Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zardnaar" data-source="post: 8300295" data-attributes="member: 6716779">Alignment arguements are always fun. My belief is that it's mostly subjective, most people like to think of themselves as good and their beliefs are what counts as good. I'm more cosmic scale. Good. Willing to help others. Neutral Indifferent or screw you I got mine. Evil. Willing to hurt or exploit others. &nbsp;Very simple. Anyway I play a game czked Stellaris and it has 8 ethics. You can be normal or fanatic. &nbsp;Materialist oppose by Spiritualism. Xenophile opposed by Xenophobes. Pacifism opposed by Militarist. Authortarian opposed by Egalitarian. You get there point to distribute (fanatic counts as two points). You then layer civics on top of that. &nbsp;In the Stellaris universe the equivalent of alignment debates is assigning real life countries ethics and civics espicially the USA.&nbsp; Probably a lot easier as New Zealand (egalitarian, xenophile, pacifist with agricultural trait, welfare state good at trade).&nbsp;Anyway no human culture is really fanatic anything (Sparta and North Korea might be exceptions). Dalejs fanatic Xenophobes. &nbsp;Anyway if you were working on a value system to replace alignment what do you think of something like this as a basic starting point? It's still simplified but having a 20 point system or whatever is getting very complicated. Instead if a 3 by 3 alignment table you have a circle of values. I would probably tweak it to maybe 10 and gave Egalitarian oppose Materialism (in game materialism is science).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zardnaar, post: 8300295, member: 6716779"] Alignment arguements are always fun. My belief is that it's mostly subjective, most people like to think of themselves as good and their beliefs are what counts as good. I'm more cosmic scale. Good. Willing to help others. Neutral Indifferent or screw you I got mine. Evil. Willing to hurt or exploit others. Very simple. Anyway I play a game czked Stellaris and it has 8 ethics. You can be normal or fanatic. Materialist oppose by Spiritualism. Xenophile opposed by Xenophobes. Pacifism opposed by Militarist. Authortarian opposed by Egalitarian. You get there point to distribute (fanatic counts as two points). You then layer civics on top of that. In the Stellaris universe the equivalent of alignment debates is assigning real life countries ethics and civics espicially the USA. Probably a lot easier as New Zealand (egalitarian, xenophile, pacifist with agricultural trait, welfare state good at trade). Anyway no human culture is really fanatic anything (Sparta and North Korea might be exceptions). Dalejs fanatic Xenophobes. Anyway if you were working on a value system to replace alignment what do you think of something like this as a basic starting point? It's still simplified but having a 20 point system or whatever is getting very complicated. Instead if a 3 by 3 alignment table you have a circle of values. I would probably tweak it to maybe 10 and gave Egalitarian oppose Materialism (in game materialism is science). [/QUOTE]

Verification