Are alignments relative?
- Thread starter Avatar
- Start date
Psion
Adventurer
Furn_Darkside said:
Right.
Let's say we have a LN city. The society revolves around propriety, law, and social order. But do you think that its citizenry will consider themselves "not good"? In all likelihood, members of the citezenry who embrace the society's values would think if it as "good" even though by the objective criteria it is not... it is LN.
So in short, just because the society and/or a preponerance of its members are a given alignment doesn't mean that they don't have a different definition of good and evil than that outlined by the alignment system.
Furn_Darkside
First Post
Tsyr said:
&
Psion said:
*sigh* Of course, sorry about that. Can I blame the chinese food I just ate?
Thank you, guys.
FD
Well I was gonna say no, but I think that's been pounded in quite nicely. Yep, it's mush.
However, although in a Dnd world Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are definate tangible forces, an "evil" person, for instance, may feel that their actions are "good."
Take the crusades for example. Those fellos thought that their religion and way of live was better than the Turks (it was the turks wasn't it?) so they decided to kill them all. Of course the Crusades weren't the most successful enterprise, but that's besides the point. The point is that they felt that their cause was a righteous one, yet now some/most of us look at it with distain, because they were breaking such fundamental (fundamental to us, it will be different in a couple of decades) laws such as "live and let live," "everyone is created kinda equal," yada yada yada.
Unless of course you play in a Mickey Mouse campaign where evil just exists to destroy the world for some obscure reason. Just like every single (nearly every single) alien in the movies.
Oh well, Cs is calling me.
Tata.
However, although in a Dnd world Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are definate tangible forces, an "evil" person, for instance, may feel that their actions are "good."
Take the crusades for example. Those fellos thought that their religion and way of live was better than the Turks (it was the turks wasn't it?) so they decided to kill them all. Of course the Crusades weren't the most successful enterprise, but that's besides the point. The point is that they felt that their cause was a righteous one, yet now some/most of us look at it with distain, because they were breaking such fundamental (fundamental to us, it will be different in a couple of decades) laws such as "live and let live," "everyone is created kinda equal," yada yada yada.
Unless of course you play in a Mickey Mouse campaign where evil just exists to destroy the world for some obscure reason. Just like every single (nearly every single) alien in the movies.
Oh well, Cs is calling me.
Tata.
Wow! Thanks for all the responses, and so quickly too.
To answer a question, no, I'm not in the process of running a game. I play in one, but was thinking about giving a shot at DMing in the future.
The thing that got me thinking about this was the thread on having two groups, combined with a healthy dose of fantasy reading.
My thought was, why not have a good roleplay game with two groups, each of which is convinced the other is some powerful force for evil, each working for their own diety (opposites of course). But I wouldn't want the players to know which side is the "objectively" good side, or even if I'll have an objectively good side. Obviously, this wouldn't work if one group had all evil alignments.
But I guess that's the beauty of DnD. The PHB and DMG are just suggestions and the DM can do whatever s/he wants.
Thanks again, and I hope the thread continues.
Alan
Also, if anyone who's running a game or about to start one would like to try this idea, I'd love to hear how it goes.
To answer a question, no, I'm not in the process of running a game. I play in one, but was thinking about giving a shot at DMing in the future.
The thing that got me thinking about this was the thread on having two groups, combined with a healthy dose of fantasy reading.
My thought was, why not have a good roleplay game with two groups, each of which is convinced the other is some powerful force for evil, each working for their own diety (opposites of course). But I wouldn't want the players to know which side is the "objectively" good side, or even if I'll have an objectively good side. Obviously, this wouldn't work if one group had all evil alignments.
But I guess that's the beauty of DnD. The PHB and DMG are just suggestions and the DM can do whatever s/he wants.
Thanks again, and I hope the thread continues.
Alan
Also, if anyone who's running a game or about to start one would like to try this idea, I'd love to hear how it goes.
Last edited:
ConcreteBuddha
First Post
Avatar said:
Yes and no.
Chaotic characters are relativists.
Lawful characters are absolutists.
The system is both.
Hope that helps.
A lot of people have already said stuff about D&D alignment. I just wanted to point out that for the most part, I suspect a lot of people don't actively consider matters of 'good' or 'evil'. Just things like 'success', 'power', 'society' and so forth. So I don't know that a LN town would be comprised of people who consider themselves 'good' instead of, for example, 'right'. 'Good' definitely has connotations of generousity, for example... I think a lot more societies believe they are /right/, but don't really worry about whether or not they are /good/ or /evil/.
