I have to say I had to look up what you meant by "Value Judgement" and according to the definition of that it means;
A value judgment is a judgment of the rightness or wrongness of something, or of the usefulness of something, based on a personal view.
Since I quoted you the book, not my interpretation of the book, but the book itself which clearly said "healthy respect for life", what I said was not based on personal view but rather the exact wording of the source. So I ask you what validation do you have that supports your opposing OPINION?
Again, the book says that "a healthy respect for life" is good, not that it is right. Good does not equal right. Evil does not equal wrong. The Alignment system does not discuss what is right or wrong. It only discusses what is good or evil (or lawful or chaotic).
If you succumb to the thinking that "the good thing to do is the right thing to do" then you are not using the Alignment system properly. There are all kinds of wonderful gameplay opportunities you're missing by reducing everything to black and white (wrong and right).
If it works for your group, fine, your group's got a good thing going. Personally, I play with people who can't even agree on ordering a pizza, so we leave ill-structured nonsense like law/chaos alone, and I tend to be extremely skeptical of anyone who has an "ultimate" explanation of law and chaos.
Well said, in a rather humorous way, well said myfirend.
In the end it is not about what I as an individual work with, its about you the players and the community of GMs that sit at the head of the table prefer.
Go with what works, forget the rest. Remember even if someone quotes a booked rule it doesn't matter, go with what you know works. My above posts worked for me so i thought to share them with you. If it works for you good, if not than perhaps you will find the answer elsewhere.
Good Gamming Ladies and Gents
If you succumb to the thinking that "the good thing to do is the right thing to do" then you are not using the Alignment system properly. There are all kinds of wonderful gameplay opportunities you're missing by reducing everything to black and white (wrong and right).
You are correct, it should not be so black and white, but then again I was not trying to debate my opinion with yours. I was atempting to answer another who had questions in regards to a previous posts.
It would seem that since you wish to argue semantics, I will indulge this with finality. According to the rules, killing for pleasure, enjoyment, or without cause or justification, this would not be a healthy respect for life, thus it is an evil act.
Now for the rest of us who understood the initial wording I apologise and beg to move forward.
I riscind my previous comments.
It is clear from the mature debate taking place in this thread that everyone playing D&D/PF has a firm grasp on what each alignment means and what it does not mean.
/sarcasm off
For the record, the chaotic good character would kill the evil baby but the lawful good character would raise it as his own child and try to instill in him his sense of morality. LG characters DO NOT KILL BABIES! EVER! Not even baby Kobolds! Probably not even a baby red dragon.
Apparently I should change my name to Pandora. :D
I emphatically agree with Zurai about alignment having nothing to do with right and wrong. Alignment reflects the personal value systems which individuals use to decide what's right and wrong for themselves.
Juno, I think you slightly missed the point I was making with my initial post: the more time you spend trying to explain and describe it, the more points you'll find where others simply disagree. I minimized my word count specifically because I was trying to boil down to a lowest common denominator.
I would like to start by stating that noone, myself included, said that good is right or evil is wrong. But I have said and I stand by it, which is what the earlier mentioned debate has been over, If your character enjoys killing, then it is Evil. You can murder evil beings just as fast as good ones.
I would agree with you if you said otherwise, but then we would both be wrong. The core book plainly states "healthy respect for life." It did not specify good, evil, lawful or chaotic. It did not say native or outsider, it did not say celestial or deamonic, it said life. Although you could argue that deamons and celestials are not technically alive, as well as undead. So you could say that the character loves to destroy celestials, deamons, and undead. ;) It you want to argue semantics. Which some seem to do a lot of.
Apparently I should change my name to Pandora. :D
I emphatically agree with Zurai about alignment having nothing to do with right and wrong. Alignment reflects the personal value systems which individuals use to decide what's right and wrong for themselves.
Zurai was simply arguing semantics. He felt I should have used the word Evil instead of Bad. However, more often than not, we refer to the Evil guy as the Bad guy, but hey, thats just my grammer.
In the real world it is true that Good, Evil, Right and Wrong are all subjective and based solely on the interpretations of the one using the words.
