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="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8048207" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Yes, you are.Me: This is a problematic situation with Lawful Good DeitiesYou: What about all these non-lawful non-Good Deities?Me: Okay, but this is a problem with Lawful Good Deities.You: What about all these non-lawful non-Good Deities?Then you aren't using an alignment system with objective good and evil it sounds like, or all your deities are neutral or evil. Or they are so far removed that they aren't telling people what the divine law and objective good or evil are. All of which are fine, but are not what I'm talking about. Those situations change the base assumption of what is going on. Though, I would note, if Commune or Conjure Celestial are spells people can cast, they can still ask objectively "lawful" and objectively "good" entities questions, even if the gods themselves are remote.  Which is what leads to all this. I messed with your formatting so I could respond all at once instead of with a dozen quotes.1) If they are "Objectively Lawful" and "Objectively Good" then they must agree. That is the problem with objectivity in these discussions. It is true, no matter your interpretation or perspective. Now there are a few ways to handle this. You could say that there is "Objective Good", but that the Gods are no better at understanding what is objectively good then anyone else.... which in my opinion makes "objective good" pointless and stupid. It isn't objective, it is subjective if even the highest arbiters of it can't agree on what it means. Another solution, which is slightly better if you want to keep Objective "Good" and "Law" is that they all agree on those things, but the things that fall into Neutral territory are where the debates happen. Every "Lawful Good" deity agrees that murder for profit is evil, and not good, but they disagree on Tax law (should you collect yearly or bi-annually), or when you should rotate crops. But in this scenario, they objectively know these things aren't good or lawful. They know that this is just opinion, because they know what the objective Truth is. Which, again, would prevent any of these civil wars or other conflicts, because everyone knows they are just expressing an opinion, because they were told the objective truth.2) Different types of problems, but the problem with the setting where objective "Law" and "Good" are presented are really highlighted the most in the scenario with an LG deity.But, you would still have Chaotic and Neutral Good deities expressing what is objectively "Good". And where the problem lies is that those Deites can't say that the the things that are objectively "Good", but also "Lawful", aren't "Good". Objectively, they are "Good". It is undeniable and objective truth. So, a CG Deity would only protest the sections of "Lawful" that were neutral or Evil, unless as a "Good" Deity they ended up standing against "Good" which they can't, because then they would not be objectively "Good". And, what conflicts can you have about the proper running of a Chaotic Good church, or a Neutral good church? They can ask if they are acting objectively too "lawful" and get the correct, objectively true answer. And this is the ultimate problem. All you need is a deity of objective "Law" and "Good" and one of objective "Law" and "Evil". They will agree on what is objectively "Lawful", defining all "Law" leaving only "Chaos" undefined which just leads to varying levels of chaos. And, since they have defined Objective "Good" and Objective "Evil" then you have all of morality answered. And what conflict can you possibly have when all the Truth is known?3) Same thing with the LG, they can't disagree about Objective Truth. That is what makes it Objective.4) Sounds to me like you care about "Law" and not good and evil. Of course an organization that has both good and evil individuals in it will be in conflict. The problem is though, if those LN deities have laid out what "Law" means, you can't debate that. It is true. But, this sounds like a scenario that is not enhanced at all from having objective alignment. I wouldn't have even bothere dto set up any alignments for this, just given edicts from the gods and had followers who took those edicts in a variety of directions.I'm talking about LG. I've made no claims to what you are saying. And, I agree with you. I love and much prefer conflict between worshippers of the same gods, or between countries that share many of the same beliefs. I love all of that and find it much more satisifying than static "objectively good" forces that can't be argued against. That is why I don't want alignment, and I specifically don't want objective alignment. Once there is a perfectly knowable answer, a set of rules that are explicitly "Good and all things that count as Good" then the chance for conflict is gone. It only exists through ignorance. And, the deities would act to inform people and remove that ignorance. All of the interesting things are gone.So, what do you do when the guide leads you to the wrong place? Or is more confusing and harder to use than other options that get you to the same place? It doesn't help me figure out how my character would handle a moral conflict. It doesn't tell me what monsters are going to do. It provides a road map that leads me in circles. And while 2e might have been great, we are talking about 5e. That's... what 30 years later? I know I never read the 2e books on what alignment is supposed to be. A new player opening the 5e PHB isn't going to see a notation "refer to the 2e PHB for rules on alignment", so they are going to go off of what 5e says.</blockquote>

Verification