If their differences are described with more specificity, they could make an alignment rules module (perhaps along with other, less crude modules for inspiring people to roleplay), but I feel alignment isn't necessary for D&D core any more than to-hit charts, THAC0, and separate save tables (vs Poison, vs Dragon's Breath, Staves, etc); it could "evolve" like those other things (see "less crude modules" above).
I just hope its existence doesn't encourage the game writers to give me flat evil/whatever characters in adventures and bestiary entries. Fluff matters if nothing more than creative fodder, and flat characters are pretty boring.
If their differences are described with more specificity, they could make an alignment rules module (perhaps along with other, less crude modules for inspiring people to roleplay), but I feel alignment isn't necessary for D&D core any more than to-hi
That's the thing, really. Alignment as a roleplay guide is great. Alignment as a mechanical requirement only causes problems.
Especially since that makes it completely ignorable. I can write down words that actually mean something on my sheet to describe my character's personality.
Especially since that makes it completely ignorable. I can write down words that actually mean something on my sheet to describe my character's personality.
Mea culpa! You were right I was wrong. I can't believe I remembered that so wrong!
I was close. Thanks for the correction.[/quote]You were right the first time.[/quote]Mea culpa! You were right I was wrong. I can't believe I remembered that so wrong!
I thought C is for cookie. That's good enough for me! I still have the cover of one of my companion books. I heard they released it (BECMI) again in a single volume? Now to get the alignment issue. Alignment is good. It promotes even wear on your tires.
On another note, if alignment is removed from the game, I understand spells such as detect/protection from lawful/chaotic would go away, but detect good and evil should not be affected.
I thought C is for cookie. That's good enough for me! I still have the cover of one of my companion books. I heard they released it (BECMI) again in a single volume?Now to get the alignment issue. Alignment is good. It promotes even wear on your tire
On another note, if alignment is removed from the game, I understand spells such as detect/protection from lawful/chaotic would go away, but detect good and evil should not be affected.
How would that work when they have nothing to sense? Or would they operate on the caster's completely subjective definitions of good and evil or something dumb like that?
How would that work when they have nothing to sense? Or would they operate on the caster's completely subjective definitions of good and evil or something dumb like that?
I'm personally loving watching people go back and forth about how alignment is good/neutral/terrible, how it should be kept/removed/made optional, etc, and quoting stuff like the Paladin to support their arguments.
Especially when we get right down to it the problem isn't with Alignment, its with pidgeonholed class design.
People will hold up the Paladin, the Barbarian, and the Bard and say "I want to play this class but as a different alignment!" to prove that alignment is broken and bad, but you don't see them holding up the Fighter as "I want to play a cultured Samurai, but this class doesn't give me enough skill points!" as proof that skillpoints are broken. Or hold up the wizard and say "I want to be an unstoppable juggernaught of magical destruction, but the d4 wizard is too easy to kill!" as proof that hitpoints are bad things.
Bottom line is that the problem exists not with the alignment system but with using narrowly defined stereotypes as being the basis for a class.
Look at the Rogue, its a very broad concept. It can be a catburgler, a mob thug, or an expert dungeoneer, all because the class itself was not specifically built to be one or the other. The paladin was built to be a highly specific thing, like a catburlger. The Barbarian was built to be a highly specific thing. The Bard was built to be a highly specific thing.
If you don't like the restrictions placed on these highly specific class concepts, then by all means remove them. But don't sit around complaining about how the pieces are broken when each piece works perfectly well when what you don't like is a specific example of how that piece is used as part of something else.
It isn't alignment's fault that a warrior that can heal people is restrictive in what it can do, its the fault of the class designer who wanted to emulate the upstanding beacon of light and hope at the expense of any other interpretation.
Broad class design = good, narrow class design = bad.
I'm personally loving watching people go back and forth about how alignment is good/neutral/terrible, how it should be kept/removed/made optional, etc, and quoting stuff like the Paladin to support their arguments.Especially when we get right down to
On another note, if alignment is removed from the game, I understand spells such as detect/protection from lawful/chaotic would go away, but detect good and evil should not be affected.
How would that work when they have nothing to sense? Or would they operate on the caster's completely subjective definitions of good and evil or something dumb like that?
It simply remains the "Detect Plot Advancement" it always has been.
How would that work when they have nothing to sense? Or would they operate on the caster's completely subjective definitions of good and evil or something dumb like that?[/quote]It simply remains the "Detect Plot Advancement" it always has been.
I'm personally loving watching people go back and forth about how alignment is good/neutral/terrible, how it should be kept/removed/made optional, etc, and quoting stuff like the Paladin to support their arguments.
Actually a lot of people hold up the total subjectivity of alignment as a reason why it should be shot in the head.
Actually a lot of people hold up the total subjectivity of alignment as a reason why it should be shot in the head.
Choosing the less bad option could be subjetive some times, but the true ethic isn´t it. If morality was subjetive all, everything, could be allowed. Making serious injustices voluntarity without migitating circustamnces like menaces is being evil. Why can´t I kill my wife is she is a adulterous to clean my honor? Why must I try avoid collateral damages? Why can´t I be a slave trader?
Any times we don´t know a character is good with neutral tendencies or neutral with good tendencies but morality isn´t subjetive.
If anybody doesn´t find the difference anytime, he could need psychological examination.
Choosing the less bad option could be subjetive some times, but the true ethic isn´t it. If morality was subjetive all, everything, could be allowed. Making serious injustices voluntarity without migitating circustamnces like menaces is being e
Actually a lot of people hold up the total subjectivity of alignment as a reason why it should be shot in the head.
I was definitely in this camp in the past, and depending on how good and evil are being defined I still am. I've run through examples with people in the past that get them flopping back and forth on whether a single action was good or evil, just by illustrating it further one point at a time. Hence why I only come down to good is altruism and evil is selfishness, as it's the only definitions that make sense from multiple (opposing) points of view.
Choosing the less bad option could be subjetive some times, but the true ethic isn´t it. If morality was subjetive all, everything, could be allowed. Making serious injustices voluntarity without migitating circustamnces like menaces is being evil. Why can´t I kill my wife is she is a adulterous to clean my honor? Why must I try avoid collateral damages? Why can´t I be a slave trader?
Any times we don´t know a character is good with neutral tendencies or neutral with good tendencies but morality isn´t subjetive.
If anybody doesn´t find the difference anytime, he could need psychological examination.
True ethics? Please, master guru, enlighten me on how entirely subjective viewpoints and values can be specific and universal, and surpassing both culture and religion.
*rolls eyes*
Seriously, every example you gave there has had people upholding them, even to this day, as the "only morally correct" option. I don't mean on a personal ethics level either, but the moral outlook of the societies to which they belong and were brought up in. Even the briefest glance at the different codified philosophies (even excluding those set forth in religion) shows incredibly disparate outlooks that strongly clash over what they consider the morally correct decision for any circumstance is.
Now throw in multiple gods that are at odds with each other on top of it all, as well as radically different innate behaviours for species/races, and morality becomes so gummed up that you'll only be able to quantify any of it in very broad, easily applicable terms. What's good for the fox isn't good for the hare, after all.
I was definitely in this camp in the past, and depending on how good and evil are being defined I still am. I've run through examples with people in the past that get them flopping back and forth on whether a single action was good or evil, just by i
People will hold up the Paladin, the Barbarian, and the Bard and say "I want to play this class but as a different alignment!" to prove that alignment is broken and bad, but you don't see them holding up the Fighter as "I want to play a cultured Samurai, but this class doesn't give me enough skill points!" as proof that skillpoints are broken.
Actually that is an extremely common complaint about the fighter and has been mentioned in numerous threads, you just don't see it in alignment discussions because, well it has nothing to do with alignment.
Or hold up the wizard and say "I want to be an unstoppable juggernaught of magical destruction, but the d4 wizard is too easy to kill!" as proof that hitpoints are bad things.
Because in certain editions, once you get to high levels the wizard IS a nearly unstoppable juggernaught of destructions, hit points be damned.
If you don't like the restrictions placed on these highly specific class concepts, then by all means remove them. But don't sit around complaining about how the pieces are broken when each piece works perfectly well when what you don't like is a specific example of how that piece is used as part of something else.
Maybe some of us disagree that those pieces work perfectly well.
It isn't alignment's fault that a warrior that can heal people is restrictive in what it can do, its the fault of the class designer who wanted to emulate the upstanding beacon of light and hope at the expense of any other interpretation.
Yes, but getting rid of alignment forces the class designer to work the class differently. There are also many other examples of why alignment is bad that are repeatedly brought up that have nothing to do with class design. In fact, most arguments over why alignment sucks have more to do with the variance in interpretation by different individuals than in class design.
Broad class design = good, narrow class design = bad.
Agreed.
Actually that is an extremely common complaint about the fighter and has been mentioned in numerous threads, you just don't see it in alignment discussions because, well it has nothing to do with alignment.Because in certain editions, once you get to
Anytimes choosing the less bad option isn´t easy. Would you kill a tyrant if you know after a civil war could start? But values are absolutes. Nobody is a fanatic because we don´t accept relativism.
* Sometime ago I read a interesting anedote by Peter Kreeft. It was Spanish text and I haven´t found English languange versión, but I will try translate it for you:
Peter Kreefts tells a day, for one of his ethic classes, a student said the morality was subjetive and he like teacher he couldn´t impose him his values.
- OK, I going to put into practice your values, nor the mines. You say there aren´t absolutes values, and moral values are subjetives and relatives. The thing is my ideas are singular in a few points, from now I going to put into practice this: all female students are failed.
The student was surprised and he said it wasn´t just.
Peter Kreeft argued:
- What is being just for you? Because if Justice is only "my" value or "your" value then there isn´t common authority to both us. I can´t impose you my meaning of justice, and you can´t to me.
Thereby, only if there is a universal value named Justice, that prevails over us, you can appeal to it to judge injust I fail all female students. But absolute and objetive values wouldn´t exist, you only could say your subjetive values are different that me.
Nonetheless, you don´t say you don´t like it, but it is injust. I mean, you in the practice, really accept absolute values.
Anytimes choosing the less bad option isn´t easy. Would you kill a tyrant if you know after a civil war could start? But values are absolutes. Nobody is a fanatic because we don´t accept relativism.* Sometime ago I read a interesting aned
Anytimes choosing the less bad option isn´t easy. Would you kill a tyrant if you know after a civil war could start? But values are absolutes. Nobody is a fanatic because we don´t accept relativism.
* Sometime ago I read a interesting anedote by Peter Kreeft. It was Spanish text and I haven´t found English languange versión, but I will try translate it for you:
Peter Kreefts tells a day, for one of his ethic classes, a student said the morality was subjetive and he like teacher he couldn´t impose him his values.
- OK, I going to put into practice your values, nor the mines. You say there aren´t absolutes values, and moral values are subjetives and relatives. The thing is my ideas are singular in a few points, from now I going to put into practice this: all female students are failed.
The student was surprised and he said it wasn´t just.
Peter Kreeft argued:
- What is being just for you? Because if Justice is only "my" value or "your" value then there isn´t common authority to both us. I can´t impose you my meaning of justice, and you can´t to me.
Thereby, only if there is a universal value named Justice, that prevails over us, you can appeal to it to judge injust I fail all female students. But absolute and objetive values wouldn´t exist, you only could say your subjetive values are different that me.
Nonetheless, you don´t say you don´t like it, but it is injust. I mean, you in the practice, really accept absolute values.
And if the student instead of saying "It's not just" said: "I don't like it and I'm going to oppose you"?
And if the student instead of saying "It's not just" said: "I don't like it and I'm going to oppose you"?
Never mind. He showed himself up when he said it was injust. But if he had said he didn´t like it..what he could do? and why should he avoid, change or correct it?
If morality is subjetive human rights shouldn´t be respected. Why can´t I kill that unicorn, a peaceful sentient creature, to get its valuable spiraling horn and becoming rich? can´t I kidnap homeless children to sell them to vampire lords for their blood farms? Can´t I be a human organ trader if necromancers pay me much? why can´t I have got sex slave concubine if she is my booty? why can´t I start a forest fire if I want use wood to made funitures? why can´t I kill man if both love same woman? Why can´t I use human traffiking to get money fastly? why can´t I kill all na´vi tribe because they don´t let me mine unobtainium from their zone? Why can´t I kill all tusken raider tribe, women and children too, because I want take revenge? Why shoudn´t I can marry and go to bed with my nine-years-old new wife if the law of that country allow me? Why can´t medics kill sickest and oldest patients to save work and money? Why not using criminals or useless unprodutive vagrants to do human hunting like "Hard target" (John Woo and Van Damme´s movie), "the hunger games", (Schar... Arnold´s movie) "The running man", or "Surving the game", "Hostel" saga or "the most dangerous game".
Werewolfs: the Apocalypse. In the ancient times the werewolfs or garou went to human comunity to kill oldest, sickest or weakest ones. It was name the impergium. They didn´t think it was bad, only cleaning Gaia´s land. The ratkin (World of Darkness wererats) wish control human population by spreading deseases. They are living biological weapons. They are hostile to humanity, but they feels they are doing their sacred duty they were created by Gaia for. Malthusians is a terrorist group from videogame "hydrophobia". "Save the world, kill yourself" is their slogan. They think the world will be better if majority of humanity dissapear, the survivors wouldn´t suffer the effects of population explosion. Why can´t I say they are evil?
When Otoman sultan Mehmmed III got the throne, his ninteen broters and half-broter, (some ones were children), were executed to secure the power (a law created by Mehmmed II "the conqueror" to avoid an new civil war for succesion to throne). Do you think it wasn´t good? and who are you to judge it?
If ethic is relative, only the things could be detrimental for me or my interests would be considerar bad, but if I can´t be victim, and I not going to be punished by it, when I could a benefit by injust way, being honest would seen like being stupy. If I am wizardry&witchcraft academy headmaster, and my impunity was total, why couldn´t I sexually harass to hottest students? If ethic values aren´t universal and objetives, we only had got different interests. Some actions only would be bad for victim´s point of view, no for perpetrators.
If you are a citizen, you can think your politician shoud be honest (because their decisions affect your life), but if you were a corrupt post who thinks morality is relative and subjetive (a Nietzche´s übermensch who chooses his own code of conduct, because Jew-Christianism is morality for slaves), when you can get lots of easy money the honesty if for j*rk, d*rk people. Why should their feel guilty, it they are the elite of society and they can do all they want?
Now, who do you prefer, a dwarf (or a draconborn) with a great sense of honor and decendy, or a cynical drow (or tiefling) who make fun of puritanical family values? Who do you trust?
---
"We are the skrulls and we want conquer your planet, because it is our sacred duty. If you don´t surrender we will terminate you, pathetic earthlings.
HE LOVES YOU!!"
(You could think skrulls are bad because they want invade your land, but they can think they are doing the rigth one, we would be better if they rule us, we are so stupy we are going to destroy usself, we should thank them their colonialist intentions, because they are going to save us from ourself).
Or Dr Doom, one of the most famous supervillain he thinks world would be a better place if he rules it. Is he evil or he is beyond good and evil? Magneto has tried killing all the no-mutant human population. Isn´t it being evil?
John Krammer, main antagonist of the movie sanga "Saw" thinks he is helping people, or doing Justice, by a twisted way. Is he evil?
Never mind. He showed himself up when he said it was injust. But if he had said he didn´t like it..what he could do? and why should he avoid, change or correct it? If morality is subjetive human rights shouldn´t be respected. Why can&acut
There's a simple reason why not to do most of those actions: repercussions. Consequences of actions can quickly outweigh any benefit from said actions.
Real world humans, and in D&D most intelligent humanoids, are social creatures. We're completely reliant on being part of a group (which is a good part of why people fall for the bandwagon fallacy), and are at extreme disadvantage when having no one but ourselves to support us (in all manners, from obtaining food, shelter, and the like). Anything that severally harms the group will result in terrible repercussions, whether they're ostracised, banished, or killed. In fact, this can be seen with almost any social creature, such as the other great apes, wolves, elephants, and birds, so it makes perfect sense why other intelligent humanoids in D&D would follow along with the same behaviour.
From this we can easily see how altruistic behaviour, that puts the needs of others over the self, is greatly beneficial to the group and seen as good, and how anything that benefits the individual at the expense of others is bad for the group and is seen as evil. With this the question then becomes who is counted as part of the group? Just your party? Your tribe/village? Your kingdom? Your race? Intelligent creatures you regularly interact with? All intelligent creatures? All creatures?
If your allegiance is to your kingdom then enslaving, or even killing, others from another kingdom won't be considered evil. If your allegiance is broader than that then it would be considered evil. If the allegiance is only to your race then the band of adventurers slaughtering a tribe of orcs is perfectly fine, as is the dwarf hosting kobold pit fights. If one must look beyond one's own race, then both would be evil acts.
Expanding allegiance too far puts good characters into a conundrum, especially paladins who are held to an even stricter standard. Are they allowed to kill the invading orc tribe without their alignment changing, or must they rely only on diplomacy and non-lethal combat to stop them? If the latter, then why does the paladin have the smite ability?
Of course none of that touches on the morality of a city having a strictly enforced curfew, or banning most weapons or magic, drinking ages, age of consent, or allowance of duels, permissibility of revenge, burning forests (which some actually benefit from if done in a controlled manner), killing/poaching animals for trinkets (like slaying a dragon simply to make dragonhide armour), or all manner of other things which are fairly subjective and heavily influenced by culture.
There's a simple reason why not to do most of those actions: repercussions. Consequences of actions can quickly outweigh any benefit from said actions.Real world humans, and in D&D most intelligent humanoids, are social creatures. We're completely re
I'm personally loving watching people go back and forth about how alignment is good/neutral/terrible, how it should be kept/removed/made optional, etc, and quoting stuff like the Paladin to support their arguments.
Especially when we get right down to it the problem isn't with Alignment, its with pidgeonholed class design.
People will hold up the Paladin, the Barbarian, and the Bard and say "I want to play this class but as a different alignment!" to prove that alignment is broken and bad, but you don't see them holding up the Fighter as "I want to play a cultured Samurai, but this class doesn't give me enough skill points!" as proof that skillpoints are broken. Or hold up the wizard and say "I want to be an unstoppable juggernaught of magical destruction, but the d4 wizard is too easy to kill!" as proof that hitpoints are bad things.
Bottom line is that the problem exists not with the alignment system but with using narrowly defined stereotypes as being the basis for a class.
Look at the Rogue, its a very broad concept. It can be a catburgler, a mob thug, or an expert dungeoneer, all because the class itself was not specifically built to be one or the other. The paladin was built to be a highly specific thing, like a catburlger. The Barbarian was built to be a highly specific thing. The Bard was built to be a highly specific thing.
If you don't like the restrictions placed on these highly specific class concepts, then by all means remove them. But don't sit around complaining about how the pieces are broken when each piece works perfectly well when what you don't like is a specific example of how that piece is used as part of something else.
It isn't alignment's fault that a warrior that can heal people is restrictive in what it can do, its the fault of the class designer who wanted to emulate the upstanding beacon of light and hope at the expense of any other interpretation.
Broad class design = good, narrow class design = bad.
Once again Edy, +10 to everything you've said. This is a point I've been trying to make. The paladin, barbarian, and monk are designed, mechanically, to reflect specific fantasy archetypes, and hence the alignment restrictions. Does that mean that a "holy warrior" of a differenty alignment is an impossible character concept, or a chaotic monk? No, certainly not, but the classes, as they are designed, are meant to reflect a specific archetype, and the class features would need to be modified to reflect a wildly different concept that completely breaks from that archetype.
I'm personally loving watching people go back and forth about how alignment is good/neutral/terrible, how it should be kept/removed/made optional, etc, and quoting stuff like the Paladin to support their arguments.
Actually a lot of people hold up the total subjectivity of alignment as a reason why it should be shot in the head.
But alignment is not subjective. That's the point. Real-world morality and ethics are sunjective, yes. But D&D is FANTASY. And in the fantasy world of D&D, there are objective measures of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. This is expressly stated in the core rules. In the 3.5 PHB, for example, it explicitly states "In the D&D world, good and evil are not differing points of view, they are the forces that define the cosmos."
I use 3.5 as an example often, because it was the most recent edition to use alignment mechanics in a significant manner. 4e still had Good and Evil as very real forces, but the impact of them was less significant.
Choosing the less bad option could be subjetive some times, but the true ethic isn´t it. If morality was subjetive all, everything, could be allowed. Making serious injustices voluntarity without migitating circustamnces like menaces is being evil. Why can´t I kill my wife is she is a adulterous to clean my honor? Why must I try avoid collateral damages? Why can´t I be a slave trader?
Any times we don´t know a character is good with neutral tendencies or neutral with good tendencies but morality isn´t subjetive.
If anybody doesn´t find the difference anytime, he could need psychological examination.
Luis_Carlos, I understand you are pro-alignment, but you are doing more harm than good to the pro-alignment argument, and you are only fueloing the anti-alignment arguments by your blanket statements and strawma arguments. You are confusing Morality (Good/Evil) with Ethics (Law/Chaos). You are also mixing metaphors when you compare fantasy examples with real-world ones. The fact is that morality, in the real-world, is subjective. It is subjective based on cultural (sometimes secular, sometimes religious) byes, and individual values. However, regardless of the morality of killing an adulterous wife, it is still illegal in most societies. You can't kill your wife in America because it is ILLEGAL. Even if you come from a culture where such an act of retribution was allowed, you will still be processed by the law and go to prison for it.
Some cultures could likewise allow slavery, but not in others. If slavery is culturally allowed by your homeland, then you feel morally ok with engaging in it. But as soon as you engage in that activity in a country where it is illegal, you will be prosecuted for it. Do you see the difference? Society has laws based on the cultural norms of that society, and the citizens must abide by those laws, even if their personal moral code (which is subjective) differs.
Once again Edy, +10 to everything you've said. This is a point I've been trying to make. The paladin, barbarian, and monk are designed, mechanically, to reflect specific fantasy archetypes, and hence the alignment restrictions. Does that mean that
I'm personally loving watching people go back and forth about how alignment is good/neutral/terrible, how it should be kept/removed/made optional, etc, and quoting stuff like the Paladin to support their arguments.
Actually a lot of people hold up the total subjectivity of alignment as a reason why it should be shot in the head.
But alignment is not subjective. That's the point. Real-world morality and ethics are sunjective, yes. But D&D is FANTASY. And in the fantasy world of D&D, there are objective measures of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. This is expressly stated in the core rules. In the 3.5 PHB, for example, it explicitly states "In the D&D world, good and evil are not differing points of view, they are the forces that define the cosmos."
Wait, what?
Good (C) and Evil (TM) are totaly not subjective in D&D? So everyone always knows exactly what will ping him on the "Detect Evil" scale? I mean... wait, what... I... SENSE, THIS MAKES FRIDGE! *
Nothing else to say here, really.
* This is intended as shout-out because this makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever and counts among the most ridiculous things I've ever heared or read.
Actually a lot of people hold up the total subjectivity of alignment as a reason why it should be shot in the head.[/quote]But alignment is not subjective. That's the point. Real-world morality and ethics are sunjective, yes. But D&D is FANTASY.
Why can´t I kill that unicorn, a peaceful sentient creature, to get its valuable spiraling horn and becoming rich? can´t I kidnap homeless children to sell them to vampire lords for their blood farms? Can´t I be a human organ trader if necromancers pay me much? why can´t I have got sex slave concubine if she is my booty? why can´t I start a forest fire if I want use wood to made funitures? why can´t I kill man if both love same woman? Why can´t I use human traffiking to get money fastly? why can´t I kill all na´vi tribe because they don´t let me mine unobtainium from their zone? Why can´t I kill all tusken raider tribe, women and children too, because I want take revenge? Why shoudn´t I can marry and go to bed with my nine-years-old new wife if the law of that country allow me? Why can´t medics kill sickest and oldest patients to save work and money? Why not using criminals or useless unprodutive vagrants to do human hunting like "Hard target" (John Woo and Van Damme´s movie), "the hunger games", (Schar... Arnold´s movie) "The running man", or "Surving the game", "Hostel" saga or "the most dangerous game".
The answer to all of these is the same. "Because it isn't legal". In order to see this, ask yourself what would be the point of view of someone who does those things? What would be the values of someone who sells homeless children to vampires? Probably somone who does not feel shame or guilt at such an act. This is because they, personally, do not have the same morality as you or me. This is the argument of the anti-alignment crowd. They feel that because the moral values of an individual are subjective, that all morality is subjective.
Now, where they fail to see the point, is that, despite that individual's subjective moral values, in a fantasy world, their actions have objective moral weight. In the case of selling innocent orphans to vampires, that would be evil. FANTASY morality is objective. It is stated so in the D&D Rules As Written, and any statement to the contrary is WRONG. Objectively wrong, and it can be proven wrong by direct quotes from the RAW. The fact that individuals have different values is what makes them of different alignments. Alignment stems FROM outlooks, beliefs, and actions, not the other way around.
Werewolfs: the Apocalypse. In the ancient times the werewolfs or garou went to human comunity to kill oldest, sickest or weakest ones. It was name the impergium. They didn´t think it was bad, only cleaning Gaia´s land. The ratkin (World of Darkness wererats) wish control human population by spreading deseases. They are living biological weapons. They are hostile to humanity, but they feels they are doing their sacred duty they were created by Gaia for. Malthusians is a terrorist group from videogame "hydrophobia". "Save the world, kill yourself" is their slogan. They think the world will be better if majority of humanity dissapear, the survivors wouldn´t suffer the effects of population explosion. Why can´t I say they are evil?
Your example is flawed because you are using an example from a system that DOES NOT HAVE an objective Good/Evil system. In D&D, good and evil are objective, in WoD, they are not. That's one of the things that makes the world "dark", is that even the "heroes" sometimes have a darker side.
When Otoman sultan Mehmmed III got the throne, his ninteen broters and half-broter, (some ones were children), were executed to secure the power (a law created by Mehmmed II "the conqueror" to avoid an new civil war for succesion to throne). Do you think it wasn´t good? and who are you to judge it?
Now you are using a real-world example. This is flawed because in the real world, we have no objective scale by which to judge morality. But me, personally? I think the killing of his siblings is reprehensible, but that's because of my own cultural values (which is subjective). On the other hand, I can certainly see the wisdom in the law, because of the war that would be avoided. One of those examples of "the greater good" and all, but that's something that I personally believe to be a slippery slope.
If ethic is relative, only the things could be detrimental for me or my interests would be considerar bad, but if I can´t be victim, and I not going to be punished by it, when I could a benefit by injust way, being honest would seen like being stupy. If I am wizardry&witchcraft academy headmaster, and my impunity was total, why couldn´t I sexually harass to hottest students? If ethic values aren´t universal and objetives, we only had got different interests. Some actions only would be bad for victim´s point of view, no for perpetrators.
What you fail to see is that there really are people in the world who are like that. People who only consider the things that are detrimental to themselves bad. They have no empathy and no concern AT ALL for other human beings. We call them sociopaths. That has NO BEARING AT ALL on whether or not certain actions are subject to punishment from an outside force (the laws of the land). The laws are meant to impose objective order upon a society for the protection of all, they cannot be subject to the whims of individuals, or they do not protect everyone equally. But certain people really DO think that certain things are okay, even if they are illegal. That is the best example of why real-world morality is subjective.
If you are a citizen, you can think your politician shoud be honest (because their decisions affect your life), but if you were a corrupt post who thinks morality is relative and subjetive (a Nietzche´s übermensch who chooses his own code of conduct, because Jew-Christianism is morality for slaves), when you can get lots of easy money the honesty if for j*rk, d*rk people. Why should their feel guilty, it they are the elite of society and they can do all they want?
Regrettably, some politicians DO think they are above the law. As numerous scandals and lawsuits and trials have shown...they are not.
Now, who do you prefer, a dwarf (or a draconborn) with a great sense of honor and decendy, or a cynical drow (or tiefling) who make fun of puritanical family values? Who do you trust?
Ok, now you are back to a fantasy example, where morality is objective. As for who I trust? I placve my trust in individuals. One of my best friends is a cynical, snarky, sarcastic guy who often mocks orthodox traditions. But he's also extremely loyal to his friends. His subjective beliefs about old traditions have no bearing on his loyalty to me.
On the other hand, let's say I was doidn something illegal, but harmless to others, like the D&D equivalent of smoking pot. The tiefling or drow in your example wouldn't care, because he's my friend. But the dwarf or dragonborn in your example may well turn me in to the authorities, thinking that he's doing what's best for me.
"We are the skrulls and we want conquer your planet, because it is our sacred duty. If you don´t surrender we will terminate you, pathetic earthlings.
HE LOVES YOU!!"
(You could think skrulls are bad because they want invade your land, but they can think they are doing the rigth one, we would be better if they rule us, we are so stupy we are going to destroy usself, we should thank them their colonialist intentions, because they are going to save us from ourself).
Or Dr Doom, one of the most famous supervillain he thinks world would be a better place if he rules it. Is he evil or he is beyond good and evil? Magneto has tried killing all the no-mutant human population. Isn´t it being evil?
John Krammer, main antagonist of the movie sanga "Saw" thinks he is helping people, or doing Justice, by a twisted way. Is he evil?
You just cited examples of subjective morality. Just because YOUR morality is different doesn't mean that your are right.
However, in the FANTASY world of D&D, there would be an objective moral standpoint by which those characters would be judged.
To judge each of the by objective D&D rules, I would say the Skrull empire is Lawful Neutral (as an organization, the alignment of individual skrulls may differ). Few functioning governments are evil as an organization, even if the leader is. Victor Von Doom and Magneto are both Lawful Evil. They seek to impose a disciplined order with themself at the top, and they are willing to kill any who get in their way. The guy in Saw...well, that's a little harder because the example of that movie is so close to the real world that we are tempted to impose our subjective real-world views. But using D&D morality, I'd say either Lawful or Neutral Evil. On the one hand, Evil, for his willingness to kill others and place people into deathtraps. Even though he feels that they deserve it, he is placing his own values and gratification over the legal system. Now Lawful, maybe, because of how organized and methodical he is. On the other hand, he encourages a completely selfish drive to survive in his "victims" who survive, and he himself, forces someone to perform the surgery on him to save his own life. He started on the path of this because HE was dying, and was taking it out on others. This, to me screams Neutral Evil. But I suppose either LE or NE could be accurate. I haven't seen past the first few movies, so I will admit to lacking some information that could help me make a final call.
Luis_Carlos, the final point that I am trying to make to you is: Human morality (in the real world) IS subjective. You, yourself have given examples of that. Laws of a society are meant to be objective, which is why people go to prison for mudering theur wife, etc. even if they believe it was morally correct. Here's a prime example. A father learns that his young daughter has been raped by a neighbor. Due to a technicality, the legal system is not going to convict the man of the crime. The father feels morally outraged, and feels it his moral imperative to do something, to exact "justice", so he kills the man. The father then goes to prison for murder. This is an example of how morality is subjective (the father's outrage), but the law is not subjective (the father goes to prison for murder).
In the fantasy world of D&D, one can say an act is objectively good or evil, even if the individual believes otherwise. Their subjective point of view in relation to the objective moral forces of the fantasy world is what makes their alignment objectively quantifiable. However, the real world has no objective moral force like that. No objective judge that sits outside life with a grand moral scale. Some people believe there is, but that is theur subjective belief, and not everyone follows that. In the real world, people have different beliefs. Legal sytems in place try and impose some sense of order to keep society functioning, and attempt to protect everyone equally (at least in Western societies). Other societies have other values and laws, and who are we to judge them by our own values?
Once again, this is not an issue of subjective morality, but of what is and is not legal.The answer to all of these is the same. "Because it isn't legal". In order to see this, ask yourself what would be the point of view of someone who does those
I'm personally loving watching people go back and forth about how alignment is good/neutral/terrible, how it should be kept/removed/made optional, etc, and quoting stuff like the Paladin to support their arguments.
Actually a lot of people hold up the total subjectivity of alignment as a reason why it should be shot in the head.
But alignment is not subjective. That's the point. Real-world morality and ethics are sunjective, yes. But D&D is FANTASY. And in the fantasy world of D&D, there are objective measures of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. This is expressly stated in the core rules. In the 3.5 PHB, for example, it explicitly states "In the D&D world, good and evil are not differing points of view, they are the forces that define the cosmos."
Wait, what?
Good (C) and Evil (TM) are totaly not subjective in D&D? So everyone always knows exactly what will ping him on the "Detect Evil" scale? I mean... wait, what... I... SENSE, THIS MAKES FRIDGE! *
Nothing else to say here, really.
* This is intended as shout-out because this makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever and counts among the most ridiculous things I've ever heared or read.
Individuals, even in a D&D world, may have their own beliefs and values, but there remains an objective moral value to those actions. Creation of undead, for example, is objectively evil in D&D. Killing of innocents, consorting with fiends, all of these have objective moral weight in D&D.
The fact that people HAVE alignments and they can be detected (all assuming pre-4e core D&D RAW, of course) proves this. Everyday people may not always be aware of what will "ping" them on the Detect Evil scale, but the scale still exists, and it is objectively quantifiable. So, yes, it DOES make sense.
You seem to be unable to divorce in your mind what is FANTASY. D&D is FANTASY. You can accept that in this FANTASY world the existence of gods, magic, and creatures that are wildly different from the real world, but you cannot accept another difference because it's not like the real world? To me, this..."sense, this makes fridge" to paraphrase your own words.
Real world morality is subjective, I do not contest this. And even in D&D, people have individual values that are subjective. But 3.5 and previous editions have objective morality. Don't believe me? Read Chapter 6 of the 3.5e PHB. RAW expressly supports what I am saying, and thus your statements to the contrary are objectively wrong.
If you like to run a game where morality is subjective, that's fine. That's your perogative. And if your players prefer that, then good on you. But it is a deviation from core rules, and I refuse to even attempt to account for every possible permutation of houserules that pervade D&D. In order to make cohesive arguments about the rules, only the rules-as-written should be taken into account. And by RAW, good and evil are objective forces in the D&D world.
To help you understand where I am coming from, let me bring up another 3.5 rule in RAW: Favored classes and multiclassing. A lot of DMs, myself included, ignored the XP penalties associated with having multiclass levels too far apart except for one's favored class. That has no bearing on the fact that certain races DID, in fact, have favored classes, and that, by RAW, a dwarf whose non-fighter levels are more that 1 level apart gets an XP penalty. For a RAW, it matters NOT AT ALL how many people deviated from the ruling on this, it was FACT. If we were having a discussion about that, only RAW points would be valid. It would be objectively false to say that a Dwarf Rogue 1/Wizard 4 did not suffer an XP penalty.
Do you see what I am saying? By RAW, Good and Evil were objective and measureable in D&D. This is stated as fact in the RAW, so any statement to the contrary is objectively false. Regardless of your beliefs, this fact of previous editions remains true.
Actually a lot of people hold up the total subjectivity of alignment as a reason why it should be shot in the head.[/quote]But alignment is not subjective. That's the point. Real-world morality and ethics are sunjective, yes. But D&D is FANTASY.
Alginment is theoretically objective in the pre-4e D&D universes. But in a practical sense, it is based on the DM's subjective interpretation of alignment rules. And as long as human DMs are charged with interpreting the rules (and I believe they always will be), then alignment in D&D is fundamentally subjective.
But I'm really not sure what Chiba_Monkey's objective is to point this out. Is he saying that alignment shoudl be restored to its 4e state simply for legacy's sake.
Also, I would point out that alignment was not intended to reflect any classic trope. Arnseon invented alignment as a kludge to prevent a thief (the first person playing the class he had just invented) from stealing from the other party members when they were unconscious or sleeping. Rather than simply ask them not to be asshats to one another, Arneson wrote "GOOD" on top of the sheet and told them there would be mechanical consequences if they tried intra-party shenanigans.
Gygax saw these mechanics and decided he liked them because he was trying to instill objective morality into his nascent Greyhawk campaign world, because he was a fan of Michael Moorcock's Elric series, and of Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, which had law-chaos and good-evil rivalries, respectively. (Technically, he was trying to critique the trope, because his persona avatar -- Mordenkainen -- was studiously neutral in an effort to show that extremism of any sort was bad.)
Gygax was not trying to replicate any classic morality tropes. he was trying to invent a whole new thing for his personal setting. However, that setting -- Greyhawk -- then became the default setting for the game throughout 1st edition, when he included it -- and the Great Wheel that it spawned -- as the default cosmology in the AD&D rulebooks.
For 30 years, from 1978 to 2008, this cosmology became its own beast. It didn't replicate any classic fantasy trope. It wasn't supposed to. instead it created itself as a trope through historical inertia. Now people look back and force alignment into their memories of classic games. But the Peers of Charlemagne never had any ability to Detect Evil at will (and, in fact, were utterly unable to detect evil traitors in their midst). King Arthur and Lancelot could not detect Mordred's evil. The Lord of the Rings had no alignment mechanics, even though it had clear villains and heroes. Alignment is not a feature of most fantasy that is not itself based on D&D.
There is no fantasy trope of alignment-restricted classes. Moorcock, who invented the law-chaos axis, certainly never had a bard (much less one who lost his powers upon becoming non-lawful) or a monk (much less one who lost his powers upon becoming chaotic).
In essence, D&D created itself a trope. A very controversial trope. Some people love it and cannot imagine playing heroic fantasy without it. Others chafe under its restrictions and cannot stand it.
The solution, however, is simple. in the spirit of modularity...
Alignment Entries Are Opt-Outable
Alignment Mechanics Are Opt-Innable
That's it. Every sentient creature is assigned an alignment. However, that alignment serves as nothing more than a narrative guideline, unless the gaming group opts to use the alignment mechanics provided it. Simple. Elegant. Everybody wins.
So it doesn't matter is alignment makes no sense to you as long as you can ignore it. And it doesn't matter that you think alignment is elegant and easy to apply and could never conceivably cause anybody a moment's consternation, because there it is, ready for you to plug into your game.
You're all welcome.
Alginment is theoretically objective in the pre-4e D&D universes. But in a practical sense, it is based on the DM's subjective interpretation of alignment rules. And as long as human DMs are charged with interpreting the rules (and I believe they a
I second banishing alignments to another galaxy. I could of course have house-ruled them out, but players are so used to them.
I find mechanics playing up to alignment to be very frustrating. They should not limit class choices and they should not set in stone someone's position on a good/evil axis. What the characters do should determine their alignment, not some kind of hardcoding chosen at creation. Alignment is more fluid than that, it can change and be influenced.
The way things have been before, alignment has also complicated DM'ing for me. If you have a paladin in your party, you will constantly know who is good and "bad", and If I as a DM want to hide an alignment, I need to keep giving the party lame, fudged excuses why my villains are escaping magical notice. A good act should be plenty enough - a party should never be 100% sure what kind of true alignment the people they meet have.
I hope that the alignment axis keeps its dirty snout out of class abilities as well as spells and magical items. If it has to be there, let it be there for nostalgia.
I second banishing alignments to another galaxy. I could of course have house-ruled them out, but players are so used to them.I find mechanics playing up to alignment to be very frustrating. They should not limit class choices and they should not set
Alginment is theoretically objective in the pre-4e D&D universes. But in a practical sense, it is based on the DM's subjective interpretation of alignment rules. And as long as human DMs are charged with interpreting the rules (and I believe they always will be), then alignment in D&D is fundamentally subjective.
The failure of some DMs to step outside their own prejudices to make a judgement call has no bearing on the objectivity of alignment itself. Alignment is objective in the cosmic sense of the D&D world. As a DM, one's job is to fairly and objectively judge the rules when conflict of some kind arises. While it is human nature to judge by our own experiences, I, as a DM, consider it a part of my job to try and step outside that when the call to do so arises. My own, rather conservative upbringing (Irish Catholic) is sometimes at odds with that, and I do my very best to be as objective as possible.
But I'm really not sure what Chiba_Monkey's objective is to point this out. Is he saying that alignment shoudl be restored to its 4e state simply for legacy's sake.
Negative. I bring it up because people here on the forums consistently misrepresent alignment in past editions, and then turn around and cite that as a problem with how past editions handled alignment. I point this out, because if they understand what the RAW really were, they can make real progress in trying to make input for the new edition. No matter how consise their arguments against alignment are, if founded on false assumptions, their conclusions cannot be accepted as true. If you build a house on a crooked foundation, no matter how well-constructed the house is, it will be crooked, too.
As far as 4e, I both liked and disliked it. The introduction of Unaligned simplified many things. Also, in theory, it made Good, LG, Evil, and CE mean more, as someone was truly devoted to, or an embodiment of, said alignment. But in practice, it made good and evil mean less. My personal preference is for a fantasy world in which there are true forces of Good and Evil, and their agents, abroad in the world.
Given that alignment (and mechanics) will be in the next edition, I would like a return to 3.5e style (I emphasize 3.5 over other pre-4th editions, because in 2e, for example, CN and TN made little sense for adventurers), but perhaps with more clarification of what alignment is and isn't, since there seems to be a lot of confusion. Alignment is not meant to be a straightjacket that dictates what your character can do. You come up with your character's personality, and alignment stems FROM that, not the other way around.
Also, I would point out that alignment was not intended to reflect any classic trope. Arnseon invented alignment as a kludge to prevent a thief (the first person playing the class he had just invented) from stealing from the other party members when they were unconscious or sleeping. Rather than simply ask them not to be asshats to one another, Arneson wrote "GOOD" on top of the sheet and told them there would be mechanical consequences if they tried intra-party shenanigans.
Gygax saw these mechanics and decided he liked them because he was trying to instill objective morality into his nascent Greyhawk campaign world, because he was a fan of Michael Moorcock's Elric series, and of Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, which had law-chaos and good-evil rivalries, respectively. (Technically, he was trying to critique the trope, because his persona avatar -- Mordenkainen -- was studiously neutral in an effort to show that extremism of any sort was bad.)
Gygax was not trying to replicate any classic morality tropes. he was trying to invent a whole new thing for his personal setting. However, that setting -- Greyhawk -- then became the default setting for the game throughout 1st edition, when he included it -- and the Great Wheel that it spawned -- as the default cosmology in the AD&D rulebooks.
For 30 years, from 1978 to 2008, this cosmology became its own beast. It didn't replicate any classic fantasy trope. It wasn't supposed to. instead it created itself as a trope through historical inertia. Now people look back and force alignment into their memories of classic games. But the Peers of Charlemagne never had any ability to Detect Evil at will (and, in fact, were utterly unable to detect evil traitors in their midst). King Arthur and Lancelot could not detect Mordred's evil. The Lord of the Rings had no alignment mechanics, even though it had clear villains and heroes. Alignment is not a feature of most fantasy that is not itself based on D&D.
There is no fantasy trope of alignment-restricted classes. Moorcock, who invented the law-chaos axis, certainly never had a bard (much less one who lost his powers upon becoming non-lawful) or a monk (much less one who lost his powers upon becoming chaotic).
Ok, but you are contradicting yourself here, given that you acknowledge the objectivity of alignments within the D&D world. A Lawful person is, in some way, disciplined. People who are truly Lawful in alignment are Lawful because of their adherence to some code, be it a worldly code, orotherwise. The fantasy archetype that the 3e monk reflects is that of the wuxia-style martial artist who trained diligently and adhers to his personal code in order to unlock his own potential. Thus, monks of 3.x (as representatives of said fantasy archetype) were restricted to Lawful alignments. Barbarians, likewise. Rage, to the 3e developers, required a sort of "letting go" that just wasn't compatible with someone who was truly lawful. It's not merely being angry, that doesn't say that lawful people can't be angry, or even have short tempers, but a barbarian's rage was going truly BERSERK, and that required the barbarian (from the dev's point of view) to surrender his self-control, something incompatible with lawful-aligned people. Keep in mind, both of these are because alignment comes FROM personality and outlook. And those classes are what was restrictive, not alignment. And they were only restrictive in an attempt to imitate SPECIFIC archetypes. Now, as for the bard...I agree that the bard's abhorence of Lawfulness was inane. I can easily come up with a Lawful Bard. Spoiler:Show
Trevell is brilliant and talented. He has recieved one of the finest educations in the land, to include musical training. His education finished, he has begun his life's work: to uncover the secrets of the Echoes of Creation. He has learned some, and when he plays them perfectly, his music can produce magical effects to aid, inspire, facinate, and even charm. In his studies, he has also learned some arcane spellcasting, which has helped him in learning more about the power of the music he desires to know more about. Every morning (environment permitting), he practices with his violin. The slow, measured pace of his music sooths him. To him, music is most beautiful when it is structured, ordered, and perfect. He sees the Music of Creation the same way. The way the world was created was with purpose. To him, when he learns the songs, he will uncover that purpose, like seeing the blueprint for a structure, he will be able to see past the visible shell of reality, to the purpose that the creators had. it will be like communion with those ancient and powerful forces. Trevell is a Bard 10/Seeker of the Song 2, and he is Lawful Neutral.
That was not so hard at all. BAM! Done. And I pulled that out at the drop of a hat.
In essence, D&D created itself a trope. A very controversial trope. Some people love it and cannot imagine playing heroic fantasy without it. Others chafe under its restrictions and cannot stand it.
The solution, however, is simple. in the spirit of modularity...
Alignment Entries Are Opt-Outable
Alignment Mechanics Are Opt-Innable
That's it. Every sentient creature is assigned an alignment. However, that alignment serves as nothing more than a narrative guideline, unless the gaming group opts to use the alignment mechanics provided it. Simple. Elegant. Everybody wins.
I certainly agree. But the devs HAVE said that both are Opt-outable, but in as a default. But I certainly agree with them explicitly offering an out for people who don't want to use it. I have never avocated forcing people to use alignment.
I second banishing alignments to another galaxy. I could of course have house-ruled them out, but players are so used to them.
I find mechanics playing up to alignment to be very frustrating. They should not limit class choices and they should not set in stone someone's position on a good/evil axis. What the characters do should determine their alignment, not some kind of hardcoding chosen at creation. Alignment is more fluid than that, it can change and be influenced.
That's been the case in previous editions as well. If you like, I can cite page numbers in the 3.5e DMG about how a charater's alignment is a reflection of their outlook and actions and how they can change over time.
The way things have been before, alignment has also complicated DM'ing for me. If you have a paladin in your party, you will constantly know who is good and "bad", and If I as a DM want to hide an alignment, I need to keep giving the party lame, fudged excuses why my villains are escaping magical notice. A good act should be plenty enough - a party should never be 100% sure what kind of true alignment the people they meet have.
I hope that the alignment axis keeps its dirty snout out of class abilities as well as spells and magical items. If it has to be there, let it be there for nostalgia.
Well, and this may come as a shock to those who know me as an avid supporter of alignment, but I agree on the detect evil spell. It was the paladin's ability to do it at will that broke games. In 5e, they have discussed alignment mechanics (which should include detect evil) as applying only to supernatural evil. Which I like. The paladin detecting the evil guard captain was irritating for the DM. But the paladin being able to detect the "taint of evil" in the (now abandoned) lair of a demon cult, is flavorful and adds to the game.
The failure of some DMs to step outside their own prejudices to make a judgement call has no bearing on the objectivity of alignment itself. Alignment is objective in the cosmic sense of the D&D world. As a DM, one's job is to fairly and objectivel
There's a simple reason why not to do most of those actions: repercussions. Consequences of actions can quickly outweigh any benefit from said actions.
OK, we could agree it but the evil psychopath´s mind is different. Why not, if repercussions are bad for the rest of society but good for his interest? He doesn´t want the best for society, but best for himself. Only his behavior can be right by dissuasion by punishment, but if he has got the power, a high status, with a great impunity for his selfish actions, he knows he can do it and he will not punished... why being honest if morality is subjetive, relative? His mentality would justify moral integrity is a stupy idealism.
If ethic is subjetive and relative, morality can good only for the society the flock, but the wolfs have got a different point of view: Why being a dove when you can be a falcon? The rest of society can go to hell, the priority is own selfish interests.
And don´t forget lots of evil people are psichologically inmature, without sense of responsabilty, they don´t think about true repercussions by his actions.
We can agree a society without rules, where most are like wolfs or falcons, is damned to destroy itself, but the psychopath thinks most of society are sheeps, doves, and he can take adventage of it. We aren´t talking about what is good or bad in the real, but about if ethic is relative, why a evil character (Real Life or fiction) should obey rules if he know he can avoid punishment.
We can agree altruism and solidarity is good, but drow warlock who hates Lolth clergy the rest of his f***ing matriarchal society isn´t important, it can go to the dogs, he only worry about himself.
* Some male animals (lions, bears and cats) kill babys by other males to mate their mothers when they were on heat again.
Once again, this is not an issue of subjective morality, but of what is and is not legal.
Morality and law are two differents things. In the ancient Rome slavering and gladiator circus was allowed, but Christianism was forbidden. Sometimes laws can be injust, like Southafrican apartheid.
Law without values (the citizen´s rights) become a tool of oppresion. In the second Spanish republic the Catholicism was totally forbbiden.
Rebember the lawful evil fiction distopias like "1984" or "V of Vendetta".
Law & order are only tools to try get the best possible society. Without values he have got nightmares like the Reign of Terror by French jacobins, Mao´s cultural revolution or Stalin´s checas (for great purge).
some politicians DO think they are above the law. As numerous scandals and lawsuits and trials have shown
What aligment is d20 characters with that behavior? Do rebember lots of DMs and fans use things from real world (History, news, sciencie).. to create their settins and campains.
illegal, but harmless to others
Are you really sure it is harmless? A theft could cause somebody lost job, or a business would ruin. Somebody lost lots of money (his son can´t go to university) and he stars to drink to forget. His alcoholism cuases a tragical accident.
* I´m afraid most of evil fiction characters would say that about "ethic is subjetive, there isn´t good or evil", and evil people from real world.
Anytimes in the real world choosing the best(/less bad) option isn´t easy but ethical values are universal and objetives. They can´t change only because anybody has got different ideas. If they weren´t, anything supposedly evil could be justified (for example torturing criminals or enemy soldiers to get information) Why can´t I help Tarkhsis´army to help Krynn? If it is good for me, the rest of Absolon can put up with it.