However in a RPG they are not subjective and to the contrary they are clearly defined. To say doing good is the right thing to do, is subjective in the real world, but in the RPG it would be acceptable because the common place citizen would say so. Hell even the common place citizen in our reality would say doing good is the right thing to do. As well it would be equally as safe to say the Evil is bad and or wrong. Yes these ideas and wording make the statement opinion but it is a social acceptance, at least in the USA. This is admittedly on the same level to say that milk is good for you, but not if your lactose intollerant. Semantics, argue them if you will, but the fact still remains, you're beating a dead hourse that I've already put away.
This does not mean that good is right or that evil is wrong, but even in our world it is acceptable to say such. To say otherwise is argument for the sake of it, or "splitting hairs".
Juno, I think you slightly missed the point I was making with my initial post: the more time you spend trying to explain and describe it, the more points you'll find where others simply disagree. I minimized my word count specifically because I was trying to boil down to a lowest common denominator.
I love the game, even though I rarely play I love to read and study it. I've written and published several d20 adventure modules and have written several articales for R.Talsorian games Cyberpunk. I love to tell stories and in telling stories I've leared to interpret the rules beyond the print. I know its not always easy to do but in the case here you accuse me of over indulgence, however I saw the chance to offer my onw interpretations to attempt to aid others in their understanding? Since semantics seem to play a very important role in the thread, was that not your initial attempt? To clearify for those who did not understand and simplify? If so then how did I miss your point? ;). that too was my attempt, through explanation.
hope this helps.
I riscind my previous comments.
It is clear from the mature debate taking place in this thread that everyone playing D&D/PF has a firm grasp on what each alignment means and what it does not mean.
/sarcasm offFor the record, the chaotic good character would kill the evil baby but the lawful good character would raise it as his own child and try to instill in him his sense of morality. LG characters DO NOT KILL BABIES! EVER! Not even baby Kobolds! Probably not even a baby red dragon.
Do LG characters kill dretches? Or larval demons? Do they kill vampires?
Do they kill unredeemable evil incarnate? (Is anyone unredeemable evil incarnate?) Do they kill anyone with any potential to redeem?
Alignment isn't a rigid system. Unsurprisingly, people have a lot of different ideas about morality. You're going to have to decide what that means in your game, and just how unredeemably evil Team Monster is, and all publishers can do is offer some guidance and ideas.
I'm sorry maybe we're not speaking the same language when I said BABY you read it as DEMON. Killing an innocent is an evil act. Even if that innocent will for certain grow up to be a real dick. Furthermore an infant is also defenseless and killing the defenseless (except perhaps in the case of supernatural evil) is also itself an evil act.
Personally I think for the sake of argument we should agree that there is big E Evil, like demons and chromatic dragons, basically supernatural evil. There is also little e evil, like a child molestor or a serial killer, a sentient being who is potentially redeemable. I think that would aid in this debate to a large degree.
I'm sorry maybe we're not speaking the same language when I said BABY you read it as DEMON. Killing an innocent is an evil act. Even if that innocent will for certain grow up to be a real dick. Furthermore an infant is also defenseless and killing the defenseless (except perhaps in the case of supernatural evil) is also itself an evil act.
Personally I think for the sake of argument we should agree that there is big E Evil, like demons and chromatic dragons, basically supernatural evil. There is also little e evil, like a child molestor or a serial killer, a sentient being who is potentially redeemable. I think that would aid in this debate to a large degree.
Understand that a fair few games don't have much difference between demons and kobalds, save that the latter are easier to kill. Some games/worlds/whatever, all evil is Big E Evil, and kobalds and orcs and whatnot are irredeemable members of Team Badguy.
In the world where we keep our D&D books and pants, nobody can agree on what's good or evil. When you multiply that times however many different worlds people have imagined for role-playing games, why do you think there'd ever be a universal standard that makes sense in all cases?
I don't, and that is MY point. We should abolish the alignment system altogether. Good and Evil are almost completely arbitrary terms based on cultural norms, biases and so forth. No two people seem to be able to agree on what constitutes good or even in a GAME where it is spelled out (obviously not well enough).
All I was saying is that killing a defenseless innocent is, by D&D's alignment system an evil act. Likely neither a CG character nor a LG character would do such a thing without at least some serious contemplation and doing so would leave a bad thing in their mouth for a very long time even if it were the "right" or Good thing to do.
