Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RobNJ" data-source="post: 414802" data-attributes="member: 3617">&quot;It's always been there,&quot; isn't a good enough reason to keep something.&nbsp; You need specifics.&nbsp; For example, some specifics on why alignment is bad:If alignment were a good, useful, clearly defined and reliable rule mechanic, &quot;IMO&quot; wouldn't be necessary.&nbsp; What is good and what is evil wouldn't be open to interpretation, it would just be.The precise problem with alignment is it wants to pretend that it is absolute and straightforward, but it's not.&nbsp; It's highly subjective.&nbsp; I dare you to start a thread here asking people something as simple as what is good and what is evil.&nbsp; There will be no clear answer.In order for a rule to be useful, it must by definition be reliable.&nbsp; Reliability is measured by the same result arriving from multiple tests.&nbsp; If you have multiple tests of alignment (like asking 50 people, &quot;What is evil?&quot;), you do not get the same result.&nbsp; It is therefore unreliable.&nbsp; On the other hand, if you asked 50 people what a base attack bonus is, you'll mostly get the same response.Furthermore, it fails on precision.&nbsp; Precision means, basically, that you do what you're trying to do.&nbsp; Alignment tries to accurately model/predict/explain the behavior of every living and non-living creature in Dungeons and Dragons, and it fails to do so.If alignment is so good a mechanic, why does no other game use it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RobNJ, post: 414802, member: 3617"] "It's always been there," isn't a good enough reason to keep something. You need specifics. For example, some specifics on why alignment is bad: If alignment were a good, useful, clearly defined and reliable rule mechanic, "IMO" wouldn't be necessary. What is good and what is evil wouldn't be open to interpretation, it would just [i]be[/i]. The precise problem with alignment is it wants to pretend that it is absolute and straightforward, but it's not. It's highly subjective. I dare you to start a thread here asking people something as simple as what is good and what is evil. There will be no clear answer. In order for a rule to be useful, it must by definition be reliable. Reliability is measured by the same result arriving from multiple tests. If you have multiple tests of alignment (like asking 50 people, "What is evil?"), you do not get the same result. It is therefore unreliable. On the other hand, if you asked 50 people what a base attack bonus is, you'll mostly get the same response. Furthermore, it fails on precision. Precision means, basically, that you do what you're trying to do. Alignment tries to accurately model/predict/explain the behavior of every living and non-living creature in Dungeons and Dragons, and it fails to do so. If alignment is so good a mechanic, why does no other game use it? [/QUOTE]

Verification