PDA

View Full Version : Alignment: Threat or Menace (The Alternatives Thread)



fmitchell
04-26-2011, 10:59 PM
Watching another thread grow and grow, I'd like to start with the premise that alignment is an archaic, simplistic, and ill-conceived mechanism for adding a moral dimension to players' actions. So, what might replace it?


Nothing. In Robert E. Howard's Conan series, "good" and "evil" seldom matter. Conan chooses based on (temporary) loyalties and personal gain, as does everyone in his world.
Allegiances from d20 Modern (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/MSRD:Allegiances). It's a lighter-weight and far more flexible system that grants a small reaction bonus with NPCs having the same Allegiance, given time to chat. One could also impose a penalty with NPCs who discover an opposing Allegiance.
Allegiances from Basic Roleplaying. BRP adds a percentile score which the GM raises when the character advances that Allegiance's goals. Players can acquire unwanted Allegiances; Chaosium originally designed it for Stormbringer/Elric!. The rulebook recommends not lowering an Allegiance, although Dragon Lines does in extreme circumstances (e.g. murder lowers one's Allegiance to Buddhism and similar religions/philosophies).
Taint (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/taint.htm) and Dark Side points. Pessimistic GMs may implement a single "Allegiance" for evil, or at least for violations of a religion's code of ethics. (In all fairness, GMs must define these actions up front.) Creatures with demonic ancestry may carry Taint at birth, although that smacks of biological determinism.


Others?

Sascha
04-26-2011, 11:33 PM
Beliefs, Instincts, Traits from the Burning games.

Aspects from Fate.

Keys from The Shadow of Yesterday.

Probably other mechanics that I'm forgetting at the moment.

nijineko
04-26-2011, 11:55 PM
let the player decide and have npcs react according to their own ethos and morals accordingly.

in my setup, i use "Contracts" which i suppose would have resemblances to allegiances.

i chuckle at dark side points... kill 20 innocent bunnies and you are more evil than the emperor.... technically speaking.

Malruhn
04-29-2011, 10:31 PM
And we go from disagreeing to agreeing in one silly post.

fmitchell, I would posit that "taint" for a demonic-bloodline character would be a POSSIBILITY - like saying that you have to have (arbitrarily) TEN dark-side points makes a person "evil, and the bloodline character starts at SEVEN. That way it could be explained away as they have a stronger TENDENCY to end up evil (like a predisposition to be an alcoholic).

nijineko
04-30-2011, 07:25 PM
^^

well, i was trying to stick to specific mechanics here rather than bring my own beliefs into this particular thread.

fmitchell
05-04-2011, 05:56 AM
What about the Law/Chaos axis? Toss it out? Create other Allegiances? Redefine it as an ideological split (a la the LotFP RPG (http://www.lotfp.com/RPG/))?

EDIT: I misremembered the rules. As stated below, LotFP makes Law and Chaos even more cosmic, as two sides independent of beliefs and morality.

Anarkitty
05-04-2011, 01:54 PM
I like these ideas. Personally I am still looking for a good alignment-esque system of some sort.

An idea for those who like the daemonic characters having a tendency but don't like the "born with sin" idea, maybe they just get more "dark side" points for the same evil acts instead. Where everyone else gets 5 for kicking that orphan, the Daemonic-ancestry character gets 7 (or whatever). They don't start predisposed towards good or evil, but if they go evil, they just slide faster.

fmitchell
05-05-2011, 12:14 AM
Another idea for daemonic characters may simply be the accumulation of "dark side" points, when (most) other beings don't. Every time a daemon-blooded creature commits certain actions -- killing, using arcane magic, entering tainted areas -- he or she accumulates more taint.

I'd also allow for any tainted characters to purge taint: religious ritual, a quest, a monastic lifestyle, whatever. (According to some sources, Merlin was half-demon, but baptized at birth and thus outside the Devil's reach.)

Sascha
05-05-2011, 08:03 AM
I think, before trying to make types of characters more/less susceptible to 'taint', ask what it is the mechanic actually does. What effect does having, say, three "dark side" points have on a character, over having none or thirteen. Then you can look at the individual cases, like demon-blooded or what have you and figure out if they warrant a fast-track to Evil-opolis, or whaveter the end point of the 'taint' track is.

