Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kinematics" data-source="post: 8691347" data-attributes="member: 6932123">Which is exactly why I have an issue with using alignment in that way, as that's fairly common.Well, I'm not, really. I'm taking the idea of using the alignment system as a means of describing personality (which I find clumsy and not always useful), and changing it so that it does not depend on the traditional alignment system. I'm not trying to &quot;map&quot; alignment to something else (eg: Lawful Good → Loyal Brave), only using the mechanics of the 9 square grid (a variant on a Cartesian plane) to display a different type of description — what I described as a social compass.Very valid points.&nbsp; I even recognized that a single word descriptor may sometimes make things confusing, such as if you used Strength for both Drow and orcs, when the usage of those terms would mean very different things to those different societies. I would try to find more useful descriptors if I was sitting down giving more serious thought to each society.I hope you'll allow leeway for the fact that the original post is mostly brainstorming, and not the result of lengthy research and development.Ehhh... Sorta? It can be a flaw to be loyal to the wrong person, but loyalty in itself is almost always treated as a virtue.&nbsp; Similarly with bravery, as can be most easily seen by considering its counterpart, cowardice.Note that these are largely predicated on approaching things from the perspective of virtue ethics, not consequentialism or deontology.&nbsp; The virtue itself matters more than the results of applying that to any given situation.Being loyal is a virtue. Being loyal to the wrong person is a flaw, but doesn't devalue the virtue itself.&nbsp; The person in question would be considered &quot;vicious&quot; rather than &quot;virtuous&quot; because of applying the virtue in the wrong way (per wiki entry on Virtue Ethics).The main problem here is that I'm not asserting that they are &quot;good&quot;. As I noted above, I'm not trying to map the alignment system to a new set of terms.I'm not saying that Loyalty is &quot;Good&quot; in the typical moral sense. I'm saying it's &quot;a good&quot; in the virtue ethics sense.&nbsp; It's an aspirational virtue, to describe how to be the &quot;best&quot; orc.&nbsp; Or, well, since Loyalty was on the social axis, the primary virtue that keeps orc society running.And yes, I agree here. The cosmological alignment provides context for how the social virtues are used.I'm not understanding the problem you're claiming to not understand.&nbsp; That is, there is no 'problem' in the associated quote, so what problem is there to not understand?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kinematics, post: 8691347, member: 6932123"] Which is exactly why I have an issue with using alignment in that way, as that's fairly common. Well, I'm not, really. I'm taking the idea of using the alignment system as a means of describing personality (which I find clumsy and not always useful), and changing it so that it does not depend on the traditional alignment system. I'm not trying to "map" alignment to something else (eg: Lawful Good → Loyal Brave), only using the mechanics of the 9 square grid (a variant on a Cartesian plane) to display a different type of description — what I described as a social compass. Very valid points. I even recognized that a single word descriptor may sometimes make things confusing, such as if you used Strength for both Drow and orcs, when the usage of those terms would mean very different things to those different societies. I would try to find more useful descriptors if I was sitting down giving more serious thought to each society. I hope you'll allow leeway for the fact that the original post is mostly brainstorming, and not the result of lengthy research and development. Ehhh... Sorta? It can be a flaw to be loyal to the wrong person, but loyalty in itself is almost always treated as a virtue. Similarly with bravery, as can be most easily seen by considering its counterpart, cowardice. Note that these are largely predicated on approaching things from the perspective of virtue ethics, not consequentialism or deontology. The virtue itself matters more than the results of applying that to any given situation. Being loyal is a virtue. Being loyal to the wrong person is a flaw, but doesn't devalue the virtue itself. The person in question would be considered "vicious" rather than "virtuous" because of applying the virtue in the wrong way (per wiki entry on Virtue Ethics). The main problem here is that I'm not asserting that they are "good". As I noted above, I'm not trying to map the alignment system to a new set of terms. I'm not saying that Loyalty is "Good" in the typical moral sense. I'm saying it's "a good" in the virtue ethics sense. It's an aspirational virtue, to describe how to be the "best" orc. Or, well, since Loyalty was on the social axis, the primary virtue that keeps orc society running. And yes, I agree here. The cosmological alignment provides context for how the social virtues are used. I'm not understanding the problem you're claiming to not understand. That is, there is no 'problem' in the associated quote, so what problem is there to not understand? [/QUOTE]

Verification