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: 1914300" data-attributes="member: 7240">Did you notice the contribution of arnwyn and others on the last thread where you accused me of this? You seem to believe that demonstrating the logical consequence of your statements is some form of misrepresentation. We're not doing theology here -- vehemently asserting two contradictory positions does not point to some profound truth beyond human comprehension; it just indicates that your argument is illogical.So, who are the historical or literary figures we might both know about that we could use as exemplary cases for the purpose of this discussion? Maybe someone from Song of Ice and Fire, Lord of the Rings or something like that.The way I GM, people still act like people. If alignment claims to be a transcultural measure and measures things that D&D characters possess in equal supply to real people (ie. choices), why can't we use any examples in our discussion? And is it your position that if someone pursues the goal of universal chaos in an organized and disciplined fashion that they are, as you seem to suggest elsewhere, neutral? That's good because I am not suggesting that. If you'll read back a few posts, I believe that what I suggested was that the mechanic could be saved if it stored either conduct or ideology not both and if the internal contradictions in the way it describes ideologies were removed.  You have a car. It is supposed to be able to shift into fourth gear but every time you try to shift it there, it breaks down. Now, I suppose you could argue that because you are not required to use fourth gear, the car isn't broken. I'm not saying that every time you try to use the alignment mechanic, it fails. What I am saying is that when you attempt to express certain choices, conditions or behaviours with it, it consistently fails. Certain chaotic goals like guaranteed personal freedom can only be achieved through processes the game defines as lawful.The last issue you raise is one of flexibility. You state that alignment is not a straitjacket and is defined as a flexible mechanic that requires subjective interpretation. Of course that is true. But that's why it is all the more important for it to be defined with consistency and precision. If a GM is interpreting a complex and flexible mechanic, it is all the more important that the mechanic is described in a clear way -- otherwise his judgement calls will be all over the map.Similarly, you state that within each alignment there are many sorts of individuals. Again, no one is disputing this. But these individuals should have something in common with the other people bearing the same descriptor; in the current formulation of alignment, that is not the case. The same is true of hair colour -- we have about 6 hair colours in common parlance but we all know that no two people's hair is the same. But we all agree that the "black" category for hair should not include lighter hair than the "red" category does. Alignment doesn't work this way. Returning to the example of the efficient anarchists whom you categorize as "neutral," it seems quite wrong for the system to categorize them as less committed to chaos than someone who takes no action to promote it.The other problem with your line of reasoning here is that the text you have located reminding GMs that alignment is not a straitjacket and that each alignment category includes various different philosophies and behaviours does not somehow trump or invalidate other parts of the rules. It is every bit as true as the statement "a chaotic evil chatacter… is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent and unpredictable" -- while it provides context for this statement, it doesn't make the statement less true.</blockquote>

Verification