BTW, somebody in another thread mentioned that the rules actually speak directly to how Alignment is treated in game, and the GM´s role:
...In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
Chaotic Evil: A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Neutral Evil: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusions that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.
Neutral evil represents pure evil without honor and without variation.Neutral Good:
I agree that the GM is the final arbitrator, but i still do not believe that a good character cannot hate, lie, or steal.
I also believe a good character is not a character that must shed a tear for every enemy he/she kills.These rules of these alignments seems to be a bit young and childish.
Strawman? I said it was reductio ad absurdum. Did you miss that?
Nope, I saw it. You were just wrong on multiple levels.
You can't use a strawman as your Reductio ad absurdum. Because, you are not taking the profered argument and proving it by using a contridiction. You are assuming that reductio ad absurdum means proving by absurdity. It doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean prove via absurdity, it means prove by contradiction.
What you did was create an absurd argument that was not proferred by anyone and then proceeded to knock down that argument. That is the definition of a Strawman Argument.
Well the party has perhaps solved the problem. The player of the gnome was absent this week, so he was an npc. Now after some time cleaning and monster hunting in the tower, two trogs arrived to see what was going on (one escaped trog told them the trog druid was under attack).
First the trogs came across the party fighter/barb, down a hole, digging for water. He was pretty much captured, and was a tad stuck. Out storms the party, the druid and his companion eager and raring to go, but the trogs have not drawn their weapons, and are attired to travel fast, not fight so much (decent equipment, good cloth, a little armour).
The druid realises the party is not backing him up. The bard moves up to try diplomacy. It is all quite a stressful situation, but no one starts the combat. The bard gets the druid to back down for now, there was an argument, plenty of checks, and then the bard went to talk to the trogs, whom were standing over the fighter/barb pit. They can all communicate in goblin.
The bard pulls this off. They are honest what happened. The trogs don't think they can win here, so they don't attack. The bard susses out these trogs are bards from another trog community below. He tries to get them into the artistic spirit as it were. His first flute perform is good. The fighter/barb gets out of the hole, gets helped actually by a trog since he cant make it on his own. He is not eager to attack. Eventually the trogs engage in their own performance, a warrior dance, which takes a very long time. The players are respectful.
So the trogs know what has happened, they are also given one important item of the druids back. The "second contact" as it were, went quite well. The leading trog bard cannot promise there will be no repercussions, no attacks, no vengeance, but he is impressed enough to pass on what he has heard and seen, and air his words in their favour. Afterwards, the players moved on back to more familiar country. The druid was not happy, but a party committed to diplomacy can really push a situation a certain way.
As to Pizza, perhaps alignment is a childish thing. Ideas that don't appreciate the complexity of the real world, the push and pull of allegiances, and what is necessary. Or perhaps we just can't live up to the ideal of good, even in a game, and view it with suspicion and scorn? Our pragmatic minds may be winning out over our callings to good. The diplomat bard has however, avoided unnecessary violence, tried his best to protect the weak, and improved relations between the party and the trogs. He got so much f****** xp.