|
|
|
malkavianman_2000
|
 Posted: Sat, May 01 2010, 17:12 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
|
|
This idea came about as a result of a conversation with a friend of mine a while back, one about the inadequacy of the D&D alignment system to adequately describe a person's... well... alignment. In it's totality, I mean. While it would obviously be impossible or at the very least impractical to describe every aspect of a character's personality mechanically, after much thought on it, I came up with an idea of a third axis of alignment that seems, to me, to be the most appropriate for the next level of description: It is broadly defined to encompass two opposing ideals, all individuals (that I can conceive of, at least) fall somewhere on the axis, and it is entirely unrelated to Law vs. Chaos or Good vs. Evil.
My proposed third axis of alignment is Creative vs. Destructive.
Now, I've already heard the argument that destruction is an inherently evil act, so it's not truly a third axis, but I would exhibit as a counterargument a few examples: Paladins are Lawful Good, obviously. However, in trying to consider where they fall along the third axis, I would place them squarely in the Destructive category, as their duties are largely based around seeking out evil and injustice and smiting it wherever possible. They are not expressly working to build up some sort of better society, they are trying to destroy the things that plague it. Lawful, Good, and Destructive.
As for an Evil Creative character, the two best examples I can think of would be the oppressive tyrant making an empire to serve his needs (Lawful Evil Creative), and Ozymandias from Watchmen, seeking bring about the betterment of mankind through murder and fear ( I would argue him to be Chaotic Evil Creative).
Anyway, just wondering what other peoples' thoughts on this are!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Yossarin
|
Posted: Sat, May 01 2010, 17:20 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
|
malkavianman_2000 wrote: They are not expressly working to build up some sort of better society, they are trying to destroy the things that plague it. Lawful, Good, and Destructive. Wrong. Lathandran paladins and clerics are expressly interested in building better societies founded on virtue ethics. The clerics teach it by dogma and logic, the paladins teach it in living by example. Cultivating virtue is just as important if not more important than culling vice - case in point, it is better and nobler to rehabilitate an evildoer than simply kill him or her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Sat, May 01 2010, 17:27 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
Old concept, interesting idea, bad execution. The most commonly agreed on 3rd axis is Piety. A Gladiator is Lawful Good Secular and a Paladin is Lawful Good Pious.
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dev Disco
|
Posted: Sat, May 01 2010, 17:42 PM |
|
|
HRM Chicken I of Amia
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam
|
|
I think it's male-female (aka normal-insane).
_________________
Say 'no' to JSBF!
|
|
|
|
|
|
malkavianman_2000
|
Posted: Sat, May 01 2010, 17:43 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
|
Yossarin wrote: malkavianman_2000 wrote: They are not expressly working to build up some sort of better society, they are trying to destroy the things that plague it. Lawful, Good, and Destructive. Wrong. Lathandran paladins and clerics are expressly interested in building better societies founded on virtue ethics. The clerics teach it by dogma and logic, the paladins teach it in living by example. Cultivating virtue is just as important if not more important than culling vice - case in point, it is better and nobler to rehabilitate an evildoer than simply kill him or her. Fair enough, a bad example, just the first thing I could come up with off the top of my head, being that, in my experience, people imagine paladins in much the way I presented them. Not to say anything bad about people here playing paladins, of course, just the viewpoint the people I know who play D&D tend to have on paladins. TormakSaber wrote: Old concept, interesting idea, bad execution. I can agree with execution, if I understand what you're getting at, Tormak. I'm generally a lot better at expressing my ideas through debate than initial description or example, which is kinda why I wanted to discuss it. TormakSaber wrote: The most commonly agreed on 3rd axis is Piety. A Gladiator is Lawful Good Secular and a Paladin is Lawful Good Pious. Is it really? O.o Huh, that doesn't really seem to fit as well, but that's just my impression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logicality
|
Posted: Sat, May 01 2010, 17:45 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Location: The Otherworld
|
|
_________________
"A somebody was once a nobody who wanted to and did." - Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ummma
|
Posted: Sat, May 01 2010, 18:04 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Location: unknown
|
|
Quick related question: do most people play to their alignment, or their character? (I mean, do people ever stop themselves by thinking 'oh, they had better not do xxx because they are xxx xxx?)