* Have you thought about it? if WotC soucerbooks would say morality is subjetive, you can imagining all parents & educator associations asking boycot to D&D products.
OK, we could agree it but the evil psychopath´s mind is different. Why not, if repercussions are bad for the rest of society but good for his interest? He doesn´t want the best for society, but best for himself. Only his behavior can be r
I could delve into a multi-thousand word post explaining more about ethics, morality, and outlooks on what good and evil are, but instead I think I shall link to a Wikipedia article that already does so, and does so much more succinctly than I could.
I also feel I should say something more on it. I want alignment to be accessible to people of different educational backgrounds and ethical knowledge. I don't want a simple alignment system that doesn't hold up to actual ethical inquiry (especially since that also means it could have aspects going against the DM's and players' personal ethics, which only causes strife and headaches), just like I don't want a complex alignment system that's inaccessible to minors.
I could delve into a multi-thousand word post explaining more about ethics, morality, and outlooks on what good and evil are, but instead I think I shall link to a Wikipedia article that already does so, and does so much more succinctly than I could.
*snip*A lot of stuff that shows he's not really willing to listen to anyone but himself *snip*
Seriously? I think you don't listen. You have shown through your own points that you understand that morality in the real world is subjective. And yet you still claim it is not. The fact that you say you understand that some people just don't value the lives of others, or consider the consequences and fallout of their actions is their moral outlook. You've already addressed how different cultures can have wildly different views on some actions as well.
Just because YOU judge all of them by YOUR moral code doesn't make you right. There is no objective right and wrong in the real world.
* Have you thought about it? if WotC soucerbooks would say morality is subjetive, you can imagining all parents & educator associations asking boycot to D&D products.
Have you ACTUALLY listened to what I've been saying? WotC wouldn't do that because IN D&D MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE. It has been said, over and over and over again. It's in the RAW that good and evil are objective in D&D. This only works because it's fantasy.
REAL WORLD morality is subjective. That's just a fact of the real world. Individual cultures and specific exceptions abound for just about every real world moral situation.
Take the killing of another human being, for example. Most cultures acknowledge this as wrong, But, what if an intruder in your house is attacking you and your family? He's already cut your spouse bad with a knife, and he/she needs a hospital, and he is now coming right at you. You shoot him, and with one shot, hit him in the head, killing him. Is that morally wrong? You were fighting for your life, and that of your family.
You see? There is no black and white morality in the real world.
Seriously? I think you don't listen.You have shown through your own points that you understand that morality in the real world is subjective. And yet you still claim it is not. The fact that you say you understand that some people just don't value
WotC wouldn't do that because IN D&D MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE. It has been said, over and over and over again. It's in the RAW that good and evil are objective in D&D. This only works because it's fantasy.
On a quick note, I totally agree with all the points you were making to Luis_Carlos.
However, I wanted to single this part out. You are right in that D&D morality is objective. However, while in the world the morality is objective, the world is defined by the DM, and the DM's opinion is subjective. In many cases there is no clear-cut line when someone crosses over into another alignment, and there really can't be because there are too many possible situations to cover with hard-coded rules. So you have something that is supposed to objective in the sense of the campaign, but the rules themselves are in many ways subjective. And since morality tends to be a hot topic (much like politics and religion, which is why they are banned topics for the forums), there is greater potential for dissent than if say the DM disallowed an improvised maneuver that was a little too outlandish.
On a quick note, I totally agree with all the points you were making to Luis_Carlos.However, I wanted to single this part out. You are right in that D&D morality is objective. However, while in the world the morality is objective, the world is define
Forgive me if I am very stubborn but I´m afraid the people who says ethic is subjetive are closest to fall to the dark side of theForce.
If morality can change only because somebody can have got a different point of view.. why not allowing any type of actions? For example a elf who hates drows, and he rape captured priestess drows to take revenge, or he attacks with lethal force a group of nomad haflings who only were too near his "forbidden" territory.
Please, the immense majority of people can know when a character is a true hero, a antiheroe or a sympathetic villain. D&D has got a great gray zone between good and evil, neutrality. Changing to opposite aligment involuntarily without previous warning isn´t easy. Good players can avoid it.
What part don´t you understand? If ethic is relative.. what is the next: the end justifies the means?
Arthas is a planescape faction that wants finish with all cults to deities. Let´s imagine a group of artha ardents (psionic classes with almost cleric powers) who wants eliminate a convent of healer spellcasters. They starts waves of rumours about using dead body to create flesh golems or cause sickness to get "customers". It´s lie but healers can´t avoid greater unfriendliness. And day the local duke ask them help, their son, the heir, is sick. Duke too is victim of the anticlerical urban legends. The heir has been poisoned with a special drug that is more toxic when there is magic near. The heir dies, and the duke with his predjudices choose call army and destroy the convent to take revenge.
The arthas ardents caused that situation, because they thought world would be better without deities cults. If morality is subjetive, why should they feel guilty?
Can a good character accepts the end justifies the means? Because morality is relative, isn´t it?
Forgive me if I am very stubborn but I´m afraid the people who says ethic is subjetive are closest to fall to the dark side of the Force.If morality can change only because somebody can have got a different point of view.. why not allowing any
If morality can change only because somebody can have got a different point of view.. why not allowing any type of actions? For example a elf who hates drows, and he rape captured priestess drows to take revenge, or he attacks with lethal force a group of nomad haflings who only were too near his "forbidden" territory.
Please, the immense majority of people can know when a character is a true hero, a antiheroe or a sympathetic villain. D&D has got a great gray zone between good and evil, neutrality. Changing to opposite aligment involuntarily without previous warning isn´t easy. Good players can avoid it.
The wrong DM or a misunderstanding of what the DM considers good and evil can screw that up pretty quickly. Also, what is a true hero? You say anyone can recognize one, but would a pacifist agree with your view? Maybe not, because their ethics don't match yours. I feel I could recognize most pop culture antiheroes, but you don't have to have an evil alignment to be an antihero or a sympathetic villain.
What part don´t you understand? If ethic is relative.. what is the next: the end justifies the means?
What part don't you understand? Real world ethics are not D&D alignment. Alignment is a cosmological force. Ethics are very much relative.
Ethics according to dictionary.com:
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
Arthas is a planescape faction that wants finish with all cults to deities. Let´s imagine a group of artha ardents (psionic classes with almost cleric powers) who wants eliminate a convent of healer spellcasters. They starts waves of rumours about using dead body to create flesh golems or cause sickness to get "customers". It´s lie but healers can´t avoid greater unfriendliness. And day the local duke ask them help, their son, the heir, is sick. Duke too is victim of the anticlerical urban legends. The heir has been poisoned with a special drug that is more toxic when there is magic near. The heir dies, and the duke with his predjudices choose call army and destroy the convent to take revenge.
The arthas ardents caused that situation, because they thought world would be better without deities cults. If morality is subjetive, why should they feel guilty?
Since in your example they were following their own beliefs, chances are
that they do not feel guilty. If they do feel guilty, then they either changed their ethical views or never fully subscribed to those ethics in the first place.
Can a good character accepts the end justifies the means? Because morality is relative, isn´t it?
Again, you are confusing alignment and morality/ethics. In the real world, there are people that believe that the end justifies the means. Many of these people view themselves as good and there are other people that also view them as good.
In the D&D world, a character who takes that view too far may find that his alignment is no longer Good.
You're confusing alignment and morality again. The wrong DM or a misunderstanding of what the DM considers good and evil can screw that up pretty quickly. Also, what is a true hero? You say anyone can recognize one, but would a pacifist agree with yo
The failure of some DMs to step outside their own prejudices to make a judgement call has no bearing on the objectivity of alignment itself.
Chiba, I didn't say otherwise. Do you actually read my posts? Because it seems like you are simply skimming them and writing the same thing you've been writing in this thread ad nauseum. If you aren't going to read my posts, please be courteous enough not to quote them while you regurgitate your talking points, okay? It is incredibly rude.
I do my very best to be as objective as possible.
The fact that you acknowledge the effort it takes shows you agree with my premise. While alignment is objective in-game, the out-of-game effort to enforce those rules means that people can come to different conclusions, and that makes it subjective, out-of-game. And that was my point, as opposed to whatever it was you thought you were responding to.
Ok, but you are contradicting yourself here, given that you acknowledge the objectivity of alignments within the D&D world.
The in-game objectivity had nothing to do with my second point about the history of alignment as a mechanic. It was said in this thread that alignment was intended to mimic classic fantasy tropes, so I supplied the history of alignment in D&D to show that such was never the intention.
It has nothing to do with whether it can make sense for monks to always be lawful for bards to never be lawful. Absolutely nothing. Again, it appears you merely skimmed my post, saw the word "bard" and assumed I was complaining about alignment-restrictions not making sense for those classes. But I didn't make such a point in the post to which you were responding. And yet you decided to quote me and spend several hundred words responding to a point I didn't make.
But the devs HAVE said that both are Opt-outable, but in as a default.
This is a horribly deceptive statement. The only alignment mechanics they said would be in the game are alignment mechanics tied to the most powerful extraplanar beings. They said nothing about the run-of-the-mill alignment mechanics that comprise most alignment discussions. If you're going to refer to the developers' statements, do so honestly and accurately, please. The way you phrased it makes it sound like all alignment mechanics from previous editions will an assumed part of the game from which you will have to opt-out, rather than an option provided for people who like them to opt-in. That is simply not anything the developers have written.
Here's the relevant quote: " we want alignment to be a tool, not a straightjacket, so the execution of those mechanics should serve that goal, and really only apply when dealing with the powerful, elemental forces of alignments, not someone who just behaves a certain way. Additionally, I believe we'll also want it to be easy for a DM to strip those mechanics out of his or her campaign, if the DM so chooses." -Link
So the only mechanics are those dealing with powerful elemental forces of alignments (like gods, demon lords, archfiends, etc.) and even those mechanics can be stripped out. That's a far cry from what your post indicates -- that the gamut of alignment mechanics of prior editions will be included on an assumptive basis and will have to be stripped by hand by DMs who don't want it.
Chiba, I didn't say otherwise. Do you actually read my posts? Because it seems like you are simply skimming them and writing the same thing you've been writing in this thread ad nauseum. If you aren't going to read my posts, please be courteous en
I suppose here we know reality and fiction are two different things. For example the famous actor Kirk Cameron played the character "Mike Seaver" in the TV family comedy "Growings Pains". The character was a "bad boy" but the actor in the real life is totally opposite (a blessed one).
But...
Usually the fiction shows its author´s ideas and mentality. Apart from that the work can influence the public or consumer. For example: we agree jedi philosophy from Star Wars universe is only fiction created by George Lucas but there ir a official jedi religion in the real world. (I´m sure it wasn´t intention by George Lucas).
The fantasy&sci-fi franchises (comics, rpg, novels, videogames) aren´t only stories about killing monsters, getting threasures and rescueing princess but they are a tool to coveying values and dreams to the next generation.
We are not talking about roleplaying a bad character like Snowhite´s stepmother or Bart Simpson playing pranks. I say if the idea of ethic values aren´t universal, and WotC soucerbooks would accept that moral retavism, some educators could advice againts D&D rpg.
"Ethic is subjetive", "there isn´t good o evil", "end justifies the means"... those are quotes that could be said by sociapaths from fiction or the real world. If morality is subjetive why not a yuan-ti empire could break peace treaty or truce, conquer my land, enslave my people and they wouldn´t lose their "lawful good" aligment"?
In the D&D worlds there is Heaven and Hell, the actions cause consequences. If morality is subjetive a yuan-ti could sacrifice hundres of humans, but his soul wouldn´t be punished by it after death, or githyanki´s spirit would be rewarded in the other life because he conquered lots of lands for glory of Vlaakith, the lich-queen.
Do you think you can say morality is relative, and there isn´t difference between good and evil? How are we going to teach next generations terrorism is bad? is it bad only when it can be detrimental to you?
The people with brain and good aligment accept the Natural Law, moral values like Justice are eternal and unchanging. Nothing is good or bad only because it depends on anybody´s opinion. If our code of behavior can change like fashion we could accept monstrosities like a society where worse students went to Battle Royal, a reality-show to kill themselfs (or the hunger games) or like "Logan´s Run" where people had to die when they were 30 years old. Why not can´t I kill that man because has commited thoughtcrime? The big brother would be proud of me. What if elves decides all human population in the zone must to be terminated or to save ecosystem? Why can´t we expel people who pray certain religion? Why can´t I kill cops if I were a anarchist, a anti-system a figther for liberty (or a terrorist).
But if we accept whe shouldn´t pass any lines of behavior we are accepting there are universal values that can´t be changed by caprice or conveniencie.
The D&D fiction shouldn´t promotes ethic relativism, but it warns us about it.
And now excuse me, I must go because a sending of slave centaurides is on the point to arrives and I must pick it up and try some "samples".
I suppose here we know reality and fiction are two different things. For example the famous actor Kirk Cameron played the character "Mike Seaver" in the TV family comedy "Growings Pains". The character was a "bad boy" but the actor in the real life i
I often try reading your posts, but after a maximum of half the posting I give up. They're written so inconsistently and jumpy, and make little sense to me... at least use a spellchecker?
I often try reading your posts, but after a maximum of half the posting I give up. They're written so inconsistently and jumpy, and make little sense to me... at least use a spellchecker?
I say in the real world the evil people are the first ones to say ethic is relative, and the fiction should teach us, warn us, it isn´t the truth becase a injustice doesn´t become good only because it can be justified by demagogic sophisms.
Anytimes finding the right election isn´t easy, there are gray zones without right good choice but less bad, but it can not the reason to say the morality is subjetive.
Be careful people who says morality is relative, you shouldn´t trust them too much, because folks with ideas could later justify for example the terrorism or betrayal. Could be good a society where the slavery of centaurs and giant-race prisoners of war would be allowed? Because they could say it is only bad for your point of view, but their opinion is different, who are you to judge them and say it isn´t good?
I say in the real world the evil people are the first ones to say ethic is relative, and the fiction should teach us, warn us, it isn´t the truth becase a injustice doesn´t become good only because it can be justified by demagogic sophism
Usually the fiction shows its author´s ideas and mentality. Apart from that the work can influence the public or consumer. For example: we agree jedi philosophy from Star Wars universe is only fiction created by George Lucas but there ir a official jedi religion in the real world. (I´m sure it wasn´t intention by George Lucas).
Ok...but we're talking about a game. Stories conveying messages really has nothing at all to do with alignment.
The fantasy&sci-fi franchises (comics, rpg, novels, videogames) aren´t only stories about killing monsters, getting threasures and rescueing princess but they are a tool to coveying values and dreams to the next generation.
Ok...this has absolutely nothing to do with alignment.
We are not talking about roleplaying a bad character like Snowhite´s stepmother or Bart Simpson playing pranks. I say if the idea of ethic values aren´t universal, and WotC soucerbooks would accept that moral retavism, some educators could advice againts D&D rpg.
What are you on? Seriously, some people like D&D and some people hate it. Guess what? The people that hate it tend to be fanatics that hate the presence of gods and magic no matter what morality the system tries to impose. It has nothing to do with alignment or moral relativism. In fact, I've seen alignment used by people arguing against D&D because they took the descriptions of evil alignments and pointed out the fact that you are allowed to play evil characters. So that entire argument is moot. Of course, I wouldn't call any of these people "educators". Besides, why do I care what some random person says about D&D and morality? If I listened to these people I wouldn't have any fun at all.
"Ethic is subjetive", "there isn´t good o evil", "end justifies the means"... those are quotes that could be said by sociapaths from fiction or the real world.
There you go mixing up ethics and alignment again. Let me break it down for you, ethics ARE subjective, that's why different people and cultures and religions and nations all have their own individual sets of ethics and values. There isn't any good and evil, only what individuals define as good and evil, which is subjective. All of those quotes are used from a lot more people than sociopaths. The end justifying the means has been used throughout history.
NONE of that has anything to do with ALIGNMENT. Alignment is a game mechanic. Alignment also does not prevent any of what you described. I can still play a character who believes that the end justifies the means. I can play someone that just wants to watch the world burn. Your arguments are meaningless and quite honestly are barely coherent.
If morality is subjetive why not a yuan-ti empire could break peace treaty or truce, conquer my land, enslave my people and they wouldn´t lose their "lawful good" aligment"?
Stop confusing morality and alignment. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME! Also, your example is pointless. Who cares what alignment the yuan-ti empire is? Alignment was created as a straightjacket for the characters because Dave Arneson couldn't find a better option to keep players from being asshats. It exists for the PCs not the monsters. Sure monsters have alignment, but only as a shorthand for the DM to gauge interactions and for interaction with spells/effects from the PCs.
In the D&D worlds there is Heaven and Hell, the actions cause consequences. If morality is subjetive a yuan-ti could sacrifice hundres of humans, but his soul wouldn´t be punished by it after death, or githyanki´s spirit would be rewarded in the other life because he conquered lots of lands for glory of Vlaakith, the lich-queen.
Alignment, alignment, alignment. These are alignment issues. Do not bring real world morality into this.
Also, in the D&D world there are gods that have domains. Souls of worshippers belong to those gods. So your example still falls flat because in the D&D world there are people that sacrifice hundreds of innocents and are rewarded in the afterlife.
Do you think you can say morality is relative, and there isn´t difference between good and evil? How are we going to teach next generations terrorism is bad? is it bad only when it can be detrimental to you?
Listen, if you keep trying to discuss real world morality and ethics I'm going have to start reporting your posts, because you are straying into some definitely CoC-violating territory. All I will say is that if morality wasn't relative, there wouldn't be people that think terrorism is ok, but to go into further detail on this gets into real-world politics and religion, both of which are a great way to get a temp ban from the forums, so seriously, let's drop that and stick to the game mechanics of alignment.
The people with brain and good aligment accept the Natural Law, moral values like Justice are eternal and unchanging. Nothing is good or bad only because it depends on anybody´s opinion. If our code of behavior can change like fashion we could accept monstrosities like a society where worse students went to Battle Royal, a reality-show to kill themselfs (or the hunger games) or like "Logan´s Run" where people had to die when they were 30 years old. Why not can´t I kill that man because has commited thoughtcrime? The big brother would be proud of me. What if elves decides all human population in the zone must to be terminated or to save ecosystem? Why can´t we expel people who pray certain religion? Why can´t I kill cops if I were a anarchist, a anti-system a figther for liberty (or a terrorist).
People with good alignment exist only in the context of the game, and therefore can embrace eternal values like justice because only in the game can that be an eternal and unchanging value.
However, alignment doesn't prevent anything you described. Dropping the effects of alignment in 4e didn't mean that the world suddenly collapsed into anarchy. Campaign worlds went on as usual. NPCs, monsters, and nations are controlled by the DM. Alignment was meant to control players. And honestly there are better ways to deal with players.
But if we accept whe shouldn´t pass any lines of behavior we are accepting there are universal values that can´t be changed by caprice or conveniencie.
No, that statement is so very wrong. Everyone has a line. Everyone has something that they feel they shouldn't do. However, that line varies from person to person. The fact that people have ethics is universal. The ethics themselves are not. Again, we could go into specific ethical codes and reasons people feel the way they do, but that would bring the ORC-hammer down on this thread.
The D&D fiction shouldn´t promotes ethic relativism, but it warns us about it.
This discussion has NOTHING to do with promoting ethical relativism. Not having alignment has a hammer to bring down on players isn't promoting anything.
I seriously think you are missing the entire point of this discussion. Alignment isn't relative. We all know this because alignment is a game mechanic that is defined in the rulebooks. However, it is defined very poorly. That leaves a lot of room for DM interpretation as to what alignment an action falls under, and exactly when the player has crossed the line to change alignment.
This interpretation requires subjective opinions from the DM on what is or isn't good, evil, lawful, chaotic, etc. So the problem we keep pointing out, which you keep missing, is that alignment is an OBJECTIVE mechanic that is enforced based on the DM's SUBJECTIVE personal views.
You can keep bringing up real world crap that has nothing to do with this topic all day long, but you're basically having an argument with yourself because I don't think anyone else here is talking about the same thing.
Ok...but we're talking about a game. Stories conveying messages really has nothing at all to do with alignment.Ok...this has absolutely nothing to do with alignment.What are you on? Seriously, some people like D&D and some people hate it. Guess what?
Luis_Carlos, none of us are advocating moral relativism, simply pointing out that a lot of ethical dilemmas happen to be purely subjective with multiple "right" answers, based in a person's personal ethos and that of their culture. This includes things like state of dress (must they be modest, or is nakedness seen as virtuous?), drinking age or permissibility, how you greet someone, politeness levels (such as in Japan versus the US), fealty to king, country, or deity, , or even what meat is allowable to eat (cattle, deer, dogs, guinea pigs, horses, etc).
I can also tell you've not even glanced at the article I linked earlier, so obviously I must make my arguments here directly. You keep insisting that good and evil are purely objective, while completely ignoring all arguments (and articles) to the contrary. I also notice you are pushing the naturalistic fallacy, which is called a fallacy for very good reasons, and demonstrates that you really don't know much of anything on ethics. What most of us have been pointing out, apparently not in as direct and simple a manner as you need, is that there are many schools of thought and points of view on ethics and morality which greatly conflict with one another, and from which there is no objective measure to know which is correct. There's stoicism, epicureanism, hedonism, cyrenaic hedonism, consequentialism, utilitarianism, state consequentialism, deontology, pragmatic ethics, postmodern ethics, and business ethics, just to give a quick list.
The whole point of ethics and alignment, is to answer these basic questions: What is Good? What is Evil? Why are these so? How is it applied?
After all, there is no divine arbiter or greater cosmic being we can ask for clarification. Billions of people say they have, but they've given billions of different answers which all contradict each other (to differing degrees). Thus, with no widespread agreement on what the "most accurate" or "best" form of ethics are we have a broad spectrum of things that are truly subjective, but we can see there are a great many acts and stances that are very widespread and nearly universal (such as don't murder, don't steal, don't rape). This is why for a fantasy world where morality is objective it must be clearly put forth on what is good, evil, lawful, and chaotic (since those are the alignment axis), but in such a way as to conflict as little as possible with the ethics held near and dear to those who play the game.
Oh, and here, have one of my favourite quotes: "A noble cause is a great vehicle for corruption because nobody wants to look and nobody is going to look" ~Lt. Ariana Klay
Ah yes, and something else that's been bothering me, and seems to be closely tied to your arguments. D&D does not have heaven and hell. There is no heaven and hell war because neither place exists in any of the official or licensed cosmologies I have seen. Yes, there is an elemental plane of Good and an elemental plane of Evil, but they are not heaven or hell. Yes, when people die in D&D they go to the plane of their alignment, but none of them are heaven and certainly none of them are hell (if a person who loves to kill, pillage, and plunder is sent to a plane where they get to kill, pillage, and plunder to their hearts delight, it can't be considered any kind of punishment). Sure there are angels, demons, devils, and gods, but none of them are in heaven or hell.
You are perfectly free to play your D&D game with a cosmology that has heaven, hell, and a dramatic war between the two, but never forget that that is not the default cosmology of any edition or published campaign setting.
Luis_Carlos, none of us are advocating moral relativism, simply pointing out that a lot of ethical dilemmas happen to be purely subjective with multiple "right" answers, based in a person's personal ethos and that of their culture. This includes thin
"Justified" isn't an alignment, but its how everyone deals with their world. You try to find some reason why the person you stole from "had it coming" instead of admitting you stole it. But ya did.
The trouble with NOT having alignmnet is that we can JUSTIFY anything. We can think up some reason why murder is okay (I mean, we was lipping off and embarrassing me in front of all my friends...you'd shut him up permanentnly too, right? Right?...".
Alignment allows us to DISallow that justification crap. I really liked HackMaster. One of the funniest things you'll ever read in the original Hackmaster Players book is the Knight errant class. Wanna' laugh? Hard? Read that. That class is just a microcosm of what I am talking about.
Alignment gives us hard walls the DM can enforce. The DM can say NO... Your character would never do that. Taking it willy nilly is NOT a good act.
"But he wont talk!". Neither will a dead man. So just don't. "But if we dont hurry, the King could be assassinated". Maybe he will be. But you're not evil. You're not like the people you're chasing down. Unlike THEM, you won't murder when its convenient. Thats how you know you're NOT them.
Anything, and I mean almost anything, can be justified. Doesn't make it true. Just means you feel better about it than you really should.
"Justified" isn't an alignment, but its how everyone deals with their world. You try to find some reason why the person you stole from "had it coming" instead of admitting you stole it. But ya did.The trouble with NOT having alignmnet is that we ca
Town of Miners. Players trying to get into the mines and stop a dragon from doing something "bad" in 3 days (and it is bad for them).
They already have alerted the Knights of Solamnia and the Keeper of the Roses himself rides at the head of a column. The players mission: clear that caved in mine so the KNights can go in and kick Dragon butt.
No problem right? Very little time to do it and only one entry point up a long hillside thats been delved out.
Mayor was a spy, tells the Dragon. Dragon jumps down and gives the townsfolks weapons and tells them that he will kill every last one of them, children first, if they don't fight the KNights of Solamnia and keep them from the cavern just long enough. Poison them, attack them...whatever. get rid of them. If ONE person leaves town, the entire town is forfeit.
A no win scenario for the villagers. They die either way but a Knight they can fight. A Dragon they really can't. The KNights wont kill their children first either.
The players came on behalf of the Knights... So... the villagers start to turn a little hostile and the players know better than to send the villagers to the mine exposed.... if that mine isn't opened in time, the KNights are walking into a deathtrap, with only one point of egress and a Dragon...
Obviously the players are 10th level and can handle the villagers. But these are the very people they are trying to protect! If the villagers attack the goodly Knights, good men will die all around. Stop the villagers? All 100 of them? Villagers certainly aren't in any mood to die and love of their children.. They are prisoners with no bars.
This whole scene would mean nothing if all the players wanted to do was accomplish the mission. The Cleric, a pacifist (as part of her class) was like "well we can totally take on this village if we have to. If the villagers take up arms against the Knights then hey, we just kill them for attacking the Knighthood".
I was stunned at the suggestion and from whom it came. This is why we need alignment. This kind of justification is totally against what a real person would feel who is NG and dedicated to a Goddess of healing and has the Pacifist special rule. That's not roleplaying. thats Videogame playing. I had no problem telling her "That is unworthy of you, you would never do it". But had she been CN, I'd have said nothing. CN is all about expedience. but we are talking about an entire village of people who aren't WILLINGLY doing anything. They just suffer a lack of options and this NG Cleric wants to wipe them "if it becomes necessary". Sounds just like what a villain would do.
She wasn't wrong. It just was not in character. And alignment helps you remember whose side you're supposed to be on when convenience starts to look good. I would equally chide an evil player for making an impassioned please for the lives of the villagers. Evil does not care about the suffering of those they do not care for. The villagers are a pawn, just like the Dragon treated them.
So...what can the players do... they have about 12 hours to decide...
on a related note on last nights game:Town of Miners. Players trying to get into the mines and stop a dragon from doing something "bad" in 3 days (and it is bad for them). They already have alerted the Knights of Solamnia and the Keeper of the Rose
Realistic? no. Unimaginative. They do eventually figure out a way (which I will share with you if you want). They would NOT have found a way if I had allowed their first intention. Evil men might take the direct route, but good men take the thoughtful one.
In fact there were several answers to the puzzle, and it was my ob to make it dramatic at points for them. They do eventually succeed.
NPC's die at zero. Also, no way to "mass" knock out 100 scattered people. So...
Realistic? no. Unimaginative. They do eventually figure out a way (which I will share with you if you want). They would NOT have found a way if I had allowed their first intention. Evil men might take the direct route, but good men take the thou
NPC's die at zero. Also, no way to "mass" knock out 100 scattered people. So...
Depends on the edition. Care to quote the rule-passage?
I don't remember any such rule from either 3E or 2E. Admittedly, it's been quite a long while since last I've seen 2E, so feel free to quote it.
Depends on the edition. Care to quote the rule-passage?I don't remember any such rule from either 3E or 2E. Admittedly, it's been quite a long while since last I've seen 2E, so feel free to quote it.
NPC's die at zero. Also, no way to "mass" knock out 100 scattered people. So...
Depends on the edition. Care to quote the passage?
DND Next Playtest Packet page 13. Monsters and Dying: The Dm rarely has monsters go through the process of dying. Instead a monster that drops to 0 hit points typically just dies. Mighty villians and special nonplayer characters are common exceptions; the DM might have them fall unconcious and follow the same rules as player characters.
Depends on the edition. Care to quote the passage?[/quote]DND Next Playtest Packet page 13.Monsters and Dying: The Dm rarely has monsters go through the process of dying. Instead a monster that drops to 0 hit points typically just dies.Mighty villian
NPC's die at zero. Also, no way to "mass" knock out 100 scattered people. So...
Depends on the edition. Care to quote the passage?
DND Next Playtest Packet page 13. Monsters and Dying: The Dm rarely has monsters go through the process of dying. Instead a monster that drops to 0 hit points typically just dies. Mighty villians and special nonplayer characters are common exceptions; the DM might have them fall unconcious and follow the same rules as player characters.
Thanks.
If he plays Next, that is.
Also: If the players tell the DM they're knocking the civilians out instead of killing them? Is this one of the examples we're looking for in the thread about DMing styles, the autocratic DM? So instead of "yeah you can knock them out one at a time or intimidate them into submission" you give your players "NO!" ?
Depends on the edition. Care to quote the passage?[/quote]DND Next Playtest Packet page 13.Monsters and Dying: The Dm rarely has monsters go through the process of dying. Instead a monster that drops to 0 hit points typically just dies.Mighty villian
killing them was not an option they could choose, as good characters. that was the line being drawn. Though, as always happens, if you give players a chance to shine and scheme, they will find a solution that WILL work... and that's a good thing.
Oh and I dont care how much you say "no no no, im not going to KILL you with this sword, i SWEAR" before you swing, the villager is going to be both belligerent and filled with the need for self preservation on the off hand you're lying...or he just doesn't feel like getting knocked out and having all his things stolen while he sleeps...or any number of very rational fears they may have.
killing them was not an option they could choose, as good characters. that was the line being drawn. Though, as always happens, if you give players a chance to shine and scheme, they will find a solution that WILL work... and that's a good thing.O
killing them was not an option they could choose, as good characters.
Wrong. Alignment does not determine your actions, your actions determine their alignment. They are free to do whatever they like; they simply may suffer an alignment shift if it happens too often.
Wrong. Alignment does not determine your actions, your actions determine their alignment. They are free to do whatever they like; they simply may suffer an alignment shift if it happens too often.
A better solution would be to slowly replace the villagers with knights disguised as peasants and halfings dressed as children, when the dragon isn't looking. This bypasses alignment issues entirely.
A better solution would be to slowly replace the villagers with knights disguised as peasants and halfings dressed as children, when the dragon isn't looking.This bypasses alignment issues entirely.
killing them was not an option they could choose, as good characters. that was the line being drawn. Though, as always happens, if you give players a chance to shine and scheme, they will find a solution that WILL work... and that's a good thing.
Oh and I dont care how much you say "no no no, im not going to KILL you with this sword, i SWEAR" before you swing, the villager is going to be both belligerent and filled with the need for self preservation on the off hand you're lying...or he just doesn't feel like getting knocked out and having all his things stolen while he sleeps...or any number of very rational fears they may have.
WHen did I imply them saying they won't kill them means the villagers will just drop everythign and stop attacking?
If the villagers are indeed forced to fight the PCs as you say, the PCs should come to terms to the fact they are going to have to fight the villagers, but simply choose to knock them out instead of killing them.
WHen did I imply them saying they won't kill them means the villagers will just drop everythign and stop attacking?If the villagers are indeed forced to fight the PCs as you say, the PCs should come to terms to the fact they are going to have to figh
NPC's die at zero. Also, no way to "mass" knock out 100 scattered people. So...
Depends on the edition. Care to quote the rule-passage?
I don't remember any such rule from either 3E or 2E. Admittedly, it's been quite a long while since last I've seen 2E, so feel free to quote it.
Both 2e and 3e had rules to knockout people.
Depends on the edition. Care to quote the rule-passage?I don't remember any such rule from either 3E or 2E. Admittedly, it's been quite a long while since last I've seen 2E, so feel free to quote it.[/quote]Both 2e and 3e had rules to knockout people
Alignment gives us hard walls the DM can enforce. The DM can say NO... Your character would never do that. Taking it willy nilly is NOT a good act.
No, he can't. Unless your character is under some form of magical compulsion (and there were plenty, ranging from charm and dominate to the more subtle suggestion, geas, and helms of opposite alignment). Your DM can decide that your action provokes an alignment change, which in some editions can carry penalties, but he doesn't get to tell you that you wouldn't do that.
No, he can't. Unless your character is under some form of magical compulsion (and there were plenty, ranging from charm and dominate to the more subtle suggestion, geas, and helms of opposite alignment). Your DM can decide that your action provokes a
NPC's die at zero. Also, no way to "mass" knock out 100 scattered people. So...
Depends on the edition. Care to quote the passage?
DND Next Playtest Packet page 13. Monsters and Dying: The Dm rarely has monsters go through the process of dying. Instead a monster that drops to 0 hit points typically just dies. Mighty villians and special nonplayer characters are common exceptions; the DM might have them fall unconcious and follow the same rules as player characters.
