New Rant Posted

[The Sigil]

Generally speaking I do not concern myself with a stable world. While there are leaders who's goals do not change eventually the leaders do. The world is ever changing and in a constant stat of flux much like our own world.

I think you're either missing the point or side-stepping the question. The question was not about the "cultural stability" or "social stability" of your world. Leaders of men have nothing to do with the question at hand.

I think the question of "how do you provide stability to your world," was meant as, "how do you provide moral consistency with no absolutes?" Is the same action, carried out with the same motivations, ethical/moral in one geographic region and unethical/immoral in another?

Whether or not you like the labels, "good/evil/law/chaos," the question is a legitimate one - is there any sort of "moral" or "ethical" stability in your world - are there blacks and whites and shades of gray - or are all actions always equally gray? In a "true" moral relativist world, all actions are always equally gray... because the action itself means nothing. It becomes strictly a matter of DM Fiat to say, "that is a good action" and "that is an evil action," and the DM can change his mind at whim. Players need to know that an action that is considered "good" at one time is considered good every time - if it changes, then there IS no moral stability. And that consideration is, for all intents and purposes, the Truth as it exists in your game world. Not in the real world, necessarily, and not in everyone else's world, but in YOUR game world.

If a world that is one single monochromatic shade of moral gray is the world you play in, how then do you explain the existence of gods, clerics, paladins, outsiders, positive and negative energy, and a whole host of other things assumed in the system? These things rely on there being (at least) shades of gray, if not black and white. For the "standard" D&D campaign, these issues are important.

Finally, is a world where everything is the same shade of moral gray as compelling as a world where there are lighter and darker shades? I think not. A world where everything is the same shade of moral gray is a one-color world; that's even LESS compelling and has less potential for simulating realism than a world that has varying shades of gray - you can represent more with black and white than you can with just one shade of gray - and if, as I do, you believe that the D&D system is not "black and white" but rather "the whole spectrum of grays between black and white as well," you have a lot more opportunity for detail and thought. Of course, NEITHER of those is as good as "full color," but as this is a game, and not reality, you really have no chance of getting "full color."

Some times the motivation stops this. The paladin who has the motivation of spreading the word of his good diety (I do maintain alignments for outsiders and dieties as I believe that gods create truth and therefor can live by their truth) will not do so by killing the evil overlord who has been good to his people. Sometimes it is imposible, just as it sometimes is impossible with the alignment system. Also certain acts to no further a goal, acts I do not think I have to name.

So in your world, gods create truth... is the truth created by the gods the Truth for your world then? Can your gods die/be killed/replaced - or even change their minds? If so, you are again reducing everything to the same shade of moral gray. If not, then you have a standard of Truth for your game world - and I'm not sure what you are complaining about the alignment system for, in that case, unless it is a dissatisfaction borne of trying to reconcile the alignment system with your Real-World beliefs.

The grid like system as it is now. Goals change as they are completed or abandonded and motivations stay pretty much the same. I play it as a way for the character to be in flux and stable at the same time. It's hard to explain but it plays very well.

You see, I think the grid-like system is not as "restrictive" as you think. I know it's been discussed in the past, and I myself don't actually "assign point values," but think of the alignment system as a number line... where -10 is absolute, pure evil and +10 is the whitest, purest good. The alignment system is not a "grid" so much as it is a "line of demarcation" along the spectrum... "EVIL" is not exactly -10, "NEUTRAL" is not exactly 0, and "GOOD" is not exactly +10. "Good" might describe anyone from +3.00000001 to +10, while "Evil" might describe anyone from -3.00000001 to -10, and "Neutral" is -3.0000000 to +3.0000000 - which means there are an infinite number of "slightly different" shades of neutral (or good or evil)... it's only when you cross from 3.000000 to 3.0000001 that you change alignments - at 3.00000 you are "neutral with strong good tendencies," if you will. In the same way, we have many shades of red... and all of them are "red" - but not all of them are the same, "red."

