New Rant Posted
- Thread starter Drawmack
- Start date
Darrin Drader
Explorer
This rant is chaotic evil.
There is no spoon either.
Mercule said:
There is no spoon either.
Last edited:
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
The only way IMC people can determine their alignments is by example, and dying. 
Fiends are selfish, violent, manipulative, graspign for their own power above all, and are Evil. If characters act like that a lot of the time, they're probably Evil. Celestials are helpful, gentle, kind, and compassionate, and Good. If characters act like that most of the time, they're probably Good.
And when you die you go to the plane that most closely matches your alignment....which I, the GREAT DM determine.
Fiends are selfish, violent, manipulative, graspign for their own power above all, and are Evil. If characters act like that a lot of the time, they're probably Evil. Celestials are helpful, gentle, kind, and compassionate, and Good. If characters act like that most of the time, they're probably Good. And when you die you go to the plane that most closely matches your alignment....which I, the GREAT DM determine.
Drawmack said:
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?
Enceladus
First Post
First rant I didn't care for, and in an attempt to drag this thread out of the political pits of hell.....
Some random thoughtsI:
If you look at the system as a tool as it's meant to be used rather than a rigid set of rules as portrayed in the rant I don't think the system should be scraped, or scrapped for that matter.
How would a Paladin be lawful good as the rules state? You'd have to rewrite the Paladin. If you rewrite the Paladin you have to rewrite the spells that the Paladin can cast, how he interacts, enforces the law etc. This is one of many action vs. reaction things that would break down within the rules as they are written if alignments are scrapped. Of course you can say no one need play alignments except the Paladin. That won't work either.
have another problem with the proposition that it is impossible to replicate real world social etc... I would say that it is.
You could say that alignments change as your character progresses through life but he/she would still have a tendency towards one alignment or another, good or evil, withholding the boundaries of the law or ignore it to do the right or wrong thing. As the book says, alignments define your character they do not tie a straight jacket around him.
But I'm starting to talk out of my ass again.
"there is no spoon!"
Some random thoughtsI:
If you look at the system as a tool as it's meant to be used rather than a rigid set of rules as portrayed in the rant I don't think the system should be scraped, or scrapped for that matter.
How would a Paladin be lawful good as the rules state? You'd have to rewrite the Paladin. If you rewrite the Paladin you have to rewrite the spells that the Paladin can cast, how he interacts, enforces the law etc. This is one of many action vs. reaction things that would break down within the rules as they are written if alignments are scrapped. Of course you can say no one need play alignments except the Paladin. That won't work either.
have another problem with the proposition that it is impossible to replicate real world social etc... I would say that it is.
You could say that alignments change as your character progresses through life but he/she would still have a tendency towards one alignment or another, good or evil, withholding the boundaries of the law or ignore it to do the right or wrong thing. As the book says, alignments define your character they do not tie a straight jacket around him.
But I'm starting to talk out of my ass again.
"there is no spoon!"
Last edited:
JChung2003
First Post
In D&D, good and evil are not just concepts (like in the real world). There are manifestations of good and evil that exist in the default campaign setting and many other popular campaign settings as well.
In D&D, alignment functions as a game mechanic and influences gameplay in areas like classes, magic, and equipment (magic items). It affects combat indirectly through its effect on the areas listed above.
People like Drawmack who argue against alignment tend to ignore the profound effects on gameplay that removing the D&D alignment system would have on D&D campaigns. Take out the D&D alignment system, and you remove a lot of the flavor that makes D&D what it is. It's as significant a change to D&D as determining the magic (low or high magic) and technological (medieval or later) level of your campaign, perhaps even moreso.
In D&D, alignment functions as a game mechanic and influences gameplay in areas like classes, magic, and equipment (magic items). It affects combat indirectly through its effect on the areas listed above.
People like Drawmack who argue against alignment tend to ignore the profound effects on gameplay that removing the D&D alignment system would have on D&D campaigns. Take out the D&D alignment system, and you remove a lot of the flavor that makes D&D what it is. It's as significant a change to D&D as determining the magic (low or high magic) and technological (medieval or later) level of your campaign, perhaps even moreso.
Last edited:
WizarDru
Adventurer
I'm not buying it, I'm afraid. A few quick comments:
Regardless, you're examples make the classic mistake of a top-down approach to alignment. That is to say, you assume that alignment guides behavior, not the other way around. Further, you make the assumption that alignment indicates rigid adherance to a code, not a general pattern of behavior.
Note that word, GENERAL. A lawful character can bend the rules occasionally, just as a chaotic one can follow them, regardless of how enthusiastically or begrudgingly. Alignment follows behavior, it doesn't dictate it. Even the paladin, cleric and monk have the options of violating their personal codes....but at the cost of their abilities. Nevertheless, the choice remains to them. Alignment can and does change.
Alignment, in general, is quite vague, and allows a lot of variance. Take a look at Sepulchrave's Story Hour. LG is a pretty broad category, despite what some might think.
Now, as to your scenarios involving conflicting agendas, let's return to the SRD:
Terrorists who kill innocents are EVIL. They may not think they are, but they are. Their outlook is irrelevant to the action commited. Good doesn't mean pacifism, but terroristic murder of innocents does mean evil. Staring into the abyss will do that to you. The crusades had far less to do with religion and far more to do with economics, and isn't really comparable.
D&D, as a game, accepts a certain degree of morality from which it will not budge. Murder is, generally, considered evil. If you enforce moral relativism, then there is NO evil, since everything can be made relative.
The greatest flaw of the rant is that it makes no suggestion how to redress or replace the system it claims to be flawed. It doesn't address why such a system was considered necessary in the past, or why it no longer is, now. Without addressing such issues, the whole context of the rant is lost. Mentioning casually that it should be removed and some miracle of game mechanics should occur to replace it isn't really a terribly compelling argument, especially since you haven't explained why it's a problem in the first place.
Your LN gods example doesn't really make much sense, to me, Technology is more than just steam engines, and nature is more than just trees. Further, the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Your example of 'raping the land' is a loaded argument, and makes the assumption that technology is the same as the industrial revolution, as opposed to the centuries of technology that predated it. Meanwhile, nature isn't about unending growth, it's about cycles, balances and ecosystems. Forest fires are a necessary part of an ecosystem, just as regrowth is. Wetlands and dams can coexist without being enemies. Mind you, I'm not sure why you'd make a nature diety a LN one, but that's up to you.
In short, your rant's fu was weak, to me.
- Typo in the first line. I assume you meant 'apparent', not 'apart'. No biggie, just thought you might want to fix 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.
- 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.
Regardless, you're examples make the classic mistake of a top-down approach to alignment. That is to say, you assume that alignment guides behavior, not the other way around. Further, you make the assumption that alignment indicates rigid adherance to a code, not a general pattern of behavior.
Note that word, GENERAL. A lawful character can bend the rules occasionally, just as a chaotic one can follow them, regardless of how enthusiastically or begrudgingly. Alignment follows behavior, it doesn't dictate it. Even the paladin, cleric and monk have the options of violating their personal codes....but at the cost of their abilities. Nevertheless, the choice remains to them. Alignment can and does change.
Alignment, in general, is quite vague, and allows a lot of variance. Take a look at Sepulchrave's Story Hour. LG is a pretty broad category, despite what some might think.
Now, as to your scenarios involving conflicting agendas, let's return to the SRD:
Terrorists who kill innocents are EVIL. They may not think they are, but they are. Their outlook is irrelevant to the action commited. Good doesn't mean pacifism, but terroristic murder of innocents does mean evil. Staring into the abyss will do that to you. The crusades had far less to do with religion and far more to do with economics, and isn't really comparable.
D&D, as a game, accepts a certain degree of morality from which it will not budge. Murder is, generally, considered evil. If you enforce moral relativism, then there is NO evil, since everything can be made relative.
The greatest flaw of the rant is that it makes no suggestion how to redress or replace the system it claims to be flawed. It doesn't address why such a system was considered necessary in the past, or why it no longer is, now. Without addressing such issues, the whole context of the rant is lost. Mentioning casually that it should be removed and some miracle of game mechanics should occur to replace it isn't really a terribly compelling argument, especially since you haven't explained why it's a problem in the first place.
Your LN gods example doesn't really make much sense, to me, Technology is more than just steam engines, and nature is more than just trees. Further, the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Your example of 'raping the land' is a loaded argument, and makes the assumption that technology is the same as the industrial revolution, as opposed to the centuries of technology that predated it. Meanwhile, nature isn't about unending growth, it's about cycles, balances and ecosystems. Forest fires are a necessary part of an ecosystem, just as regrowth is. Wetlands and dams can coexist without being enemies. Mind you, I'm not sure why you'd make a nature diety a LN one, but that's up to you.
In short, your rant's fu was weak, to me.
Similar Threads
