Law=Order debate... When referring to physics I can see the name shift, however since we are not talking about physics it makes more sense to use Law. When I get a ticket for driving too fast I don't get a ticket for breaking the Order, nor do I appear in a Court of Order to appeal the ticket.
But that's the point. A Lawful individual may break laws. Lots of people try to piegonhole law the alignment into law the legal system. They are not the same.
A Lawful person prefers order to chaos. That is all it means. Saying anything more is creating a narrow, rather than broad, definition.
While I really like the alignement system, some clarification would be nice.
Though it might go beyond the frame, I though of granting a small skill shift for choosing an alignement:
Lawful - Discipline +2, Deception -2
Chaotic - Deception +2, Discipline -2
Good - Diplomacy +2, Intimidate -2
Evil - Intimidate +2, Diplomacy -2(Just a side note)
I like this mechanic. I think it makes Alignments a more active choice, which I think is positive.
Thanks!
It's.. not exactly a bad idea.. Flavorful at least. Some heavy stereotype enforcement, but, depending on the game you run, that's not necessarially bad.
That's why two Lawful Good people can still have different morals.
I don't.. I don't think you're quite getting this. Two people of the same alignment can have countless different moral viewpoints.
There are only nine alignments. Do you know how many different moral codes are possible within the human mind?More than nine.
I'd also want a few examples of famous characters with each alignment, but that would just lead to arguments of if Robin Hood is CG or CN, or if Lancelot really was Lawful (I mean, he did sleep with the king's wife. Several times.)
All the better: it would settle those debates.
At least in the context of the PRPG. Those who disagree may argue briefly that it "should" have been done differently, but in the end, will have no recourse but to say they're handling alingment differently in their own games and move on, which is what we want.There's nothing wrong with the rulebooks being clear on what they mean. THey should. If individuals want to hang their alingments on slighlty different axis' there's nothing to stop them, but it's still good for us to start at common ground.
Lastly, Good & Evil /> Law & Chaos. Proof: It doesn't say it anywhere in the book, which is your set of axioms. End Proof. If you're thinking of saying this as a modification, this is a bad idea.
You missunderstand.
His suggestion was that, in instance where law and good conflict, doing the lawful thing may be an evil act but doing the good thing is not a chaotic act.In otherwords, good/evil takes precidence in instance of direct conflict.
[I have had to enforce alignment only rarely in my game. Usually the players are pretty good about policing themselves. On ocassion I do have to step in and say no that's not acceptable, like when ...
BLAAAAARGH!
*ded*Okay. I give up. You seem happy, just, run your game how you wish.
|
[QUOTE="Hydro
I don't.. I don't think you're quite getting this. Two people of the same alignment can have countless different moral viewpoints.
There are only nine alignments. Do you know how many different moral codes are possible within the human mind?
More than nine.
yes but if you define them more clearly, try to put more precise meaning on the definitions, then you have exactly nine alignments. No more. I am a big fan of broad interpretation of alignment. I just don't understand why you guys would want nine well define alignments and that is all.
To add some wood to the LAW vs. ORDER fire:
In Germany, Lawful was translated into RECHTSCHAFFEN,
which means (besides others, go use LEO.org): righteous
This thread is a great example of why the whole alignment system should be abandoned. It is totally arbitrary and almost impossible to get two people to agree on what each alignment stands for.
Philosophy, morals, and ethics are subjective to the individual.
This is one system that could be dropped from the game with minimal conversion issues. You can still have good vs. evil in the game without the alignment system. You can still make blasphemy work.
Monte did it. Runequest does it. Call of Cthulhu does it.
|
|
This thread is a great example of why the whole alignment system should be abandoned. It is totally arbitrary and almost impossible to get two people to agree on what each alignment stands for.
Philosophy, morals, and ethics are subjective to the individual.
This is one system that could be dropped from the game with minimal conversion issues. You can still have good vs. evil in the game without the alignment system. You can still make blasphemy work.
Monte did it. Runequest does it. Call of Cthulhu does it.
Don't get me wrong I dislike alignments. In my own games we don't use Smite Evil, we use Smite. The guy may have been good but he got the snot beat out of him anyway.
I would prefer a system of alleigances, IF anything at all were used. However, I still prefer that alignments be left as is and people use House Rules to define them. Because let's face it, how are they going to define Law? As we saw here there are different interpretations to Law, and whatever is chosen will still have to be House Ruled on.
So what difference is made? Paizo defines Law/Chaos/Good/Evil and all the combos. You read them and decide they STILL have it wrong and have to House Rule anyway. So why mess with it?
yes but if you define them more clearly, try to put more precise meaning on the definitions, then you have exactly nine alignments. No more. I am a big fan of broad interpretation of alignment. I just don't understand why you guys would want nine well define alignments and that is all.
I don't.. I don't think you're quite getting this. Two people of the same alignment can have countless different moral viewpoints.
There are only nine alignments. Do you know how many different moral codes are possible within the human mind?
More than nine.
Alright, sorry I missunderstood. But I still don't agree.
"Lawful good" isn't a moral code. It's a vast number of moral codes.
The alignment defines a range, not a point.
Unless you're talking about the moral code based on trying to be Lawful and trying to be Good.
Except that that's two moral codes, and for those who try to follow both, there's really no single right way to reconcile them should they conflict. That's a connundrom that every paladin has to face. And this makes sense to me; real world moral codes have to face similar issues whenever they have more than one goal. The DM's job is only to decide when the PC is and isn't being good, and when he is and isn't being lawful.
At this point, yea, that's just my take. I find that breaking up alignments makes them much easier to deal with. "Lawful Good" has no substance as a concept independ of Law and Good. Even once you put precise (and often inhuman) meanings on the definitions, there aren't 9 alignments, there are only four: Chaos, Law, Good, and Evil.
Philosophy, morals, and ethics are subjective to the individual.
Not in the sense you're saying, no.
Even in the real world, we can agree that altruism is altruism, nihilism is nihilism, humanism is humanism, etc.Now, people may disagree when you start talking about specific details or obscure applications of the idea, yes. But if an infinitely detailed and inflexible definition of the idea was written into the fabric of reality, well, that wouldn't happen.
Even in the real world, altruism means helping others in favor of yourself; no matter who you ask. That doesn't mean everyone is an altruist. This is hard for some people to grasp, but the alignment system tells you what is Good and Evil, not what is right and wrong. People can still have moral opinions independant of the cosmic alignments.
This is one system that could be dropped from the game with minimal conversion issues.
No, it really can't.
Monte did it. Runequest does it. Call of Cthulhu does it.
Arcana Evolved and Runequest are awesome, but not D&D.
CoC d20 is definitely awesome, but definitely not D&D.This thread is a great example of why the whole alignment system should be abandoned. It is totally arbitrary and almost impossible to get two people to agree on what each alignment stands for.
People argue because alignment definitions are extremely vague. Be more precise and most of the arguements will evaporate.
And I don't mind people disagreeing on what alignments should mean. They should be subjective from gamegroup to gamegroup, that's fine. But for purposes of discussion we should have some common ground. The definitions in the rulebook should be more explicite.
I honestly think that people way over analize alignment.
Here's how we do it in my game.
Law, Chaos, & Neutrality- This is one part of the axis. This is your world view. Law means that you believe that there is structure in the Universe and do things within the established structure of the world you live in. Chaos, means that you believe that structure is an illusion and that the universe is chaotic by nature. You don't believe that the laws of man apply to you, and you discard them as need be. (This doesn't mean you have no fear of repercussions.) Neutrality is just the simple beliefe that the Universe is in ballance and all things even out in the end.
Good, Evil & Neutral- Good means a willingness to help others, putting the good of the many before yourself. Altruism. Evil simply means that you look out for number one first and formost. It's selfishness. It doesn't mean that you have to wander around killing babies. It doesn't mean that you can't have people you care about, and causes that you would die for. It means that what motivates you is more personal, more self centered, not for the good of the world. Under this definition more people would qualify as evil that they would like to admit. Neutrality in this axis simply means that you don't go running off to save the world, but if trouble comes looking for you, you don't back away from it. A person running a true neutral alignmet could swing back and forth between evil and good fighting each when one side becomes out of ballance.
My own alignment creation- Rigid Lawful Good- This is enforcing the will of Law and goodness at any cost. It is someone who is willing to kill children, burn buildings and commit genocide for the greater good of society. The best example I've ever seen of this is The Operative from the movie "Serenity". He has an ideal for creating a perfect world, but at the same time he knows that he can never live in that world because of what he's done.
Anyway, that's my take on alignment.
Alignments are totally subjective. How do I see myself? How do others view me?... I believe that those 2 questions will be answered differently 99% of the time. Every campaign will have variations on what alignments are. My examples are meant only to create dialogue.
For instance "slavery"
In some Lawful countries in dnd this is acceptable. Scarlet Brotherhood in Greyhawk for example. It is a country that is listed as LE. This country is noted for its use of slaves. So what is the alignment of a slave that escapes his/her shackles? Chaotic? What if this person were originally Lawful before becoming a slave? What is the alignment of someone who was raised in this culture and as a Lawful person tries to uphold what is "right"? In this case slavery as viewed by the country.
What would a LG person born in a LE country be seen as? What would he see himself as? If this person lacked the courage to stand up for his beliefs does that change that persons alignment?
What if my sincere belief was that anyone who does not worship my God was doomed to eternal damnation? Would I be chaotic if I broke laws in order to "save" these people? I would see myself as good.. What would the people that I'm trying to save think my alignment is? Even if I explained my reasons for doing this.
**"Stops for breath"**
These are questions I am not wise enough to answer. But you will see these situations every day in your real life.
IMO: I can't see how you can put a label on a person and make it stick. It's up to the DM to judge whether or not a character is staying in "character".
Please dont flame as I'm wearing my favorite shirt.
|
|
"Lawful good" isn't a moral code. It's a vast number of moral codes.
The alignment defines a range, not a point.
Unless you're talking about the moral code based on trying to be Lawful and trying to be Good.
Except that that's two moral codes, and for those who try to follow both, there's really no single right way to reconcile them should they conflict. That's a connundrom that every paladin has to face. And this makes sense to me; real world moral codes have to face similar issues whenever they have more than one goal. The DM's job is only to decide when the PC is and isn't being good, and when he is and isn't being lawful.At this point, yea, that's just my take. I find that breaking up alignments makes them much easier to deal with. "Lawful Good" has no substance as a concept independ of Law and Good. Even once you put precise (and often inhuman) meanings on the definitions, there aren't 9 alignments, there are only four: Chaos, Law, Good, and Evil.
I understand what you are saying and I agree in principle (this sounds very much like the way I think about it- but in my game we just do away with them- so I am not arguing the concept just implementation). So here is my challenge:
Define LAW (as in a moral code) in one or two paragraphs that EVERYONE here will agree with.
Then Define CHAOS (as a moral code) in one or two paragraphs that EVERYONE here will agree with.
If we can't get all them users to agree with the definition so they don't have to House Rule it, then why mess with it.
If you (or anyone) can get everyone here to agree with your definition then by golly gee let's DO IT! :)
|
|
Alignments are totally subjective. How do I see myself? How do others view me?... I believe that those 2 questions will be answered differently 99% of the time. Every campaign will have variations on what alignments are. My examples are meant only to create dialogue.
Alignments are subjective because you believe they are. There are people who believe they are absolute. In D&D the idea is that alignments are real, and absolute.
But you and I agree that they are subjective. It's just that there are people who believe otherwise (yes in the real world- I won't name the church that comes immediately to mind so as to not start a religion war here)
Define LAW (as in a moral code) in one or two paragraphs that EVERYONE here will agree with.
Then Define CHAOS (as a moral code) in one or two paragraphs that EVERYONE here will agree with.
We aren't going to agree because the PHB definition is so nebulous. This is reason enough not to leave it alone; it's broken and needs fixing.
I don't care if the definition is necessarially the same as mine, and that's what I said from the start. If I strongly disagree I can always houserule, and I think any reasonable gamer should feel the same.
There are some aspects of D&D-cannon's "good" that I as a person don't feel would benefit the greater good at all. This doesn't bother me because we aren't talking about a bible, we're talking about a game. I'm okay with my opinions differing from those of some make-believe cosmos. But, for purposes of making that game run smoothly, those definitions should be precise and easy to understand, whatever they are.
Alignments are totally subjective. How do I see myself? How do others view me?... I believe that those 2 questions will be answered differently 99% of the time. Every campaign will have variations on what alignments are. My examples are meant only to create dialogue.
For instance "slavery"
In some Lawful countries in dnd this is acceptable. Scarlet Brotherhood in Greyhawk for example. It is a country that is listed as LE. This country is noted for its use of slaves. So what is the alignment of a slave that escapes his/her shackles? Chaotic? What if this person were originally Lawful before becoming a slave? What is the alignment of someone who was raised in this culture and as a Lawful person tries to uphold what is "right"? In this case slavery as viewed by the country.
What would a LG person born in a LE country be seen as? What would he see himself as? If this person lacked the courage to stand up for his beliefs does that change that persons alignment?
What if my sincere belief was that anyone who does not worship my God was doomed to eternal damnation? Would I be chaotic if I broke laws in order to "save" these people? I would see myself as good.. What would the people that I'm trying to save think my alignment is? Even if I explained my reasons for doing this.
**"Stops for breath"**
These are questions I am not wise enough to answer. But you will see these situations every day in your real life.
IMO: I can't see how you can put a label on a person and make it stick. It's up to the DM to judge whether or not a character is staying in "character".
Please dont flame as I'm wearing my favorite shirt.
Do you want an honest answer to those questions, as I would rule them as a DM?
Because they do have objective* answers, backed by clear and concise reasoning. But I think those questions might have been rhetorical so I'm not sure.Different DMs might rule them different ways, and that's totally fine. If you're dming, then Cosmic Good, Cosmic Law, and the gods who concieved of them are sort of your characters. You get to decide. Some thought should go into this (this is why I feel alignment rules aren't for beginners), but not nearly as much thought as you would put into a real-world moral connundrum; at the end of the day it's just a game.
*Edit: Err, objective within my game world. Is what I ment (as in it doesn't vary according to the opinions of characters involved). Not as in my rulings are right and those of other DMs are wrong.
I think this will really help this discussion: Click me!
Alignments as is. No changes. No fixes. It's a legacy, like Flounder.
It never ceases to amaze me that people playing a role-playing game want to get rid of alignments because they cause conflict. Conflict, however, is good and promotes role-playing.
Alignment's doing it's job when it promotes discussion, dialogue, conflict, and argument. That IS its role.
|
|
This thread is a great example of why the whole alignment system should be abandoned. It is totally arbitrary and almost impossible to get two people to agree on what each alignment stands for.
Philosophy, morals, and ethics are subjective to the individual.
This is one system that could be dropped from the game with minimal conversion issues. You can still have good vs. evil in the game without the alignment system. You can still make blasphemy work.
Monte did it. Runequest does it. Call of Cthulhu does it.
Don't get me wrong I dislike alignments. In my own games we don't use Smite Evil, we use Smite. The guy may have been good but he got the snot beat out of him anyway.
I would prefer a system of alleigances, IF anything at all were used. However, I still prefer that alignments be left as is and people use House Rules to define them. Because let's face it, how are they going to define Law? As we saw here there are different interpretations to Law, and whatever is chosen will still have to be House Ruled on.
So what difference is made? Paizo defines Law/Chaos/Good/Evil and all the combos. You read them and decide they STILL have it wrong and have to House Rule anyway. So why mess with it?
I have to admit I like the allegence system too. It practicly is like having your cake and eating it to. You can have the nine alignments plus ones for organizations.
I wouldn't try and shoe horn in the three musketeers into one of the nine. The are dedicated to themselves and code of the musketeers. They have a code of honor, but I dare say that thye weren't lawful and while they had good intentions most of the time, they weren't good. But they were heros.
I think allegences really do fleshout concept rather well. It allows antagonists that can be very fanatic without being evil. And sometimes that can really help a DM create a really good adventure.
|
I wouldn't try and shoe horn in the three musketeers into one of the nine. The are dedicated to themselves and code of the musketeers. They have a code of honor, but I dare say that thye weren't lawful and while they had good intentions most of the time, they weren't good. But they were heros.
The Musketeers protect the king, protect the queen, defend France, and protect each other. They place the greater good over their own personal safety or ethics, with little thought of reward. They were a LG organization.
Now within that organization. Within that organization you had very different personalities. Porthos, as portrayed by Oliver Platt, was clearly CG or at best NG, Athos, as portrayed by Keifer Sutherland, was LN, while Arimas, as portrayed by Charlie Sheen, was NG. D'Artagnan was also NG with chaotic tendencies.
|
|
I wouldn't try and shoe horn in the three musketeers into one of the nine. The are dedicated to themselves and code of the musketeers. They have a code of honor, but I dare say that thye weren't lawful and while they had good intentions most of the time, they weren't good. But they were heros.
The Musketeers protect the king, protect the queen, defend France, and protect each other. They place the greater good over their own personal safety or ethics, with little thought of reward. They were a LG organization.
Now within that organization. Within that organization you had very different personalities. Porthos, as portrayed by Oliver Platt, was clearly CG or at best NG, Athos, as portrayed by Keifer Sutherland, was LN, while Arimas, as portrayed by Charlie Sheen, was NG. D'Artagnan was also NG with chaotic tendencies.
Sorry but the Musketters were anything but lawful. They broke the laws as often as theyt could. I'm not talking about the white washed Disney version. I'm talking about the Dumas version. None of them could be considered "good".
They're not that Lawful either. The depose a King in the Iron Mask. They are liars and thieves as well.
While I am fine with people using alignment in games. (I'm using it in my game right now.) Many time you can't shoe horn in clasic lit into D&D terms. The characters don't start with that sort of ethical and moral outlook, they have the moral and ethical view points of the world that we were born into.
2. Quite a common complaint is that "different people see alignment in a different way". I honestly couldn't care at all if someone here, or anywhere else, disagrees with my take on it. I'm playing with my group, and that what others think about it doesn't influence me one bit.
I think you're right. Most of the "conflict" over alignment takes place on message boards. Most of the time, everyone is fine with how things are done within their own group, and that's really all that matters.
You do sometimes hear about strife within gaming groups, though.The problem is when two people who started out in different game groups, or are new to the game, get together. Because they can both read the alignment entry and come away with totally different ideas of what it means.
A player says "I want to play a paladin". The dm says "okay".Three sessions later the paladin is a warrior with good will saves and the two gamers are bickering over what constitutes an "evil act".
This is why I'm pushing for more explicite descriptions even if some gamers don't agree with them. If the book's description were different from the dm's, he would at least be forced to bring this up to his group. It gives common ground and averts arguements later down the line.
Lacking this, there probably needs to be more dialogue on alignment with new game groups.
4. It is true, although a bit unfair, to say alignment limits roleplaying. For example, a choice of lesser or greater evil for a paladin is something that cannot, and should not be played out in D&D.
I disagree. I like that kind of thing (for paladins or otherwise).
I wouldn't force it onto a player who wouldn't enjoy that sort of roleplaying though. Or a dm, for that matter.Thus, it is unfair to say alignment limits roleplaying. It is far better to say alignment encourages a certain style of roleplaying over the other.
Yep.
A world with alignments is a very different place from the same world without them.I think this will really help this discussion: Click me!
The slaad and the formian are among the funniest things this comic has done, ever.
It's either that or the half-orc in the leprichan suit jumping through the window.
I wouldn't try and shoe horn in the three musketeers into one of the nine. The are dedicated to themselves and code of the musketeers. They have a code of honor, but I dare say that thye weren't lawful and while they had good intentions most of the time, they weren't good.
That you feel this way shows beyond all doubt that alignments aren't for you.
A lot of people have issues with judgement. They have no trouble saying that Sir Lawfulonias the Lawful is one alignment or the other, but give them a real, believable character and they don't want to touch it.
Saying "they were honorable but still chaotic", "they were rebels but still lawful", or "they had a lot of extreme tendencies but were still ethically neutral" is something that many gamers just can't, won't, or don't enjoy doing.
Thus, in my experience, many times they refuse to even play complex characters in D&D, instead playing alignmnet carcatures, and when they move to a system with no labels looming over their character sheet they feel liberated and start playing more organic characters.
That's fine. Alignments aren't for everyone. If they cramp your style, give them the boot.
"they were honorable but still chaotic", "they were rebels but still lawful", or "they had a lot of extreme tendencies but were still ethically neutral"
(Maybe it was your point but) you don't need any of the "stills". You could use "and" and it would also work without any bending in the alignment system.
"they were honorable but still chaotic", "they were rebels but still lawful", or "they had a lot of extreme tendencies but were still ethically neutral"(Maybe it was your point but) you don't need any of the "stills". You could use "and" and it would also work without any bending in the alignment system.
'Zactly.
I 'm for keeping alignment in the system as long as you remove the different detections existing
Without removing the spells, one partial solution might be to make Detect Evil a Good spell, Detect Law a Chaotic spell, and so on. This would follow with how the Paladin works (who can detect Evil but not Good). A LG cleric, then might be able to tell that a CN character is Chaotic, and non-Evil, but he still wouldn't know if you're CN or CG.
|
|
That you feel this way shows beyond all doubt that alignments aren't for you.
That's fine. Alignments aren't for everyone. If they cramp your style, give them the boot.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Alignment do the trick for me some of the time. If I'm running Greyhawk. They're for me. If I was going to do something based on Lit classics, I'd go Allegence system. That way I can have it both ways.
In the end it's all good for me.
In some games it can be fun to have one PC that is Lawful and Good, and once character dedicated to the State and Law on character who is unaligned, and another who is dedicated to his diety (but not maybe not quite as pious as he should be).
The game I'm running right now. The nine do just fine.
Without removing the spells, one partial solution might be to make Detect Evil a Good spell, Detect Law a Chaotic spell, and so on. This would follow with how the Paladin works (who can detect Evil but not Good). A LG cleric, then might be able to tell that a CN character is Chaotic, and non-Evil, but he still wouldn't know if you're CN or CG.I 'm for keeping alignment in the system as long as you remove the different detections existing
Good people can't detect good? Makes no metaphysical sense.
Getting rid of detect spells wouldn't end alignment detection, it would just mean that only higher level clerics (for the most part) could detect your alignment... and only by casting spells that will harm or kill you if you aren't the alignment you claim.
A trail by fire, so to speak. This is already how I see things going with the corronation of royalty (because if your priest tells the people you're good, who's to believe him? Much easier to guarantee your goodness by spreading your arms before a crowd and invite him to smite you).
It would be different, at least. But if your goal in removing detect spells is to have alignments 'hidden', well.. there are still ways around.
It never ceases to amaze me that people playing a role-playing game want to get rid of alignments because they cause conflict. Conflict, however, is good and promotes role-playing.
Alignment's doing it's job when it promotes discussion, dialogue, conflict, and argument. That IS its role.
QFT.
Good people can't detect good? Makes no metaphysical sense.
Maybe not, but it has precedent. Paladins can't detect good. Devils can cast Detect Chaos and Detect Good, but not evil or law. Demons can detect law and good, but not evil or chaos, and so on around the circle.
Good people can't detect good? Makes no metaphysical sense.Maybe not, but it has precedent. Paladins can't detect good. Devils can cast Detect Chaos and Detect Good, but not evil or law. Demons can detect law and good, but not evil or chaos, and so on around the circle.
Yea, but I always took that as developing the ability that's most useful to you. If I'm good and I can only detect one thing, it's going to be evil. 'S just me, mind you.
I'm sure it could make sense with a change in fluff or a more detailed explaination, but don't ask me.
I'm sure it could make sense with a change in fluff or a more detailed explaination, but don't ask me.
I'd interpret it as being easiest to detect the note that's out of tune, but I'm not sure if thet kind of explanation would need to go in the book.
I wonder if we could get Jason's opinion on the subject.
If I can find the time, I'll try my hand at re-writing the alignment section of the PHB to be more clear (and less narrow). I don't know when that will be, though.
Alignment is the very worst part of D&D. It is also the most abused part of the game: 'I'm chaotic neutral so I can do those kind of things'; 'I'm lawful good and I'll leave the party if you don't agree with me'. It is an arbitrary, nonsensical, divisive and pointless mechanic, bearing no relation to how life is actually lived. In life, there is a belief that people can be redeemed; that a person is not born into rigidly demarcated 'boxes'; that their life and fate is not predetermined. Someone clearly forgot to tell the poor old goblin! On another level, the torture of people is condoned when it is believed to be in the interests of national security, making most democratic countries 'Lawful Evil'. Bad luck, Paladin!!
So no amount of tweaking will ever get alignment right because alignment is the most unreal part of the game.
Of course, the whole game of D&D is based upon alignment. In the fabric of the game world, it is something which is as real and as tangible as rock. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be able to detect it. There's actually no way of being able to play the game - even envisage the game - without it. Half of the spells and magic items would be rendered obsolete and all of the monsters. So I wouldn't counsel throwing out the bath water because you'd be in very real danger of throwing out the baby as well.
I'd say just write whatever seems appropriate for each alignment in the PHB because if someone needs to have this as a guideline for how to play their character, good luck and God's speed.
And as for this statement: 'Philosophy, morals, and ethics are subjective to the individual'.
What can I say?! They aren't. If you don't believe me, then you have either never studied philosophy, never studied morality, or have never met anyone with an Auschwitz identification number tattooed on the inside of their left arm.
|
And as for this statement: 'Philosophy, morals, and ethics are subjective to the individual'.What can I say?! They aren't. If you don't believe me, then you have either never studied philosophy, never studied morality, or have never met anyone with an Auschwitz identification number tattooed on the inside of their left arm.
Yay! Godwin FTW!
Nice to know yours is the only morality that's right. God forbid there be a shade of grey in the world. BTW, which morality are we referring to as the 'correct' one these days? I always find it helpful to know.
