Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8920954" data-attributes="member: 5142">What's funny is that Gygax added Good vs. Evil as an axis because he felt that it added more nuance, but when Moorcock talks about Law vs. Chaos as a principle in his books, he said that he purposefully avoided Good vs. Evil with his choice, because Law vs. Chaos allowed greater nuance from the black and white morality of Good vs. Evil. I'm inclined to agree with Moorcock. But I do think that this issue highlights one of the problems of alignment in D&D. Good vs. Evil speaks more to the heroic fantasy roots of the game (e.g., Lord of the Rings), whereas Law vs. Chaos speaks more to the sword & sorcery roots of the game (e.g., Moorcock Multiverse, etc.), and they are honestly not good tonal matches.Debating the alignment of fictional characters is a pretty pointless exercise IMHO because people can walk away with multiple readings of characters. There is not a singular reading or interpretation, and people tend to project a lot on the characters their own understandings, ideals, and interpretations as the singular reading. Not to mention how different people understand alignment differently. But this is not different from how people can read the same presentation of a fictional character in a movie and ascribe to them different Myers Briggs personality types. This is why I think that alignment as factions is better than alignment as personality type.</blockquote>