Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wombat" data-source="post: 1766392" data-attributes="member: 8447">I have always assumed that most True Alignments are &quot;hard&quot;.&nbsp; Most folks are a grand vague wash of Neutral (not Radical Neutral, just Uncaring or Unmotivated enough to really press hard to one side of the scale or the other).&nbsp; I also believe that most governments in both fantasy and non-fantasy games would be Lawful Neutral -- governments survive off of laws and all governments end up doing things they are proud of and things they wish to sweep under the carpet.The problem with alignment in D&amp;D is that it is neither Absolute nor Generalized.&nbsp; The definitions shift at various points in the main books.&nbsp; Characters can shift alignment, apparently, rather easily, yet monsters are set along a given path.&nbsp; Even such matters as Smite, Detect X, and the like are under a question mark -- do you Detect EVIL (aboslute) or evil-at-the-moment; if it is the latter, are there set criteria or is the smiting only based on actions taken at a given moment?&nbsp; Is killing an Evil character a Good act?&nbsp; Is it a Lawful act?&nbsp; If it is a Good act and yet not a Lawful act, how does this affect a paladin?My problem with alignment is this vagueness, this swashing back and forth from a Generazlied and an Absolute definition of alignment within the books themselves.&nbsp; In the end, I feel that alignment causes more problems than it solves; it is easier to remove the alignment bases for skills, spells, and the like and ultimately get rid of alignment than to try and define what alignment IS in game terms.&nbsp; And, no, I don't think this leads to a game without a moral compass -- characters will be judged by their actions rather than by they taglines.&nbsp; Rambling thoughts prior to my first cup of tea...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wombat, post: 1766392, member: 8447"] I have always assumed that most True Alignments are "hard". Most folks are a grand vague wash of Neutral (not Radical Neutral, just Uncaring or Unmotivated enough to really press hard to one side of the scale or the other). I also believe that most governments in both fantasy and non-fantasy games would be Lawful Neutral -- governments survive off of laws and all governments end up doing things they are proud of and things they wish to sweep under the carpet. The problem with alignment in D&D is that it is neither Absolute nor Generalized. The definitions shift at various points in the main books. Characters can shift alignment, apparently, rather easily, yet monsters are set along a given path. Even such matters as Smite, Detect X, and the like are under a question mark -- do you Detect EVIL (aboslute) or evil-at-the-moment; if it is the latter, are there set criteria or is the smiting only based on actions taken at a given moment? Is killing an Evil character a Good act? Is it a Lawful act? If it is a Good act and yet not a Lawful act, how does this affect a paladin? My problem with alignment is this vagueness, this swashing back and forth from a Generazlied and an Absolute definition of alignment within the books themselves. In the end, I feel that alignment causes more problems than it solves; it is easier to remove the alignment bases for skills, spells, and the like and ultimately get rid of alignment than to try and define what alignment IS in game terms. And, no, I don't think this leads to a game without a moral compass -- characters will be judged by their actions rather than by they taglines. Rambling thoughts prior to my first cup of tea... [/QUOTE]

Verification