If you feel your characters actions have changed enough to require changing the little alignment label, do we ask a DM to change it, or do they do it 'behind the scenes' by watching the RP (if needed)?
As far as the third axis goes, it is a massive simplification designed for a game mechanic. It does the job well enough as it is - and any more added to it will still be a simplification for a game mechanic, but less graceful and less simple (but no doubt still flawed).
_________________
Yay for Morphine!
Boo for having enough pain to have to use it..
|
|
|
|
|
|
HellScourge
|
Posted: Sat, May 01 2010, 18:10 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Location: GMT+1
|
|
Also don't forget, your alignment is what you play, not the other way around.
Like, you play an evil mass murder (chaotic evil) who will slowly reform and be reintegrated into society. At first you are evil but you slowly move towards good or at least neutral.
In other words: Your alignment is what your actions lead you to so far, and not HOW you should act.
That is of course only my take on all that.
_________________ "Most assume that all the followers of Lathander are great morning people. They're very wrong." "I think we are the only group where AD&D stands for Attention Deficit Disorder." TeroSNS wrote: Hello Everyone [...] I like tentacles [...] 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobo_Underhill
|
Posted: Sat, May 01 2010, 19:35 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Location: The Drone Star State
|
Quote: Quick related question: do most people play to their alignment, or their character? People should decide how their character will initially act before anything else, then choose the alignment that best matches them. Ideally, you're playing to your character which happens to fit into a certain alignment.
_________________
Andrew Fryar: Cordor's Folk Hero
Bobrin: Eccentric Avenging Executioner
Lyle Torrowfire: Retired badass
Marigold Cobcruncher: Perceptive Priestess
|
|
|
|
|
|
malkavianman_2000
|
Posted: Sat, May 01 2010, 19:58 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
|
Bobo_Underhill wrote: Quote: Quick related question: do most people play to their alignment, or their character? People should decide how their character will initially act before anything else, then choose the alignment that best matches them. Ideally, you're playing to your character which happens to fit into a certain alignment. Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
BlackDahlya
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 0:54 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Location: Land of the Scorching Sun, Empowered by Global Warming
|
|
In the PnP game I play, our DMs told us to just RP our character concepts and she would decide, based on that, what would be our alignments.
My character started unaligned, obviously, then her first aligment was decided as Lawful Good because a lot of the things she did were heavily sustained by loyalty to her friends. Then, as she started interacting with the "rest of the world", aside her friends, she became Chaotic Good.
Now, after a conflict with the villain of the first act, she became Chaotic Neutral because for the first time she willingly wanted to cause pain to someone and kill that someone, and more recently, she considered the possibility of killing the black dragon wyrmling familiar of a mage because the wyrmling bit her arm.
She will probably stay Chaotic Neutral from now on, maybe become Lawful Neutral, because she is getting involved in a lot of politics.
I know that the Alignment System was created as a guideline for roleplaying and as a way to probably try making the game more fun when you play having a behaviour unlike your real one. But I like the idea of just playing without worrying with alignment.
Deciding your character concept and RPing within that concept should be enough to define an alignment. When you write down two words defining your alignment, at least for me it seems the game loses most of the fun because all the time when playing you will have to ignore things that would be fun for you, for the sake of keeping your character within an alignment.
My concept of fun is freedom.
Sure, there should be a line drawn somewhere, but it should be imposed through playing, not because there is some OOC mechanic saying you cannot do something because it would not be fitting to your alignment.
_________________
BlackDahlya
Once Upon A Time Played
Adr'ael Ken'rahel, Auron Teken’ath, Aurora Mesodias, 'Daniel' Daoskinaxarijikkym, Eilin'ira, Helena Rios, Layla Faircurrent, May'Une Do'Ndar, Mellinda Tellus, Michael of Cliffside, Rizzen of Twilight, Valkirya d'Claddath
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 1:06 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
Logicality wrote: Ah, but now we have 27! TormakSaber wrote: Old concept, interesting idea, bad execution. The most commonly agreed on 3rd axis is Piety. A Gladiator is Lawful Good Secular and a Paladin is Lawful Good Pious. As far as creation / destruction goes, that doesn't seem so good for a third axis to me, being somewhat covered by emergent nature from a mixture of the other two alignments. Piety / Secularism being another is an interesting idea, but it does seem an odd one in a world where the gods definitely and empirically exist, I can't imagine many people any further towards being Secular than neutral. Edit for clarity: You can probably guess what from the post below.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
Last edited by Yurell on Sun, May 02 2010, 2:10 AM, edited 2 times in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobo_Underhill
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 1:41 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Location: The Drone Star State
|
Secular, Defined by Websters wrote: : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music>
_________________
Andrew Fryar: Cordor's Folk Hero
Bobrin: Eccentric Avenging Executioner
Lyle Torrowfire: Retired badass
Marigold Cobcruncher: Perceptive Priestess
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 1:54 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
Oh, then it's me that screwed up  I hate those words. Sorry, Tormak! *Looks like an idiot*
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
malkavianman_2000
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 4:34 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
|
Yurell wrote: As far as creation / destruction goes, that doesn't seem so good for a third axis to me, being somewhat covered by emergent nature from a mixture of the other two alignments. I'd have to disagree, I think that creative or destructive tendencies would be separate, though I'm certain there's a better way to describe it than creative vs. destructive and I'd love to hear someone else's idea on how better to name it. Like I was saying just a second ago, I don't see where creative and destructive would be covered by combination of the other two axes. A civil servant, for example, who believes first and foremost in the government that they work for, I would classify as Lawful Neutral Creative, living their life by the dictates of their social/political code and seeking to be a part of that society and make it prosper. Someone like The Punisher, however, seeks to bring punish the unjust and those who have broken the law, playing judge, jury and executioner; I would classify him as Lawful Neutral Destructive. While the civil servant it trying to actively aid and improve the system of law they live by, The Punisher seeks to root out and eliminate those elements that oppose his lawful code. As far as other people were bringing up, I'd like to say again that I obviously don't think that you should base a character's actions on what their alignment is; the exact opposite, in fact. I just think it's fun to try to think of what further classification could be added to the alignment system, just as a sort of simple insight into broad-spectrum considerations of morality, ethics, and personality. If that makes any sense >.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 9:09 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
Alignments need to be actual forces in the DnD world. Creation and destruction don't fit that alignment. Religion does.
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Peacock
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 9:12 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Location: Patrollink ze borderz! Wo ist das Hahn!?
|
malkavianman_2000 wrote: They are not expressly working to build up some sort of better society, they are trying to destroy the things that plague it. Lawful, Good, and Destructive.
I think the example you're looking for is Paladin's of Tyr. On the north side of Faerun they hunt down slavers, and on the south side, the Paladin's allow it. DOUBLE STANDARDS WITHIN THE SAME DOGMA! WTFBBQ! _________________  'Ze Cock! Ze Cock ist shtill aut der!! Kapitulation feiern - NEIN DANKE!'
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 9:45 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
The system is absurd and only harmful to RP as is. Anything that adds more weight to something that shouldn't exist in the first place is a bad idea, IMO.
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 9:48 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
|
I like good and evil being objective, and I thought the law / chaos axis was a great idea.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 9:57 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
It has brought nothing but sorrow and pain into D&D. Everything they're good for in RP, that is, describing the way certain characters are expected to act, could be better achieved with human measures. There's absolutely no situation in which you need to know whether something is objectively Good or Evil, Chaotic or LAwful. It may only distract you from playing your character. And I'm not saying they're always harmful. But sometimes they are, and they're never useful, so the net gain is in the negative.
