Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Brian Stoner
    Guest

    More on Alignments

    Another possible view of a chaotic vs. lawful alignment that I recently
    started considering is how the character organizes his own life. The
    lawful person is very organized, the chaotic one a mess. For those who
    have been in college, remember the people whose dorms were always a
    mess, with a foot of books, trash, plates, CDs, socks, and who knows
    what on the floor? Chaotic. Or, those whose dorms were emaculate...as
    if they didn't know how to have fun? Lawful. Consider the Odd Couple
    for a good example.

    As for the good vs. evil alignment problem, perhaps the biggest problem
    with using it is the discrepancy between players and the DM. What if
    the DM believes in a universal idea of good-evil, yet some of the
    players believe in situational morality..or "to each their own." This
    clash of values can strain nerves. Fortunately, most of us have a
    general understanding of what good and evil are...just not an agreement
    on what actions demonstrate them. Even so, it can be claimed that our
    concept of morality is culturally defined...by Western values for most
    of us. While I personally do have a concept of universal morality, I
    also recognize that a lot of what we see as moral is culturally
    defined. For this reason, while I hold strongly to what I believe, I do
    not try to force it on my players or others.

    Anyway, back on subject, I think that replacing the good-evil alignment
    system with a system based on motivations and values to help define the
    character might be better...though it could just be left out
    altogether. The biggest problem is all the spells and abilities that
    relate to detection and alteration of alignment..such as the paladin's
    ability to detect evil. I have considered maybe replacing it with the
    ability to detect hostility or something...but nothing I can think of
    really fits well. Any ideas?

    Dearnen

  2. #2
    MANTA
    Guest

    More on Alignments

    Rob Harper wrote:
    >
    > I use a rating system of different traits (positive and negative:
    Loyalty,
    > Materialism, Honesty, Violence and a more descriptive one Demeanour) to
    > describe characters and award bonuses for good roleplaying according to
    > these traits.
    >

    Your system sounds very interesting. I would like to know more (all if
    possible!) about it.

    MANTA
    ip209007@ip.pt
    ICQ: 17080887

  3. #3
    Rob Harper
    Guest

    More on Alignments

    I use the S&P point system and a world in which Good and Evil are
    supernatural forces. Few living creatures are truly Good or Evil because
    then they lack freewill and are removed from the wheel of rebirth upon
    death. People may think of themselves this way (usually Good) but don't
    have little magical stickers on their foreheads that are easily detectable.

    Different societies have different values. Only creatures like vampires,
    demons, devas etc. have alignments - being supernatural and without freewill.

    Being "aligned" is a handicap (since it limits freewill) and worth CP's as a
    disadvantage. There is a chance any aligned character is unresurrectable
    upon death, having been removed from the wheel of rebirth.

    However, society and in particular religions and clergy espouse values and
    those who don't hold to them are denied advancement, punished and in
    particular denied access to miracles such as healing, resurrection,
    restoration etc.

    I use a rating system of different traits (positive and negative: Loyalty,
    Materialism, Honesty, Violence and a more descriptive one Demeanour) to
    describe characters and award bonuses for good roleplaying according to
    these traits.



    In it,

    At 04:07 PM 11/28/98 -0800, you wrote:
    >Brian Stoner wrote:
    >
    >> Anyway, back on subject, I think that replacing the good-evil alignment
    >> system with a system based on motivations and values to help define the
    >> character might be better...though it could just be left out
    >> altogether. The biggest problem is all the spells and abilities that
    >> relate to detection and alteration of alignment..such as the paladin's
    >> ability to detect evil. I have considered maybe replacing it with the
    >> ability to detect hostility or something...but nothing I can think of
    >> really fits well. Any ideas?

    __________________________________________________ _________________
    | |
    | We ask ourselves if there is a God, how can this happen? |
    | Better to ask, if there is a God, must it be sane? |
    | |
    | Lucien LaCroix |
    |_________________________________________________ __________________|

  4. #4
    Brian Stoner
    Guest

    More on Alignments

    "Gary V. Foss" wrote:

    > In my incredibly cynical view of the real world I have found that the only
    > morality that seems to exist is based on some sort of individual aesthetic. An
    > aesthetic based upon personal attitudes as shaped by culture, society,
    > religion, etc.

    I too am a bit cynical, at least where humans come in. I believe in a higher
    morality, but no humans live by it very well...in fact most (even the "good" ones)
    do a poor job of living by it. Someone else mentioned the problem with alignment
    and free will. As I see it, God, out of his goodness, granted us the ability to
    make our own choice (thus, who am I to presume to force my beliefs on others?), yet
    also out of his goodness he demands justice when we do wrong (the reason for the 10
    Commandments, Hell, etc.). Fortunately, his goodness is also merciful (Jesus, the
    Resurrection, etc.). This free will (along with natural laws) is what leads to so
    much suffering in the world, in my view.
    Anyway, when it comes to characters, I would never expect any PC to be
    perfect..even the paladins who supposedly should be. Imperfection is part of being
    human, and integral to a good story. I am fascinated with the concept of good
    goblins and orcs..the way they counter the predisposition of their genetics towards
    barbarism. In a game I DMed I had a ranger's life saved by a good member of his
    species enemy...it ended up forcing the character to reflect upon himself and his
    motivations. For these reasons, and the way that good and evil may not mean the
    same thing to different people, I dislike the use of alignments. They provide a
    nice structure for motivations, but do not play out well.

    Dearnen

  5. #5
    Mark A Vandermeulen
    Guest

    More on Alignments

    On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Brian Stoner wrote:

    > As for the good vs. evil alignment problem, perhaps the biggest problem
    > with using it is the discrepancy between players and the DM. What if
    > the DM believes in a universal idea of good-evil, yet some of the
    > players believe in situational morality..or "to each their own." This
    > clash of values can strain nerves.

    This is exactly the crux of the law/Chaos debate: what you are describing
    here actually IS lawful-good and chaotic-good, at least in my limited
    understanding. A person who believes in universal ideas of good and evil,
    who believes that the universe is fundamentally structured in a certain,
    organized, way, and that the individual achieves greatest happiness,
    satisfaction, etc from modifying his behavior to fit those universal
    standards, is a lawful-good person. Those who believe in situational
    morality, that everyone has to interpret what is good and bad in their own
    terms in relation to the current circumstances they are in, and that what
    might be an evil act for one person in one situation, may not be evil for
    another person or another situation, is chaotic good. Both believe that
    good must be chosen over evil, but the way they go about choosing what is
    the good option, particularly in cases where it is not at all clear, is
    quite different. Neutral good, then, are those who hold fast to goodness,
    morality, over and above any concept of where or by whose authority that
    morality is judged. They realize the limitations of either system and
    decide that the important thing is to do good as best as they can.

    Fortunately, most of us have a
    > general understanding of what good and evil are...just not an agreement
    > on what actions demonstrate them. Even so, it can be claimed that our
    > concept of morality is culturally defined...by Western values for most
    > of us. While I personally do have a concept of universal morality, I
    > also recognize that a lot of what we see as moral is culturally
    > defined. For this reason, while I hold strongly to what I believe, I do
    > not try to force it on my players or others.
    >
    > Anyway, back on subject, I think that replacing the good-evil alignment
    > system with a system based on motivations and values to help define the
    > character might be better...though it could just be left out
    > altogether. The biggest problem is all the spells and abilities that
    > relate to detection and alteration of alignment..such as the paladin's
    > ability to detect evil. I have considered maybe replacing it with the
    > ability to detect hostility or something...but nothing I can think of
    > really fits well. Any ideas?

    I have always thought of it as a situation of morals versus ethics. The
    ethics is the law/chaos direction, whether you believe that the "right
    things to do" are universal and passed down from a Great Authority, and
    that it is your responsibility to conform to them (note that this can be
    either a "good" system or simply a system of laws), or whether the only
    final arbiter of right and wrong is the individual and her sense of
    honor/conscience. The morality direction, then, determines how often
    choose to do the thing that you believe is "right" or "good" rather than
    the opposite. The lawful evil person believe that there is and should be
    structure and order to the universe, but either that 1.) his view is a
    distortion of the usual "good" view of the ordered universe in which the
    only arbiter of what is right is what you are strong enough to get away
    with within the confines of the system, or 2.) he is willing to use and
    manipulate that system to get what he really wants from the world, usually
    wealth, power, or vengenace.

    Mark VanderMeulen
    vander+@pitt.edu

  6. #6
    Galwylin
    Guest

    More on Alignments

    At 01:33 AM 9/29/98 -0700, Brian Stoner wrote:
    >
    >For these reasons, and the way that good and evil may not mean the
    >same thing to different people, I dislike the use of alignments. They
    provide a
    >nice structure for motivations, but do not play out well.

