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: 8048475" data-attributes="member: 6801228">The part I underlined? How many people go about their lives thinking deeply about whether the universe is a well-oiled machine or a bag of dice falling down the stairs? I mean if that is your definition, go for it, but that is about the most useless part of the definition I can think of.Especially in a game where we know for a fact, most of it is determined by a random die roll. Playing a character who believes utterly in divine fate when the player knows that it is in fact all random feels like you are playing a joke character. (It's why I never have prophecies or visions of the future in my games, because I know I can't tell my players "You will fight the dragon king" if they might all die in the woods to a giant.Perhaps Objectivity does require omnisicience and therefor the gods do not know what the objective truth of alignment is. But in that case, like I said, then you might as well be playing with subjective alignment, because if even the gods can't tell you what the objective truth is, then it might as well not exist. Which I think is where your "law of the land" vs "tradition" example can be used to highlight it. In a subjective alignment world, this conflict makes sense. You can argue whether or not a new law is better than an old tradition. You could even get into a rather heated discussion about whether it is actually lawful or not. But, in an objective alignment world, you cannot do this. It is an objective fact on whether that new law is lawful or not. IT is an objective fact whether that new law is good or not. Even if you have an LG and an LN,  and they can tell the law is more good than it is lawful, there still can't be an argument about that. It is objectively true how good it is and how lawful it is, and both sides would acknowledge that, and while you could have a debate on whether good is more important than law, they cannot disagree about where that law falls in terms of alignment. Because alignment is objectively true. This is why I prefer subjective alignments. Because "Objective Fact" can only be argued when one side refuses to acknowledge the truth, and that is a boring story for me compared to arguing about what is the most true.</blockquote>

Verification