And as for this statement: 'Philosophy, morals, and ethics are subjective to the individual'.What can I say?! They aren't. If you don't believe me, then you have either never studied philosophy, never studied morality, or have never met anyone with an Auschwitz identification number tattooed on the inside of their left arm.
Yay! Godwin FTW!
Nice to know yours is the only morality that's right. God forbid there be a shade of grey in the world. BTW, which morality are we referring to as the 'correct' one these days? I always find it helpful to know.
Actually, the progression of my argument meant that this comment referred to ethics, not morality.
|
|
Actually, the progression of my argument meant that this comment referred to ethics, not morality.
And as for this statement: 'Philosophy, morals, and ethics are subjective to the individual'.What can I say?! They aren't. If you don't believe me, then you have either never studied philosophy, never studied morality, or have never met anyone with an Auschwitz identification number tattooed on the inside of their left arm.
Yay! Godwin FTW!
Nice to know yours is the only morality that's right. God forbid there be a shade of grey in the world. BTW, which morality are we referring to as the 'correct' one these days? I always find it helpful to know.
That only applies to the (supposedly) humourous initial sentence. The second one still applies.
[threadjack]You've claimed that ethics cannot be subjective. That means there is one set of 'true', objective ethics. As you're a human being, I presume (subjectively) you believe (subjectively) the ones you hold true to is that 'true' set. As I also hold to what is probably a different set in some particulars, which of us is following the 'true' ethics?
Also, if you're arguing that D&D is silly for having a true alignment system based on fixed morality and ethics and then saying that there is no subjective ethics and morality, meaning there must be a true, objective, fixed set, I'm not entirely sure what your point is, as it seems to be countering itself.[/threadjack]
Actually, the progression of my argument meant that this comment referred to ethics, not morality.
And as for this statement: 'Philosophy, morals, and ethics are subjective to the individual'.What can I say?! They aren't. If you don't believe me, then you have either never studied philosophy, never studied morality, or have never met anyone with an Auschwitz identification number tattooed on the inside of their left arm.
Yay! Godwin FTW!
Nice to know yours is the only morality that's right. God forbid there be a shade of grey in the world. BTW, which morality are we referring to as the 'correct' one these days? I always find it helpful to know.
That only applies to the (supposedly) humourous initial sentence. The second one still applies.
[threadjack]You've claimed that ethics cannot be subjective. That means there is one set of 'true', objective ethics. As you're a human being, I presume (subjectively) you believe (subjectively) the ones you hold true to is that 'true' set. As I also hold to what is probably a different set in some particulars, which of us is following the 'true' ethics?
Also, if you're arguing that D&D is silly for having a true alignment system based on fixed morality and ethics and then saying that there is no subjective ethics and morality, meaning there must be a true, objective, fixed set, I'm not entirely sure what your point is, as it seems to be countering itself.[/threadjack]
Where does natural justice fit into your subjective ethics and morality? This is not meant to be inflammatory. I'd really like to know.
I would suggest leaving the alignment system the way it is in PFRPG (LG, N, LE, etc.), and leave it up to individual DMs if they wish to simply house rule alignment. No one can ever seem to agree as to what alignment is and the mere discussion of it seems to descend into an argument of philosophies, history, and religion. Good rule of thumb: if you don't like a rule, amend it or throw it out.
|
|
Where does natural justice fit into your subjective ethics and morality? This is not meant to be inflammatory. I'd really like to know.
Probably the same place it fits in yours, to be honest. We're both likely to be from Western, liberal democracies with a Christian base, so a lot of the fundamentals we hold true are the same. I suspect, as I said, that on some of the specifics we'd have very different views and would hold equally that ours was the 'true' set of ethics. We might disagree on whether torture is ever acceptable, for example. But a lot of the basics like freedom of speech and right to fair trials we'd probably agree on.
Now ask where it fits to someone born and raised in Burma, or China, or Russia, and you might get a very different answer.
EDIT: And to avoid going too far off topic, I agree with Sturmvogel. Keep it roughly the way it is, vague and woolly, and let individual groups figure out where they're dividing lines are.
EDIT 2: Sorry if the first post offended you. It was right on the edge flaming at best, so I should have gone with plan A and deletd it before posting.
I would suggest leaving the alignment system the way it is in PFRPG (LG, N, LE, etc.), and leave it up to individual DMs if they wish to simply house rule alignment.
That's the thing: at present, it isn't houseruling.
The current rules are so vague that virtually any DM's point of view fits within them, and yet, they all claim to be using the same alignment system.
This isn't a good thing.
Making alignments vague doesn't help anyone. A dm doesn't need the rulebook's permission to rule that Law = law (meaning breaking the law is always chaotic), or that killing yourself to save others isn't always good. If that's what he and his players want he's going to rule it that way anyway.
But at least making him state that ruling aloud (by having a precise alignment description that diagrees with him), rather than letting him think everyone does it (or should be doing it) the way he does, would save us a loooot of hassle.
|
|
I would suggest leaving the alignment system the way it is in PFRPG (LG, N, LE, etc.), and leave it up to individual DMs if they wish to simply house rule alignment.That's the thing: at present, it isn't houseruling.
The current rules are so vague that virtually any DM's point of view fits within them, and yet, they all claim to be using the same alignment system.
This isn't a good thing.
Making alignments vague doesn't help anyone. A dm doesn't need the rulebook's permission to rule that Law = law (meaning breaking the law is always chaotic), or that killing yourself to save others isn't always good. If that's what he and his players want he's going to rule it that way anyway.
But at least making him state that ruling aloud (by having a precise alignment description that diagrees with him), rather than letting him think everyone does it (or should be doing it) the way he does, would save us a loooot of hassle.
But thats the problem I think you have. Your never going to be able to make things black and white. The devil is in the details...
But thats the problem I think you have. Your never going to be able to make things black and white. The devil is in the details...
Well, yea. The same goes for general mechanics descriptions; humans can never do anything flawlessly, and when trying to quantify the RP side of the game things get a lot more complicated, with a lot more room for error and interpretation.
But I think that more detailed would be better. Within reason, I mean; I don't want a whole chapter on alignments, but I think more than two paragraphs per axis is called for.
Where does natural justice fit into your subjective ethics and morality? This is not meant to be inflammatory. I'd really like to know.Probably the same place it fits in yours, to be honest. We're both likely to be from Western, liberal democracies with a Christian base, so a lot of the fundamentals we hold true are the same. I suspect, as I said, that on some of the specifics we'd have very different views and would hold equally that ours was the 'true' set of ethics. We might disagree on whether torture is ever acceptable, for example. But a lot of the basics like freedom of speech and right to fair trials we'd probably agree on.
Now ask where it fits to someone born and raised in Burma, or China, or Russia, and you might get a very different answer.
EDIT: And to avoid going too far off topic, I agree with Sturmvogel. Keep it roughly the way it is, vague and woolly, and let individual groups figure out where they're dividing lines are.
EDIT 2: Sorry if the first post offended you. It was right on the edge flaming at best, so I should have gone with plan A and deletd it before posting.
I should be apologising to you, Paul. I've reread my first post and I come across as a lunatic. I really shouldn't have pressed send.
BTW, I agree with everything you've written.
On topic, I think the writeup for alignments shouldn't be tampered with too much and certainly there certainly shouldn't be bonuses to skills for whichever alignment is chosen. Nearly every game I've ever played or run has had house rules to cover alignment. So I guess my point is that dealing with alignment is the special challenge for each and every game - a challenge which adds a great deal of complexity and debate to the game.
I just wanted to chip in that I kinda' like the option of being Unaligned. Neutral implies a preference for balance, while Unaligned suggests indifference. Animals and a lot of people would be Unaligned.I kinda like the Unaligned idea, too. Might kind of replace Chaotic Neutral, though...
I like to use James Beach's definition of alignments, particularly for Chaotic Neutral, which few people seem to know how to handle. He has some good insights on the other alignments, as well.
But I think that more detailed would be better. Within reason, I mean; I don't want a whole chapter on alignments, but I think more than two paragraphs per axis is called for.
I think that actually less details would make it better to understand. Alignment traits are extremely broad and rough concepts. If you try to draw clear lines between them, you get the peoblem that's currently occuring.
"Chaos is the idea that a character is more inclined to do what's currently feeling right and feels less need to follow philosophical and legal codes other people have set up. Many chaotic characters have great trust in their intuition and often feel free to adjust their oppinions as the situation changes. People in which such traits or similar ones are a dominant part of their personalty are usualy of chaotic alignments."
And I think I wouldn't say much more to that. There's no measurment or checklists for alignment. You just take a look at their actions and believes and make a guess by rule of thumb. For NPCs that's perfectly okay and when it comes to PCs, you can let players keep their characters alignment until their words and actions leves really no amount of doubt and you simply have to enforce that certain alignment-sensitive effects affect the character or not.