Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Carpe DM" data-source="post: 4649658" data-attributes="member: 677">Good D&amp;D mechanics are suggestive and cinematic.&nbsp; Simulating alignment is hard because real morality is complicated.&nbsp; Just as simulating a sword fight is the last thing the D&amp;D rules want to do, so simulating morality is not a good storytelling experience for the adventure genre.&nbsp; There are, of course, other genres.&nbsp; (As an aside, a famous comment about real-world sword-fights is that one combatant dies fast, the other slowly.)So while alignment is not meant to simulate ethics or morality, it does do a decent job of stimulating morals vs. ethics debates, which is the stuff of cinema.&nbsp; The tension between getting the bad guy and doing it by the book.&nbsp; All the dorm-room agonizing about torture that goes on in the 24 series.&nbsp; In short, the 9-align system is useful for helping the DM frame ethics vs. morals debates, system vs. individuallity conflicts, in a way that fit neatly into our literary/oral pastime.&nbsp; Just as a series of 10X10 rooms is really a plot device, so is a matrix of 3x3 alignments.Based on this analysis, I dislike the 4E alignment system precisely because it eliminates most of the serious moral / ethical tension that alignment, as a storytelling tool, evoked.&nbsp;&nbsp; Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good were the most important alignments for DMs and players, respectively, for a reason: they enshrine tension between ethics and morals, between freedom to act and acting correctly.Any alignment system is a trope.&nbsp; The 4E alignment system is a failed trope.warmest regards,Carpe</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Carpe DM, post: 4649658, member: 677"] Good D&D mechanics are suggestive and cinematic. Simulating alignment is hard because real morality is complicated. Just as simulating a sword fight is the last thing the D&D rules want to do, so simulating morality is not a good storytelling experience for the adventure genre. There are, of course, other genres. (As an aside, a famous comment about real-world sword-fights is that one combatant dies fast, the other slowly.) So while alignment is not meant to simulate ethics or morality, it does do a decent job of stimulating morals vs. ethics debates, which is the stuff of cinema. The tension between getting the bad guy and doing it by the book. All the dorm-room agonizing about torture that goes on in the 24 series. In short, the 9-align system is useful for helping the DM frame ethics vs. morals debates, system vs. individuallity conflicts, in a way that fit neatly into our literary/oral pastime. Just as a series of 10X10 rooms is really a plot device, so is a matrix of 3x3 alignments. Based on this analysis, I dislike the 4E alignment system precisely because it eliminates most of the serious moral / ethical tension that alignment, as a storytelling tool, evoked. Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good were the most important alignments for DMs and players, respectively, for a reason: they enshrine tension between ethics and morals, between freedom to act and acting correctly. Any alignment system is a trope. The 4E alignment system is a failed trope. warmest regards, Carpe [/QUOTE]

Verification