthusiastic allies and sometimes even friends.
The Alien: This is a sort of catch-all category. Some races or classes are so different from the norm that humans can comprehend that their behavior would seem amoral or even inscrutable. For example: A fire elemental might set fires in a town filled with thatched roof houses, not out of any kind of malice but just a simple lack of understanding about what this does to the people.
Axes and Debates
Tolerance v. Ethics: There is at least theoretically a tension between tolerating another group's or person's behavior and committing oneself to a code of ethics. Few either stick to the norm of complete non-interference and non-judgment about others or complete intolerance for any lifestyle even infinitesimally distinct from their own. Most occupy some space. They accept some behavior as okay though possibly not optimal, and they accept a larger range as not good but something that is not their business. Note that even Pacifists can be quite self-righteous about the ethics they hold and thus intolerant, even though they do not let this manifest as violence. They will, for example, not be amenable to explanations that a General is just trying to serve his country: to them, he is doing something wrong, period. There are tolerant and intolerant Pacifists.
Freedom v. Control: Another possible and related tension is between respecting rights, freedoms and privacies versus wanting to see justice done no matter how much that restricts others' mobility.
Forgiveness v. Punishment:
Deontology/Categorical Ethics versus Pragmatism/Consequentialist Ethics: Is something always wrong no matter the possible good that may be drawn from it? Or do the ends sometimes justify the means? Again, few believe that all actions are acceptable as long as the world is slightly better at the end of a convoluted chain or that there should be no reference to consequence and context. One reasonable balance is that people are responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions. Subsidiary debates include the degree to which either outlook paralyzes or corrupts an individual, the relationship between rights and ethics/justice, the way that allowing certain exceptions to overarching rules can slowly undermine the rule or other “slippery slope” debates, and what actions are categorically verboten or what standards one can use to evaluate consequences.
It is tempting to say that the Grand Cosmos system has no Alignments. It only has personalities. After all, someone committing themselves abstractly to a notion of Good could commit tremendous evil and a lowlife scum could momentarily do quite a bit of good, maybe intentionally, maybe not. But I don't wish to suggest that ethical judgments are not made in any Grand Cosmos setting, CotG or otherwise. Clearly relationships of right and wrong govern and interplay with personality: The two are connected but somewhat distinct. So, instead of categorizing into Good/Evil or Lawful/Chaotic or other dichotomies, I will list a number of ethical outlooks PCs and NPCs might take, as well as noting some axes and philosophical debates.
One may note that I'm not including religious archetypes in here. That's an intentional omission, but one of scale, not philosophy: listing all the permutations of theologies and their associated ethical outlooks would take years to properly enumerate, especially if fictional ones are included. If someone wants to make a devout character, they can either fit them into an existing Archetype or append that religious devotion to another Archetype and note in what situations which part of the character will win over which other part. GMs will have the final say on how they treat matters of faith, spirituality and religion generally. If your GM wants to avoid the matter, run with it and simply choose the closest available Archetype. I prefer to include it because it artificially places a stop sign over a whole realm of human behavior, but do attempt to keep any conflicts that emerge in game.
Ethical Archetypes
The Ascetic: These are extreme religious or philosophical viewpoints. One could even argue that they are not ethical viewpoints at all. These individuals view a life of contemplation, meditation, thought, or similar as a high or the highest goal. Whether they be seeking nirvana, heaven, philosophy in the Aristotelian sense or just peace with themselves, they refuse to be involved in the matters of the world, to the point that they do not even make judgments about it and in general are irked by its being mentioned. Some view the real world as an illusion or distraction and refuse to have anything to do with it. If everyone else did the same, they reason, ethics wouldn't matter. They are distinct from Pacifists in that many Pacifists are quite concerned with the real world and from Scientists in that Scientists demand to interact with the existing universe, though they agree with both on the matter of leaving others alone and suspending ones judgment in favor of compassion (or, for some ascetics, dispassion). Ascetic PCs are quite difficult to play in most any setting: They want above all to be somewhere else but having an adventure. Nonetheless, some of the less extreme forms might work.
The Pacifist: Pacifists are what they sound like: People who have committed themselves to not harming other creatures. Some may only refuse to harm other sentient beings, some all animals and even plant life. (Note that a bare minimum is not to attack any sentients within a very broad definition of that term: Someone who is unwilling to harm humans but willing to harm elves is a racist, not a pacifist). Even in self-defense they will rarely if ever raise a finger to help themselves, let alone others. This is not to say they are necessarily non-confrontational. Some are additionally Ascetic and withdraw into their cocoons, but most are quite spirited individuals, holding onto beliefs about the betterment of life and of the spirit. They just go about this without resorting to violence. For them, the risk that seemingly justified violence will turn out to be wrong (and worse, that they may never see it) is so great that they refuse to even enter the arena. Pacifist PCs, like Ascetics, may have some problems in some campaigns, especially ones like CotG, but again some of the less extreme forms (say, some that refuse simply to kill but are fine with limited and sensible degrees of physical force like Vash the Stampede or some who are fine with defending themselves with abilities like Aikido or some who commit to healing and assistance roles exclusively) should work.
The Activist: Activists are first and foremost idealists. They have some notion about the way things should work: it might be very broad or very narrow, but they do have it. Usually this is an outlook that believes in the sanctity of life, avoiding killing and harm, compassion, etc. They are passionate and driven about their ideals. Some may be quite self-righteous, but most Activists try to moderate and tolerate to some degree. However, they are distinct from Pacifists in that, while they generally abhor and avoid violence, they are willing to use it as a tactic of last resort to accomplish something they view as a greater good if necessary.
The Anarchist (or Libertarian): Those of this ilk may not even speak in terms of good and evil but rather in terms of rights, rights conflicts, tyranny, domination, oppression, etc. To them, a murderer is not (or not just, or not primarily) a bad person, but someone violating another one's right to security and life. To them, interventions to stop rights conflicts are okay. Anything else is verboten and in turn must be stopped (i.e. paternalistic state intervention against drug usage, or possibly abortion, or...) Their view may be wholly negative (i.e. “I'm going to stop this”) or they may expound a positive alternative or vision, but in any respect their focus is liberty, not good. This isn't to say all anarchist or libertarian characters are amoral: not even close. In fact, many have a quite lofty personal ethic, even espousing it as the alternative to domination. They just feel that others can make decisions differently and they don't have the right to stop them. They feel that if they are indeed right they will convince others through appeals not force. Note that the Anarchist is not simply a modern or a political character. Ancient Tricksters can be represented by this archetype too, undermining social convention and accepted habits and norms to introduce a sense of freedom and even chaos back into life.
The Honorable: Instead of (or perhaps because of) a set of lofty dreams, the Honorable character has a strict code, sometimes quite archaic, that they follow. Depending on how self-righteous the character is, they may have absolutely no qualms about doing things outside of their honor code's purview, or simply view the honor code as the bare minimum and have additional ethical beliefs and outlooks. At least within the realm of the code, their beliefs tend to be quite black and white: one either follows the prescriptions and proscriptions or does not. These usually include tenets such as “Give to the needy”, “Do not harm the innocent”, “Do not torture”, “
The Vigilante: Vigilantes usually have a code of justice and ethics as stringent as the Activist's. However, their focus is far less upon what should be done rather than what shouldn't. A vigilante as a practical matter must in the vast majority of cases have a higher reference system that allows them to make judgments: Whether it be the law, religious tenets or commandments, or a set of principles, they must have something to determine who falls within their realm of corruption. Vigilantes are common anti-heroes and range from The Boondock Saints to The Punisher. Vigilantes often have quite dark outlooks on life: whereas an Activist might see the best in people, a Vigilante inerrantly identifies the worst. A vigilante is almost always violent to some degree.
The Intuitive: Badcat Xiang defines this archetype to a tee. These women and men distinguish themselves from The Unprincipled in that they have not eschewed ethics or ethical understanding. Make no mistake, these are people who are concerned with doing the right thing. But they do not define the right thing by hard and fast categories. They see far more gray than even The Activist or The Pacifist (see Tolerance v. Ethics) and are quick to bring up different feelings or perspectives. This isn't to say that they can't ever feel their ethics trump others': some may be thieves stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. But the general way that they view whether an action is wrong or not is based on an instinctive (but not necessarily thoughtless) reaction to each individual circumstance and not based on application of an overarching rule.
The Martyr: The Martyr is so committed to their idea of good that they are willing to sacrifice their wealth, health and even life for it. They tend to be driven by inner demons that seek them to make such sacrifices.
The Saint: This is perfect for a doctor-type character. These are compassionate individuals who focus less on changing the world and more on fixing the people within it.
The Unprincipled: There are many in this world who concern themselves primarily with their well-being and possibly of a few close friends (think Han Solo in the beginning of Episode IV). These characters are fundamentally good and are likely to oppose injustice... sometimes only because it hurts the bottom line, but sometimes out of a genuine desire to see people do better. They may not go out of their way to help other people, and their ethical opinions may be shortsighted or minimal in scope, but they usually have them somewhere. They also often have an honor code, not as inflexible as the Honorable Archetype, but with a few core rules that they accept as easily as a horse accepts water. Cowboy codes or outlaw codes are perfect examples.
The Scientist: A relatively rare ethical archetype; even most scientists don't actually follow this belief, though most try to do so in their role as scientists. A Scientist character concerns themselves exclusively with what is actually out “there”. They demand rigorous standards of logic, testing and adherence to scientific convention. They either have an explanation for something or do not: “Belief” is not within their philosophical universe. They in general view learning and discovery as a high end, if not the highest end, and avoid making ethical judgments about others, even refusing to proffer opinions when asked. They view themselves as providing options and information, not judgment and polemics.
The Helper: This guy mostly sleeps through the high-flying lectures on morality and righteousness issued by their allies of the above Archetypes. They are usually fundamentally good people, but their ethical lens is mostly focused on helping their teammates and friends. They tend to think in concretes rather than abstracts: they will refuse to donate to charity but give money generously to a bum they find on the street. This is perfect for a team mechanic, doctor or so on.
