Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9223994" data-attributes="member: 7035894">So, yeah, this illustrates my issue with alignments exactly. This is not a criticism of you, but of the rules and the way they condition us to think about what our game world should look like. This is really no different than earlier versions of the game which depicted orcs as innately evil, etc.I have a problem with labeling an entire species or type with one morality. I think it's absurdly reductionist, and I think it parallels simplistic ways of thinking about morality that have had dire consequences in real life.In narrative terms, it leads to stories that I find unsatisfying. I like my villains to have understandable motives, so telling me the warlord is evil because he's raising an army of undead just doesn't engage me. My first question is, &quot;well, why is he doing that?&quot; If the answer is that it's because he's power-hungry and will stop at nothing to crush his neighbours and extend his dominion, well, then, yep, that's why he's a bad guy. But if you tell me it's because he has to stop the neighbouring empire from colonizing his people's lands and obliterating their culture? Not evil!But I also don't like that it acts like an imagination regulator. The good thing about offering people a paradigm is that they don't have to think as much, so if all you want to do is colour within the lines, then it's great. The bad thing about offering people a paradigm is that they don't have to think as much. So I think alignments and defining specific acts as good or evil regardless of context violates the cooperative, imagination-driven heart of the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Clint_L, post: 9223994, member: 7035894"] So, yeah, this illustrates my issue with alignments exactly. This is not a criticism of you, but of the rules and the way they condition us to think about what our game world should look like. This is really no different than earlier versions of the game which depicted orcs as innately evil, etc. I have a problem with labeling an entire species or type with one morality. I think it's absurdly reductionist, and I think it parallels simplistic ways of thinking about morality that have had dire consequences in real life. In narrative terms, it leads to stories that I find unsatisfying. I like my villains to have understandable motives, so telling me the warlord is evil because he's raising an army of undead just doesn't engage me. My first question is, "well, [I]why[/I] is he doing that?" If the answer is that it's because he's power-hungry and will stop at nothing to crush his neighbours and extend his dominion, well, then, yep, that's why he's a bad guy. But if you tell me it's because he has to stop the neighbouring empire from colonizing his people's lands and obliterating their culture? Not evil! But I also don't like that it acts like an imagination regulator. The good thing about offering people a paradigm is that they don't have to think as much, so if all you want to do is colour within the lines, then it's great. The bad thing about offering people a paradigm is that they don't have to think as much. So I think alignments and defining specific acts as good or evil [I]regardless of context[/I] violates the cooperative, imagination-driven heart of the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification