Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="vulcan_idic" data-source="post: 1867738" data-attributes="member: 19615">My complaint about the system is similar to this, but not it exactly.&nbsp; I like the idea of defining the general outlook/nature of a character as defined by their past actions (though as Mr. Wilder correctly pointed out, not prescribing future actions)... my complaint is actually the fact that the alignments are poorly defined and vague.&nbsp; While this is nice in someways allowing them to be variously interpreted for various settings, I find them mostly useless as a metric for gauging whether or not I am playing the character I initially designed, or, conversely, using such to describe the character itself during creation.&nbsp; &nbsp; There are entire threads on this forum debating what makes a character &quot;lawful&quot; or &quot;chaotic&quot; (for example) - and each person argues well for their point of view.&nbsp; Were those participating in the nonviolent civil rights protests in the 50's &quot;lawful&quot;?&nbsp; They broke the law in a civil manner in hopes of changing it, but they were well organized and generally held fast to their mutually held doctrine.&nbsp; Or were they &quot;chaotic&quot; crusaders for the rights of individuals as well as the subsection of society, and as mentioned above they occassionally broke the law (albeit peacefully breaking unjust laws) in pursuit of their goal.&nbsp; Or, since they have characteristics of both, were they neutral?&nbsp; Or is neutral the lack of either?&nbsp; Or is neutral both the lack of either and presence of both?&nbsp; It is this very ambiguity in the terms that makes them a poor, if not useless, metric for description, prescription, or even proscription however a DM chooses to use it.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; To sum up, my problem with alignment is not in it's potential use, but in the fact that through lack of clear definition of terms the system is robbed of it's potential utility and is reduced to a tangled morass of perspective and philosophy that is a recipe for disaster waiting to trap the unwary (and non philosophically homogenous) gaming group in troublesome quarrels that would be avoidable and enhance the potential enjoyment of philosophically heterogenous gaming groups that could be easily solved through clear definition of terms - as they have done so successfully with bonus types, monster types, and many other wording choices in the rule books.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="vulcan_idic, post: 1867738, member: 19615"] My complaint about the system is similar to this, but not it exactly. I like the idea of defining the general outlook/nature of a character as defined by their past actions (though as Mr. Wilder correctly pointed out, not prescribing future actions)... my complaint is actually the fact that the alignments are poorly defined and vague. While this is nice in someways allowing them to be variously interpreted for various settings, I find them mostly useless as a metric for gauging whether or not I am playing the character I initially designed, or, conversely, using such to describe the character itself during creation. There are entire threads on this forum debating what makes a character "lawful" or "chaotic" (for example) - and each person argues well for their point of view. Were those participating in the nonviolent civil rights protests in the 50's "lawful"? They broke the law in a civil manner in hopes of changing it, but they were well organized and generally held fast to their mutually held doctrine. Or were they "chaotic" crusaders for the rights of individuals as well as the subsection of society, and as mentioned above they occassionally broke the law (albeit peacefully breaking unjust laws) in pursuit of their goal. Or, since they have characteristics of both, were they neutral? Or is neutral the lack of either? Or is neutral both the lack of either and presence of both? It is this very ambiguity in the terms that makes them a poor, if not useless, metric for description, prescription, or even proscription however a DM chooses to use it. To sum up, my problem with alignment is not in it's potential use, but in the fact that through lack of clear definition of terms the system is robbed of it's potential utility and is reduced to a tangled morass of perspective and philosophy that is a recipe for disaster waiting to trap the unwary (and non philosophically homogenous) gaming group in troublesome quarrels that would be avoidable and enhance the potential enjoyment of philosophically heterogenous gaming groups that could be easily solved through clear definition of terms - as they have done so successfully with bonus types, monster types, and many other wording choices in the rule books. [/QUOTE]

Verification