NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5161987" data-attributes="member: 82106">Aren't we already going down a slippery slope here? Rules that exist to prevent worse things than rules... lol. The very idea of an 'ism' to some extent presupposes an acknowledged body of tenets which are rules for measuring how to behave (though different from laws we are still drawing perilously close). Notice too that all the isms in that list you have are non-existent as actual philosophies governing any existing society on earth. In fact they have all proven to be rather spectacularly non-viable. I would say because they are actually internally inconsistent and thus cannot ever work in the real world or even be clearly articulated in a sensible fashion.But my point was that at some level you're bound to come to the conclusion that even the CG will make a rule to ban something harmful. So we're no longer talking about 2 distinct alignments, only a set of preferences along a scale where the truly chaotic is no longer good. No, there was no law at all in Nazi Germany. The NAZIs were the very antithesis of law. Not one single thing they ever did was lawful. They may have cloaked their arbitrary actions in some convenient theater that they CALLED a law, but that was purely for their own convenience because it made it easier for them to exercise power. If the NAZIs had it in for you they just came in the night and did what they felt like doing. If you got a trial it was a show trial in front of a kangaroo court with made up charges. That's not law, in fact I'd argue its VERY close to chaos.We could have a very long recapitulation of various moral and legal theories right here, but it would be highly tedious and far off topic. Suffice it to say that I do not accept your assertion that I define law as 'rules people follow willingly', but I DO define good as putting the interests of others, individually and/or collectively, ahead of self-interest. My opinions about modern nation-states would belong in some other board though, so we'll just leave that for another day.You used the term 'organized crime' not me. I'd also point out that 'organized' and 'lawful' are not necessarily synonymous. Alignment deals with moral philosophy, organization deals with the practical aspects of getting things done. The MOB can be organized, but if it was lawful then it would follow the laws. It doesn't, and I think its safe to say that historically mobsters act exactly like I've mentioned before, they follow a 'rule' of nothing but power, which is no rule at all. If one mobster wants what another one has, he kills him and takes it if he's stronger. Notice that in ANY degree to which mobsters are even organized that organization is aimed at the good of their group (IE lets not wipe ourselves out or be so visible that the public makes the cops go after us). That good may serve evil ends but in a genuinely authentic way it illustrates the truth, that laws always come into existence for mutual benefit, a good concept, not an evil one.Personally I'm quite happy that alignment is cut back and personally I wouldn't mind if it went entirely. I don't think monsters and NPCs should have alignments either. It just tends to lock the game participants brains in a box. What is it about the game that is better if in every game Orcs are supposed to be evil? How would removing that sort of thing from the game hurt? Everyone hailed Eberron as being so innovative because wow, humanoids aren't always evil! Yeah, its innovative, but if you ask me it just illustrates how much most D&D campaigns have been held back by the bane of alignment.</blockquote>

Verification