Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8694105" data-attributes="member: 7025508">Yet the game has presented it as such. For example the third editions says:Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.These are personality traits.You're one of those people who have, presumably over a long time, developed an internal mental model of the alignment that makes sense for you, and are thus attributing your personal rationalisations to the system, even though they're not actually present in it. We always see several such rationalisations in any alignment thread, a lot of people have them, and they often are different. That's because they're just a result of a Rorschach tests, people trying to see some sense and order in something that ultimately is just ill-though labelling of wargame factions that doesn't actually tell us anything useful.If alignment actually conveyed information sensibly, people wouldn't constantly disagree about what it means. And this is just symptom of it's incoherence and failed attempts to naively simplify very complex matters. Is a reckless but honourable vigilante who breaks laws but has a personal code lawful or chaotic? No one knows, people won't agree, and any answer would be just misleading and result downplaying some of the nuances of the character. And of course the answer is completely unnecessary! We already knew what the person was like, we didn't need the alignment to tell us that.As for your claims that it doesn't stymie moral conflict, that seemed to rely on weird "Good" is not good, interpretation, at which point I must ask why did we need to define "Good" in the first place? I literally do not understand what is gained by thinking in such simplistic terms, defining what's objectively good and what's objectively evil. Those are questions the players should be free to explore themselves, and come up with their own answers, "it's complicated" being a perfectly valid one.</blockquote>

Verification