(Most of the quantifiable morality mechanics I've run across tend to treat it as another form of hit points - a resource that tells you how much longer the character is in the game. Star Wars, Vampire: the Masquerade, Aberrant, etc., treat those tracks as the playability of a given character, which I don't quite feel convey an ethos as much as present a gameable meter. And I am someone who *adores* games that make their actual game-ness that transparent. But for morality, I'm not much of a fan; it feels weird.)

gnombient
05-23-2011, 07:28 PM
I'm a big fan of the simple Law-[Neutrality]-Chaos system. Fmitchell mentioned the great Allegiances mechanic from Stormbringer. M.A.R. Barker's Empire of the Petal Throne featured a Law/Chaos religious system based on the conflict between the Lords of Stability and the Lords of Change. Glorantha, Warhammer's Old World, and who-knows-how-many others have also used the Law/Chaos axis as part of their settings and systems to good and varied effect, even though "Alignment" may not have necessarily been listed on the character sheet.

A different sort of alignment would be the Cryptic Alliances from Gamma World -- not an ingrained ethos, but one a character would join or be recruited into that would reflect their worldview and beliefs.

fmitchell
05-23-2011, 09:33 PM
LotFP:WFRP (http://www.lotfp.com/RPG/products/lotfp-weird-fantasy-role-playing) handles Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic in an interesting way. To quote (a lot) from the Grindhouse Free Rules:


Alignment is a character’s orientation on a cosmic scale. It has nothing to do with a character’s allegiances, personality, morality, or actions. Alignments will mostly be used to determine how a character is affected by certain magical elements in the game. The three alignments are Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic.

Lawful

The universe has an ultimate, irrefutable truth, and a flawless, unchanging plan towards which all events inevitably march. [...] Those who are Lawful in alignment are part of an inevitable destiny, but have no knowledge of what that destiny is and what their role will be in fulfilling it. [...]

Chaotic

The howling maelstrom beyond the veil of shadows and existence is the source of all magic. It bends and tears the fabric of the universe; it destroys all that seeks to be permanent. [...] Those who are Chaotic in alignment are touched by magic, and consider the world in terms of ebbing and flowing energy, of eternal tides washing away the sand castles that great kings and mighty gods build for themselves. Many mortals who are so aligned desperately wish they were not.

Neutral

To be Neutral is merely to exist between the forces of Law and Chaos. [...] Even most who would claim allegiance to Law or Chaos are not actually Lawful or Chaotic. In the real world, every human being that has ever existed has been Neutral.

Clerics must be Lawful. Elves and Magic-Users must be Chaotic. All others are free to choose their alignment.


Thus, Law and Chaos isn't a matter of political philosophy or morality, but one's personal connection to cosmic forces.

DMMike
09-04-2011, 12:05 PM
Specific Faith. A character's alignment is a reference to which god he follows. Then, that god's aspect portfolio (say, healing, sun, and love) determines what forces do and don't get along with that character, on a supernatural level.

Really, if you're going to replace Alignment, you should have a reason to not just toss it out altogether. If the reason is to help a character define his morals...I guess morals will come from religion, philosophy, or brute force. "Why'd you just steal that starving person's bread?" "Welcome to Chaosville, where we get beaten if we don't actively oppose peace!"

D&D's reason to not toss it out: game mechanics. A spell that affects only Good-aligned targets won't work too well without characters who are Good-aligned.

nijineko
09-04-2011, 04:22 PM
on that note, my shift to a contracts based system caused a number of changes in all detect, magic circles, and other alignment specific effects. for example, circles are now magic circles of protection, and instead of protecting against an alignment, in addition to the basic protections they will also temporarily ward against a limited number of related portfolios per casting.

fmitchell
09-04-2011, 05:53 PM
Specific Faith. A character's alignment is a reference to which god he follows. Then, that god's aspect portfolio (say, healing, sun, and love) determines what forces do and don't get along with that character, on a supernatural level.

RuneQuest does something like this: all gods have ties to "runes", abstract principles of the world, and all devotees of a god beyond lay members have a pact with a specific god. On the other hand -- and I've cited this a lot -- real polytheistic religions don't demand devotion to only one god (http://www.rpg.net/columns/kosher/kosher22.phtml), but to a religion or worldview as a whole. In the ancient world, Greeks considered gods of Egypt as versions of their own, and Rome in turn identified their gods with the Greeks', when they didn't adopt them outright. Egyptian, Roman, Greek, and Mesopotamian deities merged, split, and changed "portfolios" over time.


Really, if you're going to replace Alignment, you should have a reason to not just toss it out altogether. [...] D&D's reason to not toss it out: game mechanics. A spell that affects only Good-aligned targets won't work too well without characters who are Good-aligned.

Which raises the question of whether it's better to alter such spells or remove them altogether. Raggi's redefinition of Law and Chaos or "Detect Shadow" and the like from Midnight alters spells without much fuss. However, I can't see a problem with removing them entirely ... but then I don't like paladins.

As for the other uses and abuses of alignment:

Ethics and morality: A detailed list of commandments a cleric or paladin must live by, a la the indie game Paladin (http://crngames.com/files/other/paladin.pdf) (PDF) provides a better ethical system. (ninjieko: is this like your "contract" system?) Pendragon's Passions, combined with its religious rules, provide another basis for assessing "good behavior" unambiguously, as do Allegiances in BRP.
Ties to higher powers: Taint (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/taint.htm), Dark Side Points, Allegiances in BRP, Allegiances in d20, myriad GURPS advantages, etc. handle evil (or good) and infernal (or celestial) favor in distinct but analogous ways. Ars Magica defines rules for NPC Divine, Infernal, and Faerie powers, under the assumption that PCs have ties to pagan magic. (Let's pretend Reason never saw print.)
White Hats and Black Hats: If someone wants to play that way, you don't need alignment. WE are good, THEY are evil unless they help US. WE are tall, fair (or healthily tanned), and clean; THEY are short, dark (or fish-belly white), and dirty. It's the oldest moral system in the world.


See also a bit of fluff on gods in RPGs (http://www.frank-mitchell.com/games/rpg-gods.html). (Linked to my external site this time, huzzah!)

nijineko
09-04-2011, 09:44 PM
a quick read-over of that pdf yields some major flaws in philosophical background, but the minor, major, and unbreakable laws are similar to the Contract system that I use.

to give a brief overview:

a Contract is a statement of allegiance and/or alliance. it states the mutual obligations and benefits. it can be as simple as a long term mercantile arrangement, or a temporary search and find, or as complex as a life-long religious covenant complete with commandments, ethical and moral strictures, based upon beliefs and faith, and in game terms - an exchange of power.

by their very nature, each one is unique, though certain orders or organizations might have a generic format it requires of all members. typically, a "Contract" is made with a Power, while a "contract" is with a more normal agency. however, as there is a portfolio held by a certain Power that governs contracts and Contracts, the line can and does blur, as the Power can be appealed to for disputes with even normal minor contracts in a pinch.

DMMike
09-05-2011, 01:16 AM
Well, what are the odds that after being ostracized for being Satanic, D&D saw a need to establish its ability to observe what's commonly thought of as "good?" That's a marketing, out-of-game reason to include Good-aligned game elements.

fmitchell
09-05-2011, 09:27 AM
AD&D and the Good-Evil axis pre-dates the Satanic Panic by at least three years (1977 vs. 1980 for the very beginning or 1982 for the start of BADD). TSR's response was to scrub the game of nekkid wimminz and the words "demon" and "devil". So no, Gygax invented the Nine Alignments all on his own.

---------- Post added at 09:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 AM ----------

Also, just as a general note:


The 3.5 SRD gives some guidance on defining good and evil:


Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

A careful reading will detect weasel words. "Innocent" life? Do orcs count as innocent? What counts as "debasement"? Slavery? Adultery? Worshiping the wrong gods? Governments enslave and kill criminals; does that make them evil?

Plus there's the whole philosophical conundrum of Detect Evil. Does it detect evil alignment or the evil lurking in the hearts of men? What's the difference? How does a being start radiating evil? Are there false positives, e.g. a blackguard or tiefling seeking redemption? Why bother with courts when a paladin or cleric can walk in and determine the guilty party? How do we know the cleric or paladin is himself telling the truth? (Not to mention Detect Evil kills any plots requiring subterfuge: the party or its opposition can use their Guardian of Good and Evil to pick out anyone who doesn't belong.) Law and Chaos present similar problems.

Arguing that paladins are rare doesn't solve the basic problem. Arguing that True Evil is rare nerfs the power. Thus the reason for this thread: how do we avoid the ambiguity in our own games?

nijineko
09-06-2011, 12:34 AM
only the shadow knows....

Malruhn
09-06-2011, 08:03 AM
The 3.5 SRD gives some guidance on defining good and evil:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

A careful reading will detect weasel words. "Innocent" life? Do orcs count as innocent? What counts as "debasement"? Slavery? Adultery? Worshiping the wrong gods? Governments enslave and kill criminals; does that make them evil?

Plus there's the whole philosophical conundrum of Detect Evil. Does it detect evil alignment or the evil lurking in the hearts of men? What's the difference? How does a being start radiating evil? Are there false positives, e.g. a blackguard or tiefling seeking redemption? Why bother with courts when a paladin or cleric can walk in and determine the guilty party? How do we know the cleric or paladin is himself telling the truth? (Not to mention Detect Evil kills any plots requiring subterfuge: the party or its opposition can use their Guardian of Good and Evil to pick out anyone who doesn't belong.) Law and Chaos present similar problems.

Arguing that paladins are rare doesn't solve the basic problem. Arguing that True Evil is rare nerfs the power. Thus the reason for this thread: how do we avoid the ambiguity in our own games?

May I be so bold as to re-write this for the Klingon Empire (freely plagiarized by me as my new Orc Empire)?


Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for no good reason.
Wow... only a tiny change!

Might makes right - and only the mighty are deserving of a good life. Dignity is found in victory and honorable combat. Good people will help deserving citizens. "Evil" implies killing for money, without honor and by sneaky means (assassination/poison/etc). Some evil creatures simply have no honor and will kill for no reason - not even for honor. Others actively pursue evil, killing without thought of honor or the Empire.

And we have the gall to call THEM evil? (nijineko, THIS is what I mean by sliding scales and no "universal" truths).

fmitchell
09-06-2011, 10:53 AM
Sorry to open up the "why alignment doesn't work" argument, which has consumed multiple threads on this very board. As I said at the start of this thread, let's assume standard alignments don't work, and figure out alternatives.

FWIW, here are my preferred solutions, in order of desirability:


No alignment, by default. In d20 game, alignment based spells and powers aren't available, or redefined as "Detect Extraplanar Influence". (Then again, I wouldn't run straight D&D anyway.)
When thematically appropriate, a very simplified alignment system devoid of ethical judgements, e.g. Law/Chaos in LotFP or Shadow/not-Shadow in Midnight, and most of the world Neutral or Unaligned. d20 Allegiances might also have a place.
When the system or setting demands them, one or more scalar alignments, driven by a character's actions: BRP Allegiances or Personality Traits (after Pendragon), WoD Morality, SW Dark Side Points, Taint, etc. Players know exactly what actions change their tallies. Only characters with supernatural ties need to keep score; in some games that's every player.

nijineko
09-06-2011, 08:10 PM
And we have the gall to call THEM evil? (nijineko, THIS is what I mean by sliding scales and no "universal" truths).

take the corollary there. there are no sliding scales and there are universal truths. if such exist then ultimately someone is right, and someone is wrong or mistaken. it may not be any given particular right, however.

DMMike
09-09-2011, 01:28 AM
Cut down on ambiguity: there's one supreme god. It makes the rules, and anyone who breaks them, or wants to break them is evil.

fmitchell
09-09-2011, 02:30 PM
Cut down on ambiguity: there's one supreme god. It makes the rules, and anyone who breaks them, or wants to break them is evil.

You're no fun.

Plus, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam believe in one supreme god, technically the same god, and they never disagree on right and wrong, do they? Just like Orthodox Christians, Catholic Christians, Protestant Christians, Mormons, Unitarians, Independent Baptist Churches, the Anglican Church, ...

Malruhn
09-09-2011, 10:32 PM
Ummm, I think you missed his point.

I THINK he was hinting that you should drop all deities other than ONE in your campaign world - and make this deity very hands-on, so there truly ARE only one set of rules. If someone gets out of line (or interprets something in a "new" way - he is smoted... smote... smotty... smut... blasted from existence, with all around knowing WHY he was sm.... blastified.