    The basic rules don't allow a single arrow to kill (except in low level
    characters) so I wouldn't think the alignments are any more realistic.
    They just give you a very, very basic look at motivation.

    This has been a Galwylin® Production

    galwylin@airnet.net
    http://www.airnet.net/galwylin/

  7. #7
    James Ray
    Guest

    More on Alignments

    KEEP real life OUT of your game LOL. Law/Chaos and Good/Evil are
    role-playing mechanics for the AD&D game, nothing more. In a given
    situation, they provide constraints against which the PC must struggle
    before coming to solutions. EACH member of the party should always have a
    say in which course of action they take, and if that agreed-upon course of
    action conflicts with their Alignment, they face some kind of penalty. If
    the enrtire party agrees upon a course of action, and everyone explains why
    their alignment doesnt preclude that act (to the DMs satisfaction, of
    course :), then there is no alignment infraction. Alignment is a tool, a
    role-pleying aid, or a restriction, depending on WHEN in the campaigbn it
    becomes important.

    BEST WISHES,

    James
    - ----------
    > From: Gary V. Foss
    > To: birthright@MPGN.COM
    > Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - More on Alignments
    > Date: Saturday, November 28, 1998 7:07 PM
    >
    > In AD&D, however, good/evil and law/chaos have to exist as actual forces
    because they can be detected magically. This is a cute, idealistic kind of
    view of the world that I like in the context of a role-playing game.

  8. #8
    James Ray
    Guest

    More on Alignments

    - ----------
    > From: Mark A Vandermeulen
    > On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Brian Stoner wrote:
    >
    > > As for the good vs. evil alignment problem, perhaps the biggest problem
    with using it is the discrepancy between players and the DM. What ifthe DM
    believes in a universal idea of good-evil, yet some of the players believe
    in situational morality..or "to each their own." >>
    > This is exactly the crux of the law/Chaos debate: what you are describing
    here actually IS lawful-good and chaotic-good, at least in my limited
    understanding.>

    Indeed - good and evil arent "situational" perceptions. Perhaps a
    PARTICULAR god could draw that distinction (in your own campaign), but, for
    the rest of us mortals, they are pleased that we DID at least CONSIDER the
    implications of Evil/Good, and satisfied (to the DMs judgement) the
    requirement that alignment niot be infringed.



    > Fortunately, most of us have a general understanding of what good and
    evil are...just not an agreement

  9. #9
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    More on Alignments

    Brian Stoner wrote:

    > Anyway, back on subject, I think that replacing the good-evil alignment
    > system with a system based on motivations and values to help define the
    > character might be better...though it could just be left out
    > altogether. The biggest problem is all the spells and abilities that
    > relate to detection and alteration of alignment..such as the paladin's
    > ability to detect evil. I have considered maybe replacing it with the
    > ability to detect hostility or something...but nothing I can think of
    > really fits well. Any ideas?

    In my incredibly cynical view of the real world I have found that the only
    morality that seems to exist is based on some sort of individual aesthetic. An
    aesthetic based upon personal attitudes as shaped by culture, society,
    religion, etc.

    In AD&D, however, good/evil and law/chaos have to exist as actual forces
    because they can be detected magically. This is a cute, idealistic kind of
    view of the world that I like in the context of a role-playing game. In my
    non-BR campaign setting I created a group of "elder gods" who represent primal
    forces in the universe. There are eight of them representing good, evil, law,
    chaos, matter, void, energy and entropy. In the mythology of the setting their
    interaction created the universe. They have no priests or paladins and are
    even more aloof than normal gods. In fact, most people don't even recognize
    their existence. But they represent the fundamental forces in the universe
    that everything essentially draws from.

    Since this is the basis of my view of the AD&D universe, I suppose the same
    thing would apply to the BR game I run, though I have found most BR characters
    concentrate a little more on their own little planet than those in other
    campaign settings, so the issue has never really come up.

    Gary

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Chap 1 paladin alignments
    By irdeggman in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-10-2004, 09:39 AM
  2. Alignments introduction
    By Starfox in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-05-2002, 02:45 AM
  3. Alignments and Holy Men
    By Galwylin in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-25-1998, 07:40 AM
  4. Worshiper Alignments
    By MANTA in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-10-1998, 01:24 PM
  5. Alignments
    By John in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-03-1997, 12:35 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.