Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Doug McCrae" data-source="post: 5249675" data-attributes="member: 21169">Consider also that the alignment system at present is intended only to be a general descriptor. If an individual is generally disciplined and law-abiding but is habitually late for appointments than that person is lawful by the D&D system. By your system he is chaotic with regard to time-keeping, which does, admittedly provide more detail.Differing opinions on lawfulness are a major problem with the alignment system. Does it refer to obeying the law of one particular jurisdiction - a nation, a religion - or to obeying the law of whatever land one is currently in? Can one be lawful if one upholds a personal code of honor, or is very disciplined in one's behaviour? By my reading of the alignment system, lawfulness can refer to any or all of the above. The totality of lawful or chaotic behaviour would be what decides alignment. The drawback with this approach is that alignment doesn't provide much information. Your system would fix this, telling us which laws are obeyed or in what area(s) a person is disciplined or undisciplined.Good and evil are even trickier because there are so many different views. Some would say that if one ever commits an evil act, then one becomes evil, no matter how much good one has done in other aspects of life. Others would say we must look at the totality of a man's deeds. Your system won't work for those that take the former view. An evil act towards an elf for example, makes a person evil 'all over'.Your approach to good/evil seems to be as a measure of prejudice, particularly race prejudice, though it could include other groups such as social classes, or refer to all outsiders, everyone outside one's own ethnic group. This is pretty realistic, many cultures do seem to observe a 'double standard', acting differently towards their own kind than to outsiders.</blockquote>

Verification