Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lasicar 10-19-05, 07:51 PM	This is my first DnD post, but don't imagine that I am a newbie to the roleplaying world. I've played Dungeons and Dragons for seven years and have been through many additions and products. Anyway enough about me.... I love Dungeons and Dragons to death....however I have lately been questioned about the validity of the system. A few of my friends have told me that d20 is too flawed a system to be a truly good roleplaying. They bring up a few points, unflexiblity of skills, the broken spell system and lastly alignment. Alignment doesn't make sense they say. Well hold on a second.....without alignment what happens to DnD? The class system crashes! The spells crash! The monsters crash! Alignment isn't optional, it is necessary. So if alignment is wrong.....DnD is wrong...it just doesn't work! If alignment is wrong than you need to play another game. If you don't like Druids you can remove them without problem but that is not the case of alignment. The arguments flung against me are extremely varied they go something like this......People are not capable of being truly evil or truly good (at least most people anyway). Humans (and elves..hehe) are capable of immense range of emotion and mindset. Limitting this to nine classifications make no sense. I'm not going to argue against this in fact I believe it to be true....but I can still defend alignment. I defend it by saying to a certain extent it doesn't matter. We play DnD to escape a world full of complications and psychology...where people argue every side as being neither good or evil. That is what I like about DnD it isn't defined by this stupid real world complication. I'm not saying you can't have a world where complicated politics and ethics exist, but I would like to choose ignore such complications for a brief period of time. If you want to make a character who can't be defined by alignment...make him neutral! The lack of alignment. Neutrality doesn't mean that you perform no good or no evil acts it simply means that you are not defined by them. Ok so I've made my point...but what do you think? Do you have alignment issues? I've played with many gamers who simply ignore alignment....they tack it on at the last minute. This surely can't be right...either accept alignment or play another game.
Seeker95 10-19-05, 08:46 PM	This sentence stood out the most to me: Humans are capable of immense range of emotion and mindset. Limiting this to nine classifications makes no sense. Myers-Briggs (http://www.typelogic.com/) classifies us into just 16 personality types. Enneagramm (http://www.9types.com/) packages us into just 9. D&D gives you as much personality as you want. It just uses nine alignments to label your behavior.
Thorak 10-19-05, 09:05 PM	Seeker95's got it. Not only is alignment intended to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, but character's aren't even expected to act consistently according to their alignment. It's a guideline to their general moral and personal attitudes, not an iron-set detailed guideline on exactly how to play your character. Heck, you can churn out a huge amount of character variation in a Paladin's personality, and they're even more restricted than most LG people. Alignment is only as restrictive as your imagination.
caeruleus 10-19-05, 09:28 PM	This sentence stood out the most to me: Humans are capable of immense range of emotion and mindset. Limiting this to nine classifications makes no sense. Myers-Briggs (http://www.typelogic.com/) classifies us into just 16 personality types. Enneagramm (http://www.9types.com/) packages us into just 9. D&D gives you as much personality as you want. It just uses nine alignments to label your behavior. This is not the forum to debate these personality classifications, but if you don't accept them, then consider this. Just as you don't have to assume that every elf acts like every other elf, just as you don't have to assume that every wizard acts like every other wizard, you also don't have to assume that every chaotic good character acts like every other chaotic good character. Otherwise, you're completely missing what alignment is. The D&D alignment system may not accurately describe "reality", but then again neither does any aspect of any roleplaying game.
Lasicar 10-19-05, 10:33 PM	Ok....I agree with what you are saying. And to be honest I already knew that alignment does not define your character's personality. The question is not whether or not alignment defines your character it is how you assign alignment to a character that personality wise very complex. Usually it is not difficult, but ocassionaly it becomes very challenging. Alignment needs to be used in a way that makes sense to you the gamer, and that is what the whole problem really is about. The problem is that since alignment forms the core of DnD it becomes important that it also is judged wisely. You can't just say that alignment is not limiting to your complex and interesting character, because you are undermining the rule system that gives so much power to things like smite evil.Is my character evil because he murders one person? Can I be justified in allowing him to keep his LN alignment afterwords? Can a Paladin smite this character? Ignore roleplaying from a standpoint of diversity and focus on ethics. A hundred Paladins can be classified as LG and yet ethically they can all be slightly different....where is that border where alignment crosses over? I find think that the above posts are trying to argue for roleplaying and alignment being almost separate entities and I think that this concept is wrong. Of course I've been wrong before....
Jabberwock761 10-19-05, 11:03 PM	I'd just tell your buddies to play the characters and don't worry about conforming to alignment. Good people do bad things, bad people do good things. Actually, I feel intention has more to do with alignment than anything. For example, if you save a child from a ravenous pack of lycanthropes solely in the hopes of being rewarded, that doesn't make you good. If you save the child and humbly accept the unexpected reward, you could easily argue that your intentions were noble, even if you made out ahead in the end. Besides, even theorist can't explain more than a small portion of what makes a person that person. Oh, wait! I'm a social science major! :P Scratch that last line! Alignment's not accurate...like every aspect human down to the language that we use to define our imperfection! Forget the metaphysics and HAVE FUN!!! Unless, of course, defining everything through metaphysics is fun! :dancin: Yes!
Thorak 10-19-05, 11:26 PM	Is my character evil because he murders one person? Can I be justified in allowing him to keep his LN alignment afterwords? Can a Paladin smite this character? No, because alignment changes represent a fundamental shift in one's moral attitudes. If you feel bad about murdering him, you're LN. If you revel in the act, your alignment changed. Even if he really deserved it, a character acting contrary to their alignment won't feel the act was "right". Take Robin Hood. He's CG. Following the laws of the land and trying to seek change from within doesn't feel right to him. He could do it, but he'd constantly feel like he should just step up and do something, damn the law. Ignore roleplaying from a standpoint of diversity and focus on ethics. A hundred Paladins can be classified as LG and yet ethically they can all be slightly different....where is that border where alignment crosses over? I find think that the above posts are trying to argue for roleplaying and alignment being almost separate entities and I think that this concept is wrong. Of course I've been wrong before.... No, alignment is part of roleplaying. The same way race is. I pick alignment to fit the character I'm playing. I don't change how my character acts to fit my alignment. That's roleplaying, and as the PHB says; nobody is completely consistent.
caeruleus 10-20-05, 12:38 AM	[...] alignment forms the core of DnD [...] Perhaps, but it's not terribly difficult to remove it. Sure, you also have to remove a bunch of other things, but they can easily be replaced. Let the paladin smite members of an opposing faith, for example. You can't just say that alignment is not limiting to your complex and interesting character, because you are undermining the rule system that gives so much power to things like smite evil. Again, having the same alignment as another does not mean that you're the same in too many respects. A ranger with orcs as his favored enemy gets a bonus to fighting orcs because he knows stuff about their anatomy, etc. That doesn't mean all orcs have to be identical. Same with all evil characters. They share something... perhaps some sort of tie to negative energy or whatever. As Jabberwock said, forget the metaphysics (also good advice for real life). Of course I've been wrong before.... That goes for all of us. :)
Novacat 10-20-05, 01:27 AM	Why is alignments so necessary, anyways? I've had no trouble cutting out alignment altogether in the games I run (not because I think the system is flawed, but just because most of the people I game with can't seem to grasp the system, usually resulting in these alignments (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=422550)). On another note, I've always seen the alignment as the last thing one would apply to a character, and only once the player has determined his personality, goals, and moral standing. Alignment should NEVER restrict your character's actions ("I would, but this is a good character, so I shouldn't"), but instead only ever be an attempt to describe what sort of moral/ethical mindset he has anyways. I've played in a game where the DM told us not to write down our alignments until we got a feel for our characters first. That, I think, was a very good idea, and demonstrates how the alignment system should work. I imagine that most people who have a problem with the alignment system are those who don't really understand how it should be implemented. Also, I disagree with the idea that d20 is a poor role-playing system. The numbers don't really matter for role-playing. If you have an interesting character, the system alleged brokenness can't detract from that (though power-monkeys working within a broken system can).
pres_man 10-20-05, 01:27 AM	Alignment as related to NPCs: Practically all NPCs will act as their alignment dicates in almost all situations. That is they will almost never act outside of their alignment. In this way alignment is clear for NPCs and allows DMs to not spend too much time having to worry about how each and every individual will react to a particular moral situation based on their upbringing, training, etc. Alignment as related to PCs: Generally players choose an alignment at time of character creation. For most alignment it is very hard to prove that the character has "changed" alignment over time, since one can act outside of alignment on a regular basis and still be that alignment. For example a NG character could do lots of LG acts and CG acts without ever becoming LG or CG. The only time when alignment shifts should occur is when a PC acts out of his alignment on a regular basis, in the same way, and instead of doing act(s) that would agree with their alignment. In this case this is not so much as an alignment change as it a recognition of the PC's true alignment. As for the diversity of a persons actions and views, well which of the nine alignments one falls into is the one which is the most consistent with the player's actions. It doesn't even have to occur a majority of the time, just more than any other single alignment. And easy way to increase the number of alignment is to label people by the strength they are on each axis. So you could have: LG, lG, Lg, lg LN, lN, Ln, ln LE, lE, Le, le NG, nG, Ng, ng NN, nN, Nn, nn NE, nE, Ne, ne CG, cG, Cg, cg CN, cN, Cn, cn CE, cE, Ce, ce
weasel fierce 10-20-05, 02:24 AM	Alignment was a pretty good idea.... in 1975. I maintain that alignment adds nothing of value to roleplaying, and hence, has no purpose or right to be there. Others may disagree and that's fine.
Ehelonna 10-20-05, 02:43 AM	Actually, I feel intention has more to do with alignment than anything. For example, if you save a child from a ravenous pack of lycanthropes solely in the hopes of being rewarded, that doesn't make you good. If you save the child and humbly accept the unexpected reward, you could easily argue that your intentions were noble, even if you made out ahead in the end. On the flip side... "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Why you decide to do something is not as important as what you actually choose to do... actions speak louder than words. If you are constantly saving the defenceless from unspeakable evils... even if you convince yourself that you are doing if for the potential rewards (usually lacking), you are playing a good character. If you intend to help the downtrodden but keep putting it off to deal with "more important" things (they affect you directly)... you are not playing a good character, even if your intentions are far more noble than the previous character. The other point to make is that in a game system that has no alignment system, is that behaviors that can most easily be described as "Chaotic Evil" are far more common than they are in typical D&D. Those actions are often the easiest means to an end... without an alignment system, there is no downside to those choices.
weasel fierce 10-20-05, 02:59 AM	The other point to make is that in a game system that has no alignment system, is that behaviors that can most easily be described as "Chaotic Evil" are far more common than they are in typical D&D. Those actions are often the easiest means to an end... without an alignment system, there is no downside to those choices. Bullhockey. Wantom murder and theft occurs only if the gamemaster is unable to actually portray a reasonable world, where actions have consequences. Dont blame the inability to roleplay, on system choices.
Thorak 10-20-05, 07:06 AM	On the flip side... "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Why you decide to do something is not as important as what you actually choose to do... actions speak louder than words. If you are constantly saving the defenceless from unspeakable evils... even if you convince yourself that you are doing if for the potential rewards (usually lacking), you are playing a good character. If you intend to help the downtrodden but keep putting it off to deal with "more important" things (they affect you directly)... you are not playing a good character, even if your intentions are far more noble than the previous character. And what if you unleashed the unspeakable evil just because you knew you could stop it and appear a hero? Sure, people died, but you eventually saved the day, right? That's the exact motivation for the villain from The Incredibles. And I don't think anyone would say he was Good aligned. Why you decide to do something is all that matters. Alignment describes your moral attitudes, not your actions. The PHB is very clear on this. If I accidentally kill an innocent, I'm not automatically evil. Just like if I save a drowning child, I'm not automatically good. Down that road lies the idiocy of "Well, I want to stay Good, so I can rape and murder this woman as I've already saved 2 children today."
Leap_UK 10-20-05, 09:23 AM	This is my first DnD post, but don't imagine that I am a newbie to the roleplaying world. I've played Dungeons and Dragons for seven years and have been through many additions and products. Anyway enough about me.... Ah, but a beginner ;) I love Dungeons and Dragons to death....however I have lately been questioned about the validity of the system. A few of my friends have told me that d20 is too flawed a system to be a truly good roleplaying. They bring up a few points, unflexiblity of skills, the broken spell system and lastly alignment. Alignment doesn't make sense they say. Alignment suffers most from literal interpretation (a very Lawful behavior ;) ). The arguments flung against me are extremely varied they go something like this......People are not capable of being truly evil or truly good (at least most people anyway). Humans (and elves..hehe) are capable of immense range of emotion and mindset. Limitting this to nine classifications make no sense. What is being classified is a certain set of behaviors, not "all of human experience"! Hope/Vibrance/Joi d' vive vrs Despair/Sneering (Good vrs Evil) and industriousness/identity-as-a-specialist-within-a-collective/loss-of-leeway vrs "work-shy"/being-independent-generalists/allowing-space-for-leeway-and-diversity (Law vrs Chaos). [the real world is] a world full of complications and psychology...where people argue every side as being neither good or evil. [W]hat I like about DnD it isn't defined by this stupid real world complication. You watch too much media :D Good and evil are in the real world even more so than in DnD - the catch is most media is evil (lives on promoting despair and dread) so they dont like good stuff (it reduces their ratings) :D
Seeker95 10-20-05, 09:37 AM	And what if you unleashed the unspeakable evil just because you knew you could stop it and appear a hero? Sure, people died, but you eventually saved the day, right? That's the exact motivation for the villain from The Incredibles. And I don't think anyone would say he was Good aligned.It still fits the approach you appear to be attempting to dispute. He unleashed the unspeakable evil. That's evil. That he intended to save the day (his intentions) to not turn this into a good act. And even though the general population doesn't know that he unleashed the unspeakable evil (and therefore, might not judge him as evil) his Dungeon Master knows what he did when nobody was looking, and keeps the evil alignment applicator in place. Which brings me to my next point... Alignment is not assigned by the player. It is played by the player, and assigned by the DM based on the player's behavior (through the PC). In my game, all PCs begin as "neutral" (with a lowercase 'n') At 2nd level, I (the DM) assign a probationary alignment based on actions, decisions, and other behaviors during the previous level. The application of alignment mechanics begins for everything except class restrictions. At 3rd level, a "permanent" alignment is assigned, and class restrictions kick into place.
KJW 10-20-05, 10:04 AM	I believe mechanics do influence the story and as such DMs may have to tweak the mechanics to allow them to tell the story they want. Personally, I don't believe in good and evil in the real world, it is overly simplistic, but for D&D I like the alignment system and have never had any problems with it. The D&D system is set up as a struggle between good and evil, as well as law and chaos. I build that into my own campaign world and since it is hardwired into my setting, the alignment system makes sense. I also find that it helps players roleplay their characters. I understand the system so I have never had any problems adjudicating the alignments of my players. I decide upon trends of conduct by the player, not individual acts, plus I never set out to torment paladins and the like with stupid alignment traps. Thus it works for me. Now if a DM doesn't see alignment as a story device, or can't manage the system properly, then I think alignment could actually be a problem, and likely should be dropped. d20 Modern uses allegiances instead of alignment and d20 Star Wars uses dark side points, these fit the settings far better than alignment would. Also in some DMs campaign they play it very realistic, which means shades of grey, and thus alignments would get in the way of telling the story they are aiming for. So if your campaign goes a different route than the good/evil/law/chaos conflicts then I would actually suggest you drop the alignment system.
Man in the Funny Hat 10-20-05, 11:45 AM	I love Dungeons and Dragons to death....however I have lately been questioned about the validity of the system. A few of my friends have told me that d20 is too flawed a system to be a truly good roleplaying. They bring up a few points, unflexiblity of skills, the broken spell system and lastly alignment. Alignment doesn't make sense they say.None of which actually inhibit roleplaying it should be pointed out. What they're complaining about is the functionality of D&D/d20 RULES. If they prefer games that handle those things differently, well good for them, but they don't stop anyone from roleplaying or make them a better/worse roleplayer if the game system has "inadequate" rules for skills and spells. Alignment however is something else as you rightly surmised. Well hold on a second.....without alignment what happens to DnD? The class system crashes! The spells crash! The monsters crash! Alignment isn't optional, it is necessary.Alignment is hardly the keystone to the entirety of D&D, but it IS a useful tool that many people fail to understand and that some people just dislike even if they do. The purpose of alignment is to provide a character behavioral guideline for players and DMs. It's really nothing more or less than that. It's a simplified, generic system of classification that combines aspects of ethics, morals, philosophy, religion and more. Think of it as a quick reference that eliminates the need to write pages of information for each PC that detail those things. It's DESCRIPTION. It can easily be removed and go without being replaced (although a few other aspects of the game DO assume its presence that then have to be changed like detection spells and aligned magic.) Very little about alignment restricted classes will change - they just have to have their behavioral restrictions spelled out in greater detail because the shorthand of alignment is no longer there to substitute. The arguments flung against me are extremely varied they go something like this......People are not capable of being truly evil or truly good (at least most people anyway). Humans (and elves..hehe) are capable of immense range of emotion and mindset. Limitting this to nine classifications make no sense.Of COURSE they can be "truly good/evil"! Even moreso because this is fantasy and because good and evil are a black-and-white concept in D&D, not the shades-of-gray that we deal with in the real world. Some people prefer the shades-of-gray approach but that's not how D&D deals with it. And it makes EXCEPTIONAL sense to provide a shorthand reference for everyone to use rather than have to repeatedly and tediously detail precisely where each character is positioned in regard to that "immense range of emotion and mindset." If you want to make a character who can't be defined by alignment...make him neutral! The lack of alignment. Neutrality doesn't mean that you perform no good or no evil acts it simply means that you are not defined by them.Well that's not actually so, although it's still a serviceable approach. Remember the thing about alignment being descriptive? It means that alignment can't FORCE you to do something, it simply reflects what you HAVE done. If anyone ever complains about their character being "defined" by alignment they clearly have little idea what alignment really is, nor how or why to use it. They seem to assume that being "defined" by an alignment means that it restricts their characters actions and they couldn't be more wrong. Players ALWAYS have the choice of what they will have their characters do, think, and say barring only extreme magical control. Ok so I've made my point...but what do you think? Do you have alignment issues? I've played with many gamers who simply ignore alignment....they tack it on at the last minute. This surely can't be right...either accept alignment or play another game.I don't have alignment issues but plenty of other people do. Not the majority, but enough people to make it a significant topic. It's the most frequently recurring topic on any D&D discussion board and in those discussions it can be reviled and praised with equal enthusiasm. But it's my observation that 95% of people who dislike alignment simply still don't understand its purpose or how to use it. That's not really surprising. Alignment wasn't always handled the way it is now, although its purpose hasn't ever really changed. Rules and recommendations regarding alignment in past editions would be openly contradictory to themselves and even now it is somewhat inadequately described and explained in the rules. But one thing is certain - the easiest way to handle alignment if you don't like it is to just ignore it rather than to try to formally expunge it from the rules. Why? Again, because it's simply DESCRIPTIVE. It doesn't force any character to do anything. Even if you ignore definitions of Lawful Good you can still have paladins in a game by accepting that their behavior is still restricted to being a "goody-two-shoes". Eliminating alignment really has no more impact than eliminating a characters recorded height and weight. While there are some game rules that expect it to be there (and thus some minor adjustments will occasionally be needed) it won't break the game to omit it.
Bullgrit 10-20-05, 12:00 PM	I firmly beleive that most people who complain about or can't understand or can't play with alignment, should just put Neutral on their character sheet and game on. Neutral is a wonderful catch-all that always seems to get overlooked when people try to pick an alignment that matches their preference in character. Bullgrit
caeruleus 10-20-05, 01:12 PM	Why you decide to do something is all that matters. Intentions are not the only things that matter. Consequences are are also not the only things that matter. (If only deonotlogists and consequentialists weren't so myopic.) Let's say you inadvertently hurt another person. You did not intend to do this. If it's the first time such a thing has happened, you should not be blamed for hurting them. (You may still need to make reparations, but that's a completely separate matter than whether you are morally blameworthy.) However, you still need to take responsibility for the action. If you go on living your life as before, and don't try to examine how your pattern of behavior led to someone being hurt, in order to try to modify that pattern of behavior into a less harmful one, then if you hurt someone again, you are morally blameworthy, even if you did not intend to hurt them. For example, you tell a joke. Someone says they find it offensive (racist, sexist, etc). You did not realize that it would offend anyone. So far, you've done nothing wrong. However, you may still need to make an apology. You should try to figure out what about the joke was offensive, and try to refrain from telling similarly offensive jokes in the future. If you instead tell the person that they're "oversensitive", that they should calm down because it was "just a joke", and then you go on making more of the same type of jokes, then you are to be blamed. Not for telling the first joke, but for your subsequent behavior. Intentions matter in that first case, not in repeated cases. (At least in the example I gave. It may work out differently in other cases. The point is, sometimes intentions matter. Other times, they don't. Same with consequences.)
CaoSlayer 10-20-05, 01:51 PM	taking apart exemplars (Demons, angels, slaadi, mondrons and such) I see the aligment system as a karma system, the actual aligment of a character mainly represent this past and present but not this future.
weasel fierce 10-20-05, 02:00 PM	This is what Gary Gygax had to say, about what alignments were originally intended as, in the Q&A thread on Dragonsfoot: "Simply put, alignments are for the use of the DM in the development of the nations and the peoples that inhabit them, principally the dramatis personae that will interact with the group of player characters. It is meant to serve the DM as a measuring stick against the performance of the PCs in the campaign, after each has elected an alignment as a general template for the ethical and moral views of their game persona. In the same secondary role, they are meant to be useful in regards use of magical spells and magic items that require the imbuing of some spirit (force) in their making. "
Bullgrit 10-20-05, 02:05 PM	"Simply put, alignments are for the use of the DM in the development of the nations and the peoples that inhabit them, principally the dramatis personae that will interact with the group of player characters. It is meant to serve the DM as a measuring stick against the performance of the PCs in the campaign, after each has elected an alignment as a general template for the ethical and moral views of their game persona. In the same secondary role, they are meant to be useful in regards use of magical spells and magic items that require the imbuing of some spirit (force) in their making. "Can you translate that into English, please? Bullgrit
Gedrin 10-20-05, 02:22 PM	People are not capable of being truly evil or truly good (at least most people anyway). Well, I live in a world where there are murderers and firemen. At least a good portion of those are probably evil and good respectively. I don't think alignment is "Broken". I do think that people have vastly different views about the nature of Good and Evil in the real world, and those differing views likely cary over into the game. It would probably be a good idea to lay out general principles for Good and Evil in your game world, that way everyone in the group knows the rules. Once everyone knows the rules for good and evil, as defined in the game world, it's a lot easier to work with them. Just like the ability of a healthy 10th level fighter to survive a 80 foot (about 6 stories) fall with 100% certainty, the rules may not reflect exactly what we would expect from reality. If you think alignment is the most unrealistic mechanic in D20/D&D, you might want to think about why you're focused so tightly on that.
weasel fierce 10-20-05, 02:23 PM	If you think alignment is the most unrealistic mechanic in D20/D&D, you might want to think about why you're focused so tightly on that. Realism is generally a poor way to approach D&D rules, as they intend nothing of the sort :)
weasel fierce 10-20-05, 02:25 PM	Can you translate that into English, please? Bullgrit Alignments are meant as a loose guideline for comparing things, plus good for some spell stuff
Gedrin 10-20-05, 02:25 PM	Realism is generally a poor way to approach D&D rules, as they intend nothing of the sort Somewhat my point. :)
weasel fierce 10-20-05, 02:30 PM	Mind, there are arguments against alignment that do not revolve around "realism", but on that basis, I do agree with you. In a realistic sense, alignment is no worse than dragons, magical android dudes and fireball spells. (or spells period) I may add that I DO like alignments, if they are actually taken to a conceptual max, and used as a cosmic force, similar to "three hearts and three lions" or Michael Moorcock's Elric books, where law and chaos are in constant struggle. That would be a cool concept for a campaign, I think
Puca 10-20-05, 03:14 PM	Alignment is not a definition of your actions, nor is it a description of your attitude. It is a statement of your values. Since, as weasel fierce pointed out, what that actually means has been pretty well neglected since the mid ‘70s, at least, forgive me if I explain myself. When I say a value, I mean a moral center by which you judge an action. Using a dangerously controversial example, and trying hard not to advocate one point of view over the other, look at the abortion debate. A (thinking) Pro-Life person places life at the center as the ultimate value. Freedom might be important, too, but your freedom ends as soon as your choice would result in the death of another. A (thinking) Pro-Choice person would say that life if important, but my freedom to decide what I do with my life is the ultimate value. Hence, it extends further that the right of another human to live should it persist in doing so inside my body. In another example, some people claim that the freedom to own a gun is absolute, even if such freedom is certain to result in death, while the opposition would say that your desire to arm bears doesnt supersede the right of all the people who will die as a result of private gun ownership to live. (Again, freedom v. life.) As Jabberwock761 said, people probably shouldnt think about this stuff at all. Thats because it would get in the way of being able to pick and choose our values to match what we want in a given situation. Better and easier to quote lines from books or wave banners. Alignment isnt descriptive nor is it prescriptive, it is a statment of what you believe about right and wrong. The great thing about D&Ds alignment system is that it is divided into two distinct axes, for which there are clearly defined values, so there should be no reason to have any major moral debates, even if they can be fun. The problems with it are that most people are both willfully blind to what values are and what they mean or (or bizarrely and/or) they subscribe to the odious doctrine of moral relativism, in which the only evil is to say there is in fact evil and the only good is to deny its objective existence. Point being, D&Ds system doesnt match the way they think, and they dont feel like trying to play that way. I think the essence of role-playing is to try to think like someone who thinks differently that I do. Im really quite good at acting like me, so thats not so much fun. If I play a lawful evil dwarf, I want to try to think, react, and behave like a lawful evil dwarf as opposed to a shorter but equally hairy and rotund version of myself sans the guilt. But thats just me. Thats the way I role. I think in most games, alignment never comes up after it is written down on a character sheet unless there is something to be smitten. You could probably wipe it out with a word and less than a half a page of house rules (if you use a large font) and still have a great time.
Lasicar 10-20-05, 04:04 PM	Ethics are wonderful.....metaphysics are wonderful.......Alignment? Well actually as I said earlier Alignment needs to be interprated....In my numerous campaigns I have always tried to base alignment around my own created Gods (Interesting note: My username is the God of Darkness and Evil). This system has always worked for me personally....remember that I am not someone who is against the alignment system but someone who is trying to understand its limitations and why some people hate or misunderstand it. When I say something is evil in my campaign that is because it falls under a belief system practiced by the followers of evil gods. When I say something is good it is because it falls under the jurisdiction of the gods of good. Each of these gods have set up a group of ethical guidelines and that creates those classifications. Evil gods prefer selfish methods, good gods prefer selfless ones...etc....etc.... This may not be a good method for everyone but to me it works because it gives clerics an added purpose (and discourages clerics who worship concepts...ugghhh). My Gods of good may not represent someone elses ideology of good, but that is ok. This is my general system and I like it, and obviously since I place value in psychology I allow people to create fleshed out characters and then assign alignment...as I find this works best. As for the idea of intent I believe that it is a correct one, actions do speak louder than words but someone who performs good acts for selfish reasons is not good. Anyway I'm glad that people have such strong understanding of alignment....