New Rant Posted

[Breakdaddy]

I disagree Drawmack, I believe that the tenets of the faithful's belief system dictate a code of behaviour that encourages "good" or "evil" action (depending on the bent of the Deity in question). YMMV of course.

edit: i cannot spell, evidently

 

[Drawmack]

But those actions might not be taught by the faith, but by the faiths leaders. So a faith who has an evil leader is an evil faith. This allows entire fatish to swing like a pendulum on the axis of good and evil.


ahhhhh that's frightening.

Since politics and religion are not allowed to be discussed on these boards it is very difficult to argue my point here. Suffice it to say that yes I disagree with there aver being a truth with a capital T. At least a truth that any human can know or represent.

 

[Fenes 2]

But this leave the clerics and paladins with a large portion of their class benefits not working. That is why I don't like this solution. I love it's simplicity but it doesn't work very well for game balance.

Not at all. I tailor my campaign to my players and I balance all PCs. If I have a paladin in my game - which is currently the case - then you can bet that a lot of the adventures will center on enemies of her church - often evil clerics, blackguards or outsiders. If I had a ranger in my game (or would let one in) I'd make sure that his favorite enemy was one I could use often enough to make this ability worth it. Same goes for other benefits of the various classes, I try to cater to the players that way and mold my adventures and campaign around them.

In short, I balance my game and my PCs when I DM, through treasure, magic item, adventure design and all other means.

 

[Mark Chance]

Suffice it to say that yes I disagree with there aver being a truth with a capital T. At least a truth that any human can know or represent.

Then the proposition, "There is no truth with a capital T" is absolutely true? It is, IOW, a "truth with a capital T."

The problem with moral relativism isn't that it points out (and then obsesses about) difficulties in making moral decisions or judgments. The problem with moral relativism is that it is self-refuting and no one really believes it.

Even the most ardent moral relativist leans on the horn when someone cuts him off in traffic.

 

[Gothmog]

Drawmack, I agree with you. Good and evil are relative to the beleifs of a culture and to each individual's perspective. Absolute good and evil don't exist, but there are a few things in the real world which are taboo in pretty much every society (cannibalism, necrophagy, necrophilia, murder when not at war, etc).

Now, in a fantasy world, things become a little more clear-cut. Obviously, demons and devils are the physical manifestations of evil, and celestials are the manifestations of good. Even still, some celestials can fall, and the rare demon/devil might find redemption. Mortals however, are a much more murky matter. If even celestials and infernals are not always absolute, then how can any mortal be absolute good or evil? The answer is obviously that they can't. Still, some people are more "good" than others, and some are more "evil". I find defining everything by alignment strictly really discourages complex motivations and personalities in characters. Under the core rules, we are lead to believe that a LG paladin is just as "good" as a solar, and a CE barbarian pillager is just as "evil" as Orcus himself. Hogwash. Mortals have concerns that would simply never occur to outsiders, such as family, romantic relationships, children, and daily concerns of life. In contrast, outsiders, since they are essentially immortal, wouldn't stress the daily stuff so much, and are not very likely to develop the familial and romantic bonds mortals do- they are more concerned with ideology and long-term goals. These are very different approaches to living, and mortals and outsiders would likely have a hard time relating to each other. Yet we are supposed to believe that an outsider and a mortal in the same situation would do the same thing in D&D core rules. I find it silly.

I think the best solution to this is to encourage moral relativism among mortals. Even the most pious, kind, and generous paladin might be vain, arrogant, and elitist. Likewise, a bloodthirsy barbarian pillager might have strong ties to his family, and love his children dearly. In my campaign, the PCs hate a cleric of the sun god (generally regarded as a "good" god) who is somewhat of a witch hunter. While his heart is in trying to protect people from "evil" influences and sorcery, he will go to extreme measures to protect, using a "let the gods sort them out" approach. These are complexities that simply will not arise in a strict alignment game. In those games, heroes always ride in wearing white hats, and villians twirl their mustaches as their sinister plans unfold.

Also, I have found that strict adherence to alignment kills good role-playing, instead encouraging the mindset of "If its evil, we're supposed to kill it, loot its home, and move on to the next target...er...crusade." This is a morally simplistic way to view the world, and serves mostly to validate the actions of people who otherwise do some pretty despicable things in the name of their cause. For example, instead of simply killing all of the gnolls on the borderlands of a kingdom, why not make an alliance that will provide the gnolls with food, currency, and territory in return for keeping the enemies of the kingdom at bay, or acting as elite scouts for the kingdom?

Basically, the point of playing a game is for everyone to have fun. I personally find morally simplistic games to be no fun, as they lack depth, complex motivations, and situations that can be solved in ways other than hacking the opposition to pieces.

 

[Felix]

by Drawmack
...At least a truth that any human can know or represent.

But the humans don't have to know or represent it. Neither do the demihumans. Or the extraplanars. Or the gods, for that matter.

The only one who must know the Truth is the DM, and we all know he's far from anything human. But seriously, if the DM doesn't have a stable reality to present to his players, then with or without alignment the game world will break down. Won't it? If the world is unstable, how can the campaign be stable?

