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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TenseAlcyoneus" data-source="post: 1062981" data-attributes="member: 11422">Actually, I am in a sense, and I'm not in a sense because D&D disagrees with itself. The position D&D has taken on alignment is inconsistent, because every quote you mentioned is belied by the spell system. For similar reasons, alignments cannot be "personality types or personal philosophies." This is my whole point. these disagreements over alignment in D&D are legitimate precisely because D&D has done such a poor job of explaining and integrating it. I've chosen an intrinsic view of alignment because I think it makes more sense given the spell system.If the question is whether the monk is acting Lawfully, then by what version of Law? You are failing to take account of your own point -- "two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other." I've already addressed the point of view his order would likely take. Presumably, this is from where his idea of "Lawfulness" would derive, but considering just "Law" as you have done is inadequate under your own conception of alignment.And, where have I claimed that alignment ought to be a "straightjacket" or that characters ought not be able to change alignments or not ever be inconsistent? Your aren't boxing at a straw man are you? You wouldn't be poisoning the well, now would you?On inconsistency, I've found most DM's to be entirely unwilling to allow this. For example, if a Chaotic Good character begins to commit an evil act in a fit of anger, DM's typically will not allow it or will assess some kind of alignment penalty/change. You hear "that's an evil act, it's against your alignment" or something to that effect. In practice, we typically do understand alignment as a delimiter of conduct. In fact, alignment only makes since if this is the case, and so I think it is necessary to interpret it this way. Good characters have different limits on their conduct than Evil characters. I think most would stipulate this.The problem comes up when Law and Chaos are introduced. Somehow, these limits on conduct are labeled "straightjackets" by some. I obviously don't agree with that. When you wrote, "nothing the character's done seems un-Lawful" you also presume that there are acts that are not Lawful, that is proscribed by a Lawful alignment. Here, as seems always the case, my opponents must smuggle in the concept of alignment as proscription on conduct, even as they rail against "straightjackets."</blockquote>

Verification