I would like to see you give a little further elucidation of your system, but from what it seems to me, you are taking alignment too granularly - it's not "there are three possibilities per axis" but rather, "there are infinite possibilities per axis, and these fall into three broad, sweeping categories." Again, a "good" person is not "perfect" in D&D... just "good" more often than not - he DOES and SHOULD have flaws that keep him closer to the +3.0000001 than to the +10 (reserved for Angels, Gods, and other beings "born/created/made/defined" of "Pure Goodness"). 99% of mortals tend to spend their time mucking around between +6 and -6... and one mortal in a generation might go as high as +8 or -8.

--The Sigil

 

[Drawmack]

"how do you provide moral consistency with no absolutes?"

It is based on culture. What is "good" in one society may be "evil" in another. After all that is moral relativism.

Is the same action, carried out with the same motivations, ethical/moral in one geographic region and unethical/immoral in another?

Yes

Whether or not you like the labels, "good/evil/law/chaos," the question is a legitimate one - is there any sort of "moral" or "ethical" stability in your world - are there blacks and whites and shades of gray - or are all actions always equally gray? In a "true" moral relativist world, all actions are always equally gray

Not true. You misunderstand moral relativism. It is a when in Rome type deal. If the culture accepts ritual human sacrafice as standard practice then it is accepted as standard practice. End of discussion. Wether it is good or evil is not a concern of the humans it simply is the way things are in that area.

I stop responding here only because lunch is almost over and I need another cigarette before going back to work.

 

[Ashe]

I agree, scrap it!

Here is my 2 cents on the topic:

*Even good people can have an occasional evil act, we all have bad days.

*Even an evil person can help someone, he doesn't have to be evil all the time.

*If your class dictates a certain code of behavior, then by all means, ROLE-PLAY accordingly. As of now what happens if your paladin starts going against his alignment, he loses power. So how is that different from your paladin breaking their code of behavior.

Now it could be argued, "Exactly, what's the difference!" Well in the case of the paladin, the code of behavior would be different. You mean to tell me that a paladin of a CG deity will have the exact same code as a NG deity? I don't think so. The paladin is Lawful(to put this in alignment terms) to his deity's law.

But that is just my 2 cents.

 

[I'm A Banana]

*Even good people can have an occasional evil act, we all have bad days.

Having a bad day doesn't mean they change alignment. Having 365 bad days in a row might.

*Even an evil person can help someone, he doesn't have to be evil all the time.

Giving one person a piece of bread doesn't mean they change alignment. Helping innocents consistantly might.

*If your class dictates a certain code of behavior, then by all means, ROLE-PLAY accordingly. As of now what happens if your paladin starts going against his alignment, he loses power. So how is that different from your paladin breaking their code of behavior.

It adds the dimension of moral absolutism. If you say to the Barbarian who acts Lawful 'you're breaking your code of behavior,' you get an 'Oh! oops!'. If you say to the Paladin who acts Evil 'you're becoming Evil,' it suddenly has repercussions other than simple loss of class abilities....it means your character is working against everything he thought he was working for.

Now it could be argued, "Exactly, what's the difference!" Well in the case of the paladin, the code of behavior would be different. You mean to tell me that a paladin of a CG deity will have the exact same code as a NG deity? I don't think so. The paladin is Lawful(to put this in alignment terms) to his deity's law.

No, I'm affraid it wouldn't. 'Paladin' in D&D is a representative of a Lawful Good code of conduct. Not a generic holy warrior. In D&D, Paladins are crusaders of one particular type of lawful goodness...they don't even need deities to function. So there are no CG or NG or LE or N paladins...only LG ones, with the same code of conduct as any other Paladin.

 

[Felix]

Drawmack:

...Wether it is good or evil is not a concern of the humans it simply is the way things are in that area.

Why not? Do these humans not think about morality? I mean, we humans have been thinking about moral systems and ethics for quite a while now... even early primitive societies (like the Texans, for example ) philosophized about this stuff.

And if it's "When in Rome" for you, would the City of Dis be evil? Perhaps not?

It is based on culture. What is "good" in one society may be "evil" in another. After all that is moral relativism.

So in your campaigns, the concepts Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral have no meaning whatsoever? It sounds like it, because the meaning of a word should be consistent.

When meaning jumps from one thing to another between cultures, it ceases to be the same thing. So if it's never the same thing... it means nothing. How is that dynamic?


