Imagicka
Explorer
Greetings...
I think Evil and Good work best when they are the extremes of the scale. Up to the points where someone who does mostly Good or mostly Evil things. Anything beyond these two points (towards the middle) is neutral. So, you can view it as 25% Good, 25% Evil, and 50% Neutral, at the most. The same works for Lawful/Chaotic.
The problem is, when you start talking about things like 'Cultural/Societal Influences on Morality' then you start slipping into the grey realm of reality. Yes, in a fictional/fantastical world where the Gods are real, then Good and Evil are very real and quantifiable things. But Cultural and Societal influences are a very real thing, and it only adds depth and flavour to the game.
I think the D&D alignment system is too generalized to begin with, not to mention that people have complained it was too unrealistic and broken for years. If Good/Evil is a quantifiable thing, then there should be a way to measure it, and not just a three-grade scale. Perhaps a seven grade scale? Saintly, Scrupulous, Principled, Good, Unprincipled, Unscrupulous, Diabolic. Or perhaps even more scales, or even going to a 'point-based' system.
But for something that is part and parcel of the system, it is not well designed. That should do more to either define where the boundaries of good/evil are, come up with a different way to quantify alignment/morality, or completely remove it from the system.
Three things I always thought should be 'measured' on characters is Sanity, Morality and Faith. If one doesn't follow the canon of their religion and doesn't have a strong faith, well... there are definitely things that can be done... decreased spell casting abilities for clerics... decreased healing effects for the unfaithful.
Morality, in respects to cultural, societal and religious edicts also can be measured. Again, with real consequences to actions, or non-actions, that go against any god's purview that these characters fall under.
I think Evil and Good work best when they are the extremes of the scale. Up to the points where someone who does mostly Good or mostly Evil things. Anything beyond these two points (towards the middle) is neutral. So, you can view it as 25% Good, 25% Evil, and 50% Neutral, at the most. The same works for Lawful/Chaotic.
The problem is, when you start talking about things like 'Cultural/Societal Influences on Morality' then you start slipping into the grey realm of reality. Yes, in a fictional/fantastical world where the Gods are real, then Good and Evil are very real and quantifiable things. But Cultural and Societal influences are a very real thing, and it only adds depth and flavour to the game.
I think the D&D alignment system is too generalized to begin with, not to mention that people have complained it was too unrealistic and broken for years. If Good/Evil is a quantifiable thing, then there should be a way to measure it, and not just a three-grade scale. Perhaps a seven grade scale? Saintly, Scrupulous, Principled, Good, Unprincipled, Unscrupulous, Diabolic. Or perhaps even more scales, or even going to a 'point-based' system.
But for something that is part and parcel of the system, it is not well designed. That should do more to either define where the boundaries of good/evil are, come up with a different way to quantify alignment/morality, or completely remove it from the system.
Three things I always thought should be 'measured' on characters is Sanity, Morality and Faith. If one doesn't follow the canon of their religion and doesn't have a strong faith, well... there are definitely things that can be done... decreased spell casting abilities for clerics... decreased healing effects for the unfaithful.
Morality, in respects to cultural, societal and religious edicts also can be measured. Again, with real consequences to actions, or non-actions, that go against any god's purview that these characters fall under.
Last edited:
