Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wyrmshadows" data-source="post: 3969760" data-attributes="member: 56166">I agree with you. The problem is that D&D's alignment system is too simplistic and of course cannot possibly grok the complete picture of human ethical/moral systems, however it isn't its mere simplicity that is problematic. I see huge illogical holes in it that make room for silly paradoxical situations like the one Mordenkainen situation I offered up in my previous post.There is a lot of truth in Nietzsche but in D&D I think that maybe it would be a neutral philosophy but it can easily be taken into the realm of evil with the slightest nudge. I see a lot more evil individuals getting traction out of Nietzsche's ideas than those with good alignment in D&D of course.I'm with you on that. Changing alignment isn't "Hey I'm gonna be a bad/good guy." In any campaign with depth their would have to be an organic change that is a transformation of worldview. A character doesn't choose to be LG or CN for example, a confluence of their intrinsic nature, life experiences, values, principles, etc. converge into the thing we in D&D-speak call alignment.Absolutely right. Only the thinnest and most B-movie of heroes and villians say things like "I serve good/evil." No one serves good or evil really, they serve their principles and values in the form of the god(s) they worship, the organizations they support and the quests they embark upon. A paladin of Bahamut loves and serves Bahamut because of a resonance or inner-calling to that deity because they both share similar values. Bahamut happens to be good, but a paladin or priest of the god loves and serves the god and not some kind of weird ethos irregardless of its standard bearer.Hopefully 4e dumps the idea of clerics just serving good, neutral or evil. Mortals just don't think on those terms...not believable mortals anyway. I can see a cleric or paladin acknowledging that following their god keeps them on the path of righteousness, but righteousness is born of what one does and not some bizarre nameless, impersonal "good" metaphysical principle.Again, correct.However, I just think that Mordenkainen thinking in this manner is outside the boundaries of any teneble or sensible morality. I think that Mordenkainen thinking in this way and subjectively considering his acts necessary makes sense. However to give such thinking some cosmic merit and validity is IMO a tremendous weakness of D&D morality and alignment. Nothing in the vast range of human experience references an archetype of someone who brings evil to good for the sake of "balance" who would be other than mad or evil himself.But Mordenkainen's thinking makes sense along the cosmic alignment axis of D&D and this is why I believe that the axis has got to go.Wyrmshadows</blockquote>

Verification