|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 7:41AM
#131
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2012
|
Again, if that's the case, then nothing is objective, because every single word and their meanings were created and given value by people. Now, if we want to go with the actual definition you've provided, thanks for that by the way, then again, all we have to do is look at quality of health, or say, the quality of a care engine. A car engine being non-functional (Read: bad.) is an objectively appreciable occurence. Everyone can see it, and it's lack of functionality isn't dependant upon whatever value the observer might give to it. Same thing for the human body when it's functioning like crap.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 9:13AM
#132
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Here is the definition of objectivity from which I draw: "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind"
Then can you please provide me with an objective definition of objective so that I can be properly equipped to discuss objectivity objectively?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 10:37AM
#133
|
Date Joined:
Dec 22, 2010
|
I like my own objective version of objectivity. It works for me.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 10:43AM
#134
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2012
|
I like my own objective version of objectivity. It works for me.
You mean the actual definition of the word? The one Notrecommended linked earlier?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 11:15AM
#135
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2008
|
I object to this objectively abject discussion of objectivity, as I suspect subjective sensibilities have clouded objective perspective.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 11:35AM
#136
|
Date Joined:
Nov 28, 2012
|
Alignment is needed for certain things ... and other things it gets in the way.
A Paladin more or less needs alignment to not so much be what he is, but to justify every action he does. He killed those NPC because they were evil. He has to go first as it is his job to protect the party.
As a DM I have always looks at alignment as a tool for the PC to use when flushing out their character. As someone stated it is sort of like a moral code that the PC has grown up with.
In the game I am currently running I only have one lawful good person, a cleric. He has stopped the rest of the party, we are all generally chaotic good, from doing stupid things or killing defensless people. He is the PC moral compass. For that I like alignment.
Now do good people do bad things, obviously yes. But should they be punished in game for it? I would say that depends on what they did. If a cleric gets drunk and passes out ... I don't think his alignment should change .... rather you can have the cleric sleep restlessly because of the guilt he would feel. Maybe he only gets half his spells during prayer because he is still dwelling on getting drunk.
Now if same cleric just up and snaps and goes into an orphanage and starts slaughtering children left and right, just because they don't belive in his god.... yes ... then an alignment change should happen. As well as a damn good explanation to the DM why said character snapped.
Where I think it gets in the way in how some of, at least my PC, use it as a crutch when talking with NPC.
Now I pose this. If alignment is just sort of a moral compass, and it is all a matter of point of view. Would not the BBEG think what he is doing is in the right and the PC are evil to him? So the alignment "compass" is flipped for them. Say BBEG wants to ... oh something mundane as take over the kingdom. Is he not doing it because either A) he thinks he was wronged or B) thinks/knows he could be a better job and force is the only way he knows how to get what he wants.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 11:46AM
#137
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2008
|
Now I pose this. If alignment is just sort of a moral compass, and it is all a matter of point of view. Would not the BBEG think what he is doing is in the right and the PC are evil to him? So the alignment "compass" is flipped for them. Say BBEG wants to ... oh something mundane as take over the kingdom. Is he not doing it because either A) he thinks he was wronged or B) thinks/knows he could be a better job and force is the only way he knows how to get what he wants.
This is why alignment is based on the idea that Good and Evil are objective standards.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 11:50AM
#138
|
Date Joined:
Nov 28, 2012
|
Now I pose this. If alignment is just sort of a moral compass, and it is all a matter of point of view. Would not the BBEG think what he is doing is in the right and the PC are evil to him? So the alignment "compass" is flipped for them. Say BBEG wants to ... oh something mundane as take over the kingdom. Is he not doing it because either A) he thinks he was wronged or B) thinks/knows he could be a better job and force is the only way he knows how to get what he wants.
This is why alignment is based on the idea that Good and Evil are objective standards.
So in theory a BBEG could cast Detect Evil and sense the PC?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 12:01PM
#139
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
A Paladin more or less needs alignment to not so much be what he is, but to justify every action he does. He killed those NPC because they were evil. He has to go first as it is his job to protect the party.
A neutral fighter could do and say the same things.
As a DM I have always looks at alignment as a tool for the PC to use when flushing out their character. As someone stated it is sort of like a moral code that the PC has grown up with.
Then they can put in a word or two about their upbringing. Alignment isn't necessary. Plenty of games, even in fantasy settings, do without it entirely.
In the game I am currently running I only have one lawful good person, a cleric. He has stopped the rest of the party, we are all generally chaotic good, from doing stupid things or killing defensless people. He is the PC moral compass. For that I like alignment.
What do you mean by "stupid things?"
It's great, I guess, that he does this, but that's not alignment, that's just playing a character. That character could be defined by one's own out-of-game beliefs, or based on a real or imaginary person. Alignment isn't required for either.
Now do good people do bad things, obviously yes. But should they be punished in game for it? I would say that depends on what they did. If a cleric gets drunk and passes out ... I don't think his alignment should change .... rather you can have the cleric sleep restlessly because of the guilt he would feel. Maybe he only gets half his spells during prayer because he is still dwelling on getting drunk.
Why should there by any consequence at all? Why not let the player decide what stems from the character's choices, when it comes to matters of the character's personal feelings?
Now if same cleric just up and snaps and goes into an orphanage and starts slaughtering children left and right, just because they don't belive in his god.... yes ... then an alignment change should happen. As well as a damn good explanation to the DM why said character snapped.
Why? Is the intent to provide disincentives for such behavior: changing alignment (possibly hampering the character) and calling the player on the carpet? How does the game break if a player has one alignment and doesn't "follow" it? One alignment isn't more powerful than another.
Where I think it gets in the way in how some of, at least my PC, use it as a crutch when talking with NPC.
That's certainly one of the many ways it gets in the way.
Now I pose this. If alignment is just sort of a moral compass, and it is all a matter of point of view. Would not the BBEG think what he is doing is in the right and the PC are evil to him? So the alignment "compass" is flipped for them. Say BBEG wants to ... oh something mundane as take over the kingdom. Is he not doing it because either A) he thinks he was wronged or B) thinks/knows he could be a better job and force is the only way he knows how to get what he wants.
Exactly. That's why all the NPCs in my game are "Good." Very few people really believe they're evil.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 12:22PM
#140
|
Date Joined:
Nov 28, 2012
|
A Paladin more or less needs alignment to not so much be what he is, but to justify every action he does. He killed those NPC because they were evil. He has to go first as it is his job to protect the party.
A neutral fighter could do and say the same things.
As a DM I have always looks at alignment as a tool for the PC to use when flushing out their character. As someone stated it is sort of like a moral code that the PC has grown up with.
Then they can put in a word or two about their upbringing. Alignment isn't necessary. Plenty of games, even in fantasy settings, do without it entirely.
In the game I am currently running I only have one lawful good person, a cleric. He has stopped the rest of the party, we are all generally chaotic good, from doing stupid things or killing defensless people. He is the PC moral compass. For that I like alignment.
What do you mean by "stupid things?"
It's great, I guess, that he does this, but that's not alignment, that's just playing a character. That character could be defined by one's own out-of-game beliefs, or based on a real or imaginary person. Alignment isn't required for either.
Now do good people do bad things, obviously yes. But should they be punished in game for it? I would say that depends on what they did. If a cleric gets drunk and passes out ... I don't think his alignment should change .... rather you can have the cleric sleep restlessly because of the guilt he would feel. Maybe he only gets half his spells during prayer because he is still dwelling on getting drunk.
Why should there by any consequence at all? Why not let the player decide what stems from the character's choices, when it comes to matters of the character's personal feelings?
Now if same cleric just up and snaps and goes into an orphanage and starts slaughtering children left and right, just because they don't belive in his god.... yes ... then an alignment change should happen. As well as a damn good explanation to the DM why said character snapped.
Why? Is the intent to provide disincentives for such behavior: changing alignment (possibly hampering the character) and calling the player on the carpet? How does the game break if a player has one alignment and doesn't "follow" it? One alignment isn't more powerful than another.
Where I think it gets in the way in how some of, at least my PC, use it as a crutch when talking with NPC.
That's certainly one of the many ways it gets in the way.
Now I pose this. If alignment is just sort of a moral compass, and it is all a matter of point of view. Would not the BBEG think what he is doing is in the right and the PC are evil to him? So the alignment "compass" is flipped for them. Say BBEG wants to ... oh something mundane as take over the kingdom. Is he not doing it because either A) he thinks he was wronged or B) thinks/knows he could be a better job and force is the only way he knows how to get what he wants.
Exactly. That's why all the NPCs in my game are "Good." Very few people really believe they're evil.
- But a Paladin needs alignment more than any other class ... or he is just a fighter.
- I am not saying they need alignment for their backstory, it is just a tool that can be used in creating it.
- "stupid things" ... there is a plethora of stupid things the cleric in my group stops the rest of them from doing. Last game he stopped a pair of dwarves, who were drunk at the time, from urinating on homeless people in the streets of the capital.
- I get that it would be telling the PC what his character thinks. But if alignment is going to be used by the PC and just ignored by the DM, or vice versa, what's the point of even using it.
- Now this could fall under more of a deity thing, in that cause the PC should not get to judge what happens to him. That would be like asking a child what they want their punishment to be. In the case I stated above the cleric would no longer get spells from the deity he was worshiping because he did something against that god.
- We agree on that then.
- Someone other than the PC has to belive they are evil. If PC takes down the BBEG, when everyone thinks they are good, then the PC will be looked upon as being evil. Now if this is what you are going for, fine. But then you have to take into account that everyone ... everyone thinks they are evil. Shopkeepers wouldn't want to deal with them, healers might not want to, and that is saying that they are even allowed into a city to begin with.
|
|
|