And don't forget this bit in the same column on the same page:
Nonlethal Damage An attacking creature can always choose to deliver nonlethal strikes instead of lethal ones when making a melee weapon attack, such as with a sword, a mace, or a fist. An attacker who declares that he or she is making a nonlethal attack deals damage as normal. However, if the damage would reduce the target to 0 hit points or fewer, the target simply has 0 hit points and falls unconscious. If the unconscious creature takes any damage, it begins dying as normal.
Depends on the edition. Care to quote the passage?[/quote]DND Next Playtest Packet page 13.Monsters and Dying: The Dm rarely has monsters go through the process of dying. Instead a monster that drops to 0 hit points typically just dies.Mighty villian
Alignment gives us hard walls the DM can enforce. The DM can say NO... Your character would never do that. Taking it willy nilly is NOT a good act.
Since when do we consider the DM telling the players how to roleplay their characters a good thing?
For certain people the answer is "always".
Awesome! DMs gonna lay down the law!
Since when do we consider the DM telling the players how to roleplay their characters a good thing?[/quote]For certain people the answer is "always".[/quote]Awesome! DMs gonna lay down the law!
"Your character is [alignment] and wouldn't do that.' "Fair enough. My guy drops dead of a fatal heart attack all of the sudden, and the last thing that flashes before his eyes is a mysterious figure getting out of a chair and playing videogames the rest of the night" "Your character wouldn't know what a video game is." "[expletive] you, Fred. Hey Joe, wanna play some Smash, seeing as your guy died two encounters ago?"
"Your character is [alignment] and wouldn't do that.'"Fair enough. My guy drops dead of a fatal heart attack all of the sudden, and the last thing that flashes before his eyes is a mysterious figure getting out of a chair and playing videogames the
* I think actions only can change aligment is they are totally voluntary without mitigating factors (like menace to damage to loved beings).
* Here we are talking about aligment -> good and evil -> ethic & morality -> values and ideology
Is it only a game? Please, don´t be naive. Reality and fiction are two different thigs, we agree it. But we aren´t talking about a fool like Don Quixote looking for giants to be defeated. We talk about fiction like mean to transmit values and ideology.
Saying it is only a game is like saying G.I.Joe franchise doesn´t promote patriotism, comics of X-Men never tell any story about tolerance & coexistence, C.S. Lewi´s Chronicles of Narnia isn´t pro-Christian literature, Wizard of Oz doesn´t want teach us anything about psychological maturing (brain, heart and courage), Gulliver´s travels is only a tale for children ( no satyre by Jonathan Swift), V (80´s sci-fi TVserie) isn´t a allegory about rise of nazism, the main thread of first trilogy of Star Wars isn´t about the fall of democracy, George Orwell´s Animal Farm wasn´t a satyra about Stalin´s regime, the methodolgy of Sherlock Holmes (fiction character created by Arthur Conan Doyle) didn´t influence in the future criminology and detectives, Buffy Vampire Slayer is only a innocent TV Show for teenages, lesbian subtext about Xena and Gabrielle can´t be possible or the writters and authors didn´t give expression to their mentality, ideas and points of view in the fiction from rpg World of Darkness. Do be realistic, the fiction, the imagination, can (indirectly) change reality.
That is the reason I can´t tolerate D&D books could be used to promote ethical relativism, and I´m afraid teachers and parents associations could agree me.
Roleplay games can be a wonderful educational tool, but Hasbro & WotC can´t allow themself a controversy like it happened to Harry Potter franchise. Do you rebember the boycot to the movie "golden compass"? (Please, don´t dare to say me the Philip Pullman´s novels of Northern Lights are only young-adult fantasy).
* I think actions only can change aligment is they are totally voluntary without mitigating factors (like menace to damage to loved beings).* Here we are talking about aligment -> good and evil -> ethic & morality -> values and ideologyIs it only a g
That is the reason I can´t tolerate D&D books could be used to promote ethical relativism, and I´m afraid teachers and parents associations could agree me.
Not including mechanical effects for alignment is not the same as promoting moral relativism. That is a huge leap of logic there. Also, I couldn't care less.
Roleplay games can be a wonderful educational tool, but Hasbro & WotC can´t allow themself a controversy like it happened to Harry Potter franchise. Do you rebember the boycot to the movie "golden compass"? (Please, don´t dare to say me the Philip Pullman´s novels of Northern Lights are only young-adult fantasy).
Um...D&D has already been under controversy and that controversy still continues in some circles. It has nothing to do with its alignment system. Do you understand why those movies got a bad rap from some fanatics? Magic = evil. Alignment and moral relativism doesn't even factor into this at all.
Not including mechanical effects for alignment is not the same as promoting moral relativism. That is a huge leap of logic there. Also, I couldn't care less.Um...D&D has already been under controversy and that controversy still continues in some circ
Alignment gives us hard walls the DM can enforce. The DM can say NO... Your character would never do that. Taking it willy nilly is NOT a good act.
Since when do we consider the DM telling the players how to roleplay their characters a good thing?
For certain people the answer is "always".
The correct answer, however, is of course, "never".
Since when do we consider the DM telling the players how to roleplay their characters a good thing?[/quote]For certain people the answer is "always".[/quote]The correct answer, however, is of course, "never".
Dual axis alignment: classic and harmless to gameplay...why not!
This is some definition of 'harmless' with which I am completely unfamiliar.
You know, if it has zero mechanics attatched, it can be pretty harmless to gameplay.
This is some definition of 'harmless' with which I am completely unfamiliar.[/quote]You know, if it has zero mechanics attatched, it can be pretty harmless to gameplay.
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Ive removed content from this thread because discussion of real world religion is a violation of the Code of Conduct.You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from
That is the reason I can´t tolerate D&D books could be used to promote ethical relativism, and I´m afraid teachers and parents associations could agree me.
AARRRRGH! You are so frustrating!
No one is suggesting that D&D promotes moral relativism. In fact, it has been stated numerous times (and even admitted by some people on the anti-alignment side of the fence) that D&D morality is OBJECTIVE. Because it is FANTASY, there are OBJECTIVE measures of Good and Evil. No one's saying otherwise, so WHO THE FRICK DO YOU THINK YOU'RE EVEN ARGUING WITH?
REAL WORLD ethics are subjective. That's just a fact. There's no arguing that point. You, obviously, have some very strong feelings about your own ethical and moral outlooks (which, I'm guessing, are traditional Roman Catholic Christian?) That's fine for you. But other cultures have different views than you do, and you do not have the right to say that they are wrong.
Other individuals (like sociopaths and serial killers) have their own view on what is and isn't acceptable. Views that are abbhorrent even to the societies and cultures which they are from. These people feel is is acceptable or justifiable to kill people who get in their way, or offend them, or whatever. But moral and ethical standards aren't set by any one individual. The culture one comes from (or is currently in) sets those standards. For example, Navy men and women on a port call in Bahrain must adhere to local dress codes (long pants, no sandals, etc.), because it is offensive to the people of that culture. That doesn't mean that the act of showing one's feet is somehow an objectively immoral or indecent act.
You see what I mean? You can't keep mixing fantasy and real world examples. Real world examples are subject to the subjective cultural byes of the many varied world cultures. Fantasy is different, because one can set an objective measure of Good and Evil, and judge all people/creatures/acts by that scale. Even if you have an NPC in D&D who's a sociopath and feels no moral qualms about, say, killing all people over the age of 60 out of what he feels is a justifiable outlook, one could objectively call such a person Evil, because the slaughter of innocent people is evil, and his actions have objective moral weight.
AARRRRGH! You are so frustrating!No one is suggesting that D&D promotes moral relativism. In fact, it has been stated numerous times (and even admitted by some people on the anti-alignment side of the fence) that D&D morality is OBJECTIVE. Because
"Your character is [alignment] and wouldn't do that.' "Fair enough. My guy drops dead of a fatal heart attack all of the sudden, and the last thing that flashes before his eyes is a mysterious figure getting out of a chair and playing videogames the rest of the night" "Your character wouldn't know what a video game is." "[expletive] you, Fred. Hey Joe, wanna play some Smash, seeing as your guy died two encounters ago?"
A better DM nudge would be: "Are you sure you want to do that? Remember your character has taken vows to his god that are contrary to this." or, "That's not a very 'good' thing to do. IS tehre another option your character would consider instead?" In the end it is the player's decision, but it is ok for the DM to question the player if it doesn't feel like their actions are in tune with their alignment/god, the setting, their character's knowledge, if he suspects meta-gaming too much, etc.
A better DM nudge would be: "Are you sure you want to do that? Remember your character has taken vows to his god that are contrary to this." or, "That's not a very 'good' thing to do. IS tehre another option your character would consider instead?" In
A better DM nudge would be: "Are you sure you want to do that?
Yes, that would be better, but unfortunately my experience says otherwise. DMs tend to either entirely ignore alignment or treat it as sacred gospel, with little in between.
Yes, that would be better, but unfortunately my experience says otherwise. DMs tend to either entirely ignore alignment or treat it as sacred gospel, with little in between.
Oh, I'll believe you'll find that alignments biggest detractors tend quite heavily to be players who have been screwed over by overzealous alignment evangelists.
Oh, I'll believe you'll find that alignments biggest detractors tend quite heavily to be players who have been screwed over by overzealous alignment evangelists.
Oh, I'll believe you'll find that alignments biggest detractors tend quite heavily to be players who have been screwed over by overzealous alignment evangelists.
Might be true. Another subsection are people like me whom never suffered from alignment, and never made anyone suffer for it (being constant DM and all), but still hates it so that I want to cast it into a dying star.
Might be true. Another subsection are people like me whom never suffered from alignment, and never made anyone suffer for it (being constant DM and all), but still hates it so that I want to cast it into a dying star.
Or people like me who never personally suffered from alignment, but has been involved in aiding other groups at Cons and in the forums here, and thus has seen enough games get derailed by alignment arguments to know that alignment mechanics are not an uncommon way to derail otherwise perfectly fine games.
Or people like me who never personally suffered from alignment, but has been involved in aiding other groups at Cons and in the forums here, and thus has seen enough games get derailed by alignment arguments to know that alignment mechanics are not a
Mostly, though, it was an oblique jab at the failure of the alignment system of 1, 2, and 3x to convey a normative apporach to the moral issues a character might face.
Lawful Good doesn't provide any notion of what the -good- is, thus leading to table debates about what a character would do and would not do - which are usually just debates over what players and the DM see as good, just, vile, etc. If alignment were an explicit statement of values and normative morals, that would actually give a sense of how a character might act when faced with a moral problem, and what even qualifies as morally problematic for a character.
Saying that my paladin is an apollonian consequentialist says that he values the order of society and will tend to act in ways that maximizes the good for the most. That paladin would let one person die to save ten, because that is what is most in keeping with his values.
Saying that my paladin is an apollonian deontologist says that she values the order of society and will tend to act in ways that maximize her fulfillment of duty. She will let ten die if her duty to one other demands it.
Both are behaving in a fashion that is morally sound according to their normative views.
I also find the notion of 10' Protection from Arete really entertaining.
Anyway...yeah...not meant as a serious suggestion for an alignment system, more as a means to highlight the failure of the alignment system to accurately capture what it seeks to represent.
ta-da, that too!Mostly, though, it was an oblique jab at the failure of the alignment system of 1, 2, and 3x to convey a normative apporach to the moral issues a character might face. Lawful Good doesn't provide any notion of what the -good- is, thus
I also find the notion of 10' Protection from Arete really entertaining.
Anyway...yeah...not meant as a serious suggestion for an alignment system, more as a means to highlight the failure of the alignment system to accurately capture what it seeks to represent.
I also find the notion of 10' Protection from Arete really entertaining.
Anyway...yeah...not meant as a serious suggestion for an alignment system, more as a means to highlight the failure of the alignment system to accurately capture what it seeks to represent.
"Your character is [alignment] and wouldn't do that.' "Fair enough. My guy drops dead of a fatal heart attack all of the sudden, and the last thing that flashes before his eyes is a mysterious figure getting out of a chair and playing videogames the rest of the night" "Your character wouldn't know what a video game is." "[expletive] you, Fred. Hey Joe, wanna play some Smash, seeing as your guy died two encounters ago?"
A better DM nudge would be: "Are you sure you want to do that? Remember your character has taken vows to his god that are contrary to this." or, "That's not a very 'good' thing to do. IS tehre another option your character would consider instead?" In the end it is the player's decision, but it is ok for the DM to question the player if it doesn't feel like their actions are in tune with their alignment/god, the setting, their character's knowledge, if he suspects meta-gaming too much, etc.
Honestly, this is what it SHOULD be. Nothing in the RAW has EVER given the DM actual control over a PC based on alignment. So, any time anyone has EVER experienced Qmark's example, the DM is WRONG, is deviating from RAW, and the problem is, as I always cite, with people, not with alignment. The only time your character is EVER under DM control is if he/she is dominated by an NPC. Even charm spells are not sufficient to cause loss of character control. Whenever I have a PC fail a save against a charm spell, I take him aside, let him know, and remind him that he's still in control of his character, but that he literally takes everything the caster says in the MOST positive light possible.
Yes, that would be better, but unfortunately my experience says otherwise. DMs tend to either entirely ignore alignment or treat it as sacred gospel, with little in between.
Then that is, by your own admission, a problem with the PEOPLE in your experiences, and not alignment. Alignment rules as written do not force your character to do anything. Bad DMs try to use alignment to railroad their PCs. But Bad DMs will do that in games without alignment. One of my college buddies ran a 3.5 game w/o alignment mechanics. Had an epic-level NPC come down and force all the PCs to submit to him by infecting them all with lycanthropy and made them subject to the will of the pack leader, and made them do what he said. Is that scenario better b/c he didn't use alignment? No. Controlling/adversarial DMs will be what they are with or without alignment.
Oh, I'll believe you'll find that alignments biggest detractors tend quite heavily to be players who have been screwed over by overzealous alignment evangelists.
I heartilly agree with you here. Emphasis on the italicized part, because that is MOST alignment dtractors, although clearly not all of them.
Might be true. Another subsection are people like me whom never suffered from alignment, and never made anyone suffer for it (being constant DM and all), but still hates it so that I want to cast it into a dying star.
So...you just arbitrarily decided to hate it for no reason, base your claims on why it's bad on NOTHING, and vehemently argue for its removal with blind, vitriolic rage?
Or people like me who never personally suffered from alignment, but has been involved in aiding other groups at Cons and in the forums here, and thus has seen enough games get derailed by alignment arguments to know that alignment mechanics are not an uncommon way to derail otherwise perfectly fine games.
And then there are people like me, who have heard alignment horror-stories from others (especially on the forums), have then looked at the rules, and saw that the rules don't support what happened in those stories. I hear stories from people about "My DM changed my alignment when I did ONE thing" or "my paladin didn't kill the town guardsman who detected as evil on the spot, and DM took away paladinhood", or "My DM, 'your alignment is X, you cannot do y'". And you know what? Every time, I look at the RAW regarding those scenarios and find that thw RAW did not support that scenario. So those DMs are houseruling things. And it is not a fair indictment of alignment to judge alignment rules by how people have HOUSERULED alignment rules.
I have yet to hear an honest to [insert deity of choice here] example of an alignment problem in a situation that did not deviate from RAW, or involve players clearly being problems, or adversarial DMs. This is why I defend alignment, because alignment is not the problem. Problem Players and DMs will continue to be problems, even if alignment were to be removed. See my above example of a controlling DM. I left his game, because that DM always brought in these epic level NPCs (when the party was like level 10), and they were the real stars of the show. I don't like DMs who don't let the PCs be the heroes, the stars. He might as well have had everyone put away their dice and character sheets and just told them a story every week. And that didn't involve alignment or alignment mechanics.
A better DM nudge would be: "Are you sure you want to do that? Remember your character has taken vows to his god that are contrary to this." or, "That's not a very 'good' thing to do. IS tehre another option your character would consider instead?" In
Then that is, by your own admission, a problem with the PEOPLE in your experiences, and not alignment.
Yes, I know. However, a sentence or two along the lines of "This is optional", and support for traditionally alignment-dependent classes to not be dependent (without needing a houserule) would help quite a bit. If a DM want's to be hardass about alingnments, that's his decision (and thus my prerogative to not play at his table). Don't imply he should be in the books.
Again, alignment is not a "bad" concept by itself. It's the "always" and "must be, or else" that have to go.
Yes, I know.However, a sentence or two along the lines of "This is optional", and support for traditionally alignment-dependent classes to not be dependent (without needing a houserule) would help quite a bit.If a DM want's to be hardass about alingn
Then that is, by your own admission, a problem with the PEOPLE in your experiences, and not alignment.
