|
A regular feature on the gaming web-magazine 'The Escapist' is called 'Check for Traps' and is about table top gaming in general, normally d20 in specific.
Its always a pretty well written feature, by a guy who has just enough credits to his name to have a feel for the development side while still really being a player.
I happened to find this weeks article particularly thought provoking however, I felt the episode this week was particularly compelling and wanted to share it here, especially with all the alignment arguments that we have on these boards.
Essentially he takes the two alignment axis and breaks them down using real world philosophies to allow you to ask two simple questions of yourself to determine where a character(or action) may fall.
With that done, he even touches on the idea of different terms for the axis depending on a societies viewpoint, since after all an evil civilization don't believe they are 'evil'.
Thank you for the link. The author gives an excellent interpretation of D&D style alignment.
In particular, he offers an interpretation of how human and human-like societies can have different sets of morals that we refer to as Lawful/Evil, Chaotic/Good, etc. while viewing themselves as being right or even good. I would be happy to play a campaign with this version of alignment for human and human-like beings.
I prefer a more traditional interpretation for what I call metaphysically aligned beings. Most obviously, demons & devils are evil, not just selfish. For the most part, if you're a native of an aligned plane, you're aligned similarly. I'm a fan of moral grayness as much as the next narrativist. But, high fantasy roleplaying being what it is, it's good to have some kill-on-sight bad guys around!
I like the Law/Chaos bit. It's a really clever way to look at it. It's not the only way, but it is clever.
I think the good/evil discussion falls apart. That's a pretty sloppy take on Objectivism and a really sloppy take on Nietzsche. And that tag on the end that evil doesn't think it's evil? This is, basically, only news in the sense that an alignment system functionally proscribes that it can't be so. Evil has to just Be.
|
I might disagree with the idea that the good/evil discussion falls apart. Perhaps some of the terms used (Objectivism, etc.) are not accurate takes on those philosophies. The general idea that good/evil can be objective, subjective, or somewhere in between is accurate. The phrase, "One man's trash is another man's treasure," can be applied to morality as well: One man's good is another man's evil.
Personally, I enjoy reading books where the characters are forced into the position of trying to decide what is good and what is evil. Does charity help people, or does it foster a disinterest in helping themselves? One view of that question might be, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Is one inherently better than the other?
And I thank the OP for providing a very interesting read, and for sparking a debate that will likely end in no definitive conclusion. These debates are fun to dive in and out of. I will likely keep these arguments in mind in any future games I run. :)
|
|
Personally, I enjoy reading books where the characters are forced into the position of trying to decide what is good and what is evil. Does charity help people, or does it foster a disinterest in helping themselves? One view of that question might be, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Is one inherently better than the other?
This actually makes me think of the idea opposing philosophies of the Open Palm and Closed Fist in Jade Empire(and -amazing- Bioware RPG if you haven't played it, was really underexposed).
The idea was that followers of the Open Palm were what you would normally think of when you imagine 'good'. They would help the weak, feed the hungry and generally try and directly make the world a better place. Its the way of harmony and restraint as well as resisting tyranny, both without and within. Using your power to take control and 'set things right' is just as bad as any other tyrant.
Followers of the Closed Fist however, were not what you would expect as evil, instead they believed that strength should rule and aiding the weak only made them weaker. An example given is "An evil man man hear a plea for help and ignore it because he does not car, but that shows a disconnection with the world. That is not part of the way of the Closed Fist. A man on the low path may also ignore that plea, but that is because the person should show they are fit to survive on their own. The difference is in the details, the same man may also help if the odds are unreasonable, or to incur favor. There is thought in his actions."