 

[Felix]

Gothmog,

You're kidding, right?

The purpose of an alignment axis is to provide something for the PC to slide up and down on. There is a difference between the pure goodness of a Solar, the crusading goodness of a paladin, and the goodness of a magistrate who is nice on thursdays. Ever heard of Good with Neutral tendancies? It means he's usually nice, but not always.

I personally find morally simplistic games to be no fun, as they lack depth, complex motivations, and situations that can be solved in ways other than hacking the opposition to pieces.

Read Sepulchrave II's story hour and repeat what you just wrote with a straight face. I dare you.

 

[Drawmack]

Even the most ardent moral relativist leans on the horn when someone cuts him off in traffic.

Actions do not make a case for or against relativism.

Besides that, no moral relativeist will ever state that they themselves do not fit somewhere on the spectrum.

I think that terrorists who attack my country and kill children in the process are evil. On the other hand my military was torturing children in quantanimo bay. So if this same military that fights evil at one time and propogates it at another evil, good, neutral or is it dependent on the situtaion?

 

[I'm A Banana]

(begin mild rant)
A common misconception about Alignment: That it's simplistic. It's not. It's anything but...

Just because the DM can put a label on your actions and declare them Good or Evil does not affect why the PC's are struggling and what they're doing in the slightest.

Just because something's Evil doesn't mean it's OK to kill it...it's still a human being with complex thoughts and feelings. There is a reason it's evil, and there is still a motive behind it.

I happily include alignments in my game (in Planescape, it'd be hard not to). Alignments simply define what is. They don't give you a preprogrammed excuse to do things.

IMNSHO, any DM who allows Alignments to be used as a shortcut for moral consideration is being lazy. There's also the greater problem with the characters detecting and knowing alignment. IMC, PC's don't decide their alignment, I do, based on how they act and what they tell me.

It's simply a tool to define what cosmic force is powering a creature at the time. Not something you need to unceasingly obey or something that is to become a justification for killing. It's not a straightjacket, either -- only the exemplars of the alignments are said be nearly 100% examples of their alignment all the time. Paladins can break the law, evil people can raise a loving family, barbarians can adapt to the obviously lawful pattern of speach...and that's not cause for alignment change unless they do so consistantly, and prove that this is their stance on life.

And it's also one of the easiest things to remove from the game if you decide you don't want an energy of Good like there is an energy of Electricity.

I think that terrorists who attack my country and kill children in the process are evil. On the other hand my military was torturing children in quantanimo bay. So if this same military that fights evil at one time and propogates it at another evil, good, neutral or is it dependent on the situtaion?

To keep the thread alive, I'll assume that this 'reality' is in a D&D game and not in real life. That people are attacking some nation, and the nation in question is torturing children.

In a D&D alignment spectrum, both would probably be classified as Evil. Simply fighting evil doesn't make you Good...evil more often fights itself because of it's inherently selfish and painful nature.

Without the D&D alignment spectrum, this is just a bunch of stuff that happens...one side attacks the other, the other side attacks back, big deal. They could summon an army of fiends or celestials to their side and not be good or evil about it.


So stop griping about it, people! There's no real reason to not like it from where I'm standing, and I'M a relativist IRL myself! But the philosophical defence of relativism has always been that there are some extremes that you'd be hard pressed to label as good, from a purely biological and evolutionary standpoint. In some regions of Africa, ritually mutilating the genitals of the woman is common practice, and is considered Good. Would you say that mutilation is a Holy thing? That if they think it's Good, it is? How about the Holocaust? The ones percipitating it certainly thought it was Good and Pure and Right! (Actually, DO NOT Answer these here, as it probably will cross the line and get the thread shut).

I want a fantasy world in which the PC's fear falling into the clutches of a demon because the moment the arbitrating force of the multiverse sees them as Evil, they'll be reborn in the Abyss. If I run a game without alignment, a lot of the dramatic tension is removed, and the PC's deal with devils as it they're orcs and bugbears, but with magical powers.
(end rant)

Look, I personally believe that absolute Good and absolute Evil aren't as absolute as all that...but that has exactly 0 bearing on me running a fantasy game in a universe that DOES have that, and just because I do run a game like that doesn't mean that it's simplistic or a shortcut or has no moral tension, any more than if there were an absolute Good and Evil IRL eradicating complexities, lengthy discussions, and moral tension. These things can still exist in an absolute universe. Alignment doesn't prohibit or even make difficult any of these, and I've found that it actually enhances the fear when the PC's know that being evil will actually make them Evil, when there's a tangible effect to be placed on the PC that they don't like.

 

[Mercule]

Suffice it to say that yes I disagree with there aver being a truth with a capital T. At least a truth that any human can know or represent.

I'll agree that it is difficult, if not impossible, for any human to fully understand Truth. I disagree, however, that there is no Truth.

So, I agree that alignment should be scrapped. I just disagree with your reason. You say, if I understand, that alignments are unrealistic because there is no such thing as True Good or True Evil. I say the while True Good and True Evil exist, what is unrealistic is that the inhabitants of the world have anything bordering on a moral mine-sweeper.