New Rant Posted

[Gothmog]

Felix,

I stand by what I said, although I stated extreme cases to make a point. The way D&D defines alignment, it outlines a fairly absolute set of guidelines for each alignment, and states while there is some wiggle room, there isn't much. The example I gave of the cleric who sometimes tortures and persecutes those he thinks are "corrupted" would be defined as LG in some cases, and LE (or LN at best) in others. D&D has a hard time classifying people like this.

As for the simplistic comment I made about moral absolutism, I stand by it. I know that not all DMs who do use moral absolutism are as bad as the ones I have known, but to some degree it still creeps in to games that the good PCs get the mindset of "we are rightous and just, and anything we do to fight evil/chaos/whatever opposing alignment is justified." To me, that is lazy thinking, and viewing everyone on a good/evil or law/chaos axis and not as people is overly simplistic. IMC, when PCs meet someone, they aren't ever quite sure of alignment, but have to deal with the person as an individual rather than a pre-ordained set of beliefs. When they do meet something that is representative of pure evil or pure good, they are suitably awed/cowed. (Just ask them about demons and they get shudders and start being paranoid, especially the paladin).

 

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by mmu1:

I, on the other hand, don't have any interest in keeping this thread open, since I don't think people ought to get away with slipping in blatant political BS like that, so...

How do you handle the crap that overflows and comes out of your ears? Drainage, some sort of absorbent substance, cosmetic surgery to re-cycle it somehow?

Granted, bringing up a political matter on these boards is verboten, but Drawmack does ask an interesting and relevant question. Is using evil to fight evil justified? If the "good guys" use methods just as despicable as the "bad guys", are they really any different? Interesting problem to think about.

However, your insulting tone was not warranted. I would hope everyone here is mature enough to discuss potentially volatile topics without flying off the handle, but that was over the line. Just remember, we're all trying to be friends here and give constructive criticism and debate.

 

[Drawmack]

• Typo in the first line. I assume you meant 'apparent', not 'apart'. No biggie, just thought you might want to fix that.

• 
  Thank you - I'll erate that
  
  

  [*]Quoting about.com weakens your case, especially when you their quote doesn't make sense. You would have been better served using dicitionary.com,
  at the least.

  You go on in your next point to come down on me for doing exactly what you do here.
  
  

  [*]Your opening sentence makes a claim and doesn't support it, and condenses 5+ years into a single action. Your second sentence muddies the waters further, without explaining wjy you think they felt the system was necessary.

You're right should have quoted, the source and probably should now - cept I forget where I read that but I think it was Gary's site.

Now, as to your scenarios involving conflicting agendas, let's return to the SRD:

Yes let's. What if both sides take innocent life or, as is more often the case, sometimes they protect innocent life and other times they take it. Are you saying that the terrorists who attack another country are evil, but their friends who stay home and wait to defend the homeland from the invaders are not?

The greatest flaw of the rant is that it makes no suggestion how to redress or replace the system it claims to be flawed.

The greatest flaw of this response was the poster missed the last three paragraphs of the rant

Instead of looking at the driving force behind the character, go a little deeper. Use the character’s motivations and goals. With this system our above analogy begins to work. The nature deity’s followers have the motivation of protecting nature and the goal of stopping or slowing the progress of technology. The technology deity’s followers have the motivation of advancing technology and the goal of fueling their advancement at the cost of nature. You see this system begins to work.

Replace alignment with a system of motivations and goals. What is the character's current motivation and goal. This also works very nicely for changing alliances.

 

[alsih2o]

for a;; of pyu who disagree with drawmack, or have your own alignment system, feel free to drop a line at- http://www.suryvial.com/openforum.php which is the thursday open forum, my part of the site where you get to write


btw, tomorrow, thrusday open forum welcomes gary gygax as our guest writer

the week after that, anthony valterra

 

[TiQuinn]

Granted, bringing up a political matter on these boards is verboten, but Drawmack does ask an interesting and relevant question. Is using evil to fight evil justified? If the "good guys" use methods just as despicable as the "bad guys", are they really any different? Interesting problem to think about.

The answer is it depends. But since that answer by itself is lame....

If my players capture a goblin and torture him to reveal information about his chieftain's tunnel system and traps, I take my cues from the players as to whether its justified or not. I can turn the game at the point into a battle between my point of view on moral issues vs. the players but, in the end, no one is being hurt, the players aren't questioning their acts, and everyone just wants to go whup Grishnak the Goblin King's butt. If a player or two brought up the inherent wrongness of torturing any living creature, then I'll go down that path. It's up to the players to express that kind of interest. Roleplaying games are not my forum to make moral stances. They are a form of entertainment for myself and my players, first and foremost.

Demons are evil. Goblins, too. Thieves....well, it depends if they're on my side or not.

 

[Henry]

As many alignment discussions as we've seen on these boards, and some STILL can't discuss peaceably...

Let's be agreeable to disagree, and eliminate any further insults, or this thread cannot stay open.

 

[The Sigil]

One Step Further...

Here's a set of philosophical questions that just occurred to me and that I haven't seen in an "alignment thread."

A.) What is the "source" that defines a character's alignment?

B.) What is the "source" that determines a character's actions?

Usually, the argument falls into the following:

"Do actions determine alignment or does alignment determine actions?"

Might I suggest, "neither."

I'll throw out the following set of premises for debate:

1.) Personality/core values/motivations/desires of a creature determine its actions. - IOW, that little spark of self-awareness - the "I think therefore I am" - that is behind the creature is what determines its decisions and thereby its actions.

2.) There is an absolute standard of Good/Evil and Law/Chaos in a D&D world.

3.) The sum total of the decisions a creature makes over time - which are not necessarily the same as the results of its actions (due to being misguided or simply because the creature lacks capacity to perform a desired action) - may be compared with the "Good/Evil" and "Law/Chaos" axes to determine a creature's alignment. Thus, alignment, like actions, follows personality/core values/motivations/desires. (Solves the problem of a poor man who always genuinely WANTS to help, but never has the wherewithal to do so - I would count him as "good" even though his actions can't reflect it due to his situation).

Conclusions:

Actions are not determined by alignment.

Alignment is not determined by actions.

Actions are determined by personality/motivations/desires/core values... determined by the little "I am" inside each creature.

Alignment is dtermined by comparing the lump sum of the decisions made by that same little "I am" to some "cosmic standard" - this cosmic standard is set by the DM in each game world.

Action and alignment are thus different manifestations/results that spring from the same source, but have no control over each other.

Thus, "alignment," as a shorthand for the sum total of decisions to a point, can change over time as more decisions are made and the "balance" of the character's goodness/evilness shifts. However, one small evil decision does not outweigh a lifetime of good decisions. However, steps are always incremental - the decision to commit murder, for instance, has a lot of smaller steps leading up to it.

Good/evil characters aren't necessarily the "epitome" of purity/darkness but rather are "noticeably more pure than dark" or "noticeably more dark than pure" while neutral characters are not "noticeably pure or dark." IOW, there is a "middle range" of neutral where a "lukewarm" or "unexceptional" character stands - it is only when you start showing *noticeably* one way or the other that your alignment is called "good" or "evil."

Substitute lawful/chaotic for all of the above.

I guess the big thought for me was the "Alignment does not follow actions, nor do actions follow alignment. Rather, both follow 'motivation/desires.'"

--The Sigil

 

[Breakdaddy]

Drawmack, I see your point, but there is one thing that still seems relatively sure. The Evil leader would use the faith for personal gain and in a corrupt manner, but I doubt that he would ever admonish his good God's tenets. As an example, if I were Catholic (and I am), and the Pope started preaching that God has told him to kill all first born children or face his wrath, I doubt he would be listened to by many (or even remain pope for long). He could be a greedy corrupt old man (I am not claiming this, just postulating), but most of us would never know!

This is alll IMHO!

-B

Edit: I cannot spell

 

[Drawmack]

As an example, if I were Catholic (and I am), and the Pope started preaching that God has told him to kill all first born children or face his wrath, I doubt he would be listened to by many (or even remain pope for long). He could be a greedy corrupt old man (I am not claiming this, just postulating), but most of us would never know!

If the change were that drastic and that quick you are correct. But what if it started small. Even with something this drastic look at the crusades and how quickly people rallied behind the church to kill in the name of god then.

 

[AdamBank]

Divine Elements

This explanation has made my players happy in the past:

Aligments are divine elemental forces in D&D. The arcane elemental forces that make up the material world are Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, right? Well, the elements Good, Evil, Chaos, and Law make up the spiritual world. Look at how nicely it fits: we've got two opposing flavors of magic, Arcane and Divine, that each have two opposing pairs of elements (Air<>Earth, Fire<>Water, and Good<>Evil, Law<>Chaos).

If the labels "Good" and "Evil" concern you, just use "Positive" and "Negative." These are the terms used to describe the kinds of energy channeled by Clerics and spiritual creatures in D&D3e, after all. Think in terms of creation vs. destructions, life vs. unlife, rather than issues of morality.

It's easy to give absolute alignments to monsters, spirits, undead beasties, angels, demons, and the like--they all have fairly extreme personalities anyway, so saying a monster is Lawful Evil really just assigns its divine elemental vibes.

The tricky bit comes with people (humans, half-orcs, or whatevers). As far as classes go, there are some classes where alignment doesn't matter (fighters, commoners, rogues, etc.) For those characters, treat alignment like astrological signs. You can use your alignment as a personality descriptor if you wish, but that isn't necessary. They do come into play when dealing with divine magical matters, however.

Classes like clerics, druids, and palandins, however, derive power from their aligment restrictsion, both in-character and for game balance. In addition to game mechanical restrictions, the classes impose certain personality traits related to aligments. Fortunately, the classes themselves provide clues as to how to behave. Paladins have their code of honor, druids have their tree-hugging duties, clerics have their gods, etc.