AFGNCAAP
First Post
I think alignment is a useful tool for D&D, as well as for some other games. It works for a world where there is conflicts between absolutes---Law vs. Chaos, the free peoples of Middle-Earth vs. the threat of Mordor, etc.
For a more realistic game (I somewhat flinch at the term realism, since all too often I've encountered players who argue for it only to gain its benefits, & they argue against it when acts against them), AL may not work as well. Then again, I think that a lot of problems around AL deal with concepts & semantics. I also think that, for a fantasy realm such as D&D, it's very feasible for PCs to think they're 1 AL & turn out to be a conpletely different AL---their own subjective views vs. the harsh reality of the matter.
I think a lot of problems that D&D, & other games systems, suffer from is an issue of vocabulary. A matter of what certain words mean in the context of the game as compared to outside the game. In D&D, monks mean martial artists, not soem sort of withdrawn religious scholar; barbarians mean raging, tough warriors instead of foreign, remote or less technologically-advanced cultures; etc.
Along these lines, what is "neutral," "good," "evil," "lawful," or "chaotic" comes into play as well. Is it good to kill baby orcs, sinc ethey'll just grow up to raid villages? Is it evil to practice human sacrifice to the gods who demand it? Is it lawful to follow a personal code of honor though it violates the laws of the land? Does chaotic mean ignoring the law? Does neutral mean maintaining balance between the extremes? I'm sure a lot of people have different answers to these questions.
I think that AL is a Ueful tool because it's a basic overview of what a character will or will not do: basically the bottom line. Despite what a character says or believes, this is what the character actually does . I'd say that more often than not, many characters would be true Neutral or at least partially Neutral---they believe certain things, but of course there are exceptions. The warrior who thinks everyone should get a fair chance, but kills orcs regardless of age because they'll just grow up to be a menace probably would be true Neutral. Same for a thief who basically steals from everyone who he thinks can afford it, except for his friends or family of course---doesn't even consider that the wealthy-looking merchant's could just be barely avoiding bankruptcy. Sure, a barbarian has a code of honor, but does it apply unilatterally? Would codes of honor apply to the orcs, enemy tribes, foreigners, or are they deemed outside that code of honor? Is the code of honor followed because of genuine belief, or because of the consequences for not following it?
Doing something that's within an AL should be difficult at times for mortal creatures, due to a lack of knowledge or perspective; it should be less difficult for higher beings such as deities, celestials, or fiends, since they (generally) don't suffer from such problems as severely as we mere mortals do. In essence, they know better---they're able to see the fine, almost invisible line between right & wrong, selfless & selfish, justice & revenge, etc.
I think that, for a game like D&D, especially w/ the established settings for the game, AL works. I'm sure that in other games it doesn't work, but then again, IMHO, those games might not deal with absolutes as frequently as D&D does (or can).
For a more realistic game (I somewhat flinch at the term realism, since all too often I've encountered players who argue for it only to gain its benefits, & they argue against it when acts against them), AL may not work as well. Then again, I think that a lot of problems around AL deal with concepts & semantics. I also think that, for a fantasy realm such as D&D, it's very feasible for PCs to think they're 1 AL & turn out to be a conpletely different AL---their own subjective views vs. the harsh reality of the matter.
I think a lot of problems that D&D, & other games systems, suffer from is an issue of vocabulary. A matter of what certain words mean in the context of the game as compared to outside the game. In D&D, monks mean martial artists, not soem sort of withdrawn religious scholar; barbarians mean raging, tough warriors instead of foreign, remote or less technologically-advanced cultures; etc.
Along these lines, what is "neutral," "good," "evil," "lawful," or "chaotic" comes into play as well. Is it good to kill baby orcs, sinc ethey'll just grow up to raid villages? Is it evil to practice human sacrifice to the gods who demand it? Is it lawful to follow a personal code of honor though it violates the laws of the land? Does chaotic mean ignoring the law? Does neutral mean maintaining balance between the extremes? I'm sure a lot of people have different answers to these questions.
I think that AL is a Ueful tool because it's a basic overview of what a character will or will not do: basically the bottom line. Despite what a character says or believes, this is what the character actually does . I'd say that more often than not, many characters would be true Neutral or at least partially Neutral---they believe certain things, but of course there are exceptions. The warrior who thinks everyone should get a fair chance, but kills orcs regardless of age because they'll just grow up to be a menace probably would be true Neutral. Same for a thief who basically steals from everyone who he thinks can afford it, except for his friends or family of course---doesn't even consider that the wealthy-looking merchant's could just be barely avoiding bankruptcy. Sure, a barbarian has a code of honor, but does it apply unilatterally? Would codes of honor apply to the orcs, enemy tribes, foreigners, or are they deemed outside that code of honor? Is the code of honor followed because of genuine belief, or because of the consequences for not following it?
Doing something that's within an AL should be difficult at times for mortal creatures, due to a lack of knowledge or perspective; it should be less difficult for higher beings such as deities, celestials, or fiends, since they (generally) don't suffer from such problems as severely as we mere mortals do. In essence, they know better---they're able to see the fine, almost invisible line between right & wrong, selfless & selfish, justice & revenge, etc.
I think that, for a game like D&D, especially w/ the established settings for the game, AL works. I'm sure that in other games it doesn't work, but then again, IMHO, those games might not deal with absolutes as frequently as D&D does (or can).