Many games blah de blah. In the PFRPG as written, which is the only thing we should be debating on these boards, we have at least some definitions of what constitutes Good and Evil acts, and that's all I intend to argue. And in that vein I would argue that with the exception of supernatural evil, as in beings who by their nature are Evil and profane and thus irredemable, killing an innocent OR defenseless creature would be an evil act. Otherwise Paladins would just run around poisoning drinking water of orc villages. No they fight them in combat where they can defend themselves, they rout them out, and surviving infants would potentially go to monasteries to be raised properly.
There is a fundamental difference in how we deal with natural and supernatural evils. Just because the general goods merchant pings evil doesn't mean you should smite him. Brought to justice? Sure, whether that be the king's justice or the justice of the mob that's a different debate, but murder=bad mmkay?
I don't, and that is MY point. We should abolish the alignment system altogether. Good and Evil are almost completely arbitrary terms based on cultural norms, biases and so forth. No two people seem to be able to agree on what constitutes good or even in a GAME where it is spelled out (obviously not well enough).there's no reason you need to throw away Absolute Good and Absolute Evil as concepts in your D&D game: as a GM, decide roughly what Good and Evil mean, with some negotiation with the players.
After that, they can decide what their characters think is right and wrong, and that may or may not line up with Good or Evil exactly or even approximately. Roleplaying is fun.
Agreed, GM, PC cooporatin is the key element to any game session and should be. Before every game start I like to sit and talk about what the PC's want and what I want, we go over any notible discrepancies and character design options. Alignment interpretation should not be left out as well. I must admit that I am apparently the lucky one, I have never had to have the "alignment" talk, we all seem to have read the book.
I don't, and that is MY point. We should abolish the alignment system altogether. Good and Evil are almost completely arbitrary terms based on cultural norms, biases and so forth. No two people seem to be able to agree on what constitutes good or even in a GAME where it is spelled out (obviously not well enough)."Well, that's just your opinion, man," is kind of a lame way to give up on such a core part of the game.
I don't believe the best route for moral alignment is give it up as a bad job. RPG books suck at it for a number of reasons. However, there's no reason you need to throw away Absolute Good and Absolute Evil as concepts in your D&D game: as a GM, decide roughly what Good and Evil mean, with some negotiation with the players.
After that, they can decide what their characters think is right and wrong, and that may or may not line up with Good or Evil exactly or even approximately. Roleplaying is fun.
You say that it's a lame way to give up a "core" part of the game, then offer no suggestions as to a remedy. I have a hard time playing or running in the current alignment system because I disagree with the presuppositions on which it is based. It is more than just flawed, it is broken and leads ONLY to people feeling restricted by their alignment and/or people hiding behind their alignment rationalizing whatever they want to do anyway.
Please explain to me why it is better to have a two letter abbreviation on your character sheet RATHER than have a well thought out and well roleplayed character? If no one will stay within the confines of a particular alignment at all times then the alignment system is not worth the time. No one can agree on what makes each axis work, not you and me and no two people in this thread or the world, it is a futile exercise, and rather than have a set of codes in a game that govern how people act and then argue ad nauseum about why they are set up that way or whether a paladin would kill puppies just say "do what you want to do, play what you want to play, but know that this is my world and there will be rewards and consequences to your actions as the environment sees fit to provide".
Whenever anyone sits around and begins to discuss what the alignments are to them, and how they describe the alignments or what fictional characters would fit into what it devolves into utter banality like this thread had become (through no fault of the OP or any of us really). The system breaks down completely when we ask ourselves what does GOOD and EVIL really mean?
I'd rather play and run in games that reflect some semblance of real world sense and internal consistency. To this end I feel the alignment system should be done away with, especially the good/evil axis, because good is simply what you like and evil is what you don't like. Granted you'll find that the vast majority of people can agree that murder is wrong, and an evil act, and I wouldn't disagree with that. But when you examine it too close under a microscope you find that people are willing to accept killing that they do not designate murder; self defense, war, abortion, animals for food.
So okay, minor quibbles aside murder is wrong, whatever we later decide that means and for whatever it is worth. What else defines the good/evil divide? Altruism? Well to that I say egoism...but let's put that aside for now as well. How about this situation, you (or your character, however you like it) find an orphaned child on the street. His mother has been slain in an orc attack and he has nowhere to go. The system where you are is not set up to provide for such individuals, and without your help you fear he might see nothing but a hard life on the streets, so you adopt him. This is a very good thing to do. Why did you do it? Well as a "good" person you do it because it is inherently "good", it's kind and selfless. A lawful neutral character would do it because it is his duty or because it helps out society at large, a chaotic person does it on a whim, and an evil person sees someone he can raise to be his henchman. That one act could be interpreted at least four obvious ways based on this alignment system, and it is based largely on intent of the character/person. Is doing something good LESS of a good act because you do it for a selfish reason?
