Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4265916" data-attributes="member: 32536">I don't think your political analogy is applicable at all.Good and evil are not ideals. At no point will a character make a conscious decision about being unaligned, good, or lawful good, let alone evil or chaotic evil (a player might, but a character won't). If such a decision is made, it will not be based on some kind of detailed examination of equivalent choices.An unaligned character and a lawful good character may share the same ideals. They might both value peace, stability, and the happiness of those they care about. They may both want to see the same kind of world. In fact, an evil character may want the same things. The main difference between them is that they have different principles they hold themselves to in trying to achieve that ideal. A lawful good character will hold himself to a higher moral standard than an unaligned character, even if they share the same basic morals. An evil character may have the same morals as the other two, but may end up abandoning them for the sake of an ideal (and may admit that he is wrong, but not care). These kinds of differences are entirely that of personality, not anything else, and are certainly not associated with any particular ideals or &quot;teams&quot;.The failing of the team analogy is even more problematic when you consider that characters of the same alignment may have different ideals and may conflict with each other. An evil man may use atrocious methods in order slaughter a whole tribe of evil goblins, so that a good man could become a righteous king. Ultimately, alignment is about the method rather than the goal, and teams are built around shared goals, while methods are a product of personalities.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwinBahamut, post: 4265916, member: 32536"] I don't think your political analogy is applicable at all. Good and evil are not ideals. At no point will a character make a conscious decision about being unaligned, good, or lawful good, let alone evil or chaotic evil (a player might, but a character won't). If such a decision is made, it will not be based on some kind of detailed examination of equivalent choices. An unaligned character and a lawful good character may share the same ideals. They might both value peace, stability, and the happiness of those they care about. They may both want to see the same kind of world. In fact, an evil character may want the same things. The main difference between them is that they have different principles they hold themselves to in trying to achieve that ideal. A lawful good character will hold himself to a higher moral standard than an unaligned character, even if they share the same basic morals. An evil character may have the same morals as the other two, but may end up abandoning them for the sake of an ideal (and may admit that he is wrong, but not care). These kinds of differences are entirely that of personality, not anything else, and are certainly not associated with any particular ideals or "teams". The failing of the team analogy is even more problematic when you consider that characters of the same alignment may have different ideals and may conflict with each other. An evil man may use atrocious methods in order slaughter a whole tribe of evil goblins, so that a good man could become a righteous king. Ultimately, alignment is about the [i]method[/i] rather than the [i]goal[/i], and teams are built around shared goals, while methods are a product of personalities. [/QUOTE]

Verification