Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Urbannen" data-source="post: 404881" data-attributes="member: 7643">Mkletch, I am aware of this distinction from 1E.&nbsp; I just ignore it because 3E makes no distinction between ethics and morality, and in fact refers to both the G-E and L-C axes as morals or morality, such as the statement that animals are neutral because they cannot make decisions based on morality.&nbsp; I have always tried to think of G-E as being morality, and L-C as being ethics.&nbsp; (Not everyone I've played with gets this or agrees, so...)&nbsp; In a word, morality is how you treat people, either with kindness or cruelty.&nbsp; Ethics is how you honor your obligations - do you keep your word or do you break it?&nbsp; Do you follow the generally understood obligations of society, such as the idea honoring personal property?&nbsp; This system is pretty easy and straightforward; however, it is not how the alignments are used in D&amp;D.&nbsp; I would argue that thieving is chaotic, while murder is evil.&nbsp; In D&amp;D, thieving is evil.&nbsp; In FRCS, chaotic good characters fight against thieves and the god of thieves, Mask, is NE.&nbsp; His portfolio is thieves, thievery, and shadows.&nbsp; Nothing inherently cruel there, nor in his dogma.&nbsp; I've noticed that the game designers have tried to make both Law and Chaos value neutral alignment choices, but this treatment makes Chaos a &quot;bad&quot; choice.&nbsp; As for the group v. individual question, I don't have the necessary philosophical training to enter the given debate.&nbsp; It seems to me that in D&amp;D, Lawful means that individuals believe that it is preferable that they and others subsume their desire to the desires of whatever group they hold allegiance to.&nbsp; Chaotic characters believe that individual desires should be considered first, and that adherence to any group simply for the sake of belonging is slavishness.&nbsp; It isn't totally consistent with D&amp;D products, but pretty much so.&nbsp; For instance, in &quot;Tantras&quot;, the LG god Torm demanded that his followers give up their lives to give him the power to fight Bane.&nbsp; Torm is Good, but there wasn't much discussion about a choice involved.&nbsp; He was the boss, he needed their souls for a greater purpose, and he had no compunction about demanding that his followers give up their lives (even though it was their choice).&nbsp; A great example of a Lawful religion in the real world is the Catholic church.&nbsp; Stories I have heard about Catholic schooling indicate that the Church believes that obedience to the church power structure as well as getting everyone to conform to their way of doing things is important in and of itself.&nbsp; A Chaotic religion would be Hinduism.&nbsp; Every family can choose their own god or guru.&nbsp; Again, this is based on the definitions that the D&amp;D designers seem to be using.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Urbannen, post: 404881, member: 7643"] Mkletch, I am aware of this distinction from 1E. I just ignore it because 3E makes no distinction between ethics and morality, and in fact refers to both the G-E and L-C axes as morals or morality, such as the statement that animals are neutral because they cannot make decisions based on morality. I have always tried to think of G-E as being morality, and L-C as being ethics. (Not everyone I've played with gets this or agrees, so...) In a word, morality is how you treat people, either with kindness or cruelty. Ethics is how you honor your obligations - do you keep your word or do you break it? Do you follow the generally understood obligations of society, such as the idea honoring personal property? This system is pretty easy and straightforward; however, it is not how the alignments are used in D&D. I would argue that thieving is chaotic, while murder is evil. In D&D, thieving is evil. In FRCS, chaotic good characters fight against thieves and the god of thieves, Mask, is NE. His portfolio is thieves, thievery, and shadows. Nothing inherently cruel there, nor in his dogma. I've noticed that the game designers have tried to make both Law and Chaos value neutral alignment choices, but this treatment makes Chaos a "bad" choice. As for the group v. individual question, I don't have the necessary philosophical training to enter the given debate. It seems to me that in D&D, Lawful means that individuals believe that it is preferable that they and others subsume their desire to the desires of whatever group they hold allegiance to. Chaotic characters believe that individual desires should be considered first, and that adherence to any group simply for the sake of belonging is slavishness. It isn't totally consistent with D&D products, but pretty much so. For instance, in "Tantras", the LG god Torm demanded that his followers give up their lives to give him the power to fight Bane. Torm is Good, but there wasn't much discussion about a choice involved. He was the boss, he needed their souls for a greater purpose, and he had no compunction about demanding that his followers give up their lives (even though it was their choice). A great example of a Lawful religion in the real world is the Catholic church. Stories I have heard about Catholic schooling indicate that the Church believes that obedience to the church power structure as well as getting everyone to conform to their way of doing things is important in and of itself. A Chaotic religion would be Hinduism. Every family can choose their own god or guru. Again, this is based on the definitions that the D&D designers seem to be using. [/QUOTE]

Verification