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.Especially if the PC's were convinced it was a demon-worshiping cult. And by killing the "sacrifices", they were really releasing the demons into the world.
Especially if it were a devil (or a devil's cat's paw) that convinced them.
|
One word (more or less) but based on how a person following one of the axes would describe his most defining characteristic :
- Good = "I am compassionate/caring"
- Evil = "I am powerful/efficient"
- Chaotic = "I am free"
- Lawful = "I am responsible"
- Neutral (along any axis) = "I am pragmatic/level-headed"
Especially if it were a devil (or a devil's cat's paw) that convinced them.
Starting a new thread based off this idea so we can keep things on topic, but I would like to look futher into this.
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're so wrong it's not even funny anymore.
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life." Therefore neither CG or LG would kill the innocent in our evil future baby dilemma. Unless they wanted to shift towards evil. Guilt or innocence seems more like a law>chaos argument anyway and doesn't belong here.
"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." Altruism is a myth, so its use as a "clear cut example" of what makes someone good is a fallacy. Evil characters make personal sacrifices to help others. An evil character can still love his family and do right by them.
So we have really two lines that define good vs. evil and the terms used IN THE RULEBOOK are themselves nebulous, fallacious, or can easily be used to describe characters who themselves are evil.
Whether something is good or evil, in real life AND by the rules of pathfinder, are open to interpretation and if anything defined by a)the character's intent and b)the ultimate outcome and c)social norms.
There are virtually no game altering side affects to removing the alignment system for PCs while keeping it in game for supernatural good and evil. Okay so maybe you won't be casting holy word or dictum as much. What is good and what is evil is defined by the society the characters are playing in.
The people who are arguing that, sure, in real life morality may be ambiguous but in the game it is clearly defined; if that is so then it is defined ARBITRARILY and we might as well replace the words evil and good with Purple and Green and be done with it.
Meatrace, I agree with you, evil people can and often do love. In many cases that is the motivation behind their actions or their chosen path in life. Its just that along the way they become confused about whats good and evil. This is a classic villian story.
Vice versa, good people can hate and do evil things, and still be good people.
Alignments (and this has been said many times before) are not straight jackets that characters must adhear to, but guidlines that advise on the behavioral patterns of a character.
When character's behave outside their alignment, it can cause a moral delima within the character that stresses the character as it reflects on the recents events, and regrets and or wonders "why". This is why some DM's / GM's impose and ezperience penalty, to relfect the stress. Is it 100% accurate system? Nah. But so far it's worked for most.
I purposfully did not comment on the fact that you mentioned the alignments are not clearly defined. The reason for this is because I choose to let that one go, you believe what you will, and I will believe what I know. :) So to each his own my friend.
Whether something is good or evil, in real life AND by the rules of pathfinder, are open to interpretation and if anything defined by a)the character's intent and b)the ultimate outcome and c)social norms.
Incorrect. They are clearly defined. You may not like the definitions, but they exist.
There are virtually no game altering side affects to removing the alignment system for PCs while keeping it in game for supernatural good and evil.
Incorrect. Any number of spells and abilities key off of alignment. Example: How does smite evil work against non-outsiders? Do I merely have to consider the target to be evil? If so, it's a dramatically overpowered ability. Does the target have to consider itself evil? If so, it's a dramatically underpowered ability.
I just read this in another post and thought it summed up perfectly the way alignment is viewed in the D&D and PF RPGs.
That's one of the crazy things about (A)D&D and by inheritance Pathfinder. Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, they are not just mortal moral constructs. They are actual forces independent of mortal views.
Meaning, it make no difference of an individual characters point of view or beilefe, they are what they are and thats it.
This would explain how some magic can identify evil, and how some items can do the same. Unlike in our world where they are ideals, in D&D and PF they are forces no different than earth, wind or fire.
Same thing with the definitions set forth by the book. It makes no difference whether or not you like the difinitions, it does not change the fact the book clearly defines them for you.
Whether something is good or evil, in real life AND by the rules of pathfinder, are open to interpretation and if anything defined by a)the character's intent and b)the ultimate outcome and c)social norms.Incorrect. They are clearly defined. You may not like the definitions, but they exist.
There are virtually no game altering side affects to removing the alignment system for PCs while keeping it in game for supernatural good and evil.Incorrect. Any number of spells and abilities key off of alignment. Example: How does smite evil work against non-outsiders? Do I merely have to consider the target to be evil? If so, it's a dramatically overpowered ability. Does the target have to consider itself evil? If so, it's a dramatically underpowered ability.
1)They are NOT clearly defined. They are defined by two lines buried in the PF book, peppered with nebulous terms. I defy you to prove me wrong.
2)So any number huh. Name some more. There's smite evil, and....holy word? Yeah about it there bud. You lose.
1)They are NOT clearly defined. They are defined by two lines buried in the PF book, peppered with nebulous terms. I defy you to prove me wrong.
Two lines? I count 150 lines defining alignments.
2)So any number huh. Name some more. There's smite evil, and....holy word? Yeah about it there bud. You lose.
Detect evil/law/chaos/good. Smite evil/law/chaos/good. Holy word. Blasphemy. Dictum. Word of chaos. Protection from evil/law/chaos/good. Magic circle against evil/law/chaos/good. Holy smite. Unholy blight. Order's wrath. Chaos hammer. Dispel evil/law/chaos/good. Cloak of chaos. Holy/unholy aura. Shield of law. Every summon monster spell. Every spell with an [alignment] tag. And that's just with a quick read through one single book.
So any number huh. Name some more. There's smite evil, and....holy word? Yeah about it there bud. You lose.
Aligned weapons, aligned classes, turn / rebuke undead, sanctuary.
Meatrace, we understand you do not like the alignment system, and that's fine. You are allowed that and its your right. However the problem exsists when you try to pass your opinion off as fact. Several times you've stated the alignments are not clearly defined in the PF CRB, when if fact they are.
If you said they were not defined clearly that is different, and your opinion. But, that they are defined is not an opinion but a fact. And that fact is clear to all who bother to look at pg 66 - 68 of the PF CRB.
Perhaps there is a miscommunication here as well. To say clearly defined is to say that something is defined and available for all to see, to say something is defined clearly is to say, that something is defined and easily understandable.
The former is a fact in this matter, the latter opinion, perhaps we have a misunderstanding.
That's one of the crazy things about (A)D&D and by inheritance Pathfinder. Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, they are not just mortal moral constructs. They are actual forces independent of mortal views.
This is something I've had to explain to players on several occasions, yes. In fact I think alignment is more primal than even gods in D&D metaphysics (and this influenced the metaphysics of a game I ran where the outer planes had been sealed off).
One word (more or less) but based on how a person following one of the axes would describe his most defining characteristic :
A very useful inversion! The motivation to adopt a given alignment is as important as the methods it entails.
See, Quandary? Weather the trollstorm and life springs anew. ;)
Here's how I see it...
GvE
Good: Respect for life. Willing to sacrifice for others. Won't harm innocent.
Neutral: Respect for life. Willing to sacrifice for only those they like/know/hold dear/etc. Won't actively harm innocent.
Evil: No respect for life. Willing to harm innocent.
If you keep it that short, you don't go into the *must* factors of Evil that make playing an Evil aligned character impossible (such as the idea of *having* to kill innocents, that disrupt the game so much).
.
LvC
Lawful: Respect for Order. They gravitate towards accepting laws, recognizing the value of order in activities (laws or even just organizing your movie collection). Whether they follow actual laws or not depends heavily on the GvE factor, and can't be separate from it.
Neutral: Appreciates the value of using both order and disorder, or following laws and breaking them. They value their GvE part of alignment more than their LvC part, meaning if it would be a "Good" action, then it matters less if it were Lawful or Chaotic.
Chaotic: Inherent disrespect for Order or Laws. Values individual's doing what they want to get their GvE values done, rather than following rules. While they don't see the necessity of organization or laws, they will accept them if they are in line with the personal freedoms of the individual.
This goes only so far as the GvE factor, and is inseperable. If an act is Evil, then it doesn't have if it's Chaotic, it's still considered reprehensible by a Good aligned Chaotic person.
.
Finally, I try to remind myself when I play a character, and stress when I GM a game, that Alignments are for knowing where you stand when it comes to the metaphysical interaction with the D&D ruleset (ie, does a Dictum hurt you or not).
Basically, play the character as you want to. Alignment changes come from the actions you make while roleplaying.
It is totally possible to play an Evil character within a good group, and no one would notice until you finally reach the Villain and kill him in cold blood instead of bringing him to justice. Or maybe just the General who's willing to "break a few eggs" and decides to drop that nuke (so to speak).
In my games, a Paladin would lose his powers if he killed the Innocent that was powering the world ending device. That's what Atonement spells are made for. :)
I only had the time to skim the thread before, and was skipping over the semantics debates, so I missed this nugget.
[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.
Except that it ends the evil being perpetrated by that demon/etc on this plane.
Demons want out because they are stuck in a place where they all believe in the same thing, Evil. Perpetrating evil against evil is kind of "meh" to them, and they want to get out of there and perpetrate evil on the innocent.
Killing a summoned Evil will stop it from being able to continue causing evil against the innocent. It might not stop them from doing it later if they get out again, but it stops their guaranteed evil they are doing right now.
It's not sadistic to try and stop the irredeemable and immortal evil from raping and pillaging.
1)They are NOT clearly defined. They are defined by two lines buried in the PF book, peppered with nebulous terms. I defy you to prove me wrong.Two lines? I count 150 lines defining alignments.
2)So any number huh. Name some more. There's smite evil, and....holy word? Yeah about it there bud. You lose.Detect evil/law/chaos/good. Smite evil/law/chaos/good. Holy word. Blasphemy. Dictum. Word of chaos. Protection from evil/law/chaos/good. Magic circle against evil/law/chaos/good. Holy smite. Unholy blight. Order's wrath. Chaos hammer. Dispel evil/law/chaos/good. Cloak of chaos. Holy/unholy aura. Shield of law. Every summon monster spell. Every spell with an [alignment] tag. And that's just with a quick read through one single book.
And how do those effect PCs? When was the last time a player character was hedged out by a circle of protection against good?
I'm fine with alignments to loosely define the behavior of villains, or as a general cosmological definition between the higher/lower planes. None of those spells would significantly alter gameplay if they no longer effected player characters, which is all I've been talking about.@Juno your crazy semantic difference between clearly defined and defined clearly, which is all in your head, seems to suggest that english is not your first language so I'm done arguing with you.
When was the last time a player character was hedged out by a circle of protection against good?
Every time there's a spellcaster that knows the spell.
None of those spells would significantly alter gameplay if they no longer effected player characters, which is all I've been talking about.
Yes, they would. Quick and dirty example: balors lose a huge amount of their power if blasphemy no longer works on the PCs. Similarly, none of those other spells or abilities are worth being cast by PCs if they only work on demons and devils.
@Juno your crazy semantic difference between clearly defined and defined clearly, which is all in your head, seems to suggest that english is not your first language so I'm done arguing with you.
Nice. "You aren't a native english speaker, so your arguments are meritless". Nothing like bigotry to win other people to your side!
|
Me personally, I think I would rule it that non-outsiders count as Neutral for all spell effects, except for creatures with Aura of X.
This will make it harder on some, as Good spells will no longer ignore Good characters. But that makes tactical spellcasting that much more tactical.
I'm sure there are some snags with this idea that playtesting would highlight, of course.
Me personally, I think I would rule it that non-outsiders count as Neutral for all spell effects, except for creatures with Aura of X.
This will make it harder on some, as Good spells will no longer ignore Good characters. But that makes tactical spellcasting that much more tactical.
That's basically my house rule, too, although I count evil undead as "Evil".
I take it not every undead is an evil, life-hungry horror then?
Ghosts, I suppose. I just wanted to hedge my bets.
I'd say the alignment of the undead comes from how it was created. So you could have Neutral zombies doing manual labor at the temple, and Evil vampires terrorizing the town.
Well, in my campaign, creating zombies is about as morally acceptable as cannibalism and necrophilia. But YMMV, of course.
One word (more or less) but based on how a person following one of the axes would describe his most defining characteristic :A very useful inversion! The motivation to adopt a given alignment is as important as the methods it entails.
See, Quandary? Weather the trollstorm and life springs anew. ;)
Yup, I suppose I should salute the fortitude of a certain Spanish Dire Badger :-)
...But that IS essentially how I approach D&D alignment ('actual' alignment in game-terms isn't affected by the character's self-representation, but just the closest fit for the sum of their actions (recent actions/thoughts having more weight than past). Other-wise there is only 9 different moral 'personalities' in the entire universe, with other personality differences completely irrelevant to Good/Evil/Law/Chaos.
I'd say the alignment of the undead comes from how it was created. So you could have Neutral zombies doing manual labor at the temple, and Evil vampires terrorizing the town.Well, in my campaign, creating zombies is about as morally acceptable as cannibalism and necrophilia. But YMMV, of course.
But it's also something where (Capital M D&D) Morality may diverge from social norms (say, Geb in Golarion).
Personally, I'm not clear that a Tribe with Cannibalistic practices would be inherently Evil in the D&D sense. If Good people can kill (for good reason, self-defense), then what they do with the body after-wards seems more in the realm of social custom than in the cosmic D&D Good/Evil scale of things. Probably MOST Cannibals, especially those who LIKE killing sentients and seek that out, ARE Evil, but I don't think it's cut & dried that you are "D&D Evil" if you have some superstition prompting you to eat bodies of people who you couldn't avoid killing or who die naturally.Beyond the social norm of not abusing corpses, the "Moral issue" seems to center about preventing a Soul from reaching it's destination, i.e. for mindless Undead like Zombies/Skeletons, their Soul is supposed to be lost in some fog, not so much aware of their condition but just prevented from reaching "Heaven" (if they were Good). But to me, that begs the question: if they were NOT Good, but were Evil, is preventing them from reaching Hell truly an "Evil" act? If they kill innocent by-standers as a Zombie/Skeleton, that could be Evil, but if they reach Hell and become a Devil of some sort they would also commit Evil acts... Preventing them from becoming a Devil by locking them in a Zombie Dungeon, or using such Zombies against truly Evil beings would seem to have potentially Good aspects.
I suppose you can say Good/Evil centers around not forcing Souls/beings to act against their own will, but that makes most Enchantments/ Compulsions equally Evil acts as well...
Re: Creating Intelligent Undead where they retain their personality and free-will, I'm not sure how it differs fundamentally (re: Good/Evil) from simple Immortality... Is existing in the Material Plane for perpetuity ITSELF an Evil scenario? I could perhaps see that if this would prevent someone's Soul from 'ascending' to the Good Planes, but if (because of their Alignment/Actions) they would go to a Neutral or Evil Plane (where they would likely become a Demon of some sort), how is existing on the Material Plane indefinitely an Evil thing? (BTW: What do you think of life extension in the real world? :-))
D&D Alignment... the controversy never ends :-)
Is existing in the Material Plane for perpetuity ITSELF an Evil scenario?
Just an observation, make of it what you will: the primary opponents of such behavior, maruts, are Lawful Neutral.
Is existing in the Material Plane for perpetuity ITSELF an Evil scenario?Just an observation, make of it what you will: the primary opponents of such behavior, maruts, are Lawful Neutral.
Hm. In that context, Undeath and Immortality in general (and life-extension in real life) would seem more or less the same, in other words excessive ego-self-preservation against "The Natural Order" (mindless Undead not being SELF-preservation, but the same thing re: "Natural Order"). Which the whole Eberron "Positive Energy Undead" thing fits into as much as anything. Though I don't know that bringing THAT into this discussion will actually clarify anything :-)
Unlike that dirty dirty CN Luke Skywalker...Like father, like son! And then there's Yoda, the runty LN bastard...
Incidentally I think Batman one of the best examples of true neutral out there. He hunts evil and takes pride in protecting the innocent, but is motivated primarily by selfish vengeance (and no corporation gets that big and profitable without cutthroat practices). His own methods are entirely criminal, but he tries to keep 'em alive and fit for trial and incarceration (not because it's the Right Way, but because the spectacle has a desirable effect on other would-be thugs). In short, he holds ideals, but only when they don't get in the way of solutions.
Batman's a tricky one to pin down, but I'd say that while his motivations and personal actions are highly structured (indicating lawful) he's breaking the law CONSTANTLY (massively chaotic). He's clearly chaotic or nuetral good.
When was the last time a player character was hedged out by a circle of protection against good?Every time there's a spellcaster that knows the spell.
None of those spells would significantly alter gameplay if they no longer effected player characters, which is all I've been talking about.Yes, they would. Quick and dirty example: balors lose a huge amount of their power if blasphemy no longer works on the PCs. Similarly, none of those other spells or abilities are worth being cast by PCs if they only work on demons and devils.
@Juno your crazy semantic difference between clearly defined and defined clearly, which is all in your head, seems to suggest that english is not your first language so I'm done arguing with you.Nice. "You aren't a native english speaker, so your arguments are meritless". Nothing like bigotry to win other people to your side!
I think that the alignment system is a little broken. I kind of like the White Wolf system for character defining traits...you pick an aspect of your personality and go from there... things like vindicator, jester, brute, etc..
Alignment could be reduced to just good and evil without too many repurcussions.
The snarky comment about english speaking aside, there is really no reason for anyone to get too heated... we're discussing a game, we should all be able to be civil :-)
lol sorry boss, had to poke the bees nest.
I think that the alignment system is a little broken. I kind of like the White Wolf system for character defining traits...you pick an aspect of your personality and go from there... things like vindicator, jester, brute, etc..
It isn't the alignment system that's broken. It's people who are expecting the alignment system to do more than it's designed to do who are broken.
I think that the alignment system is a little broken. I kind of like the White Wolf system for character defining traits...you pick an aspect of your personality and go from there... things like vindicator, jester, brute, etc..It isn't the alignment system that's broken. It's people who are expecting the alignment system to do more than it's designed to do who are broken.
...and what exactly is it "designed to do"? Is it a perfect system then Zurai? No room for improvements... apparently the pinnacle of its type.
Alignment should be an indicator of character behaviour, but it's too broad for me and many others, and if that means I'm "broken" then I guess I'd rather be a little broke.
...and what exactly is it "designed to do"? Is it a perfect system then Zurai? No room for improvements... apparently the pinnacle of its type.
Sweet, we have another troll on the boards who likes to put words into peoples' mouths!
You claimed the system was "broken". In the context of games, "broken" implies unsuitability because of severe mechanical deficiencies. Thus, to claim that a system is "not broken" simply means that I am claiming either that the system is not unsuitable or that it isn't mechanical problems that cause it to be so. Nowhere in there do I claim, in any way, shape, or form, that the alignment system is perfect.
Alignment should be an indicator of character behaviour, but it's too broad for me and many others, and if that means I'm "broken" then I guess I'd rather be a little broke.
This is what I meant by people using the system for more than it's designed for.
The alignment system isn't an indicator of character behavior. It's a guideline for how the universe as a whole views that character. In other words, alignment is from the perspective of the outside looking in, not from the inside out. You're trying to use it as a straitjacket; it's not. It's a ruler. It measures things. It doesn't restrict, confine, or prevent. It reacts.
|
It isn't the alignment system that's broken. It's people who are expecting the alignment system to do more than it's designed to do who are broken.
Granted I haven't followed the entire thread but... this could have been said a little more friendly.
How about... It isn't the alignment system that's broken. It's the expectation, that the alignment system is meant to more than it was designed to do, that is broken.
See? Same point. Less insult. ;)
EDIT: Hmmmm. It would seem that I have stumbled into some animosity.
...and what exactly is it "designed to do"? Is it a perfect system then Zurai? No room for improvements... apparently the pinnacle of its type.Sweet, we have another troll on the boards who likes to put words into peoples' mouths!
You claimed the system was "broken". In the context of games, "broken" implies unsuitability because of severe mechanical deficiencies. Thus, to claim that a system is "not broken" simply means that I am claiming either that the system is not unsuitable or that it isn't mechanical problems that cause it to be so. Nowhere in there do I claim, in any way, shape, or form, that the alignment system is perfect.
Alignment should be an indicator of character behaviour, but it's too broad for me and many others, and if that means I'm "broken" then I guess I'd rather be a little broke.This is what I meant by people using the system for more than it's designed for.
The alignment system isn't an indicator of character behavior. It's a guideline for how the universe as a whole views that character. In other words, alignment is from the perspective of the outside looking in, not from the inside out. You're trying to use it as a straitjacket; it's not. It's a ruler. It measures things. It doesn't restrict, confine, or prevent. It reacts.
Didn't you argue,and I could be wrong about this, the exact opposite on the other thread about the two actions of a party? Weren't you on the side of alignment being an absolute value inside of the game world?
Troll? No I don't think so. But I'd take the regeneration any day.
It isn't the alignment system that's broken. It's people who are expecting the alignment system to do more than it's designed to do who are broken.
Granted I haven't followed the entire thread but... this could have been said a little more friendly.
How about... It isn't the alignment system that's broken. It's the expectation, that the alignment system is meant to more than it was designed to do, that is broken.
See? Same point. Less insult. ;)
EDIT: Hmmmm. It would seem that I have stumbled into some animosity.
Thank you for your civility.
...and what exactly is it "designed to do"? Is it a perfect system then Zurai? No room for improvements... apparently the pinnacle of its type.Sweet, we have another troll on the boards who likes to put words into peoples' mouths!
You claimed the system was "broken". In the context of games, "broken" implies unsuitability because of severe mechanical deficiencies. Thus, to claim that a system is "not broken" simply means that I am claiming either that the system is not unsuitable or that it isn't mechanical problems that cause it to be so. Nowhere in there do I claim, in any way, shape, or form, that the alignment system is perfect.