This is the tip of the iceberg. Not even the tip really. Putting things in black and white, even in fiction, is a bad idea and will lead to bland stories and bland characters. How much damage my fireball does or how many rounds it takes to climb a rope are examples of what a good rules system should answer. How my character feels, thinks, reacts are not quantifiable and the book should not attempt to do so.
I want MORE roleplaying MORE involvement with your character. I see alignment as not a tool, not a leash, but a crutch. It's one sacred cow I'm happy to slay.
Next up: Vancian magic!
meatrace, that sounds like a problem with your players, not with the system. We have no such problems with the system magically robbing us of our roleplaying powers. Using your own logic, the system is thus absolutely perfect and is a beauteous vessel for enlightened roleplay!
Perceived alignment depends on what side of the fence you're from.
Now if I was that little Kobold baby sat in the cave while the LG Paladin slaughtered my kith and kin I would see him as the most evil thing that walked the earth.
FWIW I have dropped alignments but get each player to draw up a simple guideline of their PCs morals similar to that of the Paladin code and make a judgement call when aligned items/spells crop up accordingly.
Meatrace I truly see your delima. However here is the best answer that I can think of to provide you at this point. As with any game rule it is up to YOU the GM to intrepret and explain to your players. So what ever you decide for yourself to be good, evil, law or chaos is in your campaign. Ask advice of others if you will, but the decision is, in the end, yours alone to make. Once you decide what these alignments mean convey that to your players and all is done. Everyone has an understanding and the game can begin. Remember when noone can agree it is the GM's duty to creat the standards by which others must abide. Remember the golden rule, "there are no rules". its your game, play it how you see fit. Noone on any message board can tell you how to use that 50 dollar book, its yours for better or worse now. If you don't like something, its your right to toss it, it does not make it a lazy decision, or a bad decision, just yor thoughts.
But there is one point you keep dancing around, in your previous example of the orphaned child, yes indeed every alingment would have a logical reason to adopt the child, even if it was only to eat it later. However its not so much what you do that defines you as why you do, what you do.
Hope this helps.
Perceived alignment depends on what side of the fence you're from.
Now if I was that little Kobold baby sat in the cave while the LG Paladin slaughtered my kith and kin I would see him as the most evil thing that walked the earth.
FWIW I have dropped alignments but get each player to draw up a simple guideline of their PCs morals similar to that of the Paladin code and make a judgement call when aligned items/spells crop up accordingly.
The problem with dropping the alignment system in the game is the mechanics that have to altered with it as well. Perhaps you could explain to the forums how you sdapted such changes in your games so that GM like meatrace could use the advice.
The problem with dropping the alignment system in the game is the mechanics that have to altered with it as well. Perhaps you could explain to the forums how you sdapted such changes in your games so that GM like meatrace could use the advice.Perceived alignment depends on what side of the fence you're from.
Now if I was that little Kobold baby sat in the cave while the LG Paladin slaughtered my kith and kin I would see him as the most evil thing that walked the earth.
FWIW I have dropped alignments but get each player to draw up a simple guideline of their PCs morals similar to that of the Paladin code and make a judgement call when aligned items/spells crop up accordingly.
I would love too, but as someone has already pointed out what is good/evil and lawful/chaotic is very subjective and might not fit in with what *you* think.
I think we have a good idea what "good" and "evil" is, however it is dependent on your world view as used in my Kobold baby example. To baby Kobold the Paladin is evil and wouldn't forget that he destroyed his family, the people he loved and, for the Kobold at least, who were seen as "good". To me it wouldn't matter if the Paladin raised the Kobold in a caring environment "the b@stard killed my mother and I will cut his throat as soon as I am able" would be running through his little head.
To me "law" means best for society as a whole and "chaotic" means best for the individual as a whole.
I use that as a basis but like I said this is my view. I'm not saying its right and I'm not saying previous posters are right either. Neither am I saying anyone is wrong.
I'm Neutral!
