Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wombat" data-source="post: 1509801" data-attributes="member: 8447">I think my largest problem with alignment in D&amp;D is that it works both ways, as an average of behaviour and as an absolute.On the one hand you have angels and demons; the former are all GOOD, the latter all EVIL, in the absolute.&nbsp; They represent these stances and come from Planes that, if carried to their logical extreme, would only allow for that single alignment and its permutations.&nbsp; They have no choice in the matter -- they are Good (or Evil) and cannot derivate.&nbsp; The same cases could be made for Law, Chaos, and both flavours of Neutral.&nbsp; Equally there are several spells, feats, and items that are inherently Good or Evil themselves On the other hand you have mortals.&nbsp; Mortals are how they act, rather than an absolute.&nbsp; Most people would end up rather mushily Neutral because they could not truly maintain a Good, Evil, Law or Chaos stance for very long.&nbsp; This would mean that Protection from Neutral would be very useful in most areas...Then again, the truest druid, would be Neutral, not out of mushiness, but out of determination to hold to a Balance that requires neither good nor evil nor law nor chaos to reign supreme (yet most players treat this as a form of Neutral Good, if truth be told).&nbsp; This would be seen, if carried out, as Militant Neutrality, meaning it is far different from the Don't Give Enough Of A Hooey Neutrality of Joe Peasant.Now let us come back to the Detect/Protection from (Alignment) spells.&nbsp; Are they keyed off of Absolutes (like Angels) or Tendencies (like mortals)?&nbsp; Are there &quot;ranges&quot; of alignments, whereby once you act in X manner more than Y number of times you become Alignment Z?&nbsp; So for players alignments are supposed to be labels attached to characters due to actions, yet for monsters, spells, and planes alignments are unchanging absolutes.&nbsp; I find this an untennable situation to maintain.Food for thought.&nbsp; No personal attacks meant and if any appear implied, I apologize in advance.&nbsp; I mean for this to be food for discussion rather than a flamethrower...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wombat, post: 1509801, member: 8447"] I think my largest problem with alignment in D&D is that it works both ways, as an average of behaviour and as an absolute. On the one hand you have angels and demons; the former are all GOOD, the latter all EVIL, in the absolute. They represent these stances and come from Planes that, if carried to their logical extreme, would only allow for that single alignment and its permutations. They have no choice in the matter -- they are Good (or Evil) and cannot derivate. The same cases could be made for Law, Chaos, and both flavours of Neutral. Equally there are several spells, feats, and items that are inherently Good or Evil themselves On the other hand you have mortals. Mortals are how they act, rather than an absolute. Most people would end up rather mushily Neutral because they could not truly maintain a Good, Evil, Law or Chaos stance for very long. This would mean that Protection from Neutral would be very useful in most areas... Then again, the truest druid, would be Neutral, not out of mushiness, but out of determination to hold to a Balance that requires neither good nor evil nor law nor chaos to reign supreme (yet most players treat this as a form of Neutral Good, if truth be told). This would be seen, if carried out, as Militant Neutrality, meaning it is far different from the Don't Give Enough Of A Hooey Neutrality of Joe Peasant. Now let us come back to the Detect/Protection from (Alignment) spells. Are they keyed off of Absolutes (like Angels) or Tendencies (like mortals)? Are there "ranges" of alignments, whereby once you act in X manner more than Y number of times you become Alignment Z? So for players alignments are supposed to be labels attached to characters due to actions, yet for monsters, spells, and planes alignments are unchanging absolutes. I find this an untennable situation to maintain. Food for thought. No personal attacks meant and if any appear implied, I apologize in advance. I mean for this to be food for discussion rather than a flamethrower... [/QUOTE]

Verification