Beyond good and evil

[Umbran]

being as good and evil, law and chaos are such wide notions it seems to me that maybe a 2 digit # would be better suited for describing character sympathies.

A 2 digit number might be more precise, but that doesn't make it better. In fact, I think the drive to more precisely classify is probably a bad idea. People already have issues defining "law" and "chaos". We certainly cannot define them with decimal accuracy.

 

[alsih2o]

hmmm, possibly a very good point umbran, i just thought it might be best to delineate a difference between "good because i was taught it" and "natural born apple polisher"

i can see the stated system being more and less defined

 

[Desdichado]

I hate alignment*, and think it only plays into certain campaign settings. For Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms or Planescape, it works well. Along with the alignment based spells and other things, of course.

For my homebrews, I want no part of it. I also want no part of fire and forget Vancian magic for homebrews, which is lucky, because you really have to change the magic system somewhat if you're going to ditch alignment. D&D is very self-referential, so if you want to do something that feels a bit different, you're in for a bit of a tune-up to the system.

I've been working on a pdf "campaign bible" that I'd like to post online for comments at a "beta" stage with mostly just mechanics, and I'd add setting info later. I've handled this there, in part by eliminating classes with alignment restrictions (or removing the restriction, or overhauling the class) which I also did because I want more classes like the rogue and fighter -- flexible and non-magical.

Anyway, that's a bit long-winded, and much of it is only tangential to your point, but that's how I handle alignment. Or how I will in a few months when I will likely sit "behind the screen" yet again.

*EDIT: I don't really hate alignment. I do hate, however, that it's default. It just doesn't work for every setting. In fact, I'd say it only works for settings that are designed specifically for D&D, like the ones I mentioned above.

 

[alsih2o]

I also want no part of fire

could you elaborate here? are we talking superlow technology?

 

[Mercule]

My group looks at it as means- chaotic believes the ends justify the means, and lawful believes the ends never justify the means.

This is how the other DM in the group tends to view it.

Personally, I think this makes CG less good than LG, which rubs me quite wrong. I tend to view Lawfuls to think in terms of groups whilst Chaotics relate to individuals.

So, a LG person is going to look at what's best for the whole group/party/society and act accordingly. A CG person looks at what's best for each person he meets or knows and acts to that view. The danger a LG person faces is becoming rather calloused to the plight of an individual, whereas the CG may be short-sighted because he doesn't think about the whole.

I saw an episode of Stargate SG-1 a year or two ago that illustrated the difference fairly well. I don't remember all the details, but here's the gist: There is a planet that has a huge stockpile of knowledge. So much, in fact, that it's practically impossible to learn it normally (and some other limiting factors). What this group does is to choose one child who is the "brain" of the group and keeps the society alive. The problem is that the child's brain will "burn-out" after a few years, leaving her basically retarded. Without this child, though, the civilization would collapse into ruin. A very LG thing to do (group thought).

O'Neil was, of course, appalled. He couldn't stand to see harm come to the child, even if it meant some inconvenience for everyone else in the society (not death, but significant regression). He eventually accepted the situation because the girl in question made it known that it was _her_ choice to do this. A very CG viewpoint -- concern for the individual over the group, but the willingness to accept another's decision about their own life.

I could elaborate, but it'd probably get the thread closed since it would no doubt tread into political territory.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Personally, I think this makes CG less good than LG

Yes, yes it does- in the long term. In the short term, CG may be "more good" then LG.

I could elaborate, but it'd probably get the thread closed since it would no doubt tread into political territory.

*chuckle* I will agree with that as well.

FD

PS- the SG1 story is based off a short sci-fi story (the title/author won't come to me right now), but it got me in to a lot of trouble in Ethics. heh.

 

[Mercule]

I've been working on a pdf "campaign bible" that I'd like to post online for comments at a "beta" stage with mostly just mechanics, and I'd add setting info later

Sounds a lot like some of what I'm thinking about doing. Is there any way to get a look at this pdf?

 

[kenjib]

Re: Re: Beyond good and evil

For example, I've learned that Sovreign Stone Press's campaign world is alignmentless. Anyone know what they did to the rules as a result?

They re-wrote the classes and magic system so they don't have to patch any holes really. Most of the mechanics that use alignment aren't in the game at all -- just the rare monster ability, but then they have their own monster book too.

I don't like alignment myself. It's seems more limiting than enabling and oversimplifies unresolved philosophical dilemmas in a way that I don't care for.

To remove alignment and fix the rules broken as a result you can do several things:

1. Paladins have a code of honorable behavior based on religious canon. They fall from grace if they break this code.

2. Give monks a set of aesthetic taboos and rituals that they must follow to remain focused. They meditate three times a day. They can not eat meat. They must refrain from too many worldly possessions. If they do not follow this path then they can not advance any more levels in monk until they continue to do so.

3. Remove the alignment restriction for bards entirely.

4. Make all spells based on good/evil work on specific types of creatures instead. Demons, devils, undead, and other supernatural horrors are evil. Celestials, unicorns, and some other traditionally "pure" supernatural creatures are good. Good and evil could be used as sub-types, like fire, cold, etc. I don't have my MM right now so I can't create a better list at the moment.

5. Remove all spells based on chaos/law.

 

[Desdichado]

could you elaborate here? are we talking superlow technology?

Yes, I'm a Luddite at heart. A Luddite who spends way too much time surfing the Internet!

 

[Desdichado]

Sounds a lot like some of what I'm thinking about doing. Is there any way to get a look at this pdf?

Well, I could send it to you, but I still have another week or so of "writing" (mostly transcribing, really, as the work is mostly done) the classes and magic sections, and then it'll be good to go. With just these mechanics, it'll probably round out to around 30 pages. This will be my first go-round of posting the thing. Then, I'll add more setting info, prestige classes and the like, and I'll be in a better position to actually call it a "campaign bible." When my current DM moves to Virginia for 6 months in February for his assembly plant rotation, I'll be ready to step in with the all-singing all-dancing campaign setting ready to run for the rest of the group.