|
5 years ago ::
Jul 02, 2008 - 11:16PM
#191
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2002
|
I LOVED the nine alignments, especially the Law-Chaos axis, and had endless fun messing around with the ramifications (my players enjoyed it too, else it obviously wouldn't have flown). In the last 3.5 campaign I was running the party paladin was a saint, more L than G, and a borderline sin-eater: his primary role in the world was to kill those borderline sinners whose cases were so complex that 'normal' good people shied away from dispensing justice (generally with good reason). The rest of the party members, all LG, NG, and LN, were frequently freaked out by the swiftness and brutality of his justice.
And then whenever he killed one of these people, he had to perform a 3-minute ritual and burn 1000 xp in a postmortem atonement to forgive them all their sins. The character was awesome and the player loved it.
BUT, in 4.0, we dropped all alignments immediately and will almost definitely never reintroduce them. Which is also fun.
-Shaftiel
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 03, 2008 - 1:14AM
#192
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2007
|
You missed the most important point, AD. D&D is, and always has been, fundamentally a game about killing bad guys and looting their stuff. Default D&D morality (regardless of edition) promotes this behaviour, not condems it. If you're pushing a moral position incompatible with this then not only are we not on the same page, we're not even in the same book.
I don't think it promotes wanton killing and looting. It has mechanics for killing stuff and rewards it. That works perfectly with the Good alignment, as sometimes (in D&D, very often), you have to kill things to stop them. I don't categorically oppose killing, but for Good-aligned characters, it should be a trait that they don't just kill every problematic individual they face.
Admittedly, BoED did - in places - try to move beyond this somewhat. But BoED is a supplement deliberately exploring the impact of "better than normal" morality in the D&D game. It's not normative, and is not intended to be so.
Liked the concept, not the execution.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 03, 2008 - 6:39AM
#193
|
- Favourite Non-Member Member
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2002
|
Executing certain criminals increases the quality of life for everyone else. And if one values life, one seeks to improve its quality.
At least I have my proper avatar now, I guess. But man is this cloud dark.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 03, 2008 - 7:54AM
#194
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2008
|
I think the death penalty is perfect issue to illustrate how the 9 alignments still have to be interpreted subjectively and where a character is from is largely going to shape his or her feelings about what is right or wrong: If you live in a kingdom (lets say a high magic elven one) where murderers have a spell cast upon them that makes it impossible for them to commit a violent act, and they are kept separate from the rest of society as a added measure, then you might likely find kingdoms that do execute criminals to be Lawful evil/neutral at best. Thus it is still up to the DM to define subjective religions/moral codes into their world, and a character that has a different take on that then the DM is going to have to seriously watch out for their actions to prevent an alignment change.
If the gods that exist in your D&D world say killing an unarmed/harmless (I doubt the gods would be stupid enough to ignore magic in there ruling) person is an evil act, than it is. especially if the gods that do so are also the gods worshiped by the local society and the only other gods worshiped anywhere close to one's place of birth, are the "Evil" gods of "Monster Races." Terms which if used around me in the real world I would take high offense at for being racist. But that is because I live in a complex world where many different gods are worshiped/ethical views are held which are all competing to be considered Lawful good so that other cultures adopt their way of thinking...oh, wait the D&D world is exactly the same except, as DM, there is only one person who gets to make the call about which group really has it right and which are misguided, instead of 7 billion.
All I am saying is that you are free to debate this, but no matter what, the 5 or the 9 are still subject to the limitation of subjective definition handed down by the DM through the gods and the general social sentiment. For a early/pre-biblical campaign setting, it is entirely possible that there are going to be lawful good characters (at least in their own society) that have slaves, because the nature and moral attitudes towards slavery then was very different.
A lot of people are accustom to using the nine alignments and will continue to do so, maybe adding unaligned as an opt out, because it is familiar and it was the way they learned to interpret the moral dimensions of role-playing. That is fine, but it doesn't really make any more sense (if you can detach yourself from that history) than the new 5. I explain this much better in the alignment questions thread under the players advice, and if I knew how to, I would link my post there to here, but I am terrible with computers. If you are really thinking about switching back to the old 9 without doing so specifically to adopt a world or campaign setting that was developed under 2 or 3.X, i would recommend looking up my post and seeing my explanation for why I think the 5 works better in the new campaign world of 4.0.
Instead, I would suggest that if you really hate the new 5, and aren't trying to recreate the exact same setting flavor as your favorite setting in 3.X (Which is really hard to do because so many basic things have changed, gnomes, barbarians, Illusionists, half the gods, etc), then you are doing yourself a creative disservice by going backwards to an alignment system that is really just as structurally forced as the new one you hate.
Earlier, I suggested trying out the D20 modern allegiance system as a more expansive and inclusive alternative (what if the primary lines of ethical debate in your world were the Laws of civilization versus the Laws of nature. You can do this under the 9, but you are likely going to have to place one into the favored position of Lawful Good and undermine the other as not lawful or not good unless you want to play a campaign where you have two Lawful good societies at war with one another.)
I would be interested to see what people think/other ideas people had, because honestly, as much as I loved the 9 and all the moralistic debates around it, it took just as much work to jam a world into as dropping alignment all together and letting one's ethical code just be a part of a character's personality that one role played, because alignment is really not a mechanical element to D&D anymore.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 04, 2008 - 1:53AM
#195
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
But here's the thing: Alignment is determined from action, not inaction. Of course you must do your best to prevent him from going through with his plans, but killing should always be considered the last resort (that is when the threat becomes immediate). At least from the perspective of Good.
I disagree. Alignment is just as dependent on what you do not do. If a LG character stands by and watches someone drown in a lake, when he could have saved that person, that is not a good act. If someone declares their intent to kill someone at a later date, the threat is not immediate, but if you do nothing to stop it, you are still in the wrong. All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, or something to that effect.
Likewise, if you had the chance to prevent the deaths of innocents, is it more evil not to do so, even if it involves execution? Granted, this is not something the alignment system can easily handle anyway as it falls into a gray area, which is part of why I stopped using alignment in 3e, but its not automatically evil no matter which way he goes with that. Its like that old question about what you would do if you could go back in time and kill hitler before he rose to power. Theres valid arguments both ways, but I wouldn't call either choice evil.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 04, 2008 - 11:50AM
#196
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2007
|
I disagree.
Disagree all you want. It changes nothing.
Alignment is just as dependent on what you do not do. If a LG character stands by and watches someone drown in a lake, when he could have saved that person, that is not a good act.
Regardless of the alignment of the character, it's not an Evil act either. It's not even Neutral. He doesn't do anything and thus cannot be judged based on that incident.
If someone declares their intent to kill someone at a later date, the threat is not immediate, but if you do nothing to stop it, you are still in the wrong.
An opinion. A wrong opinion. Someone who doesn't risk his life to stop someone else from committing a moral wrong cannot possibly be held accountable. There's a shade of grey, you know.
All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, or something to that effect.
Proves nothing.
Likewise, if you had the chance to prevent the deaths of innocents, is it more evil not to do so, even if it involves execution? Granted, this is not something the alignment system can easily handle anyway as it falls into a gray area, which is part of why I stopped using alignment in 3e, but its not automatically evil no matter which way he goes with that. Its like that old question about what you would do if you could go back in time and kill hitler before he rose to power. Theres valid arguments both ways, but I wouldn't call either choice evil.
You don't really have the authority to arbitrate whether the death penalty is Evil. You need to go back to what I have already argued and refute that.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 04, 2008 - 1:42PM
#197
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
Regardless of the alignment of the character, it's not an Evil act either. It's not even Neutral. He doesn't do anything and thus cannot be judged based on that incident.
By choosing not to help someone when it is fully within his capability to do so is an act, the act of standing by and watching. Thus, it is important and it can be judged. Now granted, this may change depending on the DM, but if that situation happened in RL, most people would take issue with that.
An opinion. A wrong opinion. Someone who doesn't risk his life to stop someone else from committing a moral wrong cannot possibly be held accountable. There's a shade of grey, you know.
Yes, it is an opinion. The fact that you believe it to be wrong is your opinion. My opinion is that your opinion is wrong. However, since they are opinions, there is no way for either of us to prove that we are right, which is why I am not attempting to do so. I was just pointing out situations where some people might take a different view than what you have been presenting.
And of course there are shades of gray, just not in D&D (3.5 and earlier), which is exactly why I don't like the alignment system.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 04, 2008 - 1:44PM
#198
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
You don't really have the authority to arbitrate whether the death penalty is Evil. You need to go back to what I have already argued and refute that.
In my campaign when I'm DMing, yes I do have that authority. In RL, then it is very much a matter of opinion, and that's something better left untouched in these forums.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 04, 2008 - 4:34PM
#199
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2007
|
By choosing not to help someone when it is fully within his capability to do so is an act, the act of standing by and watching.
That's an incredible stretch of logic right there. Generally an action in instances such as this would imply a reaction to the situation. Standing is not a reaction since you are doing the same thing you were doing before.
Also, you must note that the very moment you start judging people for the things they don't do, that is the exact moment when morality has become black and white, which D&D morality isn't (remember that middle ground we call Neutral).
Now granted, this may change depending on the DM
Irrelevant.
but if that situation happened in RL, most people would take issue with that.
Not really. I personally would jump in to save a drowning child, but I don't care about what the people standing there were doing. I don't find them less moral than they already were, just more apathetic than I'd prefer.
Yes, it is an opinion. The fact that you believe it to be wrong is your opinion.
Unless I can prove it (and some opinions can be proven wrong). Your opinion doesn't seem to be holding much water compared to, say, mine.
I was just pointing out situations where some people might take a different view than what you have been presenting.
I was just pointing out that they may disagree all they want, but this is a rules argument. The fact that they have an interpretation has no bearing on its validity. The fact that they think they're right doesn't either. What matters is reality, logic and only those two.
And of course there are shades of gray, just not in D&D (3.5 and earlier), which is exactly why I don't like the alignment system.
Neutral is a shade of gray. You just don't seem to recognize it for what it is.
In my campaign when I'm DMing, yes I do have that authority.
Again, we're not discussing your campaign, my campaign, Nom's campaign or anyone else's. We're discussing the rules.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 04, 2008 - 6:09PM
#200
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
Alignment is determined from action, not inaction.
From page 104 of the 3.5 PHB. "Good characters make sacrifices to help others."
Further down that page "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."
"A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him."
From page 19 of the 4e PHB under The Good Alignment. "...you might be asked to place others' needs above your own...in some cases even if that means putting yourself in harm's way. In many ways, that's the essence of being a heroic adventurer: The people of the town can't defend themselves from the marauding goblins, so you descend into the dungeon-at significant risk-to put an end to the goblins raid."
So it seems the rules disagree with you. Action and inaction are both important under the alignment system. I could go back further into previous editions, but at this point, that's just a waste of time. You'll either accept it or not, and nothing else will change that.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.
|
|
|
