Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 190487" data-attributes="member: 2013">Long posts...I do have a tendency to do so, yes. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />This is basically what the alignment question always comes back to... moral relativism.  D&D has a built-in assumption of moral absolutism.  If you are a believer in moral relativism, of COURSE the D&D alignment system will have flaws that can't be fixed... because its first assumption is the opposite - that there is moral absolutism rather than moral relativism. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />That's what the "great alignment debate" has really boiled down to over the years, hasn't it?  Moral relativism vs. moral absolutism?  The relativists are trying to convince people to drop the alignment system because it doesn't agree with their world view.  The absolutists are quibbling over exactly what the list of things is that are absolutely good and evil.If you are a moral relativist, D&D's system will not work for you because it proceeds from a different set of assumptions and no amount of tweaking will help. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  I happen to be a moral absolutist, and so I'm fine with the system - though exploring exactly what the absolutes are is of course, a cause for argument even among other absolutists. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />It could, but keep in mind, the point of the CPS system was not to define specific acts of goodness and evil, but rather a set of assumptions to work with when playing a character in order to generate actions that fall within the specified alignment.  Of course, that assumes that you agree with my definition of good=selfless and evil=selfish. LOL. :coolPrecisely.  That is why I tried to point out that, for example, two Lawfuls may not agree on which "rules" are right - that will lead to differences - and two Goods may not agree on which course of action leads to the greatest good.  Then you get two Lawful Goods at odds with each other - divine or mortal, the idea is the same.  Both are convinced that their way will be the best way to promote Law and Goodness.  They may recognize that the other guy's way will do it too, but they think the other guy's way won't do it as well as their way. And in this manner we get grays. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification