| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Display using:
|
|
Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 12:01 PM |
Don't know how much people here value or adhere to alignment, in fact, mostly in my PnP campaign I don't make it an issue ("Do what you want. Let the Gods sort it out in the end").
But for those following Rosen's storyline, how would you all describe the alignment dynamic between her and her order in the latest developments? Was there an alignment shift on either side or just the revelation of a difference of focus?
Whether it's the DM's ruling or not, questions of alignment are always fun to discuss. |
T'mok Gurzi
Resident Gnoll Warlord
patron for the noble yet drink addled
Timik Gorozai the Mistake |
|
  |
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 12:04 PM |
Does it matter?
Alignments are contrived, subjective, and ultimately just a way of mechanically expressing the results of moral decisions.
-Barnas |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 12:29 PM |
That's one vote for "who cares!"
And I wholeheartedly agree. Alignment languages are completely ridiculous and alignment based organizations have no merit. The whole thing should be done away with.
But in PnP and NWN DMs are constantly required to assess the alignment "value" of characters to make rulings on spells, traps, curses, magic items, reactions, etc. so even if it is put on some kind of vague continuum it exists as a "thing" we are aware of. So if you "play the game" within the system, what do you think of the events? Do you fall on the side of absolutism or relativism?
And if it's not something you value, I want to hear that too. |
T'mok Gurzi
Resident Gnoll Warlord
patron for the noble yet drink addled
Timik Gorozai the Mistake |
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 12:35 PM |
Hehe, awesome.
You have no idea how many alignment arguments I howled at and fretted over on my old server, to no avail. What I tend to notice is that people, by and large, carry over their real life philosophical constructs into the D&D world. The christians tended to argue in favor of an absolute definition of good and evil, whereas the existentialists felt that good and evil were absolutely relative. When you throw in another layer of artificiality - the alignment scale, things become almost impossible to parse except when glaringly obvious.
Like, for instance, Rosen. She just went ahead and left her order. This would seem to be a chaotic act. Then again, she felt she was holding true to a higher code, which is lawful. Questions of motive versus effect also come into play, not to mention a -huge- swath of subjectivity when it comes to the idea of "evil." Is poisoning someone in order to kill them a less 'lawful' or 'good' method than bashing them in the head with a rock? I have no idea. They both seem like pretty nasty ways to go.
I don't know how Vives does things here. Aside from a couple of the older static quests, which I would argue are deserving of a revamp, I think the ever-tumultuous alignment issue is being very well handled by the DM staff - mostly hands off, with a few obvious cases necessitating a shift. Do you help someone out for no discernable gain? Good. Do you follow the rules even when it behooves you to disobey? Law. Do you betray friends at critical moments, just to see the exquisite, delicious look of horror on their faces? Yeah. |
True solace is finding none, which is to say, it is everywhere.
-Gretel Ehrlich |
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 12:49 PM |
OOC? Relativism. IC? Absolutism.
There can't be an alignment "system" without the application of an absolute level of morality to the gameworld. Likewise, without absolute morality, you can't have Demons, Devils, or Celestials. They embody an absolute concept. Without that concept, they make no sense.
It's how that absolute system which applies which really matters, in my mind- and to me, the best application is to just not apply it.
Characters are characters. It's motives and actions which define them, not what it says on their character sheet. You only need to bring in the mechanical side of things, the alignment system, in the most extreme and obvious cases.
-Barnas |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 01:17 PM |
I've always considered that, when entering the D&D universe, it's best to try to set aside modern day, Western culture based philosophies on morality and ethics. While the alignment system is mutable and represents a scale of ethical behavrio, it doesn't translate well into current understandings of moral relativism. After all, what does it mean to be 85 Good, 15 Chaotic? It's all very contextual. Still, there needs to be -some- basis, some standard, of knowing what is good, what is evil, what is lawful and what is chaotic. Nuetrality alone, in all it's many faces, it difficult to understand and more often than not, most of our actions and thoughts will fall into that central category simply through the law of Bell statistics.
So what is a good resolution to this issue? Intentions? Long term goals? Personal interpretation? Most people on this server come off as seeming nuetral or evil by many philosophical standards of Judeo-Christian ethos. Inaction is percieved as negative action. If you don't stand against evil, in other words, you are supporting it. Eastern philosophies hold to a different standard. Inaction is preferrable by Buddhist philosophy, because in this way you are not injection your personal ambitions and ego into the cycles of The Way. Withholding ego, restraining it, applies equally to acts of goodness as it does to acts of evil.
These things need then be defined by the system of rules and understandings that are inherent to the universe itself. D&D is set up to hold to some very specific guidelines on good and evil, law and chaos. Vampires are always evil. Necromancy is, inherently, an evil act though the weilder may have non-evil intention or interpretations of his application of necromancy. Saving someone in trouble is always good, even if you are rescuing an evil person. Inaction on any particular issue is morally nuetral, though ethically debatable. A paladin must always be actively, vehemently good, even in the face of complete opposition. A monk never acts according to his own whims or ego, and always behaves according to strict tradition,, emotional restraint and forethought.
In the end, I think popular consensus counts fo something. If most everything thinks you ahve done something that is good, then most likely that is the case. If, contrarily, your actions lead to an evil end despite good intentions, then youare very arguably chaotic. If there's any debate on the issue, and someone calls you on your actions, then publically declaring your case might be in order; DM supervision of alignmnet is very important, I think, to maintain the validity of the game mechanics. |
"I've got a sword and it's a good one, but all the bleedin' thing can do is keep someone alive, listen. A song can keep someone immortal!" - Cohen the Barbarian |
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 01:29 PM |
Barnas: How do you assess the effects of a Protection from Evil spell, or a Helm of Alignment Change? As a DM, I divorce myself from alignments as much as I can, but there are still elements IG that I have to assess a change or effect within the alignment structure. How do you cope with these situations?
I actually have a much easier time managing relativity within Heaven and Hell and the politicing of Demons and Celestials (and what they stand for) than determining what a Know Alignment will tell the spellcaster.
Rosen: When I read your latest addition I initially thought I detected the moment of alignment shift, but then I decided it was actually a realization of differing lawful focus. What I really think is interesting is that in each's perspective they will shift the other's alignment even if both could be objectively considered lawful. Rosen will believe Sanner's ideals have shifted to the personal, which is a slippery slope neutral slide from the lawful and when Sanner sees Rosen's empty room, that's a slap in the face, you become a rogue to the organization and therefore chaotic. It is a most delicious scenario that bears more human interest than just "good versus evil".
I'm not saying what is the case or telling you how you should play it. I'm just exploring the event in my estimation.
Note: Work is a tad slow today |
T'mok Gurzi
Resident Gnoll Warlord
patron for the noble yet drink addled
Timik Gorozai the Mistake |
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 01:36 PM |
Protection from Evil? Protects you from creatures created through evil means, and people attacking you with purely malicious intent.
Helm of alignment change? Won't see something as daft as that in anything I DM. :P
I leave alignment out of my DMing as much as I can. Some DMs don't, and that's fine too- DMing, clearly, is relativist not absolute- but I just leave it out except when it's clearly obviously needed.
Kill a load of kids to get something you want? Don't expect to be able to use that celestial sword again. That sort of thing. Much less than that? Nah.
-Barnas |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 02:46 PM |
I never thought Rosen would leave the Coriscanti, but I have to admit I'm proud of the character. Then again, it's my character's actions that led her to the epiphany so... *pats herself on bacK*
The debate between chaotic good and lawful good is one of my favorites. Which side believes that the ends justify the means? What defines good in a world where ideals of goodness are considered unrealistic and untranslative into real-life situations?
Karli's efforts to use idealistic goals of amorphous concepts of Justice, Good and Integrity to unify the paladins is, I think, going to end up being something that defines the differences between the different paladin/knight factions. Which is the greater good: the dream of redemption for people lost to their own fears, or the likely impossible task of ending corruption in a city that is morally ambiguous? Which becomes more important to a class of people unified by their strict adherance to codes of morality: faith in the order and stability of an institution founded on principles defined by tradition and religion; or faith in the ideals that define our secular understandings of goodness and law?
IMO, either interpretation is lawful and good in and of itself. |
"I've got a sword and it's a good one, but all the bleedin' thing can do is keep someone alive, listen. A song can keep someone immortal!" - Cohen the Barbarian |
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 03:13 PM |
| That's what is so beautiful about the situation. Here is an example where lawful good can clash with itself in a potentially vicious way. Usually we expect chaotic evil to eat itself, but here the differences in belief can really cause some harm when nobody is really a "bad guy". And what's more, if it comes to blows, the winner is most likely the loser. |
T'mok Gurzi
Resident Gnoll Warlord
patron for the noble yet drink addled
Timik Gorozai the Mistake |
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 05:03 PM |
I think the majority of players in Vives tend to prefer to avoid alignment extremes, which is why playing a paladin amongst them is so fun. Whoever said that people bring their own worldviews into the server is absolutely correct: I've found that most characters on this server exhibit a remarkably 21st century spin to their moral compasses.
I soon found out, T'mok, that Know Alignment and the paladin's Detect Evil ability don't function in Vives, which I believe is due to the roleplaying focus of the server. Like Barnas says, character is more about motives and actions than about underlying philosophy. Where I disagree is in the degree that the mechanical alignment score should come into play: I think it's very important, and I really try hard to keep Ulalume's lawful/good scores as high as possible, even if that means serious IG consequences, because it's a part of who she is. I think that people's scores should be fluctuating a lot more than they probably are, because I see folks making decisions all the time that have serious moral and ethical repercussions without the slightest hint of consequence. To my thinking, if you are always looting corpses instead of helping your friends, if you are always healing the injured irrespective of your own safety, if you are always keeping a cut of the spoils for yourself - these things should all reflect in how NPCs treat you. If you're known for being a goody-two-shoes, maybe your word should carry more weight... if you're known for being an opportunistic cutthroat, maybe more folks come to you with business opportunities. It's a mechanic that I think goes ignored mostly because most of us have been raised in this morally relativistic world, and we therefore equate moral relativism with wisdom.
As for Rosen's actions, I thought them quite LG, and am interested to see how the situation will play itself out.
-VK |
"You know, a gong. Large, flat object that you hit when you want things. Sort of like a waiter, but less portable."
-Radra |
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 05:28 PM |
Rosen:
What I tend to notice is that people, by and large, carry over their real life philosophical constructs into the D&D world.
Do you think that’s true?
I’d just like to point out that I am a christian, and yet I tend to explore very non-christian philosophical constructs when I play this game. Am I the only one who sees this game as a way of exploring what it could be like to be completely NOT like I am in real life?
I mean, yeah there is the whole “be an adventuring hero... leave the desk job behind in RL” aspect which some people think of as ‘becoming in game what you could never be out here in the real world’
But why not try your hand at REALLY becoming something you are not, and never would be in a million years out here in RL?
I mean, some (or more likely a lot) of Coras personality quirks were modeled after me... but when it comes to alignment, I started her out as CN, whereas in RL I am, I would dare to say, NG... and I did that so that I could have more leeway for doing “whatever it takes” to get what she wanted, if needed. But then, over the development of her character she has swung to Evil. (and mostly because of one particular “extreme and obvious case” as Barnas put it. and at the same time became Neutral rather than Chaotic)
The option was given to me, that I could have chosen not to go that route... and my argument against it was something like this: I’m not evil, and I don’t think I could play an evil character well... and would I want to even if I could?
The argument for it was something like: Yes, but you have a belief, or concept in your head about what makes a person evil... what leads them to that place, and what makes them the person they are... so just apply that understanding to it and go from there.
My first instinct, in any situation, is to do what is right... no, that’s not true... my first instinct is to do what is self-preserving... but then immediately following that is the thoughts of “what is the right thing to do?”
So now, when playing a character like Cora, I have to add a third step... throw out what I think, and try to think of what Cora would do in the situation, according to her history, paradigm and philosophy, not mine.
So... am I the only one who does that? Or one of very few who do that?
Do most people play this game still holding to their RL beliefs/philosophies/behavioural patterns?
Cora to me, is a broken, sad and pathetic creature... and my heart aches for her when I think about what got her to that point. But I continue to play her because I find it interesting to explore the way she approaches situations from a purely selfish, malicious, twisted/broken point of view... and also because I wonder if some day she will wake up and remember what really matters.
[Edit]: heh.. and VK got a post in before I was done typing mine up. Yes, I agree about the 21st century spin..
I love it (in a "oh come on, think about the universe you are playing in" kind of way) when I see PCs upholding their actions, or lack of action, or support of annother, with arguments that sound like they came from a modern day morality debate. (that was sarcasm, btw)
But I'm more interested to know which direction that moral compass is pointing, rather than what it is constructed out of... if that makes sense.
|
"I'm not closed-minded, you're just WRONG." - Bucky Katt
My characters n portraits |
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 05:35 PM |
Do most people play this game still holding to their RL beliefs/philosophies/behavioural patterns?
Definately not.
Only one of my characters is even anything close to what I'm like.
And no. It's not Alyssa.
-Barnas |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 05:56 PM |
Can ethical relativism really be expressed in terms of an individual's values? I always thought it reflected differences in cultures. I view ethical relativism as having a compass based upon a community's needs. I would suspect individuals conjuring ethical relativism as a defense attempting to rationalize evil on their own behalf.
I assume every person, real or fantasy, develops in a community with a formal or informal code of conduct. That would define their ethical point-of-view. Whether they accept it or deny it, that would be the base from which they would understand morality. The choice to oppose it or not would characterize the individual as good or evil, lawful or chaotic.
That's how I rule it anyway. |
T'mok Gurzi
Resident Gnoll Warlord
patron for the noble yet drink addled
Timik Gorozai the Mistake |
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 06:00 PM |
Ethical relativism is a reality, in my mind.
Ultimately, a certain action is never right or wrong. Everything's situational, and everything's personal.
To my mind, that means that every ethical decision has to be looked at from a relativistic standpoint.
-Barnas |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 06:07 PM |
Rosen:
What I tend to notice is that people, by and large, carry over their real life philosophical constructs into the D&D world.
Do you think that’s true?
Yes. What I mean is that we are limited by our perception. Even if I attempt to play a character who is my complete opposite, the character is still based upon a reflection of my own self-awareness. That self-awareness is a construct of my own making and any philosophy I might cradle is an extension. So we invariably, inevitably carry our ideas about the world and human nature into our characters.
And now, I really, really have to get to work. :) |
True solace is finding none, which is to say, it is everywhere.
-Gretel Ehrlich |
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 06:38 PM |
Rosen:
What I tend to notice is that people, by and large, carry over their real life philosophical constructs into the D&D world.
Do you think that’s true?
Yes. What I mean is that we are limited by our perception. Even if I attempt to play a character who is my complete opposite, the character is still based upon a reflection of my own self-awareness. That self-awareness is a construct of my own making and any philosophy I might cradle is an extension. So we invariably, inevitably carry our ideas about the world and human nature into our characters.
And now, I really, really have to get to work. :)
Ahhhh.. I see what you are saying. the construct. *needs to take a philosophy class to keep on top of this convo*
So, my world view, paradigm or belief system makes up what I think makes a person evil or good, and even if I attempt to play a character that is on the other end of the spectrum from myself, it is still a spectrum made up of my own understanding.
[Edit]: but really, isn't that a given? that everyone bases their construct on their own personal experiences and beliefs? I mean... how could you not?
That just takes me back to one of my favorite sayings... the more I know, the more I realize I don't know.
And still, besides me and Barnas, there have to be others who play characters who are at different points in that spectrum than they are at in RL... right? And whether that spectrum is their own construct or not doesn't much matter at that point. |
"I'm not closed-minded, you're just WRONG." - Bucky Katt
My characters n portraits |
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 07:35 PM |
And still, besides me and Barnas, there have to be others who play characters who are at different points in that spectrum than they are at in RL... right?
I hope so...otherwise what's the point of playing? ;)
Honestly, if you had to put people into some sort of alignment categories, most probably fall into Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral with good tendencies...even our so-called "rebels" from society and "free spirits" all have a healthy respect for law and do things for others....(feel free to argue with me on that...I know that my argument is relatively simplistic and of course there are exceptions, but I don't have the time to get into it more)....
While I personally feel that Rosen is headed straight into becoming a Blackguard (dang traitor), what it shows is the amount of room to wiggle and disagree with under the LG heading...which I personally think is great since it seems to me that a lot of people equate LG with boring and little room for disagreement.
I happen to like alignments (I'm not over the moon for them, but I like them) and I'm often confused as to why people don't. Alignments have never meant that people couldn't do such things, but simply exist as a guidepost. I think they're especially good for PCs with good alignments because it makes them think (or should make them think) about certain actions and what it might mean for their character (let me stress, not necessarily for their alignment, but for their charater)....I think alignments are also a plus in the context of our current conversation, serving again as guideposts as we try to think outsiide of our "construct" and create characters that are different than our RL personae....
plus, I think when a character officially "changes" alignment, it's hopefully (ideally) a sign that a lot of thought as gone into a character and it has reached a critical point in its development...as opposed to the hum-drum "well, now i'm gonna do this, now I'm gonna do that...maybe I'm evil, maybe I'm good"...In addition, remember that D&D was originally more of a high fantasy good vs. evil idea....now that you can play neutral and evil characters 24 hours a day on PWs, maybe alignments seem a bit cliched...*shrugs*
they've got limitations but they're also useful.... |
The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for...
-- Ernest Hemingway |
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 07:59 PM |
I agree with Rosen, but in addition, none of us grew up in a vacuum. We have had ethics pushed upon us as a way of life. This is why, in a sense, the ethical systems we have don't come from us; they are not personal, they are cultural. How you choose to behave in that framework is your decision, but whatever you choose, you will measure by the yardstick of the ethics you understand. Relativism is reflected between systems. Choosing not to cleave to the system that guides you doesn't make you an independent system, it usually makes you a criminal. Basically, we know when we're doing bad stuff despite any rationalizations we choose to drum up; that is how I define evil.
To Kat's question: Timik is a mixture of the best of how I would want to be and the worst of how I am. I don't know how to describe that in alignment terms. I've got another character that nearly reverses that. |
T'mok Gurzi
Resident Gnoll Warlord
patron for the noble yet drink addled
Timik Gorozai the Mistake |
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 09:17 PM |
I don't want to comment any more on the particular philosophies of good that are brought up by my storyline. I'd like to keep as much OOC bias as possible from the story, so that the people involved can make their choices IG and not have to worry too much about what other people may think about it. That's my position anyway. Still, I can't wait to discuss it all afterward, whichever way it all goes.
To continue on the issue of cultural morality as a basis for relativism in the individual...
Most of our systems of laws, our ways of thinking and our ethics are, in the Western culture, based upon Hellinistic reasoning and its influence on the various monotheistic churches of Judaism (and it's various sects) and Christianity (and its various sects). Islam is fairly unique in that Muslim traiditon is most PURELY divinistic, meaning that the founders and developers and elitist thinkers that developed Islam into the organized religion it became openly rejected Hellinistic influence. Secularism and humanism were intentionally kept as a separate philosophical approach toward solving ethical and moral issues. This is very much unlike Christianity and Judaism, which sought to create a compromise and conjuntion between the statutes of human reason and the mysticism of human religion. Intellectualism was once concidered a great gift, given only to the most holy and most worthy of Men (on occasion, Woman), who must therefor be kept separate from other and their greater understandings retained as secret from the lesser masses, who would not understand the greater, divine implications of the congruity of reason and mysticism.
A lot of this began to change during the onset of the middle ages, when Rome had separated into two empries, each led by an overarching Christian doctrine, at the heart of which sat the philosophy of iconology. In essence, was the mundane a reflection of the divine and could the two be resolved? The Eastern Orthodox Church ruled that no, they could not, and that Christ represented ONLY the divine. He was never a true Man, and thus to represent Him in any sense was the same sort of blasphemy that was inviolate of the first and second commandments. The Western Church, which became the Catholic church we all know and love, ruled that Christ was both God and Man, and that the mortal and the divine could be resolved as intrinsically inseparable. That the Western Church was heavily influenced by the great teachers of the Hellinistc ages (Aristotle, Plato, Euclid) is unsurprising, as it is unsurprising that the Eastern Church remained heavily influenced by the greater thinkers of the Islamic movement. Geography had a lot to do with that.
In essence, our morality is a result of our culture, which in turn is a result of our inhereted and chosen perceptions of the Divine. Call it God, call it Universe, call it It, call it The Dream of Brahma. What matters is that relativism on an individual level falls within a scale of extremes that are set by the society of that individual at large.
Remember that the world as we know it today with its high speed internet, telephones, instant communication of ideas, visual communication on a global scale is something that is unheard of in the entire history of the human species. These issues of relativism therefor grow exponentially as our awareness of other perspectives grows. That scale enlargens. Still, there is something that remains constant even as we small humans grow closer together.
We have no proof of God, save ourselves.
What if, however, there were very real gods, such as in the D&D universe? Evil acts are divinely mandated. Goodness is often taken on as a show of sacrifice to a god that may or may not heed that act on an individual level. Very often, things that are reprehensible, unhuman and abhorant to us are rewarded by creatures that exist purely to feed on our worst fears and our worst natures. These things then become tangible motivations for behavior for our characters.
What happens then to moral relativism? It is no longer dependant entirely upon the individual. There are real, actual divine beings of supernatural influence enforcing morality. The priest of a god of chaos and death is still a holy man. He is evil... but not selfishly. If murder and burnings and inquisitions are enacted in the name of a god most consider to be good, then goodness - as a moral standard - is shifted not by the actions of the people who enact that god's will, but by the god himself. The people, then, are innocent of evil. |
"I've got a sword and it's a good one, but all the bleedin' thing can do is keep someone alive, listen. A song can keep someone immortal!" - Cohen the Barbarian |
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 09:35 PM |
I have always thought the character alignment idea was cute.
It does not however compute well into a world where XP = levelling and can limit a chars progression.
As to RL transferring into the game? God I hope not or there are a lot of us with serious issues going on in our lives :)
Ethics is a hugely complicated subject, and while I agree that in some ways the ethic's of a man are subject to his/her cultural background one thing in my long years remains true no matter the disingenuous arguments people put across to argue their views on what they are doing which is – ‘Men know when they are acting unethically’. They know when what they are doing is bad. It is not possible to argue a case against this universal truth. [Though I am sure some will try]
I am not talking here about religion which is personal denial at best and complete and total bullshit at worst, it’s about how a man or woman acts towards others.
I have seen the utter collapse of ethic’s in a society and to what depths men can sink to when they abandon personal ethics. [I am not talking about laws which are a totally different topic]
In all the cases I have seen one thing always struck me as being most interesting. The most unethical and barbarous peoples always strove vehemently to argue that what they were doing was justifiable [even Holy in many cases]; and yet they were the unhappiest people I have ever met.
Men in my experience and opinion [for what its worth] are never more than one unhappy act away from falling into evil and it is personal ethics, and the courage to follow a code of conduct of decency towards others – ‘no matter the cost to themselves’ - which makes a man good and the lack of such moral fibre bad. |
Love 'n' light
Wings |
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 09:56 PM |
I like it Marlena. I agree with much of it.
In terms of fantasy gods, though, I would say many evil gods like Nerull are representing the worst in people not as a good but as a bad like a sadist infatuated with causing harm. It would have no power if it was accepted. They want to be different; they want to be rejected; they want to be evil. There will always be cast-offs in society who need an evil god to justify their own depradations.
The ones you have to watch out for are the LNs. They'll cut your throat without batting a lid and call themselves good for it. If you break the law, that's it, you must pay the penalty; no excuses, no extenuating circumstances. LEs I would expect are similar, but I get the sense they realize they are being oppressive and revel in it. |
T'mok Gurzi
Resident Gnoll Warlord
patron for the noble yet drink addled
Timik Gorozai the Mistake |
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 10:01 PM |
Query: If there's no single divine mandate, but rather a pantheon of conflicting Gods, isn't moral relativism the only natrual result?
-Barnas |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 10:21 PM |
Query: If there's no single divine mandate, but rather a pantheon of conflicting Gods, isn't moral relativism the only natrual result?
-Barnas
Depends on your belief, really. The Novus Aristi believe in a "Greater Good' or Natural Law that holds in it a a moral and ethical truth, one to which even the Gods must adhere.
And lets face it, in a pantheon like Vives, the Gods cannot be sources of morality, no matter what Midoran says. They are too petty and lack all moral authority. |
Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them.
-Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Issues of alignment and latest developments
Posted: 25 Sep 2006 10:28 PM |
That's exactly it, though. Depends on your belief.
The fact that it does means that there is moral relativism, at least in my mind, though I confess that I've clearly not given it the depth of thought that some others have.
-Barnas |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|