I think unneeded death is lowercase-good.So do you think killing people without good reason is good? I'm glad I'm not your neighbor or the chance of waking up with a knife stuck in the chest would be stupidly high
See how we have two differing views on the same thing, and neither of us is provably wrong?
Subjective morality.
The thing for me at least is that I don't understand why you want to get rid of them.
To be honest, I don't really understand why anyone would want to keep them.
But I'll answer the question. First, I find that the alignments introduce a gamist element to roleplaying that I don't think is helpful. I don't want players thinking about a two-letter acronym on their character sheets when roleplaying; it can't possibly lead to more authentic behavior. Human morality exists on many more axes than the standard two-dimensional D&D schema, anyway.
Second, I find that the alignments act as a straightjacket on the gods, and that annoys me. Take, for example, the classic Greek pantheon. Are any of them Good? Zeus was a serial [trigger warning]. Hera was practically the embodiment of vengeance and envy. All of them save for I guess Hephaestus "played god" with the lives of humans (took an active role in wars, etc.) in a way that could not really be considered Good by Pathfinder standards, but they were also mostly not Evil, either.
So what's the point? Like the Greek gods, if I were to assign alignments to everybody in my pantheon, they would almost all end up being some flavor of neutral...or I could dispense with alignment entirely and just let them be whatever the hell they are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See how we have two differing views on the same thing, and neither of us is provably wrong?
Subjective morality.
If I recall correctly Psychopathy and Sociopathy are certified mental illnesses.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think unneeded death is lowercase-good.So do you think killing people without good reason is good? I'm glad I'm not your neighbor or the chance of waking up with a knife stuck in the chest would be stupidly highSee how we have two differing views on the same thing, and neither of us is provably wrong?
Subjective morality.
Flawed logic. Just because something isn't provable doesn't mean that it isn't true.
There are all sorts of things which virtually everyone agrees exist/are true which aren't actually provable.
Heck - even in math there's Goodstein's Theorem which isn't provable - but go try to tell a mathematician that it's wrong.
To circle back around on this topic, I would propose that there is an obvious tension (one might even say contradiction) between the pantheistic cosmology of D&D/PF and its monotheistic moral system. This circle is squared by way of "morality physics", and by the literal square of the alignment chart. For those of us who prefer circles to squares, it is much easier to simply banish D&D alignment to the land of wind and dust than it is to bother reforming it.
Subjective morality only makes any sense in a world without an outside scale - where humans determine our own morality."Scale" is an interesting choice of words. You could just as easily have said "power", with all that it implies.... what? You're nitpicking word choice? What does "power" imply that "scale" does not, in this case?
My word choice was not mere nitpicking. All morality is coercive, or at least aspires to be. No moral system with the slightest shred of dignity presents itself as a mere suggestion. There is a scale, aye...and there is a sword. In fact, moral systems typically back up their judgments with explicit threats of the most terrifying sort of violence: curses, reincarnation as a lower life form, eternal damnation, and other such pleasantries.
Just so we're clear about what deities - good, bad and ugly - do with unbelievers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you're mixing up pantheistic with pantheonic
you're mixing up pantheistic with pantheonic
So it is. The point stands, nevertheless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing for me at least is that I don't understand why you want to get rid of them.Or we could just change all the spells with good/evil/law/chaos descriptors to work only against outsiders, and go on with our lives.
It's not actually that hard to remove the morality-as-physics bits of the system.
Wanting to get rid of alignment for the issues it causes I understand.
What I don't understand is why he wants to inject a subjective alignment system into the game (removing the objective system that exist) rather than doing away with it entirely.
If you have subjective morality, then there is no moral system and having any mechanics of it at all is nonsense.
Pathfinder Unchained gave rules for how to remove alignment from the game.
Personally, for my home games I just tell players not to write down an alignment for their characters (unless they are divine spell casters which require a specific deity to be their patron). Gets rid of the straight jacket problem and the boxed in thinking for most people/characters.
But outside of that, morality is still objective as determined by me as the GM. But it only has consequence for characters who are divinely powered.