Yes, I know. However, a sentence or two along the lines of "This is optional", and support for traditionally alignment-dependent classes to not be dependent (without needing a houserule) would help quite a bit. If a DM want's to be hardass about alingnments, that's his decision (and thus my prerogative to not play at his table). Don't imply he should be in the books.
Again, alignment is not a "bad" concept by itself. It's the "always" and "must be, or else" that have to go.
The books never really said somone should be a hardass about alignments. They even said that alignments cover a WIDE range of personalities (giving examples like "A Lawful Good person could have a greedy streak or a short temper").
And D&D Next will have options to easily remove alignment and mechanics, but they will be in as a default.
Yes, I know.However, a sentence or two along the lines of "This is optional", and support for traditionally alignment-dependent classes to not be dependent (without needing a houserule) would help quite a bit.If a DM want's to be hardass about alingn
And D&D Next will have options to easily remove alignment and mechanics, but they will be in as a default.
This is a horribly deceptive statement and the second time in this threadyou have done this. I explained at length with citations why what you are saying is misleading (at best) and outright lying at worst.
The onlyalignment mechanics they said would be in the game are alignment mechanics tied to the most powerful extraplanar beings. They said nothing about the run-of-the-mill alignment mechanics that comprise most alignment discussions. If you're going to refer to the developers' statements, do so honestly and accurately, please. The way you phrased it makes it sound like all alignment mechanics from previous editions will an assumed part of the game from which you will have to opt-out, rather than an option provided for people who like them to opt-in. That is simply not anything the developers have written.
Here's the relevant quote: " we want alignment to be a tool, not a straightjacket, so the execution of those mechanics should serve that goal, and really only apply when dealing with the powerful, elemental forces of alignments, not someone who just behaves a certain way. Additionally, I believe we'll also want it to be easy for a DM to strip those mechanics out of his or her campaign, if the DM so chooses." -Link
So the only mechanics are those dealing with powerful elemental forces of alignments (like gods, demon lords, archfiends, etc.) and even those mechanics can be stripped out. That's a far cry from what your post indicates -- that the gamut of alignment mechanics of prior editions will be included on an assumptive basis and will have to be stripped by hand by DMs who don't want it.
Please, Chiba. Stop making such grossly misleading statements. Again.
This is a horribly deceptive statement and the second time in this threadyou have done this. I explained at length with citations why what you are saying is misleading (at best) and outright lying at worst. The only alignment mechanics they said wo
And D&D Next will have options to easily remove alignment and mechanics, but they will be in as a default.
This is a horribly deceptive statement and the second time in this threadyou have done this. I explained at length with citations why what you are saying is misleading (at best) and outright lying at worst.
The onlyalignment mechanics they said would be in the game are alignment mechanics tied to the most powerful extraplanar beings. They said nothing about the run-of-the-mill alignment mechanics that comprise most alignment discussions. If you're going to refer to the developers' statements, do so honestly and accurately, please. The way you phrased it makes it sound like all alignment mechanics from previous editions will an assumed part of the game from which you will have to opt-out, rather than an option provided for people who like them to opt-in. That is simply not anything the developers have written.
Here's the relevant quote: " we want alignment to be a tool, not a straightjacket, so the execution of those mechanics should serve that goal, and really only apply when dealing with the powerful, elemental forces of alignments, not someone who just behaves a certain way. Additionally, I believe we'll also want it to be easy for a DM to strip those mechanics out of his or her campaign, if the DM so chooses." -Link
So the only mechanics are those dealing with powerful elemental forces of alignments (like gods, demon lords, archfiends, etc.) and even those mechanics can be stripped out. That's a far cry from what your post indicates -- that the gamut of alignment mechanics of prior editions will be included on an assumptive basis and will have to be stripped by hand by DMs who don't want it.
Please, Chiba. Stop making such grossly misleading statements. Again.
I haven't explicitly stated-nor have I implied-that the entire gamut of alignment mechanics from previous editions will be in. That is NOT what my post indicates. I have mentioned, several times, that I am not privvy to the knnowledge of exactly which alignment mechanics will be in. I conjecture that the part of the dev's statement which you have bolded is in reference to some of the more complaint-heavy mechanics of alignment (such as detect spells and extra damage vs X alignment), and so on, but freely admit that I don't know for sure.
However, they have said that the execution of alignment mechanics will serve as the tools they were meant for, and also that D&D Next will be encompassing aspects from all previous editions of D&D (most of which included more alignment mechanics that related to PCs), so I am not precluding the idea that there will be some alignment mechanics included in classes. But yet, I have not, in any way, shape or form, indicated some kind of absolute foreknowledge regarding what these mechanics will be, and it is, in fact, conjecture on my part.
Don't try and read into what I'm saying and extrapolate some meaning beyond what I say. I'm sorry if you deduced that I was trying to imply anything misleading, but I assure you, I was not.
This is a horribly deceptive statement and the second time in this threadyou have done this. I explained at length with citations why what you are saying is misleading (at best) and outright lying at worst. The only alignment mechanics they said wo
I like aligment, and the allegiance system from d20 Modern like a extra guideline help.
But for me the headache is Chaotic Good. Chaotic shouldn´t be anarchy.
I think aligment is how characters´behavior toward people with different allegyance.
For example:
A hassasin is totally loyal to his secret brotherood, like if he were LE but for the rest of the world is CE.
A superstitious barbarian can be honorable and totally obedient to his tribe chief, like LN, but for foreigners is CN.
A drunk bard hafling is totally loyal to elve princess, like LG, but his behavior for folks from other countries, is like CG.
* Spells and powers with aligment key should hurts enemies with identical aligment but different allegiance.
Your problem is that you have a unilateral view of what alignment means, and that it's too restrictive. Loyalty =/= Lawful alignment. Someone can be loyal to an organization, or an individual without being lawful in alignment. Being Chaotic does not mandate some kind of internal anethma to follwing the law, nor does the reverse apply.
Alignment should be a module. That's the only way to prevent them from sneaking alignment-based mechanics into the core.
Too bad. The devs already said that alignment mechanics are going to be a part of the core rules. There are going to be "easy means of removing them" for those that wish to play without them, but the core assumption is alignment mechanics. So...NO. Alignment is not going to be a module. NON-Alignment is going to be a module.
Game mechanic should reward and punish ethical behavior. Clerics and divine spellcasters ought act according to his deities moral values, and some magic items could be more powerful if they are used by a pure soul or heartless.
Ah...no.
The problem is you are almost never going to find a player and DM with exactly the same idea as to what "Lawful Good" is, for example. Players of classes like pre-4e Paladins can and have fallen for doing something the player is certain is LG behavior, but the DM disagrees and takes away your Paladin class features.
Then the problem is that DM, not alignment. The rules say that a paladin only falls when his alignment changes, or when he "knowingly and intentionally commits an evil act". And as far as when alignment changes, the DMG explicitly states that such changes do NOT occur as the result of a single action, they are gradual. So, if a player is geniunely playing his paladin as a LG person, and does what he geniunely believes is right according to his ethos, he should never be losing his powers, because he will not be commiting any outright evil acts. If his actions are starting to show a trend towards a more NG-ish behavior (according to the DM's views), it's the responsibility of the DM to discuss that with the player out of game, so that they can correct the problem by reaching an accord of what constitutes proper behavior.
But let's be honest. Most fallen paladin stories are from situations where either the player has CLEARLY done something to warrant it, or the DM has decided to put the player in a "gotcha" situation, where no matter how hard the paladin tries to do the right thing, the DM takes his power. In both cases, the problem is the people involved, not alignment nor its mechanics.
Speaking for my self, I have never had any problem with alignments. Nor has any one I've played with.
Same here.
And my group has.
I think we've already established that there are those such as yourself that have had problems with aignment. However, the point of saying that I (and other like me) haven't is to show that the problem is not universal.
You'll never convince him, because he believes that his experiences are so vital and universal, that his opinions are objective facts.
Really, that's pretty much all the "alignment sucks!" contingent is asking for.
I've already said it, but I'll say it again. As long as aligmnet does not interact with mechanics in core, I am not against it being there. I know some people would like to kill them altogether but it is not gonna happen in this edition. So instead let's settle for a workable compromise shall we?
Again, too late. Alignment mechanics are going to be in core. HOWEVER, there will be quick and easy means of separating the mechanics of alignment for those that wish it. Why is that so bad? Functionally, it's the same, except that you are denied the satisfaction of "winning" because alignment mechanics are considered the default, which means facing proof that your experiences were, in fact, NOT so vital and universal that they were objective fact.
You will be able to have 5e without alignment mechanics, as a part of the rules. You're just using a modular option to remove it.
I don't know. Some of the alignments never made much sense. I still don't understand the difference between LE and NE.
The law/chaos axis decides how a character observes the law, how they respect legitimate authority and how important they consider things like honour, trustworthiness etc. A lawful character would accept a challenge and engage in honourable combat, while a chaotic character would pretend to accept the challenge then strike below the belt. A neutral character would be somewhere in between...they'll take basic steps to maintain a reputation, but won't go out of their way to do so.
I know you're pro-alignment, but your view is also too narrow. You can't automatically assume that every characetr of a lawful alignment will behave the same way. Sometimes a lawful character is lawful because of a dedication to a personal ethos. Maybe he's just consistent.
Lawful Evil means a character is evil, but still respects the law, authority, and notions of honour and trustworthiness. He never lies and defers to his superiors, but exploits the law for personal gain, not caring who suffers for it. Corrupt politicians, businessmen etc are lawful evil. Adolf Hitler could be described as lawful evil, because while what he did was unmistakeably evil, it was within the boundaries of the law.
Again, lawful does not necessarily reflect a deference to authority. While it might, it is not always the case. And as far as the Hitler example, I agree that he was LE, but keep in mind, that what he did was within the bounds of the law, because he CHANGED the laws to make what he did legal. I'd say he was LE because he was organized and methodical.
So again, in short, Alignment is a Thermometer, not a Straightjacket. It describes what is already going on, it doesn't limit or dictate what the character can or cannot do.
Except when it totally dictates what a character can or cannot do.
Alignment is fine for those who want them. Keep it mechanic-less and it's a peerfect module to include or exclude based on your preference. Alignment mechanics baked into a class is not as the only way to exclude it is to exclude the class entirely.
Except that alignment NEVER dictates what a character can or cannot do. Certain CLASSES include restrictions on activity, but not alignment. Nothing says a monk cannot break a law, just that they must be of lawful alignment. Alignment does not say that a paladin cannot commit an evil act, the paladin class says that IF he knowingly and willingly commits an evil act, he loses his powers. Alignment doesn't restrict a druid from wearing metal armor, his druid ethos does. And you WILL be able to exclude alignment mechanics at your preference. But the core rule will be inclusion of them.
Those alignment restrictions never made sense, anyway. Being lawful doesn't mean you can't play an instrument or lose your temper.
I agree. Bards should be lawful, or at least able to be lawful. Musical ability requires discipline. How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice!
I agree with the bards and lawful restriction. However, the Barbarian one makes a bit of sense. Truly having a lawful alignment means having some self-discipline, and a barbarian's rage is meant to reflect giving in to wild impulses, that kind of surrender to rage is not usually compatible with people who can be defined as people with a great deal of self-control.
I do, however, want to point out that discipline is not the only way to aquire musical aptitude. Some people are naturally talented and gifted.
Alignment should be included in the game as a well fleshed out option like all others. I wont throw fits if you ignore it in your game as long as you dont disparage me for using it in mine.
Regrettably, there are several anti-alignment people who will not adopt such a stance. To them, alignment is the source of their issues, and they will not accept that such is not the case. Granted, there are some who can be more open-minded, but a great majority cannot accpet that their view on alignment is just an opinion.
You do not lose Paladin powers because your alignment changed to Evil (well, it does mechanically because thats the only way we have to quantify it), you lose your Paladin powers because you are no longer an upstanding pillar of virtue who puts others before themselves. The Paladin role is very specific in how it has to work because it is an extremely specific archetype. Rather the same way you can't have a Lawful Good catburgler.
And that change can very well happen because you and your DM do not have the same point of view when it comes to morale. Like the thousands of paladin-falling-from-grace stories show quite clearly, as a lot of them are disputed by the player. This stuff does happen and alignment is the cause for it.
You cannot quanity morale for everyone in a game-system. Alignment needs to remain completely mechanics-free in the baseline of the game.
Can you give an honest example that you have seen where the paladin's player truly felt that they were doing the right thing in a situation which was NOT the result of bad DMing? Most every example I have ever seen are the result of a situation that the DM created as a "no-win" scenario. The problems you cite are the result of bad players or bad DMs, not a problem with alignment.
And alignment does not "need" to be mechanics-free in the baseline of the game. That's your opinion on alignment, and your predjudices have no bearing on objective, quantifiable fact. But alignment mechanics are in as the core assumption of DDN. You can remove them, the devs havce said that such removal will be easy. But to please both camps, it's easier to have the inclusion as the core assumption and tell others to just ignore all mention of it as a module, than to have a seperate module address each and every game mechanic seperately to include them.
Im 100% okay with people not using alignment. Just dont steal it from those who use it as a tool. Thats all Im basically lobbying for.
Module. Done.
I'm mostly curious why the best arguments people can come up with for alignmentchanics are examples that don't require alignment in the slightest.
Really? I'm mostly curious why the best examples people can come up with against alignment are actually problems with the people involved, and not alignment, and why those people can't just acknowledge that what they hold as fact is simply their opinion.
I don't see what's wrong with having alignment as a rule, but have a rules sidebar about playing without alignment. Heaven's forbid it, playing Eberron should default to no alignments.
Other way 'round, I'd say.
Start with alignment-mechanics-free game and add it on top as a module. In this case it makes a lot more sense to add it in.
Like I just stated before, it would, in fact, be harder to add in alignment mechanics as a mosule, because every relevant game mechanic would have to be addressed in said module. Contrariwise, if it's included as core, the option to remove it can simply state to ignore said spells/restrictions/effects and not to include them.
It's not that simple. Removing it would require a lot of re-working of certain spells, abilities and item restrictions. Which, in itself,
SImple solution:Don't tie them in that tightly to core spells abilities and items. Make all thsoe in the "Fun with Alignment" module and keep them out of the core game.
Even simpler solution: Mention in the "Fun Without Alignment" module to remove said spells and ignore effects related to alignment. But for those that WANT alignment in the game, there are too many examples and details that would have to be inserted and changed if it was not included in core. But removal would be quite simple. And this is what the devs have said they are going to do. Alignment and alignment mechanics are going to be core. End of story.
Book of exalted deed had got some exalted feats, sacred vows.
Paladin is a walking sacred vow. It´s like if he had those exalted feats (that can be lost if he break some rules)
He has be chosen to be defender of justice, law and order. Coherence demands paladin´s behavior can´t be a bad example and acting againts ideals they represents.
Except once you start playing a Paladin, you aren't roleplaying for fun, you're roleplaying to avoid getting punbished for roleplaying the wrong way. That sounds incredibly unfun to me.
Your statement here makes you just as guilty as those who you accuse of sterotyping. Not everyone plays paladins like that. If that's what your gaming group is like, then your group sounds very unfun to me.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I'm really curious where people kepe getting this idea that lifting the alignment restriction is suddenly going to turn every Paladin into a village slaying baby eating monster.
Because some people have bad players and don't realize the problem is bad players.
And those same people blame alignment as the cause of those bad scenarios, when bad players (or DMs) are the real cause.
There's also the unfortunate tendency for lots of people to stereotype. Seems like any time I play a rogue, people expect me to lie, cheat and steal from anybody and everybody, regardless of the fact that I NEVER do that, just because there's a certain word on my character sheet. I recall one DM who actually TOLD me how much my rogue stole from another party member when I had no intention of doing so, just because 'you're a rogue, that's what they do'.
And that, right there, is a perfect example of why removing alignment from games won't solve any of the problems people blame alignment for. Your DM didn't say "Well, you're CN, that's what CN people do", it was because you were a rogue. Bad players and Bad DMs will be disruptive, or overbearing with or without alignment. And in the absence of alignment, they will find something else to use. I ran a 3e game for 3 years during college, and the party rogue didn't even have any ranks in Sleight of Hand. His character used to be a scout for his home city. In a lot of ways, he was a lot more like a ranger in the way he behaved. He still had ranks in Open Lock and Disable Device, and he frequently went stealthy and scouted ahead of the party, but he did not steal, and was more comfortable in natural surroundings. Later on in 3.5e's lifetime, that player may have made a scout instead of a rogue, but then again, he liked the rogue's skill list, because his character was a skilled troubleshooter. I like seeing characters that break the mold of stereotype of classes.
I do not intend to insult you. However, arguing against a commenter's specific points, rather than saying that the commenter is an idiot, should not be taken seriously, and that you will show us by refuting points might be a better method of getting a point across.