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 10:13 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
|
I disagree. The alignment system is something I really like about D&D. It allows you to have spells that target things that are objectively good and evil. In fact, the fact that the alignment is objective helps morally justify destroying them - there is no ambiguity in killing something that is objectively evil.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 10:40 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Yurell wrote: In fact, the fact that the alignment is objective helps morally justify destroying them - there is no ambiguity in killing something that is objectively evil. And that is good...? That's exactly the kind of lameness I hate about the system. The player doesn't need the balls to decide whether his PC is the kind of person who would slaughter hordes of orcs or not. They can just OOCly refer to the MM-given alignment, instead of letting these decisions shape a character. No point debating it, I guess, since it's a matter of taste. I can't imagine any situation in which it would do any good, and any examples I've ever been given have only IMO supported my case rather than theirs. _________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 10:49 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
IronAngel wrote: No point debating it, I guess, since it's a matter of taste. I can't imagine any situation in which it would do any good, and any examples I've ever been given have only IMO supported my case rather than theirs. I'm inclined to agree ... to each their own.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gravemaskin
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 10:59 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Location: Norway: Home of the Trolls
|
|
Play the character not the alignment. Alignments will follow your RP anyway. Why try to define X numbers of alignment axes when you can just define your own char instead? And compare it to another char?
It allows for much more diversity between X and Y, than Good or Evil, Creative or Destructive and so on. Because its Char X's behavior compared to Char Y's.
_________________
Adair - Druid and part time treant cosplayer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moonangel
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 11:34 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
|
|
Alignment is stupid because a good red dragon or devil would still be ''evil'' and therefore okay to slay for a paladin, as well as what Iron said. Good or evil is about how one acts, not about some arbitrary property assigned to them. It lets many characters get away with being evil while still counting as good. (racist elves, fanatic orders etc)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 11:35 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
Moonangel wrote: Alignment is stupid because a good red dragon or devil would still be ''evil'' and therefore okay to slay for a paladin, as well as what Iron said. Good or evil is about how one acts, not about some arbitrary property assigned to them. It lets many characters get away with being evil while still counting as good. (racist elves, fanatic orders etc) A good red dragon disciple should not exist.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moonangel
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 11:40 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
|
|
You say that because red dragons are defined as evil, which just points out my gripe with alingment. A red dragon doing good deeds and helping the needy should be considered good by all means, but no matter what he does he will still be evil because the books say he is. He's stuck being evil even if he does not act evil in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 11:45 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
Moonangel wrote: You say that because red dragons are defined as evil, which just points out my gripe with alingment. A red dragon doing good deeds and helping the needy should be considered good by all means, but no matter what he does he will still be evil because the books say he is. He's stuck being evil even if he does not act evil in any way. But that's not the point - you become a high level DD by emulating the dragon you're supposed to be a disciple of. There was an entire topic on this not so long ago, I suggest you have a look it. I'm not arguing that RDDs should be evil because Red Dragons have this mystic 'evil' attribute. It's because of how they behave.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 12:32 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
Moonangel wrote: You say that because red dragons are defined as evil, which just points out my gripe with alingment. A red dragon doing good deeds and helping the needy should be considered good by all means, but no matter what he does he will still be evil because the books say he is. He's stuck being evil even if he does not act evil in any way. But Red Dragons DON'T act that way so it doesn't matter.
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
malkavianman_2000
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 14:59 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
|
TormakSaber wrote: Alignments need to be actual forces in the DnD world. Creation and destruction don't fit that alignment. Religion does. Crap, I always forget about that part of it >.> I've always disliked tho whole "good/evil/law/chaos is a force of nature", so I overlooked it. Even so, though, I don't see why religious piety would have to be considered more of a permeating force of nature than creation/destruction? If good and evil are objective absolutes that have a definite metaphysical and even physical existence (if I understand correctly), why couldn't creation and destruction be the same? Other than that pesky predefined D&D cosmology. <.< Curse you, WoTC!
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 15:05 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
I would say creation and destruction as forces in the idea you've explained are even foggier than people like to make good evil, and god forbid, law chaos.