What I don't understand is why he wants to inject a subjective alignment system into the game (removing the objective system that exist) rather than doing away with it entirely.
I don't know where you get the idea that I replace it with anything. If you'd read a bit closer, you might have noticed this:
For those of us who prefer circles to squares, it is much easier to simply banish D&D alignment to the land of wind and dust than it is to bother reforming it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those of us who prefer circles to squares, it is much easier to simply banish D&D alignment to the land of wind and dust than it is to bother reforming it.
That's okay, one supposes, buuuuuuuuuuuut...
My word choice was not mere nitpicking. All morality is coercive, or at least aspires to be. No moral system with the slightest shred of dignity presents itself as a mere suggestion. There is a scale, aye...and there is a sword. In fact, moral systems typically back up their judgments with explicit threats of the most terrifying sort of violence: curses, reincarnation as a lower life form, eternal damnation, and other such pleasantries.
You seem to be bringing baggage that isn't there. You are ascribing motive to something that is. This is where the disconnect lies.
Just so we're clear about what deities - good, bad and ugly - do with unbelievers.
Yes, and so does gravity. What of it?
Effectively, there are laws and rules and facets of reality. Either you work within those and succeed or rail against those and do your own thing and probably don't do much other than complain.
In PF, at least, one of those facets of physics is demonstrably alignment.
In your games you are, certainly, more than welcome to remove it.
I'm not entirely sure what's the issue beyond that - you seem to paint it as a morally (or at least intellectually) superior thing to do so, when, in fact, it is not - it is merely a different, if valid, choice for play. Is there another reason why you would suggest otherwise? I mean, other than ascribing a (potentially non-existent) motive, what else is there?
Let me put it this way.
You seem to be saying "morality threatens bad things unless it's followed" and you seem to think that it's because morality is, at its core, "evil" due to "forcing" itself on others; this is... well, it's a way of viewing morality, I guess.
Most people view morality, instead, as: "hey, if you jump off a cliff, you're going to fall until you hit something hard, and die, likely with a bunch of broken bones and in pain; don't do that, because it's a bad idea" instead.
This ranges from where souls end up due to Divine Judgement to "natural" cycles of reincarnation.
Morality isn't coercive. At least, it's not trying to be. It's descriptive of what happens when you don't follow it. Just like the word "gravity" - and all that implies. It's just that morality is usually (though not always) associated with spiritual - i.e. "not demonstrably physical or visible" - results rather than normal demonstrable physical results (though sometimes these overlap, depending on the moral code and results of actions).
Hence the confusion and dissonance when compared with your strongly-worded assertion of motive (or similar elements) to moral systems.
EDIT: for clarity
Most people view morality, instead, as: "hey, if you jump off a cliff, you're going to fall until you hit something hard, and die, likely with a bunch of broken bones and in pain; don't do that, because it's a bad idea" instead.
This ranges from where souls end up due to Divine Judgement to "natural" cycles of reincarnation.
Morality isn't coercive. At least, it's not trying to be. It's descriptive of what happens when you don't follow it. Just like the word "gravity" - and all that implies. It's just that morality is usually (though not always) associated with spiritual - i.e. "not demonstrably physical or visible" - results rather than normal demonstrable physical results (though sometimes these overlap, depending on the moral code and results of actions).
Show me the human belief system which ascribes the consequences of bad moral/spiritual acts to a mechanical process comparable to gravity. No one has ever actually believed what you are describing; it is a contrivance, nothing more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Show me the human belief system which ascribes the consequences of bad moral/spiritual acts to a mechanical process comparable to gravity. No one has ever actually believed what you are describing; it is a contrivance, nothing more.
Can I postulate that the afterlife exists? Because that's the case with most settings with magic
Can I postulate that the afterlife exists? Because that's the case with most settings with magic
Show me the human belief system which ascribes the consequences of bad moral/spiritual acts to a mechanical process comparable to gravity. No one has ever actually believed what you are describing; it is a contrivance, nothing more.
