Vargr White-Tree said:
I've had a problem witht he DnD alignment system for a long time. Recent years not so much but back in school when I would regularly play tabletop RPG's the "one-dimensional viewpoint" of all the alignments always irked me. The thing is real people are not any one of these alignments they are all of them at the same time. As some have already said, the situation, or specific stressors in a moment, play a huge role in the action of a person. Anyway, the real reason I wanted to comment on this was a few years ago I came across this discussion about the alignments. The system presented isn't perfect but I think it's much more relatable and creates a character with more nuanced motivations. So if your interested here's a link to that discussion...
Thanks for the link Vargr! The way I see it, the alignment system is more of a rough guideline for a character rather than something that has to be followed to the letter in every situation. A Lawful Good person could kill a defenceless person if they felt like the need was great enough. While this isn't lawful, it is in the loosest term 'good'. So while they followed one part of their morality they ignored the other, which I think is an interesting way to play a character. It brings in all sorts of questions like which one is stronger, whats right or whats good, and whats the difference?
Ebonslayer said:
The good/evil scale is less obvious than it'd seem, in common fantasy an evil character will act like a colossal dick and the good characters will usually act very nice, my scale doesn't count their personalities in but instead I use their intentions on the scale. Good means they will often work for the benefit of others and, even if they wouldn't say it, they'd be willing to sacrifice themselves for others if need be. Evil typically means you desire as much power as possible and might be willing to step on others in order to get to the to depending on their lawful/chaotic tendencies. Neutral is a survivalist, they only really care about themselves and those close to them, they don't desire power but wouldn't readily risk themselves for the beneifts of others.
I especially like this bit, and in fact I much rather prefer it to the standard system. It looks at the character more as a person rather than a set of situations to react to, which you can adjust to accordingly. Neutral in particular interests me, and when you think about it it really makes sense. A Neutral character won't always try and keep the peace and be the devil's advocate, a Neutral character will nope the fuck out of a situation as soon as it starts to get hairy.
[blockquote][b][url=/profile/Vargr]Vargr White-Tree[/url] said:[/b]
I've had a problem witht he DnD alignment system for a long time. Recent years not so much but back in school when I would regularly play tabletop RPG's the "one-dimensional viewpoint" of all the alignments always irked me. The thing is real people are not any one of these alignments they are all of them at the same time. As some have already said, the situation, or specific stressors in a moment, play a huge role in the action of a person. Anyway, the real reason I wanted to comment on this was a few years ago I came across this discussion about the alignments. The system presented isn't perfect but I think it's much more relatable and creates a character with more nuanced motivations. So if your interested here's a link to that discussion...
[/blockquote]
Thanks for the link Vargr! The way I see it, the alignment system is more of a rough guideline for a character rather than something that has to be followed to the letter in every situation. A Lawful Good person could kill a defenceless person if they felt like the need was great enough. While this isn't lawful, it is in the loosest term 'good'. So while they followed one part of their morality they ignored the other, which I think is an interesting way to play a character. It brings in all sorts of questions like which one is stronger, whats right or whats good, and whats the difference?
[blockquote][b][url=/profile/Ebonslayer]Ebonslayer[/url] said:[/b]
The good/evil scale is less obvious than it'd seem, in common fantasy an evil character will act like a colossal dick and the good characters will usually act very nice, my scale doesn't count their personalities in but instead I use their intentions on the scale. Good means they will often work for the benefit of others and, even if they wouldn't say it, they'd be willing to sacrifice themselves for others if need be. Evil typically means you desire as much power as possible and might be willing to step on others in order to get to the to depending on their lawful/chaotic tendencies. Neutral is a survivalist, they only really care about themselves and those close to them, they don't desire power but wouldn't readily risk themselves for the beneifts of others.
[/blockquote]
I especially like this bit, and in fact I much rather prefer it to the standard system. It looks at the character more as a person rather than a set of situations to react to, which you can adjust to accordingly. Neutral in particular interests me, and when you think about it it really makes sense. A Neutral character won't always try and keep the peace and be the devil's advocate, a Neutral character will nope the fuck out of a situation as soon as it starts to get hairy.
