Search results

I'd completely disagree on this point -- a large chunk of people "look out for #1," which is selfish and therefore evil in a D&D context. And I don't at all follow why past world leaders who sought to gain personal power by subjugating and ultimately eliminating groups toward whom they felt a...

People keep insisting that every action, philosophical system, and government be categorizable as either Good or Evil, with some going so far as to say the PH contains the guidance necessary to make these determinations. But no book in the universe could contain such information, and even if it...

All I can say is that I disagree with whoever is telling you that is how alignment has to be.

Your question contains its own answer (though I suspect you designed it that way). Of *course* you can have people with the same alignment making different value judgments when they have different understandings of the "facts on the ground," not because one is less compassionate than the other...

But this is precisely the point -- people with the same alignment are expected to reach different value judgments about whether specific ways to implement their values will work effectively. Of *course* compassionate people can disagree about the relative merits of the Soviet system or any...

You seem to think D&D's alignment system is unworkable unless it includes an objective standard for classifying every outlook, emotion, or set of behaviors. I very much disagree with this. All alignment does -- all it is supposed to do -- is provide a shorthand description of how much...

If Harry is G and his boss N (or E), we know that Harry values compassion more than his boss does -- but that is because Harry has more compassion than his boss does. The labels G and N are only shorthand labels for those values, correctly achieving their goal of telling you which character is...

Perfectly stated! All Lawful Good characters would agree that order and compassion should be the underlying principles behind the decisions they make, but this doesn't mean they'll always agree on the best way to apply those principles in any given situation.

If you had a one-dimensional L-N-C alignment system, you'd still have divisions between "compassionate lawfuls" and "selfish Lawfuls" -- you just wouldn't have a shorthand for summarizing why they tend to make different choices. Being able to put more precise labels on outlooks doesn't affect...

If your premise were right, it would be a mystery indeed. But I'm not so sure it's right. By fostering the development of a vibrant third-party marketplace for adventures and other tertiary products, WotC reaped increased sales of its core rulebooks, driving revenue above where it would have...

The OGL wasn't just a "good" idea -- it was a truly innovative idea whose benefits continue to be felt today. It produced a thriving third-party adventure market that in turn positively impacted sales of the core books, helping both WotC and third-party producers make more money than they...

I've been in two campaigns where alignment became a problem. In one, the DM would routinely move PCs to an evil alignment for even the tiniest selfish act, best encapsulated by a particularly memorable moment in which the entire adventuring party was unexpectedly blinded/deafened by their own...

According to your definitions, I can see how someone who is good could do something evil for a good reason. But you might consider using words other than "good" and "evil," because people are liable to confuse your terms with the definitions given in the PH. Let me explain what I mean by...

Same here -- the battlefield implications just aren't that great. On the other hand, when the conflict is over and the paladin begins to build the regulatory superstate that will slot everyone into their proper position in society, you may perhaps begin to see more significant conflicts emerge...

On your broader issue of who determines alignment, it seems to me that it is the DM's job to be the ultimate arbiter of fact in his campaign, including but not limited to alignment determination. I tend to give players substantial deference in my own campaign, as it sounds like you do...

A character who is honorable leans Lawful, yes. But being self described as honorable has no effect on his actual alignment, just as the many Evil characters who self describe as virtuous don't suddenly become so.

This nicely summarizes two thoughts on which most, though not all, of us would probably agree. One is that "honor" can't simultaneously be part of Law's definition and mean whatever any character at any moment in time wishes it meant. Otherwise you end up in Hussar's example where players and...

It's certainly true that different people might affix the label of "honor" to different things, but there is only one definition of honor provided in the PH -- "not lying, not cheating, not using poison, etc". It makes no difference whether barbarians in certain parts of the world use the word...

For the two-dimensional alignment system to make sense, Good/Evil and Law/Chaos have to be reflecting fundamentally different things (if it were not so then one may as well boil it down to a single dimension). So you are absolutely right that being honorable doesn't make a character Good within...

I actually think it is saying something rather different. Lawful characters do what they promise because they promised it, and any given lawful character can be relied upon to keep promises once they are made. On the other hand, Chaotic characters don't care what they promised, though any...