Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gothmog" data-source="post: 934964" data-attributes="member: 317">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.</blockquote>

Verification