Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="awesomeocalypse" data-source="post: 4950887" data-attributes="member: 85641">They can be described in whatever way you like. That doesn't make them objective--even hard, logic-driven philosophy (say, for example, utilitiarianism ala Peter Singer) relies to some degree on givens. Morality, as far as any of us can know, is subjective.It bothers me a lot, primarily because it doesn't ring true.But whose opinions do matter? Your family's? Your community's? Your country's? Someone else's country's? Your god's? Someone else's gods? The law? And if it is your "family's", does that mean your family all necessarily share the same opinion? If not, whose gets more weight?In my experience, the vast, vast majority of people place themselves in their own mental "good person" bucket, and for any one of them you could find literally millions of people who would place them in the "bad person" bucket. Merely the way it is, as far as any of us can know.  Right, but what I'm saying is that those specific goals and teachings are all that matter. Removing alignment would take away nothing whatsoever. "Neutral" or "Good" are phrases that are going to be taken in slightly different directions by everyone, and will be hopelessly broad regardless--why not just focus on the specific descriptions of what each god (and person) cares about and acts like and believes? What is alignment adding?Old editions of D&D made alignment a mechanic. Arguing about it in a metagame way was an inevitability when you had rules stating that items and even entire classes would stop working if they weren't "good". How could that possible *not* lead to metagame arguments over what constitutes good and evil? "You lose some paladin powers when you no longer uphold these specific teachings and beliefs of your god" is a vastly more useful way to approach the problem than, "you lose your paladin powers if you aren't good." The former means the same thing to everyone. The latter means pretty much what each individual is inclined to take from it. This is true, but in a good roleplaying game it should *also* be true. Don't tell me your half-elf is "good", act out a character in all his complexity, and let everyone else decide for themselves whether they think of you as "good" or "evil". Sure, applying the descriptor "good" doesn't *prevent that--unless, of course, you make it an actual mechanic, in which case it absolutely prevents that by forcing you to portray a "good" that conforms to good as your DM sees it. But even if its not a mechanic, it tells us so little about what your character is actually like as a person that you may as well be listing your favorite color.Precisely. In the real world, none of us can definitively, objectively include anything about anyone else. We are left merely to form our own opinions, and to convince others that they are correct, based on their actions as we perceive them. To change that is to change one of the most fundamental facets of human existence, and necessarily dramatically alters the philosophical dynamic of the world.  Because the DM and the players will still each have different perceptions of good and evil, and by making alingment a mechanic you render the DMs perception of good and evil an objective facet of the universe. A universe with objective good and evil is nothing like the one I know, and it simply doesn't ring true to me.None of them are remotely aided by the alignment system either. Moreover, if we make alignment a mechanic, then my personal opinion of where they fall on an alignment scale (tht is, how closely they conform to my personal idea of good) becomes an objective facet of the universe, which means they are no longer questions. "To be or not to be?" Is *not* the question when you have a guy in charge who can say, "actually, its "not to be". so there you go." The only "good" and "evil" that any of us can know for sure that exist exist in each of our own heads. Beyond that, all we have is faith. That is life.Now, you seem pretty interested in playing in a world that, in that respect, does not mimic life. That is certainly up to you, but for me personally, it destroys my sense of disbelief faster than all the dragons and wizards and gibbering mouthers in the world ever could.When alignment is a mechanic, it necessarily renders the DMs conception of good and evil an objective facet of the universe. When alignment is not a mechanic, it says so very little about who a person is that it does nothing but waste character sheet space.  Did the fact that Tolkein didn't have a two-word descriptor like "neutral good" in his head when he created Gandalf inhibit in any way his ability to create an interesting and fully realized character with a clear sense of personal morality? And if he had had it, would it have added anything at all? In my experience, games with alignment tend to either a.) devolve into "team good takes on team evil"orb.) move quickly into heavy roleplay in which alignment was almost immediately forgotten as people got into playing a fully realized, complex character How could you even pretend that this means anything? "Good" is no more a useful descriptor of the sum total of someone's actions than it is of their philosophy or religion. Melodrama is a subset of drama. Drama as distinct from melodrama is all drama that cannot be considered melodrama, that is, conflict which does not simply break down into clear camps of objective good and evil. This should only ever happen if alignment serves some mechanical function though, or if the DM is actuvely intending to create some sort of morality play, in which case he's essentially rendering alignment mechanical anyway by tying metagame benefits like "success" or "failure" to whether you conform to his personal idea of good and evil.That is exactly what I'm against. If I present the players with two sides, each with greivances that could be looked on as legitimate, I have no intention of penalizing or rewarding them for siding with one or the other. In fact, I'd prefer that they are unsure of who to side with, that they have to argue it out between each other, that they really have to get into their characters head and think about what matters to them and where this dilemnda falls on their personal scale. And I revel in the paladin's ability to do that, and then for the peaceful and scholarly wizard to declare him a self-righteous, zealot brute, and to have that disagreement stand as a legitimate and interesting conflict, rather than for the paladin to be able to say, 'well, I still got my powers beeyatch, guess that means I'm right--I *am* good. Objectively."</blockquote>

Verification