I think we have a good idea what "good" and "evil" is, however it is dependent on your world view as used in my Kobold baby example. To baby Kobold the Paladin is evil and wouldn't forget that he destroyed his family, the people he loved and, for the Kobold at least, who were seen as "good". To me it wouldn't matter if the Paladin raised the Kobold in a caring environment "the b@stard killed my mother and I will cut his throat as soon as I am able" would be running through his little head.
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that mixing up "good vs evil" and "right vs wrong" will just confuse the whole alignment system.
Good and Evil are absolute under the alignment system. The paladin (assuming he killed the kobold baby's parents in self-defence, etc) is Good in the metaphysical sense, regardless of the perspective of the viewer. However, he was wrong and/or bad from the perspective of the kobold baby.
If you succumb to the thinking that "the good thing to do is the right thing to do" then you are not using the Alignment system properly. There are all kinds of wonderful gameplay opportunities you're missing by reducing everything to black and white (wrong and right).
After rereading your post I see now your meaning. I apologise for missing it earlier. It just dawned on me that you were assuming I was placeing my own moral judgement on defining Good as the right thing to do and Evil as bad. Whilst that is my ethics, I was not referring to my own, but rather the ingame perspective of the social common. Meaning the average person in a fantasy campaign or our world to be honest, would agree that saving anothers life is a Good act and the Right thing to do. To cover the opposite, taking a life for selfish reasons is Evil, and the wrong thing to do and or bad.
So yes you are %100 correct when you say applying personal, (how did you say it?) "Value Judgements", on good, evil limits the player, however the entire fantasy concept of Good vs Evil is based off of the "Mostly Western" social idea of good and evil.
Sorry for the confusion.
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that mixing up "good vs evil" and "right vs wrong" will just confuse the whole alignment system.
Good and Evil are absolute under the alignment system. The paladin (assuming he killed the kobold baby's parents in self-defence, etc) is Good in the metaphysical sense, regardless of the perspective of the viewer. However, he was wrong and/or bad from the perspective of the kobold baby.
Good point, and remember that the rules clearly define what is good and evil in hte game, so no matter how others percieve the act it is still what it is, good or evil.
In the example of the kobold, if he never knew otherwise, and grew up a good kobold and saved millions, then one day saw old palidan and wheled him over a cliff in a fit of rage, he is still a good kobold and a good aligned character.
Good Characters can do evil things for good reasons. Kobold thought of palidan as evil, and simply decided to act rather than to give pally the upperhand. He had good reason, because he never knew the truth. Assuming he never figured it out on his own.
If a palidan killed a "good" aligned skeleton if one existed by accident, he would still be a Good aligned caharacter. Sometimes you have to use your best judgement, and for the Hundreth time, Its not what you do, but WHY you do it that defines your alignment.
In the to cases above the kobold thought of the pally as evil or a murderer, and the Pally thought the skele as an evil undead.
Hope this helps.
I think we have a good idea what "good" and "evil" is, however it is dependent on your world view as used in my Kobold baby example. To baby Kobold the Paladin is evil and wouldn't forget that he destroyed his family, the people he loved and, for the Kobold at least, who were seen as "good". To me it wouldn't matter if the Paladin raised the Kobold in a caring environment "the b@stard killed my mother and I will cut his throat as soon as I am able" would be running through his little head.This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that mixing up "good vs evil" and "right vs wrong" will just confuse the whole alignment system.
Good and Evil are absolute under the alignment system. The paladin (assuming he killed the kobold baby's parents in self-defence, etc) is Good in the metaphysical sense, regardless of the perspective of the viewer. However, he was wrong and/or bad from the perspective of the kobold baby.
For the Kobold; mother was LG and the Paladin CE.
For me anyway alignment perception is based around a character's culture. A barbarian PC might be viewed as lawful by sticking to his cultural ethics and morals but as chaotic to more "civilised" outsiders (that's with a small o).Alignment is such a nebulous topic as it means so many things to different people.
Alignment is such a nebulous topic as it means so many things to different people.
To be honest that is why I fail to see the delima. I think now that Zurai are on the same page, perhaps the same things exist between the rest of the forum, miscommunication.
The alignments, according to the rules of the PF core rulbook, are static. They are left to interpretation just as much as the mechanics of a Magic Missile spell. It is clearly printed and stated what the games definition of good, evil, law and chaos are. So to say the is no clear definition is the same as saying there is no clear definition of level progression. You may not agree with the printed rules, but that is your choice, and your right. But to say that there is no static definition is false.