The Sigil:

Thanks for clarifying, that's exactly what I meant.

And the rest of your post was well presented, too.

 

[Ashe]

Fist off, I never said that the character in question had 365 or 3000 bad days in a row, and who said the evil character was constantly helping people. All I was trying to illustrate is that there are shades of grey. No one, I can think of, short of some ficticious characters, ever stick to their alignment 100%. So if it is not an absolute all the time, then what is it? A starting point, that changes as you help develop your character? If it is, why not let the player develop that through proper role-playing. If you are going to play a paladin, or a monk, you know that you will have a code to live up to, and answer to.

Concerning your point that paladins are just do gooders without need of deities to function, then how in the heck are they getting spells?!

Now I know this would be a contradiction in terms, but what if you had a paladin that prayed to an NE deity? According to the description of NE you are pretty much out for yourself. Well if you go out into the world with YOUR view of good and do what you can to enforce it, aren't you also out for yourself and others with your view?

On the other side of extremes, what if I have a paladin with an atheistic view of the world, but at heart is a good person. Now he attains the level in which he can cast clerical spells, how does he get these spells? What higher power is granting them?

To me, it just makes no sense.

Also this is where the idea of absolute good and absolute evil comes into play. From whose POV is the character or deity evil? From ours? Then yes some of our cultural norms do dictate good and evil, but you mean to tell me that a terrorist honestly thinks he is evil and the people he attacks are good? I don't think so, they think they are in the moral right(good) and we are evil.

Just a thought.

Now it will probably also be argued that this cannot be argued in terms of extremes I'm just thinking of this in game terms, and finding some potential flaws.

 

[BLACKDIRGE]

Ahh the old alignment debate. I never get tired of this one.

I myself am a staunch moral relativist, but secretly I wish things were more black and white and that there were true moral absolutes. Sadly, the world just doesn't work that way so I indulge my idealistic tendencies when I game.

So yes, I like the alinment system. It simply makes it easier for me as a DM. Honestly the game seems to hinge upon the whole Good/Evil thing and I can't see how that game would work without it, at least not without a hell of a lot of work.

But that said, Drawmack, if you have managed to create a game world that doesn't need alignmenet, then more power to you.

Dirge

 

[Drawmack]

Why not? Do these humans not think about morality? I mean, we humans have been thinking about moral systems and ethics for quite a while now... even early primitive societies (like the Texans, for example ) philosophized about this stuff.

Sure some think and philosophise about it. The academics and philosphers that is. Not the average Joe. The average Joe does what is expected of him by society and goes with the flow, whatever that flow maybe. Sound familiar?

And if it's "When in Rome" for you, would the City of Dis be evil? Perhaps not?

Evil exists in my campaign, it is exists as a driving force or the cosmos, not a driving force of individuals. Hence, no alignment.

So in your campaigns, the concepts Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral have no meaning whatsoever? It sounds like it, because the meaning of a word should be consistent.

This happens every time I get involved in an alignment thread, those who like alignment don't listen to a word I say except what can be taken out of context to support what they think I am saying. I am not saying remove the idea of alignment. I am not saying remove what alignment represents. I'm simply saying make it less absolute by basing it on goals and motivations instead of some archic driving force in ones life.

When meaning jumps from one thing to another between cultures, it ceases to be the same thing. So if it's never the same thing... it means nothing. How is that dynamic?

Me thinks someone needs to look up the word dynamic. If I build a website that can change as the content changes without the interaction of a programmer, like say a message board would you consider that dynamic?

There are extremes that are pretty much always a bad thing but there are many things that just are.

99.9% of cultures view human sacrifice as a bad thing. On the other hand some cultures relish in the beauty of the human body and wear almost no clothing while others view flaunting the human body as sin and keep themselves nearly totally covered.

It is static because what goes in domain a today will go in domain a tomorrow. It is not DMs fiat but rather allows for a greater change in cultural beliefs within the world. Maybe a group of elvin druids are strict environmentalists who believe that humans are a virus that needs to be erradicated. Misguided maybe, but not evil - at least not in my world. I would not want to be a human in these druids forest. On the other hand a nearby human city could kill elves on sight because they distrust their magical ways. The truth of the situation may be that this is a case of the Hatfields and the McCoys on a grander scale. So who is evil here? Who is just here? It simply is the culture and it is the way things are. If I as a DM label either of these cultures as good or evil I have just told every paladin how to feel about that culture. I would rather leave that up to player fiat.

