Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 1914213" data-attributes="member: 7240">Alright… here we go.Swrushing, you have made several points that I'll try to tackle thematically. But first I'm going to begin with an analogy to explain why storing conduct and ideology in the same variable is problematic. Let's suppose you want to have a single variable for expressing someone's precise age. So, you take their birthdate and express it in the standard American date format: mm/dd/yy. So, my birthdate would be 04/26/72. Now, one could condense this expression further. One could add the three numbers together: 4+26+72=102. Now, someone born exactly 14 years later than me would have a value of 116. Someone born 5 days later than me would have a value of 78. Now, some might argue that this system is not problematic because you can always calculate someone's single-number date value from their information and this data would always be the same. But what has happened is that the variable in which my age is stored has ceased to be descriptive. This is essentially what you are doing when you argue that someone working efficiently towards a chaotic goal is just as neutral as someone working towards no goal. Your argument is that because the law vector is the same size as the chaos vector in your sum, this system is functional. But it isn't. If someone has a law vector of 100 and a chaos vector of 100, the current alignment system coughs up the same alignment for them as if they had a law vector of 0 and a chaos vector of 0. This becomes problematic when the variable is used to store both conduct and ideology. Thus, it may be that 100% of the law vector comes from the character's conduct and 100% of the chaos vector comes from their ideology. Now, on to your post.You explain that you have removed almost all class alignment restrictions because, Isn't it curious that the classes don't appear to be broken in any other way? Your argument here is essentially: alignment, as described in the PHB, isn't broken. It's merely that nearly every other mechanic in the PHB that interacts with it is broken. You are reminding me of the Commodore corporation here. I used to be an Amiga user. When new versions of the operating system came out, programs would often cease functioning. Commodore's explanation was always: there is nothing wrong with our operating system -- it's just that all these programs are broken. Of course this is nonsense. Of course there is something wrong with an operating system that breaks that many programs.Once again, you are arguing that in order to make alignment not screw up the game, you have to suspend some portion of the rules. Can you think of any other mechanic that produces this behaviour so consistently? Now that you have disclosed this information about your campaign, virtually every advocate of alignment on this thread has had to explain that in order to make it work in their campaign, they have to violate or disregard the letter of the rules. You can't argue that a mechanic isn't broken if in your defense of it, you admit that you need to change the rules in order for it not to screw things up. The rules are an integrated whole. You cannot argue that alignment rules are only located on pages 104 and 105. The alignment rules are every portion of the core rules that pertain to alignment. Next, you argue that alignment cannot function proscriptively: You define alignment as a character's "choices over time." What constitutes someone's "choices over time"? Aren't your "choices over time" simply a sum of all your choices? "Choices over time" is a set -- it comprises every choice you make. It only comprises choices you make. You then proceed to state that alignment "never restricts your choices." You do grant, however, "that MAYBE some classes have proscriptive elements." I am puzzled by the maybe. So let's look at what proscribe means: There is no maybe about it. A paladin is proscribed from (a) ceasing to be lawful good(b) willfully committing an evil act(c) grossly violating the code of conductSo, we can establish that a paladin is forbidden/interdicted/disallowed/proscribed from being any alignment other than lawful good.How is alignment ascertained in your system? Through the paladin's "choices over time." What comprises the set "choices over time"? Each individual choice the paladin makes. But you maintain that alignment "never restricts your choices." Let me compare this to arsenic poisoning: a single dose of arsenic almost never causes death. Arsenic must be administered in repeated doses over time. Eventually arsenic will kill you but you don't know how many doses it will take. Eventually, over time, the arsenic will build up to a lethal level, though. And at some point, the next dose you take will kill you.If alignment equals choices over time and nothing but choices over time, eventually one particular choice will push you over the threshold and at that moment, your alignment will change. If changing your alignment is proscribed and making this choice will change your alignment, then alignment functions proscriptively. You argue that people can have rights without the rule of law:I think you fail to comprehend what rights are. A right is a consistent and universal entitlement -- the right to do something is not permission to do that thing. It is not needing permission to do that thing because you are entitled to do it. Letting someone do something is not the same as granting them the right to do it. You can let your six year old stay up late one night but that does not mean that you have granted him the right to stay up late.You raise two other substantive issues I will cover in a subsequent post.</blockquote>

Verification