Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36
  1. #11
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    A couple of good articles on the WotC site concerning alignments:

    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050318a


    And the really good one on lawful and chaotic:

    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a
    Duane Eggert

  2. #12
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    <snip - text retained in paladin thread>

    Law and Chaos
    Hmm, I clearly have a fundamental disagreement over the meaning of law and chaos to WOTC... When looking at human nature I fail to see the dichotomy in human nature and philosophy that they clearly do, to me the axis should be more community/self than law/chaos since that has a greater bearing on behaviour - although that may simply be a modern viewpoint. so to me communisim clocks in at Lawful evil (huge community focus, deeply oppressive methods to achieve it), classic liberalism aims for chaotic good (high emphasis on personal freedom, the state should serve the individual, lots of highfalutin talk about permissible methods) comes in as chaotic good. Classic labour movements might be lawful good (the state must cherish and protect the weak and aim to rebalance power throughout society) while various barbarian societies come in as chaotic evil (the state IS the individual, might makes right and victory proves righteousness morality)


    Neutrality and pure good
    Hmm, I don't see people as actively thinking about their alignment all that much. A good person doesn't think 'I am good so I will think about good things', they just do them... So to me NG doesn't mean more or less good than LG, although each would clearly think themselves better - as the LG person likely sees the Law as in itself a good thing, and vice versa. Neutral good is therefore pure good, just good that doesn't happen to tend towards law or chaos as well.

    As you can see from my alignment as a circle system, true neutral is a lack of strong beliefs in my system rather than a strong belief in balance, etc. So I wold leave true neutral to animals, very dim or weak willed folk, very self absorbed folk, etc.

    I never really 'got' Mr Gygax's view of true neutral - I couldn't think of any historic group who actively strove to maintain balance between law and chaos, good and evil, and could not see them surviving if they did. I always assumed he was trying to figure out what beliefs a True Neutral could have and settled for balance as the only one that had any moral conviction. I would put his true neutral 'maintaining the balance' ethos as strong Law with the underlying moral theory that the community needs a mixture of types to gain long term strength varying alignment to LG or LE depending on the methods used to maintain balance...

    but then by my system the highpriest of Ishtar was strongly lawful evil and the pre-cataclysm Krynn hugely imbalanced towards evil...
    Last edited by AndrewTall; 06-16-2007 at 09:03 AM.

  3. #13
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    The comments by AndrewTall are very interesting, and I'll offer my thoughts in the same format.
    <snip by AndrewTall - text in paladin thread>

    Law and Chaos
    My own thinking here is to reject any ideology that is modern (such as classical liberalism) for ancient, medieval, or fantastic ideologies. As such, I'm ready to turn the normal thinking about Manicheanism on its side, and ignore the good-evil axis for the order-chaos axis, and describe social entities as lawful and Azrai as the primeval force of chaos. Confusion, corruption, illusion, trickery, deception, the Seeming, and such things are of chaos, while people getting along and following cultures and patterns, no matter how community or individually based, are all lawful. Basically lawful means people, and chaos means primeval forces.

    Neutrality and Pure Good
    D&D's system is, as I say, Manichean. There is a good force, and a bad force, and the neutral guy says, I'll take both please. The good fellow says, I am for for the good and the light and that is my soul, and matter is corruption and I reject my body and go out into the wilderness and deny my body its pleasures. I am celibate, mortify the flesh, fast, and wear a hairshirt. The evil guy says, I love my body and its pleasures, and care nothing for my soul. (the body-soul dualism is only one kind of Manichean possibility, but its concrete, so I'll run with it) I do what I want to satisfy my body and enjoy material pleasures, and if that makes me jealous, perverse, greedy, and I steal and lie to enjoy pleasures, then so what? As long as I am happy. You can certainly detect a strong Manichean impulse in Christianity, although XP posits that God is more powerful, and ultimately victorious, while a hard core Manichean sees good and evil as perpetually struggling forces of co-equal strength. The neutral person then, rejects either/or and says body and soul, I want both and I revere both. I want to behold the light and preserve my soul, but I want to seek pleasures and satisfy my body when it does not harm others. Both are necessary forces and both must be respected, for without death, how could we afford to bring new life into the world, &c, &c. The Norse produce some good neutral gods in this tradition, figures from the Aesir or Jontun who could cooperate with both, and were not at perpetual odds. Often they were semi-outcasts from their own kind who had allies on both sides. That's another neutral position.
    Last edited by AndrewTall; 06-16-2007 at 09:07 AM.

  4. #14
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    [QUOTE=kgauck;40117]
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    Law and Chaos
    My own thinking here is to reject any ideology that is modern (such as classical liberalism) for ancient, medieval, or fantastic ideologies.
    I see your point, but disagree on practical grounds as playing in the world then requires a detailed knowledge of the medieval world and more importantly the medieval mindset. Most players will not have your skill in that area.

    This is particularly key for me as I use alignment as a tool to describe likely behaviour, modern systems are more likely to be correctly interpreted than medieval ones by most players making it more appropriate to provide information that they can use be referring to it in a mode they can comprehend. The 3e system of spells and the like needs to be tweaked in my system but that's fairly easy.

    I do however try to use medieval morals, etc to build legal systems etc in the world. PC's may well disagree with the laws then, and see them as wrong, but then changing the world is their job...

