[BoVD]Well, since I can't seem to post this on Wizards forums...

[SemperJase]

No, the purpose of declaring an alignment is to provide data for a game mechanic. The game itself doesn't CARE what you put in that little box. There's no more a purpose to it than there is for what you put in the box labelled "Str". People may have their own reasons for doing either, of course. I'd be interested to hear how it is you are able to determine those reasons unerringly and not others.

If there was no purpose for it, I suggest it wouldn't be there. Ignore it in your game (Rule 0) but the game is designed with that in mind.

As for your claim that there is no purpose for putting a score in STR I'm baffled. There is no difference between an 18 STR and a 3? I say there is as big a difference to a character between a 3 in STR and an 18 as there is to a character who chooses LG over CE.

Again, I cannot judge your motivations outside the game.

[qutoe]My whole argument has been about how sometimes we need to explore things to determine if they are, in fact, good or evil.[/quote]

I agree to some extent. Our difference is that I believe we explore that for the purpose of avoiding evil. That is not what a CE character would do. A CE character does "whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do." PHB pg. 90

 

[SemperJase]

this goes beyond eye for an eye all the way to town for an eye. you call that moral or ethical?

that is seething evil. you dodn't kill the non-combatants, but how long will they survive without protection in such a world? very vile.

are all wrongs in your campaign world corrected with capital punishment? do you not see that as excessively evil and vile?

No. Not every wrong is corrected with captial punishment in our campaign. So I guess that makes the next question irrelevant.

In addition, we didn't kill the whole town. We only killed those necessary to free the slaves. Had they not fought us to prevent us from freeing those slaves, we would not have killed those we did. For that matter, we did not kill every combantant.

 

[Piratecat]

An orc living in the same caves profiting from the trade or use of slaves is guilty by association.

A stranger living in the same town as you do, who profits by the gold you bring back from your orc slaughtering mission, is guilty by association as well?

Exact same circumstance, with the roles reversed.

 

[Piratecat]

By the way, folks, thanks again for keeping this a discussion - not an argument. You guys are cool.

 

[barsoomcore]

If there was no purpose for it, I suggest it wouldn't be there. Ignore it in your game (Rule 0) but the game is designed with that in mind.

Hold on. I didn't say there was no purpose in it. I thought I was pretty clear. Let me quote myself:

the purpose of declaring an alignment is to provide data for a game mechanic.

I'm sorry if you interpret that to mean I think there is no purpose, but I don't see how I could be any clearer.

As for your claim that there is no purpose for putting a score in STR I'm baffled.

Again, not to be didactic, but what I said, and what you in fact quoted me as saying is:

There's no more a purpose to it than there is for what you put in the box labelled "Str".

You'll notice I'm not saying "There is no purpose to putting a score in STR." Why are you pretending that I am?

Let me try to be more clear:

There is a purpose to both alignment and STR. They are both data sources that serve game mechanics. The value applied to both affects game results.

Is that clear? And why exactly are we discussing this? I hope you have more substantial arguments to make, or is this your admission that my actual argument is correct?

Again, I cannot judge your motivations outside the game.

Okay, so then you don't know why I might choose to play an evil character. Is that correct? That's the point I was trying to make.

Again, I trust a further response is forthcoming.

 

[SemperJase]

A stranger living in the same town as you do, who profits by the gold you bring back from your orc slaughtering mission, is guilty by association as well?

Exact same circumstance, with the roles reversed.

Not valid for a couple of reasons:

1. We are talking about a group of 20 orcs. All were associated with the trade.

2. For someone else to be guilty by association, we would have to be guilty of some sin. As we were not, they were not.

 

[barsoomcore]

You guys are cool.

Well, duh.

 

[takyris]

What about the LG Orc in that town who was working and training to become a better fighter so that he could become chieftan through right of combat, with the goal of ending slavery? The same Orc who knew that tensions were rising between his people and the humans and wanted to free the slaves but couldn't, because he didn't have the authority, and he believed in the law of his people? The same Orc who saw his brother, a True Neutral guy who wasn't much for thinking and pretty much always did what he was told, get hacked down by humans before he could even get his sword drawn? The same Orc who, in defense of his flawed but blood-bound people, drew his sword to defend the women and children from the attackers (because how is he supposed to know that you're not coming in with a Total War mentality)?

You can always come up with shades of gray.

-Tacky

 

[Piratecat]

2. For someone else to be guilty by association, we would have to be guilty of some sin. As we were not, they were not.

I don't think my point could have missed by a wider margin. Ah, well.

 

[SemperJase]

Let me try to be more clear:

Okay, so then you don't know why I might choose to play an evil character. Is that correct? That's the point I was trying to make.

Again, I trust a further response is forthcoming.

Outside the game, I don't know why you chose to play that character. Inside the game, for a CE character, your motivation is to be "ruthless and brutal" PHB pg 90.

Apparently you reason for choosing the character is to explore evil as you put it. I believe that position is misguided as there is no benefit to learn about evil by intentionally committing evil acts.

The intention of a CE character is inherently trying to committ evil while the intention of a good character is to try to committ good acts.

A good character may fail and do something evil. While an evil character would only do good unintentionally. I prefer the first.