Your problem is that you have a unilateral view of what alignment means, and that it's too restrictive. Loyalty =/= Lawful alignment. Someone can be loyal to an organization, or an individual without being lawful in alignment. Being Chaotic does n
The DnD world ASSUMES Gawds exist. So gimme a break. That has nothing to do with MY setting. You can't argue against it. so give it up.
D&D should also support godless / forsaken settings. Like mine. Which is still D&D. So give it up.
And it's not just homebrew settings, there are WotC published settings (Dark Sun) that don't have active, powerful gods.
D&D should also support godless / forsaken settings. Like mine. Which is still D&D. So give it up.[/quote]And it's not just homebrew settings, there are WotC published settings (Dark Sun) that don't have active, powerful gods.
The DnD world ASSUMES Gawds exist. So gimme a break. That has nothing to do with MY setting. You can't argue against it. so give it up.
D&D should also support godless / forsaken settings. Like mine. Which is still D&D. So give it up.
And it's not just homebrew settings, there are WotC published settings (Dark Sun) that don't have active, powerful gods.
And Eberron.
D&D should also support godless / forsaken settings. Like mine. Which is still D&D. So give it up.[/quote]And it's not just homebrew settings, there are WotC published settings (Dark Sun) that don't have active, powerful gods.[/quote]And Eberron.
Alginment is theoretically objective in the pre-4e D&D universes. But in a practical sense, it is based on the DM's subjective interpretation of alignment rules. And as long as human DMs are charged with interpreting the rules (and I believe they always will be), then alignment in D&D is fundamentally subjective.
But I'm really not sure what Chiba_Monkey's objective is to point this out. Is he saying that alignment shoudl be restored to its 4e state simply for legacy's sake.
Also, I would point out that alignment was not intended to reflect any classic trope. Arnseon invented alignment as a kludge to prevent a thief (the first person playing the class he had just invented) from stealing from the other party members when they were unconscious or sleeping. Rather than simply ask them not to be asshats to one another, Arneson wrote "GOOD" on top of the sheet and told them there would be mechanical consequences if they tried intra-party shenanigans.
Gygax saw these mechanics and decided he liked them because he was trying to instill objective morality into his nascent Greyhawk campaign world, because he was a fan of Michael Moorcock's Elric series, and of Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, which had law-chaos and good-evil rivalries, respectively. (Technically, he was trying to critique the trope, because his persona avatar -- Mordenkainen -- was studiously neutral in an effort to show that extremism of any sort was bad.)
Gygax was not trying to replicate any classic morality tropes. he was trying to invent a whole new thing for his personal setting. However, that setting -- Greyhawk -- then became the default setting for the game throughout 1st edition, when he included it -- and the Great Wheel that it spawned -- as the default cosmology in the AD&D rulebooks.
For 30 years, from 1978 to 2008, this cosmology became its own beast. It didn't replicate any classic fantasy trope. It wasn't supposed to. instead it created itself as a trope through historical inertia. Now people look back and force alignment into their memories of classic games. But the Peers of Charlemagne never had any ability to Detect Evil at will (and, in fact, were utterly unable to detect evil traitors in their midst). King Arthur and Lancelot could not detect Mordred's evil. The Lord of the Rings had no alignment mechanics, even though it had clear villains and heroes. Alignment is not a feature of most fantasy that is not itself based on D&D.
There is no fantasy trope of alignment-restricted classes. Moorcock, who invented the law-chaos axis, certainly never had a bard (much less one who lost his powers upon becoming non-lawful) or a monk (much less one who lost his powers upon becoming chaotic).
In essence, D&D created itself a trope. A very controversial trope. Some people love it and cannot imagine playing heroic fantasy without it. Others chafe under its restrictions and cannot stand it.
The solution, however, is simple. in the spirit of modularity...
Alignment Entries Are Opt-Outable
Alignment Mechanics Are Opt-Innable
That's it. Every sentient creature is assigned an alignment. However, that alignment serves as nothing more than a narrative guideline, unless the gaming group opts to use the alignment mechanics provided it. Simple. Elegant. Everybody wins.
So it doesn't matter is alignment makes no sense to you as long as you can ignore it. And it doesn't matter that you think alignment is elegant and easy to apply and could never conceivably cause anybody a moment's consternation, because there it is, ready for you to plug into your game.
You're all welcome.
This is what I want in my game. It works with my "Alignment is a simple tool for determining character personality and motivations, but has some limitations and is not a measurable thing" opinion. It also allows for "I know my character's stance on moral issues already, I don't need 2 letters telling me what to do," and "My character is a paragon of divine law and good, and is objectively identifiable as such" if they build the optional mechanics well.
This is what I want in my game. It works with my "Alignment is a simple tool for determining character personality and motivations, but has some limitations and is not a measurable thing" opinion. It also allows for "I know my character's stance on
As a side note, can everyone please cut down large quotes or at least sblock them so we don't have to scroll through an entire page of quotes to see a one or two line reply? Thanks.
As a side note, can everyone please cut down large quotes or at least sblock them so we don't have to scroll through an entire page of quotes to see a one or two line reply? Thanks.
Might be true. Another subsection are people like me whom never suffered from alignment, and never made anyone suffer for it (being constant DM and all), but still hates it so that I want to cast it into a dying star.
So...you just arbitrarily decided to hate it for no reason, base your claims on why it's bad on NOTHING, and vehemently argue for its removal with blind, vitriolic rage?
Kudos.
Since you have shown that you do not understand and never will understand the problems certain people have with alignment, is there really any reason to go deeper into this discussion? Everytime this happens you pull the "Well, but I totally and fully understand alignemtn and you are all wrong!". Why should we believe your "I know how it is meant!" over that of the 700 other people that claim the very same?
Anyways, I have plenty of reason to hate alignment and have more often than not given my reasons. That you won't accept them doesn't invalidate them. It just goes to show that you can't or won't accept my view, which is another thing entirely.
Also, maybe you should stop posting in this very passive-aggressive manner?
So...you just arbitrarily decided to hate it for no reason, base your claims on why it's bad on NOTHING, and vehemently argue for its removal with blind, vitriolic rage?Kudos.[/quote]Since you have shown that you do not understand and never will unde
Might be true. Another subsection are people like me whom never suffered from alignment, and never made anyone suffer for it (being constant DM and all), but still hates it so that I want to cast it into a dying star.
So...you just arbitrarily decided to hate it for no reason, base your claims on why it's bad on NOTHING, and vehemently argue for its removal with blind, vitriolic rage?
Kudos.
Since you have shown that you do not understand and never will understand the problems certain people have with alignment, is there really any reason to go deeper into this discussion? Everytime this happens you pull the "Well, but I totally and fully understand alignemtn and you are all wrong!". Why should we believe your "I know how it is meant!" over that of the 700 other people that claim the very same?
Anyways, I have plenty of reason to hate alignment and have more often than not given my reasons. That you won't accept them doesn't invalidate them. It just goes to show that you can't or won't accept my view, which is another thing entirely.
Also, maybe you should stop posting in this very passive-aggressive manner?
You LITERALLY just posted that you've never been party to bad alignment rulings, but still hate it.
It's not just MY UNDERSTANDING of alignment. I am more than happy to directly quote RAW. Because, more often than not, a lot of people's complaints are complaints against someone's houserule that directly contradicts RAW. For example, taking away a paladin's powers for NOT killing a guard who registered a faint evil aura. Sorry, but that's actually NOT supported by RAW, so it's not a valid alignment complaint, it's a valid complaint about that DM. Or ANYONE who claims alignment is a straightjacket. The RAW explicitly state that it is NOT a straightjacket, even uses those EXACT WORDS. So, by definition, it is an objectively false statement to say that it is. Have people mistakenly used it as such? Certainly, but that is a problem with those people.
I don't care about your view. I'm not trying to make you like alignment. I'm trying to show you that all your points about alignment being bad are simply your OPINION (which you are certainly entitled to) and NOT objective fact. I am trying to show you (and other detractors) what RAW say about alignments, because if we are discussing flaws in the actual alignment system, the only fair way to judge it is to judge RAW. If your examples about alignment flaws are actually NOT PERMITTED or within the bounds of RAW, then it's not a valid indictment of alignment rules. Sorry, but that's just how logic works.
I accept that your opinion is different than mine. But when you (and other alignment detractors) attempt to claim your opinions are objective fact, then I violently object.
And yes, my last statement was kind of passive-agressive. But I didn't feel like once again writing out a response to what amounted to blind vitriol.
So...you just arbitrarily decided to hate it for no reason, base your claims on why it's bad on NOTHING, and vehemently argue for its removal with blind, vitriolic rage?Kudos.[/quote]Since you have shown that you do not understand and never will unde
You LITERALLY just posted that you've never been party to bad alignment rulings, but still hate it.
Neither was I ever shot in the face or smashed by a car into a wall and squished. I still feel both are very bad things. I need not have a broken leg to know that it's a bad thing to have.
It's not just MY UNDERSTANDING of alignment. I am more than happy to directly quote RAW.
You mean the RAW that claim alignment is totally objective at any and all times? Because that's bogus. There is a reason a myriad of alignment threads pop up time and again, and that we've had so many people complain about it. Loaded terms like Good and Evil cannot be viewed objectively, I'd say.
The RAW explicitly state that it is NOT a straightjacket, even uses those EXACT WORDS.
You mean the RAW that then goes on to tell you that you can only play certain classes with a very limited or outright exlusive alignment? If that isn't straigthjacket then I don't know what is...
Want to play a Paladin? Only exactly one way to do that. That not a straightjacket?
I'm trying to show you that all your points about alignment being bad are simply your OPINION (which you are certainly entitled to) and NOT objective fact.
My dislike is indeed just opinion. That alignment is not objective and subject to personal opinions all around. Again, loaded terms that say incredibly little. There was another poster a few dozen posts above that actually brought forward an alignment system I would not outright object to: One with defined terminology that actually tells you something that is not incredibly vague.
And yes, my last statement was kind of passive-agressive. But I didn't feel like once again writing out a response to what amounted to blind vitriol.
Last statement? Try the last couple dozen posts in every alignment thread. Also, you did it right there again. Seems pretty much like a pattern to me.
Neither was I ever shot in the face or smashed by a car into a wall and squished. I still feel both are very bad things. I need not have a broken leg to know that it's a bad thing to have.You mean the RAW that claim alignment is totally objective at
It's not just MY UNDERSTANDING of alignment. I am more than happy to directly quote RAW.
You mean the RAW that claim alignment is totally objective at any and all times? Because that's bogus. There is a reason a myriad of alignment threads pop up time and again, and that we've had so many people complain about it. Loaded terms like Good and Evil cannot be viewed objectively, I'd say.
In the real world? Of course not. But D&D is fantasy. You can accept a fantasy world where dragons exist, wizards violate reality on a daily basis, and gods grant magic to devout followers, but one other fantasy element (objective measure of good and evil) violates your suspension of disbelief? The 3.X PHB says "In the D&D world, Good and Evil are not merely differing points of view, they are the forces that define the cosmos." (Chapter 6). There are planes suffused with the essence of Good, Evil Law, and or Chaos, there are beings physically comprised of said essence.
You want to play D&D with subjective Good and Evil? That's fine for you, but it's a deviation from RAW.
The RAW explicitly state that it is NOT a straightjacket, even uses those EXACT WORDS.
You mean the RAW that then goes on to tell you that you can only play certain classes with a very limited or outright exlusive alignment? If that isn't straigthjacket then I don't know what is...
Want to play a Paladin? Only exactly one way to do that. That not a straightjacket?
Then your issue is with the PALADIN, and other classes with alignment restrictions, because those classes were trying to imitate a SPECIFIC fantasty archetype. The CLASSES impose those restrictions. Alignment itself is not a straightjacket. Lawful Good can include a WIDE array of personality types. One paladin might be a devout crusader, seeking to stamp out all evil creatures, but care little for charity. He could have a short temper, or a greedy streak. Lawful Good is not ONE personality, or ONE way to play. The class design is very narrow in what it was trying to achieve, granted, but that's because it was very specific in its focus.
You mean the RAW that claim alignment is totally objective at any and all times? Because that's bogus. There is a reason a myriad of alignment threads pop up time and again, and that we've had so many people complain about it. Loaded terms like Good
but one other fantasy element (objective measure of good and evil) violates your suspension of disbelief?
It's not about suspension of disbelief, as you do not seem to be capable of grasping. It's the fact that barely any people can actually accept "objective good and evil" that will define some of their actions. Which, again, leads to strife and problems, as seen a great many times.
Also, care to provide a quote from any and all editions of D&D that alignment always was, has been and will be a subjective in-world thing? Just to be on the safe side, you know.
Then your issue is with the PALADIN, and other classes with alignment restrictions, because those classes were trying to imitate a SPECIFIC fantasty archetype. The CLASSES impose those restrictions. Alignment itself is not a straightjacket. Lawful Good can include a WIDE array of personality types. One paladin might be a devout crusader, seeking to stamp out all evil creatures, but care little for charity. He could have a short temper, or a greedy streak. Lawful Good is not ONE personality, or ONE way to play. The class design is very narrow in what it was trying to achieve, granted, but that's because it was very specific in its focus.
So your agument is that alignment does not limit the class, but it does limit class? I mean, nice, you can play many different archetypes as Paladin, as long as you adhere to LG. What if people can't agree on what LG is, as seen in quite a lot of paladin discussions?
Alignment is used, per the rules, as a straightjacket. You might not like it or not even see it that way, but I and many others certainly do. While "LG only" allows for quite a few archetypes, it kills off several times as much right out of the door.
So yeah, all in all I am still asking: Why should I accept your PoV on alignment any more than I do accept the PoV of anyone else who claims to "have understoof alignment"?
It's not about suspension of disbelief, as you do not seem to be capable of grasping. It's the fact that barely any people can actually accept "objective good and evil" that will define some of their actions. Which, again, leads to strife and problem
but one other fantasy element (objective measure of good and evil) violates your suspension of disbelief?
It's not about suspension of disbelief, as you do not seem to be capable of grasping. It's the fact that barely any people can actually accept "objective good and evil" that will define some of their actions. Which, again, leads to strife and problems, as seen a great many times.
You have no basis for that assumption. Even a poll of the forums does not represent an accurate cross-section of D&D players. Thus, your assertion that "barely any" people can grasp objective good and evil is a fallacy.
Also, care to provide a quote from any and all editions of D&D that alignment always was, has been and will be a subjective in-world thing? Just to be on the safe side, you know.
WHAT? Is attempting to strawman my points the only way you can grasp at straws to make yours?
First off, I assume you mean OBJECTIVE, not SUBJECTIVE, since otherwise, you are completely non-sequitur.
I can point to quotes from 3.x and 4e that Good and Evil are objective forces, because those are the books I still have in my possession. Of course I can't provide quotes from sources that don't exist yet.
And, of course, some settings have differing rules regarding the impact of good, evil, law and chaos. Dark Sun, for one. That setting has morality take a back seat to survival.
So your agument is that alignment does not limit the class, but it does limit class? I mean, nice, you can play many different archetypes as Paladin, as long as you adhere to LG. What if people can't agree on what LG is, as seen in quite a lot of paladin discussions?
No, my argument is that class imposes limits on character options because those classes were meant to adhere to narrow and specific archetypes. If people can't agree on what LG is, they have a reading deficiency. And most paladin discussions I have seen are usually a player attempting to act in an obviously non-LG manner and attempting (poorly) to justify it so he can do whatever he wants, or DMs who don't properly read alignment rules and either take a paladin's powers without just cause (under the Paladin's Code of Conduct section), and/or create "no win" scenarios that, no matter what action the paladin takes (and is honestly TRYING to do the right thing), he loses his powers. Such as the "meteor hurtling towards town vis svae the drowning orphan" scenario.
Alignment is used, per the rules, as a straightjacket. You might not like it or not even see it that way, but I and many others certainly do. While "LG only" allows for quite a few archetypes, it kills off several times as much right out of the door.
Any time alignment is used as a straightjacket, it's a deviation from RAW. The rules expressly state that it is not, ergo, as per RAW, it is not. There is no way to make a fair and balanced indictment of alignment by judging it by houserules. Only strict RAW discussions are valid, because accounting for all possible permutations of RAW is impossible.
So yeah, all in all I am still asking: Why should I accept your PoV on alignment any more than I do accept the PoV of anyone else who claims to "have understoof alignment"?
Who's asking you to accept my PoV? I'm pointing out what is and isn't RAW regarding alignment rules. If you don't like it, then it's likely because you are too entrenched in your own hatred of alignment to accept that the rules don't support all the negative things about alignment that made you hate it. Go ahead and dislike alignment. I really don't care. But don't go around making false claims about what alignment did and did not do.
It's not about suspension of disbelief, as you do not seem to be capable of grasping. It's the fact that barely any people can actually accept "objective good and evil" that will define some of their actions. Which, again, leads to strife and problem
