Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4941667" data-attributes="member: 40961">The typical reason this sort of thing comes up is when the PCs first start realizing that they can solve mystery plotlines by scanning everyone's alignment.&nbsp; The DM then starts ensuring that the world has &quot;regular&quot; evil people in it, instead of just supernatural EVIL people, so that registering as &quot;evil&quot; on &quot;detect magic&quot; stops becoming a game breaker.&nbsp; The false positive rate, by which I mean the rate at which people detect as evil even though they aren't sufficiently evil to justify summary execution at a paladin's hand, stops players from wrecking the realism of the campaign world.&nbsp;Other than that, I think I can sit back and watch my basic thesis prove itself: that people who believe that morality is cut and dry and unambiguous, even though they disagree with other people who also believe that morality is cut and dry and ambiguous, are the real reason alignment fails as a set of rules.&nbsp;Although now we've got a little bit of a sideshow- the people who believe that written text is always cut and dry and unambiguous are having their say.&nbsp; I rest pretty confident in my belief that phrases like &quot;debase sentient life&quot; aren't unambiguous, and interpretation of them requires reference to beliefs and mores not found purely within the text.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 4941667, member: 40961"] The typical reason this sort of thing comes up is when the PCs first start realizing that they can solve mystery plotlines by scanning everyone's alignment. The DM then starts ensuring that the world has "regular" evil people in it, instead of just supernatural EVIL people, so that registering as "evil" on "detect magic" stops becoming a game breaker. The false positive rate, by which I mean the rate at which people detect as evil even though they aren't sufficiently evil to justify summary execution at a paladin's hand, stops players from wrecking the realism of the campaign world. Other than that, I think I can sit back and watch my basic thesis prove itself: that people who believe that morality is cut and dry and unambiguous, even though they disagree with other people who also believe that morality is cut and dry and ambiguous, are the real reason alignment fails as a set of rules. Although now we've got a little bit of a sideshow- the people who believe that written text is always cut and dry and unambiguous are having their say. I rest pretty confident in my belief that phrases like "debase sentient life" aren't unambiguous, and interpretation of them requires reference to beliefs and mores not found purely within the text. [/QUOTE]

Verification