Please note that when I speak of the alignemnts, I do my best not to argue my opinion, but rather convey in more lamens terms what the PF core rulebook has already written. So when discussing the Alignment System as set forth by the PF core rulebook, it is hardly a "nebulous topic."
For the record, according to the Alignment System, they are universal concepts, meaning just because a kobold thinks its ok the pick on the weak and the drow find it acceptable to backstab and betray and murder, they are still EVIL.
Hope this helps.
Alignment is such a nebulous topic as it means so many things to different people.To be honest that is why I fail to see the delima. I think now that Zurai are on the same page, perhaps the same things exist between the rest of the forum, miscommunication.
The alignments, according to the rules of the PF core rulbook, are static. They are left to interpretation just as much as the mechanics of a Magic Missile spell. It is clearly printed and stated what the games definition of good, evil, law and chaos are. So to say the is no clear definition is the same as saying there is no clear definition of level progression. You may not agree with the printed rules, but that is your choice, and your right. But to say that there is no static definition is false.
Please note that when I speak of the alignemnts, I do my best not to argue my opinion, but rather convey in more lamens terms what the PF core rulebook has already written. So when discussing the Alignment System as set forth by the PF core rulebook, it is hardly a "nebulous topic."
Its nebulous because of peoples interpretation of the wording. If there was no chance of the wording being interpred differently than this hoary chestnut wouldn't be brought up again.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others
and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others
actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some
evil deity or master.
Now if you swop the words good for evil, then think about your average PC group. Its all about perspective.
Now, I'm quite happy to accept that alignment is an Artificial Game Construct and that is the game rule but I prefer a moral and ethical justifcation for "alignment" from my player's PCs view point. Happily such morals and ethics translate easily to an "alignment". The problem with alignment it is based around a human point of view because, now I am guessing, humans wrote it ;)
If you take an Orc PC who lives his life from the teachings of Grummsh and protects the tribe by killing paladins, strives to improve the status of the tribe by grabbing lands belonging to "evil" humans, protects the younger members of the tribe, etc. What "alignment" would you give him?
For the record, according to the Alignment System, they are universal concepts, meaning just because a kobold thinks its ok the pick on the weak and the drow find it acceptable to backstab and betray and murder, they are still EVIL.
Hope this helps.
History is always written from the view point of the victor.
History is always written from the view point of the victor.
That may be. Fortunately, the core rulebook is written from the point of the impartial observer.
That may be. Fortunately, the core rulebook is written from the point of the impartial observer.
History is always written from the view point of the victor.
Yea, a human one! ;)
Which has nothing to do with anything.
Your problem with this topic is that you aren't using the alignment system. You're using a homebrew system that replaces the alignment system. That wouldn't be a problem, except that you're trying to argue against the actual thing using examples from your homebrew.
Once more I will reiterate. According to the rules, not our world or real life opinions, but the rules set forth by the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, pages 166 - 168, alignments are clearly, and I stress the word clearly, defined.
You keep stating that you disagree and that they are not defined, or not defined clearly, I am starting to wonder if we are looking at the same book?
According to the rules, your personal beliefs or an orcs personal beleifs on what good and evil is, is irrelivant. If a character in the games performs an act that is described as evil according to the book, that was an evil act. It a character behaves as an evil character as described by the rules in the book, or somewhat close to it, than said character is evil. How is this so hard to understand?
Keeping in mind good people have commited evil acts, and vice versa, however this does not mean they change alignments. This just means they are normal.
Not all orcs are evil, not all gnomes are good. Good and evil are based on the reasoning behind actions not the actions itself. In the case you gave of the Orc defending his village, if he raised arms in defense no that does not make him EVIL, however enjoying the slaughtering of life would.
Hope this Helps
Yea, a human one! ;)
Seriously, how many orcs do you know, much less orcs that could write a book, even less, orcs that could do the math to creat / reinvent a game as complicated as D20? :)
But history doesn't matter to the GODS, and since D&D fantasy has such absolute beings, there must be an absolute morality.
However true you are, remember not all campaigns have deity's in them. So be carful with that argument.
The main reason any game creates an absolute definition of good and evil is because either mechanics call a need for it, or the setting does. I think in the case of fantasy D20 its mostly a combination of both.
In D20 modern, campaigns use the aligence system. I can't say that i am a fan, but hey if it works, maybe you should look into it. It could be easily applyed with little game alterations. Alignment Based items will now only work with certain alligences now for example.