If not, you can end up with exactly what you described... chaos. Actually, that's so chaotic, it would be spelled, "Kayoss"!

fmitchell
09-10-2011, 12:13 PM
I THINK he was hinting that you should drop all deities other than ONE in your campaign world - and make this deity very hands-on, so there truly ARE only one set of rules.

No, I got the point. I just don't fancy Jack Chick the RPG.

If the deity is so hands-on, then what's the point of the PCs? Their world will contain no "evil", since the Big Guy will automatically fry them. (Unless he fries heretics but leaves murderers and rapists alone, in which case he's a jerk.) If the deity lets evil exist and counts on humans to stamp it out, then you end up with the profusion of Abrahamic religions, or at least the misery of Europe's Middle Ages (or Dark Age). If there's a middle ground that isn't patently absurd, I can't see it.

DMMike
09-10-2011, 01:59 PM
Naw, you could still keep other gods. But the big one, the "Zeus" if you will, makes the rules. Or you could go the historical route: good and evil are determined by the politicians, taken of course from divine insight from the gods, and the gods just get to make guest appearances once in a while...

Sure, it's a problem that some game systems take a subjective thing, like alignment, and try to make it objective. I actually like the ambiguity of the alignment definitions - it means that a PC who thinks he's Good can actually be treated as Evil when it's convenient for the DM!

nijineko
09-11-2011, 01:53 PM
well, from my point of view, a universe or campaign with only one-true-god has to have a reason as to why they are sticking mortals on a world and letting them screw things up. and likely an opponent of some sort. in the judaeo-christian-islamic section of belief, god is the one and only, mortals are being allowed to choose for themselves between good and evil, and either an angel or something similar rebelled and is opposing the whole shebang. and even among themselves there are several major, and a number of minor variants as to the details.

basically, all you need is a god, an opponent that makes logical sense, and a logical reason or reasons for the prime and other lesser planes to be a mostly hands-off zone so that mortals can do whatever it is they are trying to do. as has already been pointed out, there is no particular reason to not have powerful but lesser beings out there as well working together or at cross purposes as the dm sees fit. this gives all the groundwork needed to have a non-deterministic rpg game that is also potentially fun to play in. ^^

as far as alignment goes, just like in our world, even if there does happen to be "one true god" and "one true religion", if everyone is allowed to choose for themselves for some greater purpose, then some aren't going to agree, and the god isn't going to prove it one way or the other so that the ability to freely choose for themselves is preserved. voila! all the ambiguity you want plus "one true religion". ^^

Malruhn
09-12-2011, 09:30 AM
With that latter idea, FMitchell is also allowed to have variations on a theme - it allows for the "Mother Teresa" interpretations, AND the Warren Jeffs interpretations, AND the Paul Jennings Hill interpretations (abortion doc killer) - and everything in between.

DMMike
09-12-2011, 09:35 PM
Yeah, I'm not sure the hegemon-god actually allows interpretations. Yes, it's possible, but the problem with what we see in real-world-practice is that you don't find out who's been breaking the rules until they die. That's where the legal system comes in - if god doesn't judge you until you die, you need a supreme judge or a church head to do that task before you die.

In the game, luckily, gods can do anything they want to show their approval or disapproval. A character can get instantaneous judgment, wait until he's dead, or anything in-between. So the treatment or disregard of alignment gets put directly in the GM's hands: how much effort are you willing to put into moral judgments?

None: eliminate alignment, or make it objective, like a brand.
Loads: then you have room for nine alignments or more.
Somewhere in between: get creative.*

* Poster-recommended option

Foehunter82
08-28-2012, 04:50 PM
I'm one of those guys that likes to develop his own campaign setting. For me, alignment seems entirely too rigid. The alignment system seems to assume that all the "Goods" work together, all the "Evils" work together, all the "Lawfuls" work together, and all the "Chaotics" work together. A flaw I see with this is that it lacks realism. Are we really supposed to assume that all Lawful Good factions actually help each other?

I think Allegiances should be separate from Alignment. Alignment itself should be more flexible, and should not pidgeonhole PCs. Taint should be reserved for extreme evil cases. Taint scores should have an odd mechanic (much like the Dark Side mechanics of the Star Wars RPG), which involves a "reward" to tempt a character to continue to perform actions that increase the Taint score. These "rewards" have diminishing returns, as their Taint score gets higher. Also, as the Taint score increases, the character takes on a more monstrous appearance. Although, if I were to use a Taint system, I'd be tempted to use a "Blessing" system or something like it.

nijineko
08-29-2012, 12:33 AM
well, i think it is pretty apparent that "goods", "chaotics", "evils", "lawfuls" and "neutrals" don't work together be they same or different alignments. i have some lawful good characters that were acting perfectly lawful and good according to their beliefs, but get accused of not being such by other lawful good types who happen to follow different laws and a different view of good. alignment is only as restricting as the dm/player is lax. conflict between players and dm come when they didn't work it out ahead of time and bother to define which is what.

Foehunter82
08-29-2012, 01:15 PM
I know that's not really the case. I'm merely referring to some of my experiences with PC-based RPGs where, for some odd reason, everyone in (usually) the "Good" group were working together without any faction-shattering differences. There may be some tensions between nations or subfactions, but they always seem to work together against a common enemy. My problem with that is that it assumes that everyone will band together to fight the Evil Wizard. What if the Lawful Good Merchant decides that he thinks he could profit more by not involving himself in the war, and instead waiting until later to provide goods to either side. I agree with Tesral and others when they say that the Alignment mechanic might serve a purpose in the as-is D&D game, but is ultimately flawed as it adheres to too many assumptions.

Someone else even mentioned that it is a bad idea to assume that the Evil Kingdom is the Evil Kingdom because the King is Evil. What if everyone else isn't?

Now I realize that many players and DMs like the simplicity that a black and white system provides, and I'm even willing to play with this sort of system. However, I think I prefer the Alignment thing better if it applies only to extreme circumstances. For the most part, I feel that characters should have their own motivations, and that their "alignment" is primarily based on those motivations.

Allegiances are always cool to bring into a game. Again, these should be a freeform sort of thing. The "Super Secret Council For Spying on the King's Enemies" could just as easily have psychopaths in addition to those loyal to the crown and/or humanity. Something like this seems more interesting to me, because the end result is the fact that a "Good" faction has Evil elements within it.

Malruhn
08-29-2012, 10:24 PM
alignment is only as restricting as the dm/player is lax. conflict between players and dm come when they didn't work it out ahead of time and bother to define which is what.

I really wish we had some sort of "Thumbs Up" feature on here. It really is all about communication - and if you fail to do it, you fail as a DM _or_ Player.

Foehunter82, regarding your experience with everyone agreeing, it's because we tend to game with people in our own socio-economic and cultural world, so there are few people with outside guidance that can cause friction. We, as players, are similar, so our PC's are similar - no matter what we do. It's HARD to play a character that is highly different than we are as people!

And the darned definitions are so squishy - at least as far as good/evil are considered. The law/chaos thing is pretty easy - you are either law abiding or you aren't. The good/evil thing can shift depending on your culture. At risk of breaking Godwin's Law, in WWII, the Allies believed that they were good and the Axis were evil... and the Axis thought THEY were good and the Allies were evil... and both groups were totally correct.

Religion can be seen to give "good" morals... and that includes the people that feed thousands of homeless people and those that bomb abortion clinics - BOTH groups think they are doing "good" - and you can find people that agree with both of those ideologies. Liberals and Conservatives both believe that they do "good' and the other side does "evil" - and both are correct. This is why standards alignments don't work - because they are nothing but squishy.

nijineko
09-01-2012, 01:29 AM
unless there is an absolute moral and/or ethical principle in the universe, or even a law, just like gravity or electromagnetism.

DMMike
09-11-2012, 10:30 AM
Compliments of dictionary.com:
GOOD - adj -
1.morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man.

2.satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health.

3.of high quality; excellent.

4.right; proper; fit: It is good that you are here. His credentials are good.

5.well-behaved: a good child.

Do you see anything that's not subjective in there?

Talk about alignment too long, and Nihilism will start to make sense.

By the way, Malruhn, I like to think of Law as something beyond following laws. Let's throw Order and Predictability into its scope.