You can postulate whatever you like. The question is: how is it determined where one lands in the afterlife? Has there ever actually been a belief system which describes the process of selecting who goes where as mechanical?
As far as I can tell, "morality physics" is a sort of artificial paste slathered all over the cosmology of the system as a means of binding the pantheonic (which fits the setting) with the monotheistic (which fits the market).
You can postulate whatever you like. The question is: how is it determined where one lands in the afterlife? Has there ever actually been a belief system which describes the process of selecting who goes where as mechanical?
In Golarion and most 3.5/PF settings, when someone dies his soul systematically goes to the plane of his same alignment. If he was a follower of some deity he gets to the deity's realm, that is usually a section of the outer plane of the same alignment of the deity.
You can postulate whatever you like. The question is: how is it determined where one lands in the afterlife? Has there ever actually been a belief system which describes the process of selecting who goes where as mechanical?In Golarion and most 3.5/PF settings, when someone dies his soul goes to the plane with his same alignment. If he was a follower of some deity he gets to the deity's realm, that is usually a section of the outer plane of the same alignment of the deity.
So, shall I assume that you agree with me that this process is a setting-specific contrivance which has nothing to do with any real human belief system that exists or has ever existed?
Perhaps ironically, my main objection to "morality physics" is that it cheapens morality and moral decision-making within the game world - reduces them to a simple cost/benefit analysis of the sort one might use to select a new toaster. I'm sure the concept of absolute moral certitude appeals to some people, but it does not appeal to me.
Show me the human belief system which ascribes the consequences of bad moral/spiritual acts to a mechanical process comparable to gravity. No one has ever actually believed what you are describing; it is a contrivance, nothing more.
Wow. You... really don't understand and seemingly refuse to do so.
That is, of course, your prerogative; however, you should be aware that you are wrong.
As I am uninterested in continuing a discussion with someone who seems uninterested in understanding the elements (much less the people) they are discussing, I suppose we shall simply have to agree to disagree.
I like you, lion,
For the record, and because text is pretty terrible at conveying such things, I wish to add: despite our current disagreement, the sentiment is mutual.
but I'm not going to make it through all that.
Fair enough. I probably wouldn't if it wasn't mine - and, in fact, it's pretty clear I didn't! :D
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's mainly because there is no tie between laws of physics and morality in our world, but in most 3.5/PF settings there is and this changes perspective entirely and may not be easy to immerse oneself in that frame of reference
Yes, preceisely, and that was tacticslion's main point.
@Weirdo: that is a very interesting possibility. Honestly, in a world as diverse as Golarion, why wouldn't we expect radically differing moralities all competing for status as "the good"? Even if we accept that morality is in some way a physical thing (which, I admit, is strongly suggested by the existence of good/evil descriptor spells), why would it be the case that the specifics of "good" and "evil" would be immutable or conform in any way to our own beliefs?
Though again...a "high god" would resolve these questions.
The simple, meta reason is that the people playing the game prefer that “good” corresponds to their ideas about what is right and “evil” corresponds to their ideas about what is bad. It makes it easier to tell stories that feel suitably heroic to us as the players.
However physical Good and Evil don't have to correspond with right and wrong. You could tell a very interesting story in which the forces of Good actually do a lot of things that you are I may consider morally wrong. For example, you could say that it's Good to destroy an Evil soul, or to kill Baby Hitler, or to burn someone at the stake for heresy - find a contentious moral question or historical practice and side against your own intuitions. Then set down a bunch of PCs in a situation where they can either go along with what's "Good" under the assumption that it's also morally correct, or they can start arguing that the metaphysical energy attached to an act doesn't necessarily determine its moral value.
Heck, even with a "high god" exercising divine command morality you could have people arguing over whether that god actually deserves to be worshiped. I've seen that sort of thing in the real world and while I'd expect it to be less common in a world with visibly active gods it wouldn't necessarily disappear - especially with more active "Satan" figures stirring up dissent.
It's a 'straitjacket', aka the body wrap psyche wards used to restrain patients. A 'straight jacket' MIGHT be part of a tuxedo, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you were intending.
:)
==Aelryinth