The Hedonist: Oh, girls just want to have fun. The Hedonist is concerned with pleasure, first and foremost. All this ethical stuff is boring. Just do what makes you happy! Go with the flow! Hedonists differ from Anarchists in that they not only support the right to do activities (say, controversial sexual acts or relationships, or usage of drugs) that some call unethical but also say that doing so is for the greater good. Hedonists are not always villains or amoral pigs, and some are deontological (i.e. if one person's time is ruined, it doesn't matter how many people are made happy by it). Some are, of course, but many just feel that pleasure of all kinds is the highest good and that depriving oneself of fun out of guilt is misplaced and stupid. If all people just watched out for each other and made sure everyone was having a good time, they reason, there wouldn't be a need for the other Archetypes. Some are fairly pacific, but some will fight very hard for their right to party (for a humorous example, see Austin Powers).
The Insane: Every one of these classes can have psychoses, neuroses, obsessions, etc. But the Insane takes this to another level. The way they relate to the world and think about right and wrong is heavily modified by their insanity.
The Nihilist: This character simply doesn't believe actions are right or wrong. They may be villains or heroes, or just handle their own affairs, but their concerns are not with justice, ethics, etc., and they typically love to undermine mealymouths who talk about those things.
The Sporting Villain: The villains we know and love, who on occasion are quite heroic. Whatever ends these villains have chosen to commit themselves to, they do so with an uncanny ruthlessness. But there are certain boundaries they do not cross. For many this takes the form of not victimizing certain groups (perhaps a culture or group they belong to – this is a great archetype for many military men; or women or children or other groups they view was defenseless). Many are generous and even compassionate in the right circumstances. However, at the end of the day (barring their growth as characters) they are still villains. The heroes may end up calling one of them ally, and in rare cases even friend, but the Sporting Villain will always be at best a justiciar who makes even the Vigilante of a team cringe.
The Powermonger: Powermongers are not necessarily evil, but they usually are or have lost a lot of their soul to get what they want. For whatever reason, a Powermonger believes that the way to achieve her highest goals (whether those be emotional, physical, spiritual, etc.) is the amassing of power over the world at all costs. Pacts with demons, deals with unsavory political, economic or criminal forces, and learning abilities and practices that are of questionable character at best are all their forte. Some less extreme versions of the character will, for example, learn necromancy and justify it by the logic that the lesser crime of violating the sanctity of the dead is a minor crime compared to the benefit that employing the dead might have.
The Dark Spiritualist: These people have found some strange code of behavior that seems to give them license to commit horrific atrocities, or pursue horrible hedonisms, or exercise black magic and abilities. These are very difficult for most good-aligned people to deal with, for they seem like a bodhisattva yet are complete inversions of such values. It can be hard to pull this character off successfully. Some can be even more difficult than Diabolic Archetypes to integrate with PCs.
The Diabolic: This person is simply, well, evil. Whether they think of themselves as amoral or are proud of their immorality, these miscreants will kill, rape, torture, assault, steal, and attempt to dominate the world, whether for some kind of broader “goal” (rarely a lofty one) or just for the fun of it. Unless the character is very strange or not very extreme, it is unlikely that most campaigns can tolerate her. Even Powermongers, Dark Spiritualists or Sporting Villains rarely kill their teammates for the fun of it. However, the more rational of them will work within an organization to accomplish their ends. Ironically, they can be among the most trustworthy of all people: when their ends require cooperation, they are enthusiastic allies and sometimes even friends.
The Alien: This is a sort of catch-all category. Some races or classes are so different from the norm that humans can comprehend that their behavior would seem amoral or even inscrutable. For example: A fire elemental might set fires in a town filled with thatched roof houses, not out of any kind of malice but just a simple lack of understanding about what this does to the people.
Axes and Debates
Tolerance v. Ethics: There is at least theoretically a tension between tolerating another group's or person's behavior and committing oneself to a code of ethics. Few either stick to the norm of complete non-interference and non-judgment about others or complete intolerance for any lifestyle even infinitesimally distinct from their own. Most occupy some space. They accept some behavior as okay though possibly not optimal, and they accept a larger range as not good but something that is not their business. Note that even Pacifists can be quite self-righteous about the ethics they hold and thus intolerant, even though they do not let this manifest as violence. They will, for example, not be amenable to explanations that a General is just trying to serve his country: to them, he is doing something wrong, period. There are tolerant and intolerant Pacifists.
Freedom v. Control: Another possible and related tension is between respecting rights, freedoms and privacies versus wanting to see justice done no matter how much that restricts others' mobility.
Forgiveness v. Punishment:
Deontology/Categorical Ethics versus Pragmatism/Consequentialist Ethics: Is something always wrong no matter the possible good that may be drawn from it? Or do the ends sometimes justify the means? Again, few believe that all actions are acceptable as long as the world is slightly better at the end of a convoluted chain or that there should be no reference to consequence and context. One reasonable balance is that people are responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions. Subsidiary debates include the degree to which either outlook paralyzes or corrupts an individual, the relationship between rights and ethics/justice, the way that allowing certain exceptions to overarching rules can slowly undermine the rule or other “slippery slope” debates, and what actions are categorically verboten or what standards one can use to evaluate consequences.