Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mkletch" data-source="post: 403330" data-attributes="member: 3396">Alignment categorization in D&D has always troubled me.  Too convenient.  3E made it worse by defining every evil character as one who laughs while torturing babies.  Just read the Good vs. Evil section in the PHB.  It's not that evil should be given redeeming qualities, but the extreme is listed as the norm.A lot of how D&D developed represents only a western philosophy of good, evil, order and chaos.  D&D actually puts way too much stress on alignment in general and the good-evil axis in particular.  "Hey, that's evil.  I blast it."  Yeah, that is a moral compass.  If you consider the definition of evil in the PHB to be the extreme, it gives a little more room.  Evil should even include supporting or not opposing 'really evil' stuff, not just the act itself.  There are whole societies and cultures on our very own earth that could then be classified as evil.Not saying that they are actually evil, by any means.  Remember, this whole discussion takes place through the rose-colored glasses of 'western' culture and certain religious beliefs which, to quote Gandalf, "I will not utter here."  How different would this discussion be if D&D had been created in the USSR of the cold war?  In pre-communist or communist china?  In a middle-eastern country or in a "third world" country (gotta love that term; so complimentary)?  Western culture offers many benefits to the world, but like the spread of British administrative system thoughout its empire in the 1700's through early 1900's, there are drawbacks, too.  A kind of 'selective diversity'.  We like diversity of these kinds, but other kinds of diversity are not acceptable.  Then we base our laws and moral system upon this 'tunnel vision'.  A house built on sand...As for evil characters played, well, I have played none.  When I went through that phase as an adolescent and again later, I was almost exclusively DMing.  I had my outlet and 'living vicariously' as Eric has often described it.  But my neutral characters are not 'apathetic' or paralyzed.  Sometimes they perform gracious and generous acts, other times they fail to realize the rights and hopes of others.  So, a variety of neutral based on spending a little time on both sides of the fence, rather than stuck on the fence.  I tend to find neutral characters most intersting to play, because they are the only ones who do not already have their decisions made for them within the game system.  "Hey, that's a demon.  I blast it."  Yep, chalk up another kill for 'good'.How often do 'good' characters simply kill their opponents and take their stuff?  That single action (admittedly, a single action hardly makes a character or exclusively determines alignment) would be both chaotic and evil per the definitions within the game.  But if you base the career of a character on this all to common sequence of events in D&D, where should your alignment drift?  Even tha paladin who allows his party to do this through 15 experience levels certainly has fallen from grace.Now, how many paladins actually bother to do subdual damage to opponents.  None that I've ever played with, nor any other 'good' characters.  And I've played with some really good roleplayers who get into their roles immersively, and really 'think' like their characters.  But the whole nature of the game, exacerbated by Diablo and its clones and sequels, and the changes to 3E, emphasizes this kill-take-power cycle.Frankly, I don't even know if I have a point, here.  Or maybe that's it: this whole discussion is without a major point, except perhaps to make people think.  Does it really matter in either case.  Anytime I have seen this discussion, either here, or Eric's old site, or other sites, the sides have been chosen, the lines drawn before the opening post is made.  There may be a couple people here or there that haven't thought about it before, but most of it is like running on ice - lots of energy spent and we got nowhere.  Perhaps one of the moderators should put it on their calendar to simply bump this thread every other month or so?The premise is damaged: that D&D actually has good and evil, that they are properly defined, and that they can be defined, without first defining the cultural/religious background.  I'm sure we could not find agreement on those parameters, but it would certainly spark another interesting thread...-Fletch!</blockquote>

Verification