Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wombat" data-source="post: 1166834" data-attributes="member: 8447">The only reason I call them Absolutes (with the capital) is because of the premise of the game, not of reality.&nbsp; So if we are to argue about Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil here on these boards, we are talking about D&amp;D terminology, not the looser moral standards of our own world.&nbsp; Now here is the problem:&quot;Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&amp;D game.&nbsp; They are forces that define the cosmos.&quot;&nbsp; (p.87 PHB, 3.0 edition)&nbsp; OTOH&quot;Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity.&nbsp; It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character.&nbsp; Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can be quite different from each other.&quot; (ibid)Each alignment in D&amp;D supposedly has a definition and that definition should apply to the individual's actions and society (at least in the aggragate) -- this suggests alignments are Absolutes.&nbsp; Conversely, the alignments are supposed to be open to personal interpretation, thus alignments are [/I]not Absolutes.&nbsp; To put it simply, D&amp;D is trying to have it both ways, which leads to a lot of confusion.However if we cannot agree on the interpretation of these D&amp;D moral terms, then they appear to have no useful place or meaning in the game. This is not meant as an attack on anyone; if I offend anyone with this, I am truly &amp; deeply sorry.&nbsp; All I am trying to say is that the alignment system, while seemingly intrinsic to the core concepts of D&amp;D, is itself ill-defined and ultimately unuseful.&nbsp; If alignments are absolutes, then all the alignment-based spells and items make perfect sense, as there are set definitions by which they are able to act or not act -- nice binary decision.&nbsp; If alignments are not absolutes, but rather more in the realm of &quot;fuzzy bordered concepts&quot;, then the alignment-based spells, etc., are themselves open to wide interpretation -- I detect this man is evil because he is doing evil things at the present moment, I may smite the good person because he is being good at the moment.&nbsp; This is more a matter of game mechanics then real world philosophy, although there is an obvious wash between the two.Again, my apologies if this brings any offense.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wombat, post: 1166834, member: 8447"] The only reason I call them Absolutes (with the capital) is because of the premise of the game, not of reality. So if we are to argue about Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil here on these boards, we are talking about D&D terminology, not the looser moral standards of our own world. Now here is the problem: "Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are forces that define the cosmos." (p.87 PHB, 3.0 edition) OTOH "Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can be quite different from each other." (ibid) Each alignment in D&D supposedly has a definition and that definition should apply to the individual's actions and society (at least in the aggragate) -- this suggests alignments are Absolutes. Conversely, the alignments are supposed to be open to personal interpretation, thus alignments are [/I]not[I] Absolutes. To put it simply, D&D is trying to have it both ways, which leads to a lot of confusion. However if we cannot agree on the interpretation of these D&D moral terms, then they appear to have no useful place or meaning in the game. This is not meant as an attack on anyone; if I offend anyone with this, I am truly & deeply sorry. All I am trying to say is that the alignment system, while seemingly intrinsic to the core concepts of D&D, is itself ill-defined and ultimately unuseful. If alignments are absolutes, then all the alignment-based spells and items make perfect sense, as there are set definitions by which they are able to act or not act -- nice binary decision. If alignments are not absolutes, but rather more in the realm of "fuzzy bordered concepts", then the alignment-based spells, etc., are themselves open to wide interpretation -- I detect this man is evil because he is doing evil things at the present moment, I may smite the good person because he is being good at the moment. This is more a matter of game mechanics then real world philosophy, although there is an obvious wash between the two. Again, my apologies if this brings any offense.[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification