Results 11 to 20 of 36
Thread: Alignment issues
-
06-02-2007, 01:31 AM #11
- 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/20050325aDuane Eggert
-
06-02-2007, 12:22 PM #12
<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.
-
06-02-2007, 04:36 PM #13
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.
-
06-02-2007, 07:19 PM #14
[QUOTE=kgauck;40117]
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.
-
06-02-2007, 08:33 PM #15
<snip, text retained in paladin thread>
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.
-
06-02-2007, 09:14 PM #16
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.
-
06-02-2007, 10:25 PM #17
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.
-
06-03-2007, 02:02 AM #18
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- Redding, California
- Posts
- 220
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally Posted by MatanThunder
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.
-
06-03-2007, 03:11 AM #19
I would abandon alignment completely before conforming to the alignment descriptions that conflicted even slightly with the setting description (which is always).
-
06-03-2007, 06:39 AM #20
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- Redding, California
- Posts
- 220
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Religious issues...
By prince_dios in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 26Last Post: 06-07-2007, 08:59 PM -
Balance issues
By Thelandrin in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 EditionReplies: 34Last Post: 05-15-2007, 04:19 PM -
Ceremony/Regent Death Issues
By Raesene Andu in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 EditionReplies: 2Last Post: 12-15-2004, 09:50 PM -
Balance Issues
By Yair in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 EditionReplies: 0Last Post: 10-09-2003, 09:56 PM -
Clergy Alignment vs. God Alignment
By Azrai in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 40Last Post: 07-02-2002, 10:10 AM
Bookmarks