Which has nothing to do with anything.
Your problem with this topic is that you aren't using the alignment system. You're using a homebrew system that replaces the alignment system. That wouldn't be a problem, except that you're trying to argue against the actual thing using examples from your homebrew.
No I'm not trying to argue against an alignment system. I'm expressing an opinion which someone asked for. Someone asked how I did it in my campaign and I said what I did.
Once again on these boards people are interpreting opinion as arguing.Whether this is down to the 80% body language or facial expression missing from the written word or not I don't know.
I'm not here for an argument, arguing on the internet is like pi$$ing into the wind, so I'm out.
|
If you take an Orc PC who lives his life from the teachings of Grummsh and protects the tribe by killing paladins, strives to improve the status of the tribe by grabbing lands belonging to "evil" humans, protects the younger members of the tribe, etc. What "alignment" would you give him?
And if an elf were to worship Gruumsh?
I was just thinking, if you have a system that says "alignment is based on a characters perspective", than in theory a barbarian who's tribe took what they wanted by force, "because its just there way, its not personal, thats just how they get their goods", would be just as lawful good as a paladin who honors life and freedom and risks all to protect them.
Both are following their perspective of what is socially acceptable within their individual societies, both follow the rules of their respective society, yet both are totally opposite of one another. So according to the Paladin the Barbarian is CN and to the Barbarian the Paladin would be CN. Do you mean to tell me that when an evil cleric cast detect good both will ping good?
Using this type of alignment system is obviously broken when trying to maintain a balance and or create a standard. I am not even going to throw in Drow society. The point I am trying to make it that what has gone into the current rule set governing alignments has been there for sometime now, and has maintained. So apparently it works, at least for the majority of us. You may not like all of it, but changing it for better or worse is your option, but when someone ask for clearification, offering homebrew rules as fact or game rules, is not the best idea.
Just throwing thatout there.
Remember Mirror, Mirror,
Some campaigns use only only domains to govern clerics, and they gain their abilities from them. In these settings clerics worship ideals rather than gods. But this is off topic.
OK, I'm revising my comment about this being the best aligment thread I've seen to only apply to about the first third of the way down the first page. Everything else goes in the same bin as other Alignment threads.
|
[tangent]
The distinction between 'little e' evils like child molesters and 'big E' evils like demons, devils and daemons brought to mind how the killing of a mortal evil actually ends it's threat, while killing a fiendish outsider is pretty much just petty sadism on the part of the killer, since the fiend just returns home, unharmed.
Ironically, to be an effective champion of good, the mortal evils that could possibly be redeemed are the only ones that killing is actually meaningful against. Killing a fiend, unless you happen to be on it's home plane when you do it, is like smacking a dog. The dog neither understands nor cares why you smacked it, isn't going to 'learn anything' from it and the only reason to do it is because you like smacking your dog. Demons can't 'learn' to not be evil. It's what they are made out of, and punishing them for being evil is like yelling at the sun for being on fire.
It would be interesting to see a scary, scary group of ascetic fanatics who are dedicated to the eradication of fiends (maybe daemons in particular), by gathering up volunteers who are willing to dedicate their lives to containing the evil outsiders. Not 'containing their threat,' but actually, physically *containing* them. The volunteers bodies are tattooed and enscribed with binding sigils and glyphs and they are assigned to special cells, within summoning circles. The leaders of the sect call up daemons (devils, demons, whatever) and bind them to possess the volunteers. Once inside, the fiend finds that the magical sigils prevent it from escaping, and the volunteers body is restrained in such a way that the demon can't just 'suicide' it's way to freedom (and, even then, the sigils remain potent, and the demon would just be trapped in the corpse!).
For the lifetime of each mortal volunteer kept within the cells, ranting and shrieking with the rage of a trapped fiend, one immortal unkillable creature of irredeemable evil is removed from the universe, unable to work it's wickedness. The Damned Asylum resonates with the howling curses of dozens of fiends, impotent in their immortal fury.
[/endtangent]
Actually, an outsider summoned via a calling effect like Planar Binding that should be slain on the material plane actually dies as an effect of the spell. Unless that changed in Pathfinder. But otherwise, yeah, there's the whole back to start thing going on.
Set i like your idea about the fanatics going around hunting outsiders to bind the permently. Sounds like it could make for an interesting story hook.