The Sigil:

Thanks for clarifying, that's exactly what I meant.

And the rest of your post was well presented, too. [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Wayside]

Heck, I like alignment so much, I'll probably overlay it onto d20 Modern, and AU, and others. It's good. And it adds a dimension that assuming relitivism cannot.

It doesn't add a dimension, it substitutes one. It sacrifices something in gaining the fact of what is good and what is evil.

Besides, alignment can be used in a world of moral relativism. Homer and Dante both give us extensive moral guidelines, which do not fit with each other but which both exist in this world. Every campaign takes place with a point of view; whether the 'others'' labels are consistent with how they see themselves isn't relevant, because they're just labels, for the benefit of the mechanics of the game, relative to the point of view which the game takes place in, which is the PCs' point of view.

The quest for what is right isn't thwarted by a morally relative world; look how many people popped in with their 'lord save me from the moral relativists' comments, knowing full well they have no business posting things like that here, but not caring, thinking their exception is exceptional. I look for that same kind of complexity in my games, without the free backbone of knowing, absolutely knowing, what is right and what is wrong.

There is, afterall, an absolute right and wrong about what you can post here at ENWorld, which the moral absolutists defied by posting such comments.. making them.. what? Yup, that's a beginning to the kind of complexity I like in my game.

 

[Felix]

Drawmack:

...The academics and philosphers that is. Not the average Joe...

And yet I've heard conversations about this same topic in the most redneckiest of roadhouses. So I think Joe does think about it.

[Evil] exists as a driving force or the cosmos, not a driving force of individuals.

So motavations drive individuals. What about the motivation to do Good. Or Evil. If someone is motivated to do Good, this is reflected in their Good alignment, yesno? Even if the person doesn't think "I want to do good today", their actions towards others can show Goodness. Regardless of whether Joe ponders over G vs. E, when he helps people and does Good things... he's Good. Not thinking about if it's good or not doesn't mean Good or Evil isn't there, yeah?

...I'm simply saying make it less absolute by basing it on goals and motivations instead of some archic driving force in ones life.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood "[remove] the grid like system as it is now". But how does Good drive Joe's life? Joe does as he thinks he should... what he thinks he should do is reflected in his alignment. If you think of alignment as a map, it just shows where a person is; the map doesn't make them stay there or force them to move. The benefit of this is that you can compare where some folks are to where others are. That, and you can determine how all those spells affect them...

Me thinks someone needs to look up the word dynamic.

Perhaps I was unclear.

this was me
So if it's never the same thing... it means nothing. How is that dynamic?

By this I mean that when definitions break down, when they are inconsistent, the word loses its meaning. For example, I was recently in London. While in a pub I asked for directions to the head (meaning, of course, the bathroom). The barman had no clue what I was talking about. After a while I asked for the loo, and he pointed the way there. Point being, while in that bar "head" lost it's meaning because the same thing was called by a different name.

Similarly, if an Englander asks for a "fag" in the States (wanting a cigarette), he'll probably be looked at funny, because we don't use that word to mean a cig.

So when I say undynamic, I mean that when communication breaks down, and words and ideas lose their meaning, nothing means anything. You can't relate because different values are attached to different things.

When "nothing at all" is dynamic, I'll look it up. But then, what culture's dictionary shall I look it up in?

...humans are a virus that needs to be erradicated... [they are] misguided maybe...

Desire for genocide is being misguided? Perhaps you should use a different analogy...

...Hatfields and McCoys...

And if neither has the True moral high ground? Perhaps I feel that giving the PCs the jobs as judge, jury and executioner without a definite way to check them (ie, DM changing their alignment) is a bit chancy.

Wayside:

...which the moral absolutists defied by posting such comments.. making them.. what?

Evil, perhaps? Why, what say you? And you don't have to tiptoe around it. I posted it.

And I'm not sure if that was sarcasm or not in your last sentence. Was it?