Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D+1" data-source="post: 1440279" data-attributes="member: 13654">I generally avoid trying to match up real-life examples to D&amp;D alignments.&nbsp; Alignment is simplified, generalized, and combines in vague ways mulitple disciplines like philosphy, religious views/spirituality and often a bit of personality (though that is best left out of it), oh and sociology too.&nbsp; The real world simply cannot and should not fit into those 9 categories with any reliability.That's the reason alignment exists - so we don't NEED to describe characters at length regarding their philosphy, religion, attitude, morals and ethics, sociological expectations and so forth.&nbsp; We can simply jot down one of 9 two-letter codes that give us a shorthand reference for all that.&nbsp; You often can only use real world examples in isolated cases, very larger-than-life individuals who easily display their traits, or examples of only certain aspects of alignment.Without even looking beyond the first post I can tell you that the thread is full of discussions of &quot;Mr. AtoZ is this alignment/No he ISN'T!&nbsp; He's that alignment/I think a case can be made for him being the other alignment.&quot;&nbsp; Alignment isn't an END to achieve and to champion (usually not at least) but a means of guiding a player in his choice for character actions by providing a fixed reference.&nbsp; You can't hold up real-world examples a paragons of a given alignment because nobody in the real world strives to fit themselves into an alignment.&nbsp; Instead they strive to live by a _specific_ philosophy, _defined_ religious tenets and moral teachings, and the mores of their society and culture.&nbsp; That kind of specificity is not what alignment is about and it's a mistake to try and MAKE it about that.&nbsp; THAT is what breaks alignment as the tool which it's intended to be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D+1, post: 1440279, member: 13654"] I generally avoid trying to match up real-life examples to D&D alignments. Alignment is simplified, generalized, and combines in vague ways mulitple disciplines like philosphy, religious views/spirituality and often a bit of personality (though that is best left out of it), oh and sociology too. The real world simply cannot and should not fit into those 9 categories with any reliability. That's the reason alignment exists - so we don't NEED to describe characters at length regarding their philosphy, religion, attitude, morals and ethics, sociological expectations and so forth. We can simply jot down one of 9 two-letter codes that give us a shorthand reference for all that. You often can only use real world examples in isolated cases, very larger-than-life individuals who easily display their traits, or examples of only certain aspects of alignment. Without even looking beyond the first post I can tell you that the thread is full of discussions of "Mr. AtoZ is this alignment/No he ISN'T! He's that alignment/I think a case can be made for him being the other alignment." Alignment isn't an END to achieve and to champion (usually not at least) but a means of guiding a player in his choice for character actions by providing a fixed reference. You can't hold up real-world examples a paragons of a given alignment because nobody in the real world strives to fit themselves into an alignment. Instead they strive to live by a _specific_ philosophy, _defined_ religious tenets and moral teachings, and the mores of their society and culture. That kind of specificity is not what alignment is about and it's a mistake to try and MAKE it about that. THAT is what breaks alignment as the tool which it's intended to be. [/QUOTE]

Verification