Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 193705" data-attributes="member: 537">Shark is channeling Sartre!!! Run for the hills!!1!!11Hm, I didn't know you had a taste for life on the Left Bank. You wouldn't happen to have a beret in the closet, would you? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Anyway, I don't see how non-cognitivism is incompatible with alignment. As I understand it, at its most basic, the non-cognitivist approach just says that moral judgements can't be made by using facts and logic alone; ie, there is more to morality than pure reason. However, that doesn't rule out a DM (arbitrarily) naming certain acts or beliefs as "evil", and people who consistently carry out these acts or hold these beliefs as the same. I may not be able to justify my preference for apples over oranges by means of factual argument, but that doesn't negate the preference itself.Now some games don't make a big fuss over fighting the good fight, standing up to the forces of darkness and so on, and these games have no particular need for alignment. However, that's more a question of what tone a group wants for their game, as opposed to deep-and-meaningful philosophising.</blockquote>