Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DammitVictor" data-source="post: 7973502" data-attributes="member: 6750908">So, one thing I've noticed in is that people who think D&D's alignment system adds needed moral dimension to their game often claim that people who object to D&D's alignment only want their characters to be able to commit Evil actions without the mechanical consequences of being Evil, or even simply being identified as Evil out-of-character.Another thing I've noticed is that the exact same people are the ones who most avidly defend the wanton slaughter of humanoid populations because they're "inherently evil" and morality doesn't apply to them. Conquest and genocide are thus morally justified and praiseworthy, in the name of Good.Am I seriously the only person who notices the profound moral disconnect-- or, should I say, the profound similarity-- between one of these arguments and the other?I just want to stop here to point out that as much as I agree with you here-- so did Nietzsche. The Master's morality was not an ideal moral mindset, or even a necessary step on the path to the Übermensch; the Master's morality was almost as much of a failstate as the Slave's morality. The Übermensch is someone for whom the rightness of the world is more important than one's ability to live in it.Well... in a game where most PCs have a small handful of Dark Side Points, as they should if the game is at all concerned with the threat of the Dark Side, the difference between 3 DSP and 4 DSP isn't a meaningful shift in the player's image of the character the way that, say, "you're Evil now" or "you are no longer a Paladin" is.I've seen players dispute receiving a Dark Side Point, but I've never seen them kick up a fuss over it. They shrugged and they got on with the game, because a single Dark Side Point here or there was a normal part of their character's expected struggle with the Dark Side.As much as I've been generally enjoying and agreeing with your contributions to this thread, this quote-- this right here-- is why the alignment system in D&D and morality mechanics in RPGs in general need to go away and never come back.The Force did not issue the character a Dark Side Point. You did. You interpreted the rules of what is Good and Evil in the campaign setting-- rules that are deliberately and necessarily vague-- and you made a decision and you imposed consequences. You did. And whether that decision was right or wrong, because I've never really seen an egregiously bad call in a Star Wars game, it was your decision and you were 100% responsible for it.Not the player, not the rulebooks, not the in-game NPCs and metaphysical characters that you control-- you.I will note here... not to you, personally... that the people who talk the biggest about Lawful being the alignment of moral responsibility are also the people who don't hold "lawful authorities" morally responsible for the decisions they make in the course of upholding the law-- even when those decisions are wholly within their prerogatives.Okay, you lost me. If D&D morality isn't supposed to be based on the players' morality, or any recognizable morality, why is it so vitally important that D&D have objective, tangible spiritual forces that govern morality in the first place?If D&D morality isn't supposed to mean anything, why aren't we better off dropping it?</blockquote>

Verification