Alignment should be an indicator of character behaviour, but it's too broad for me and many others, and if that means I'm "broken" then I guess I'd rather be a little broke.This is what I meant by people using the system for more than it's designed for.
The alignment system isn't an indicator of character behavior. It's a guideline for how the universe as a whole views that character. In other words, alignment is from the perspective of the outside looking in, not from the inside out. You're trying to use it as a straitjacket; it's not. It's a ruler. It measures things. It doesn't restrict, confine, or prevent. It reacts.
More logically, the alignment system is "broken" in relevence to the human condition. If we don't exist like that, how can we ever role play it? What purpose does it really serve mechanically? Morality just isn't that abstract.
Before someone responds with "In real life we don't have dragons or spells either..." I'd like to say that no, we don't. In fact, we don't have just about anything in D and D, but we DO have the human condition and it's mostly an internal thing. Motivation, belief, emotion. Why should we put an artificial scale like that in place, and why would be propegate a system that encourages it? The game should FOSTER role playing, making an alignment an abstract concept does just the opposite.
Of course it's just my opinion...you shouldn't agree with what I'm saying just because it's what I think, and I'm not trying to force anyone to believe it, just throwing it out there.
Didn't you argue,and I could be wrong about this, the exact opposite on the other thread about the two actions of a party? Weren't you on the side of alignment being an absolute value inside of the game world?
Alignment is an absolute value. There's no relativity in D&D alignment. That doesn't mean it's a restriction, merely that it's clearly defined and an actual force in the universe. To be a restriction, there would have to be rules that prevent you from taking actions outside your alignment. There are no such rules, not even for paladins (paladins and clerics have rules that punish them for acting outside their alignment, but not ones that prevent such actions).
More logically, the alignment system is "broken" in relevence to the human condition. If we don't exist like that, how can we ever role play it? What purpose does it really serve mechanically? Morality just isn't that abstract.
This is yet another example of people mis-using the alignment system. The alignment system never tells you what is right or wrong. It has no bearing on morality at all. Morality is a concept that exists entirely outside of the alignment system. The alignment system serves only to tell you which actions and creatures are Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, or Neutral.
Morality is in the eye of the beholder; a goblin and a dwarf will have different morals. Alignment is not; the same goblin and dwarf will have the same alignment if they do the same actions, regardless of their morals.
This doesn't restrict roleplay at all. In fact, it enhances roleplay by giving an objective stick to measure against. You KNOW that doing this act is Evil, yet it's the only way you can see to save the children of the town. Do you sully your soul "for the greater good", or not? That's a great roleplaying opportunity. If, instead, saving the children was automagically Good because your morality said it was, there'd be no friction, no gravitas. THAT is restricting roleplay.
I kind of like the White Wolf system for character defining traits...you pick an aspect of your personality and go from there... things like vindicator, jester, brute, etc..
And nothing in the D&D alignment system is in conflict with that approach.
It isn't the alignment system that's broken. It's people who are expecting the alignment system to do more than it's designed to do who are broken.Alignment should be an indicator of character behaviour, but it's too broad for me and many others, and if that means I'm "broken" then I guess I'd rather be a little broke.
Notice you are the one claiming it "should be an indicator of character behaviour".
(and that it is "broken" based on said assumption)Imagine the difference:
Aligment as proscriptive: I am X alignment, so therefore in Y situation I will do Z.
Alignment as descriptive: In A situation I do X, in B situation I do Y, in C situation I do Z (etc...), so in the "eyes of the Universe" my alignment comes out to Q.
By the first approach (the one YOU advocate) there are only 9 basic "moral" personalities, the only differences being tangential to G/E, C/L axis.
By the second approach, there are basically an INFINITE number of moral personalities: The Alignment system just has a 'low resolution' and assigns them to 9 different groups.
Given the RAW include the possibility that characters will 'act differently from their assumed aligment' and that alignment can indeed SHIFT, that TO ME indicates that Aligment is more of a "measurement" of actions and not a prescriptive straight-jacket. In other words, actual alignment isn't up to players, but up to the DM to determine in accordance with the PC's actions (allowing for PC-DM discussion as to what's going on in said PC's 'head'). Spells like Detect G/E/C/L simply tell the Caster the status of the target "in the eyes of the Universe".
If you want to interpret D&D alignment in a prescriptive manner, that certainly does lead to a narrower, less interesting & realistic game: But you don't have to.
I kind of like the White Wolf system for character defining traits...you pick an aspect of your personality and go from there... things like vindicator, jester, brute, etc..And nothing in the D&D alignment system is in conflict with that approach.
It isn't the alignment system that's broken. It's people who are expecting the alignment system to do more than it's designed to do who are broken.Alignment should be an indicator of character behaviour, but it's too broad for me and many others, and if that means I'm "broken" then I guess I'd rather be a little broke.Notice you are the one claiming it "should be an indicator of character behaviour".
(and that it is "broken" based on said assumption)Imagine the difference:
Aligment as proscriptive: I am X alignment, so therefore in Y situation I will do Z.
Alignment as descriptive: In A situation I do X, in B situation I do Y, in C situation I do Z (etc...), so in the "eyes of the Universe" my alignment comes out to Q.By the first approach (the one YOU advocate) there are only 9 basic "moral" personalities, the only differences being tangential to G/E, C/L axis.
By the second approach, there are basically an INFINITE number of moral personalities: The Alignment system just has a 'low resolution' and assigns them to 9 different groups.Given the RAW include the possibility that characters will 'act differently from their assumed aligment' and that alignment can indeed SHIFT, that TO ME indicates that Aligment is more of a "measurement" of actions and not a prescriptive straight-jacket. In other words, actual alignment isn't up to players, but up to the DM to determine in accordance with the PC's actions (allowing for PC-DM discussion as to what's going on in said PC's 'head'). Spells like Detect G/E/C/L simply tell the Caster the status of the target "in the eyes of the Universe".
If you want to interpret D&D alignment in a prescriptive manner, that...
I think you're misinterpreting me, or I'm not writing clearly.
Assertion
1.) the alignment system is designed to be a moral compass, it's supposed to be a guide to character behaviour.
2.) I feel that its' too restrictive and does less to add flavor to a character then to dictate actions, of course I mean that in light of the discussions I've had on this board in regards to alignment. I prefer a system like White Wolfs where a character takes a thematic archetype and builds off of that.
I think you're misinterpreting me, or I'm not writing clearly.
No, it looks like he's got your meaning.
I think you're misinterpreting me, or I'm not writing clearly.No, it looks like he's got your meaning.
How very droll.
I'll repeat myself yet again, I guess...
You've got it reversed. The alignment system is not meant to guide or direct actions, but rather to record them. It doesn't look forward, it looks backwards. It doesn't say "Because I'm a lawful good character, I should do X", it says "Because I've done X, I'm a lawful good character".
I honestly do not know how to state it any more clearly than that.
I'll repeat myself yet again, I guess...
You've got it reversed. The alignment system is not meant to guide or direct actions, but rather to record them. It doesn't look forward, it looks backwards. It doesn't say "Because I'm a lawful good character, I should do X", it says "Because I've done X, I'm a lawful good character".
I honestly do not know how to state it any more clearly than that.
I couldn't disagree more. If it were that way everyone would start at true nuetral at level one, then there alignment would slowly shift towards how they were acting... as opposed to picking an alignment during character creation, before they've even done anything.
And what about Paladins then?
I've never said that a character of a given alignment couldn't act in ways contradictory to that alignment, just that I don't see it an effective or useful part of the rules... which is why I either a.) keep an alignment grid for the characters that they never see or b.) do away with it entirely except for the designation of being either "good" or "evil".
In the RAW it lays out, specifically what a character of a certain alignment will *normally* do. Why make someone make that choice then just casually allow them to double back on it? If alignment isn't there to determine the polar north of a characters moral compass, what possible point does it serve other then to designate targets for spells and special powers?
I understand the concept of alignment as a destination rather then a starting point, the RAW just doesn't seem to support it. Again, anyway, I normally discard it.
I couldn't disagree more. If it were that way everyone would start at true nuetral at level one, then there alignment would slowly shift towards how they were acting... as opposed to picking an alignment during character creation, before they've even done anything.
And what about Paladins then?
Wow, so your characters miraculously pop into existence the instant the adventure starts? They have no history whatsoever?
If alignment isn't there to determine the polar north of a characters moral compass, what possible point does it serve other then to designate targets for spells and special powers?
DING DING DING DING! We have a winner! That's precisely the point (well, that and keeping certain classes within certain behavior boundaries).
I couldn't disagree more. If it were that way everyone would start at true nuetral at level one, then there alignment would slowly shift towards how they were acting... as opposed to picking an alignment during character creation, before they've even done anything.
And what about Paladins then?
Wow, so your characters miraculously pop into existence the instant the adventure starts? They have no history whatsoever?
If alignment isn't there to determine the polar north of a characters moral compass, what possible point does it serve other then to designate targets for spells and special powers?DING DING DING DING! We have a winner! That's precisely the point (well, that and keeping certain classes within certain behavior boundaries).
That's a poor reason, and my I can't help but think its wrong.
When alignment was invented and brought into D and D, it was meant to be a set of behavioral guidelines. It wasn't as restrictive as it is these days (since the advent of 3rd edition has given a much more specific set of examples) and it certainly wasn't in place to designate targets for spells.
The alignment system predates the primary reason you support for it's existence.
That's a poor reason, and my I can't help but think its wrong.
When alignment was invented and brought into D and D, it was meant to be a set of behavioral guidelines. It wasn't as restrictive as it is these days (since the advent of 3rd edition has given a much more specific set of examples) and it certainly wasn't in place to designate targets for spells.
The alignment system predates the primary reason you support for it's existence.
Things grow. The original alignment system didn't even include the law/chaos axis, and the revision that added the law/chaos axis basically aligned chaos with evil and law with good (much as 4E does). Does that mean the Law/Chaos axis is meaningless and/or should be primarily associated with good/evil, respectively? This argument you're making implies such.
Older is not always better. For example, the origin of the gelatinous cube was Gary Gygax's love of screwing his players over for not acting in precisely prescribed ways (this is well-documented; there are all sorts of "do the wrong thing, you die, don't even ask for a save" creatures that he created for his home games, most of which have thankfully been relegated to the museum for extinct game concepts; I think the only two we have left are the mimic and the gelatinous cube). The alignment system of today exists to measure.
It certainly can be used to guide, but that way lies artificially restricting yourself. You're not supposed to say, "I'm Lawful Good, so I have to act like this and this and this.", you're supposed to say "I've done this and this and this, so where does that put me on the alignment grid?". If you'd just stop for a moment and look at what I'm saying, you'd realize there's no restriction there at all. The only restrictions come from outside the core alignment system itself (ie, paladins must never commit an evil act and must remain lawful good -- this is a restriction from outside the alignment system). If you're not playing a character class that has alignment restrictions, alignment has absolutely no affect on the choices your character is making, and if you are, you really do kinda forfeit your right to complain about alignment being restrictive.
What I find usually happens is that people think "I'm Chaotic Good, I have to maintain my alignment!" when really, nothing bad will happen (again, unless you're in an alignment-restricted class) if your character slips into Chaotic Neutral or even Chaotic Evil. That isn't the system placing a restriction on the player, it's the player placing a restriction on the player and blaming the system.
what are your thoughts on my fave alignment?
i'm thinking it roughly correlates to lawful evil.
Alignment: Selfish-Aberrant
1. Always keeps his word of honor (he is honorable).
2. Lie and Cheat if necessary (especially to those of anarchist and evil alignments) [Unprincipled]
3. Not likely to kill an unarmed foe, but certainly knockout, attack or beat up an unarmed foe. [Anarchist]
4. Will not kill (harm or kidnap) an innocent
5. Never kills for pleasure
6. Never torture for pleasure, but may use muscle to extract information from criminals or evil characters [Scrupulous]
7. May or may not help someone in need
8. Work with other to attain his goals
9. Respect honor and self-discipline
10. Never betray a friend
11. Bend and occasionally break the law when deemed necessary. [Scrupulous]
What I find usually happens is that people think "I'm Chaotic Good, I have to maintain my alignment!" when really, nothing bad will happen (again, unless you're in an alignment-restricted class) if your character slips into Chaotic Neutral or even Chaotic Evil. That isn't the system placing a restriction on the player, it's the player placing a restriction on the player and blaming the system.
QFE, +1, etc
This is, by far, the biggest issue people have over using alignements. Even moreso than "What is lawful, following laws or being tidy?", it's the fact that people use alignement to restrict their characters choices, instead of as a descriptive tool to define the character in the game world based on their choices.
When I DM'd my games (even back in AD&D era), I had my players put their alignments on paper so we knew where they were starting out, but I changed their alignments "behind the DM screen" if their actions and intentions went far enough out of line.
This allowed for great roleplaying moments where the PC "justified" his actions over and over until he hit a different alignment without realizing it. It never happened for me, but it would make for a surprise if Magic Circle spells were cast. I think I was too nice a DM back then and warned players that their actions were stepping into the evil areas (I was young, sue me).