    If that means that the high priest of Avani is evil in my alignment system for encouraging her jihadi to burn the infidel barbarians, claim the lands as ours and bring their children back in chains to be raised as servants to the one true faith then that's a sacrifice I'll have to make - I can explain why the church thinks that the actions are acceptable, but see no reason to say 'and by the way you need to think of them as good' because the medieval view would support the actions.
    Last edited by AndrewTall; 06-16-2007 at 09:08 AM.

  5. #15
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    <snip, text retained in paladin thread>

    I see your point, but disagree on practical grounds as playing in the world then requires a detailed knowledge of the medieval world and more importantly the medieval mindset. Most players will not have your skill in that area.
    I consider ideology to be part of the setting, not part of the character. Its the DM's responsibility, not the players. I wouldn't tell the players the jihadi priest of Avani is any alignment. I would describe both his behavior and the reactions of others. Since I would regard medieval-normative behavior as normal, the reactions of others would to regard this as fine behavior. Here I think of the way any author describes their characters, what they say about themselves, what others say about them, and leave what the author says to any post-game commentary. Players can regard them as good, bad, or ugly as they please. Once the world gets described in some detail, after many game sessions, then its easy for players to predict what goes on here.

    I think the essence of role playing is not to go about as a barbarian in the modern world, but to 1) adopt the persona of a barbarian in a barbarian age, or 2) play yourself as a barbarian in a barbarian age. Playing yourself in the modern world with barbarian costume and the name Hruk the Bloody, doesn't interest me at all. If I create a coherent world, people will need some introduction to the place, but will begin to catch on to its values and norms before too long.
    Last edited by AndrewTall; 06-16-2007 at 09:10 AM.

  6. #16
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    I consider ideology to be part of the setting, not part of the character.
    Agreed, my point was not about the attitudes of the character, but rather the underlying definition of alignment. A handout indicating the public view of a NPC (i.e. this is Gramma Vearl, the village priest you have known since childhood) should I feel contain alignment - not necessarily the NPC's true alignment but the one that the character would believe correct. Similarly magic that detects alignment gives the player information about the NPC. As such when I say to a PC 'chaotic neutral' they should expect the NPC to consider themselves and their needs paramount, be ambivalent about torture and other 'evil' methods, etc - the alignment linked by irdeggman would indicate instead that the NPC is inconsistent, lacks of planning and preparedness, etc - a very different thing. It's how you view the axis on the alignment chart. What WOTC evidently sees as chaotic I would see as lack of consistency - indicating only a weak inclination to any alignment - In my circle chart, an alignment close to the centre rather than on the extreme right. I do feel however that it is important that the alignment definition of good reflects modern morality - to do otherwise invites confusion in my mind.

    In terms of roleplaying I fully agree that its more fun to act in character, if harder for some newbie's initially. However adding a few modern touches to the 'medieval' attitudes is fine in my view, so although most soldiers will be male in my games (they are stronger and more expendable) women are legally equal, slavery is considered wrong, society is slightly more fluid for 'special people', the church is not quite as dominant, speech is more free - if subject to consequence, etc. I also tend not to discuss infant mortality, the general grime, endemic grinding poverty, etc, etc.

    Apart from anything else having played with a number of younger players, some much younger, I see a game as potentially a valuable teaching tool - where else can you explore moral issues and conundrums so easily and well? As a means of teaching about different viewpoints and cultures, history, etc D&D is unmatched in my view - a game must be fun, but it can so easily be educational as well.

  7. #17
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    A handout indicating the public view of a NPC (i.e. this is Gramma Vearl, the village priest you have known since childhood) should I feel contain alignment - not necessarily the NPC's true alignment but the one that the character would believe correct.
    This is a different problem. In this case I don't reveal alignments as a shorthand for players because the definition of alignments are ao varied between players that I don't consider this reliable, which is essential in a shorthand. When you compound questions of how good is someone before you call them good, I end up with such ontological questions that I'd rather describe someone's reputation than to lable their alignment.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Redding, California
    Posts
    220
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0


    Originally Posted by MatanThunder

    I consider ideology to be part of the setting, not part of the character. Its the DM's responsibility, not the players. I wouldn't tell the players the jihadi priest of Avani is any alignment.
    No the alignment is part of the PC and no you as DM don't have the right to tell the players about how to percieve good and evil (and by extension control their actions as DM). The players play the PC, and the DM paints the setting.

    The Jihadi priest would be desinctly evil, and if the PC didn't live up to their alignment then their alignment (as DM you can do this) would begin to shift towards how they were acting. But individual actions are not limited by DM input.......the players should be allowed to play their PC's....not the DM......


    Later



    <snip by AndrewTall: text retained in paladin thread>
    Last edited by AndrewTall; 06-16-2007 at 09:12 AM.

  9. #19
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    I would abandon alignment completely before conforming to the alignment descriptions that conflicted even slightly with the setting description (which is always).

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Redding, California
    Posts
    220
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0


    But do you stand by your quasi statement that it is in the province of the DM to control the alignment concerns of your PC's.....or do they retain free will to play alignment as they see it????

    Later


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Religious issues...
    By prince_dios in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 06-07-2007, 08:59 PM
  2. Balance issues
    By Thelandrin in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 05-15-2007, 04:19 PM
  3. Ceremony/Regent Death Issues
    By Raesene Andu in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-15-2004, 09:50 PM
  4. Balance Issues
    By Yair in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-09-2003, 09:56 PM
  5. Clergy Alignment vs. God Alignment
    By Azrai in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-02-2002, 10:10 AM

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.