New Rant Posted

[Drawmack]

There is a new wednesday rant to help you over the hump at http://www.suryvial.com/articles.php

 

[Endur]

Lord,

Save me from the moral relativists.

Tom

p.s. Good and Evil exist. It is possible for good and evil people to even exist side by side. i.e. There were probably both good and evil people involved in the Crusades. Today there may be both good and evil people involved in the various religious conflicts that occur. Your view, that good and evil depends on your point of view misses the whole point of the distinction.

p.s.s. When anybody mentions the word "rant", I always remember an editorial I saw in the Washington Post in the late 80's, where two countries were firing missiles back and forth. The two countries were named "I Rant" and "I Rave", representing, Iraq and Iran of course.

 

[TiQuinn]

This may be obvious, but it's all a matter of what kind of game you want to play. The ranter assumes that gamers want to play a game where real world morality dilemmas arise. I don't think that's true. He's being critical of Dungeons and Dragons for casting things in black and white, even though he acknowledges that this is the intention of the rules. For those who want to have a more shades of gray game, there are plenty of rules variations that provide this, and they'd be better off trying one of them.

 

[Drawmack]

This may be obvious, but it's all a matter of what kind of game you want to play. The ranter assumes that gamers want to play a game where real world morality dilemmas arise. I don't think that's true. He's being critical of Dungeons and Dragons for casting things in black and white, even though he acknowledges that this is the intention of the rules. For those who want to have a more shades of gray game, there are plenty of rules variations that provide this, and they'd be better off trying one of them.

I, the ranter, assume nothing. I clearly stipulate my point of view that the rant is built on in the begining of the rant. If I were to acknowledge all varried types of games in every rant then my rants would quickly become to long to remain readable.

 

[Arnwyn]

Meh. Weak (and old and tired) rant, IMO.

 

[TiQuinn]

I, the ranter, assume nothing. I clearly stipulate my point of view that the rant is built on in the begining of the rant. If I were to acknowledge all varried types of games in every rant then my rants would quickly become to long to remain readable.

And I can only base my response on your article. Your conclusion that the alignment system needs to be scrapped leads me to believe that you think everyone wants to play a game where things aren't defined in black and white. Otherwise, why say scrap alignment? As I said, you're ranting against a system that states its POV up front. Variant systems have been created, and there are others coming out such as Arcana Unearthed. You can choose to use the game as is, you can incorporate some of the variant rules, or you can choose a different RPG. It's not as if your hands are tied.

 

[Fenes 2]

I have a simple solution for all the alignment issues in my campaign:

Most of the population, even criminals and heroes etc. is neutral. True good or evil NPCs are very rare, mostly restricted to clerics, paladins, blackguards and some exceptionally people. As the DM, I decide who is evil and who is good among the NPCs.

That way there is an absolute evil and good, but most people, even murderers, never reach neither, so I can have all the moral ambiguity I want.

As far as players are concerned, the alignment of their PC is determinded by the actions of the PC.

Works for me, since I rarely use monsters anway.

 

[Drawmack]

And I can only base my response on your article. Your conclusion that the alignment system needs to be scrapped leads me to believe that you think everyone wants to play a game where things aren't defined in black and white. Otherwise, why say scrap alignment? As I said, you're ranting against a system that states its POV up front. Variant systems have been created, and there are others coming out such as Arcana Unearthed. You can choose to use the game as is, you can incorporate some of the variant rules, or you can choose a different RPG. It's not as if your hands are tied.

You are correct. IMHO or NSHO, as the case may be, the alignment system needs to be scraped. The rant is an exposition of why I feel that way and nothing more then this. Apparently you disagree. I would encourage you to write a response and post it to RPOES as a comment on the article or even submitt it to open forum for publication over there.

 

[Drawmack]

I have a simple solution for all the alignment issues in my campaign:

Most of the population, even criminals and heroes etc. is neutral. True good or evil NPCs are very rare, mostly restricted to clerics, paladins, blackguards and some exceptionally people. As the DM, I decide who is evil and who is good among the NPCs.

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.

 

[Felix]

Do you want a Truth with a capital "T" in your game?

Actually, do you believe there is a Truth in the real world? I do, so I don't have a problem translating that to a game world where Good and Evil are defined and real forces.

So if you're a moral relativist, and don't like the idea of a Truth, then no wonder you won't like the alignment system. It's an attempt at creating a DnD Truth. Or at least setting the foundation.

As it is, I like my DnD with a Truth.
Lord, Save me from the moral relativists. Amen, amen, amen.