Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 8617581" data-attributes="member: 6915329">So by this logic, there's no point in having expanded definitions in the books, either, because the average person isn't going to get up and grab their books to look it up, since it seems like most people use online tools and pdfs at least some of the time.Plus--as I said in an earlier post--alignment could easily be replaced by a short motive for a monster, like in Cypher System or Fate. &quot;Likes killing people&quot; is much more useful than &quot;chaotic evil.&quot;Because--as I've said multiple times--one's AC, the number, has nothing to do with how the creature is played. You, and Mistwell, seem to be confusing AC with armor.But it makes using the label of Neutral Evil useless as well. When you label a creature as Whatever Evil, you are basically saying that no matter what the creature does, it does so while being evil. It has Evil breakfast and takes Evil showers and teaches their children Evil ABCs. It's why the books go into detail about how awful orc or goblin day-to-day life is. The alignment system doesn't really allow for a creature that isn't always good or evil, except by labeling them as neutral and using neutral to mean &quot;sometimes good and sometimes evil.&quot;This isn't a debate as to what AC 20 is, though. AC 20 means one thing: that you need to roll a 20 or above to hit. It literally doesn't matter to the game how you have AC 20. And your example still isn't a debate about armor; it's a debate about what hit points actually represent. And the answer is, it's an abstract tool, not a single thing.And neither hit points nor AC determine how a character is played, which is what alignment is supposed to do, but generally doesn't.Then the alignment isn't objective, because it can be interpreted in more than one way.And this level of black-and-white-ness is another reason why alignment fails to do its job well. It doesn't allow for nuance.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Faolyn, post: 8617581, member: 6915329"] So by this logic, there's no point in having expanded definitions in the books, either, because the average person isn't going to get up and grab their books to look it up, since it seems like most people use online tools and pdfs at least some of the time. Plus--as I said in an earlier post--alignment could easily be replaced by a short motive for a monster, like in Cypher System or Fate. "Likes killing people" is much more useful than "chaotic evil." Because--as I've said multiple times--one's AC, the number, has nothing to do with how the creature is played. You, and Mistwell, seem to be confusing AC with armor. But it makes using the label of Neutral Evil useless as well. When you label a creature as Whatever Evil, you are basically saying that no matter what the creature does, it does so while being evil. It has Evil breakfast and takes Evil showers and teaches their children Evil ABCs. It's why the books go into detail about how awful orc or goblin day-to-day life is. The alignment system doesn't really allow for a creature that isn't always good or evil, except by labeling them as neutral and using neutral to mean "sometimes good and sometimes evil." This isn't a debate as to what AC 20 [I]is, [/I]though. AC 20 means one thing: that you need to roll a 20 or above to hit. It literally doesn't matter to the game [I]how [/I]you have AC 20. And your example still isn't a debate about armor; it's a debate about what hit points actually represent. And the answer is, it's an abstract tool, not a single thing. And [I]neither [/I]hit points nor AC determine how a character is played, which is what alignment is supposed to do, but generally doesn't. Then the alignment isn't objective, because it can be interpreted in more than one way. And this level of black-and-white-ness is another reason why alignment fails to do its job well. It doesn't allow for nuance. [/QUOTE]

Verification