The setting has deities, so it's incredibly easy to have a secular/pious scale.
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logicality
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 15:14 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Location: The Otherworld
|
|
I hate the alignment system, every part of it. Especially the good/evil axis, because I like my roleplaying-games to emulate the real world, to some degree, and good/evil are but constructs of the human mind.
What would be more interesting, perhaps, is if the alignment chart were an IC thing: some influential people, a long, long time ago, decided to make a chart of everything that they determined to be "good" or "evil" or "lawful" or "chaotic". That'd make it fallible, and it'd also make it so that character decisions based on alignment would be founded on a belief that the system they are following is correct. Kind of like... the real world (if a bit more defined).
"Because it's evil" is the lamest reason to kill a foe... should ideally be "because it stands in the way of everything I hold to be good and true".
_________________
"A somebody was once a nobody who wanted to and did." - Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
|
malkavianman_2000
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 15:17 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
|
Heheheh, yeah, Tormak, that above was me more or less agreeing with you, as far as D&D mechanics go, at least. Creative/destructive would be vague enough and undefined enough as actual forces in the D&D mythology that they wouldn't work as a mechanic. However, just as a way to classify people and characters outside of a mechanical setting, I still think it works well, though again it's just me. And yes, I know, play your character, not your alignment, I'm not suggesting anything against that at all, I just enjoy lumping things into metaphysical categories? Sue me if I happen to like ontology 
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 15:18 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
Don't bother trying to apply real world philosophy to DnD. It makes everyone angry and makes your head hurt.
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
malkavianman_2000
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 15:19 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
|
TormakSaber wrote: Don't bother trying to apply real world philosophy to DnD. It makes everyone angry and makes your head hurt. Awwwww, but I like making my head hurt! Let's me know it's still working! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 15:20 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
|
I love the alignment system.
See the recent thread between mineself and Iron for more details.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peeves
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 15:28 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 08 Jul 2008
|
Geeks + Anonymitity + Metaphysical Discussion =  Oh god the humanity. MM2k, I like it, but there are just 14 billion other ways to add a third dimension.
_________________
Persephone Ashallin - Persistant Salandran
Vrok - Cudgel?
|
|
|
|
|
|
malkavianman_2000
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 15:31 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
|
Poorvincente wrote: MM2k, I like it, but there are just 14 billion other ways to add a third dimension. And those 14 billion and one ways are why I started the topic, you know how much I love debating things like this 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peeves
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 15:31 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 08 Jul 2008
|
malkavianman_2000 wrote: Poorvincente wrote: MM2k, I like it, but there are just 14 billion other ways to add a third dimension. And those 14 billion and one ways are why I started the topic, you know how much I love debating things like this Unfortunately... >_>
_________________
Persephone Ashallin - Persistant Salandran
Vrok - Cudgel?
|
|
|
|
|
|
malkavianman_2000
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 17:43 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
|
|
Thinking about Tormak's rebuttal of alignment being based on forces and energies physically present in the setting, wouldn't Positive and Negative energy fit in with that? Positive energy being a Creative force and Negative energy being a Destructive force? At which point, couldn't my proposed other axis be considered Positive vs. Negative rather than Creative vs. Destructive?
|
|
|
|
|
|
BrainSplitter
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 17:52 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
|
|
Possible, but not in FR due to the cosmology, since Negative and Positive (unless you're referring to it conceptually) energies are both constructive components of Abier Toril, in the same manner as the planes of Earth, Fire, Water and Air. The six of them surround and make up the Prime Material.
Note, I could have that slightly wrong since I'm running from memory, but I do remember that they're part of the elemental/energy planes.
_________________
Mostly Retired
|
|
|
|
|
|
malkavianman_2000
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 18:08 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
|
BrainSplitter wrote: Possible, but not in FR due to the cosmology, since Negative and Positive (unless you're referring to it conceptually) energies are both constructive components of Abier Toril, in the same manner as the planes of Earth, Fire, Water and Air. The six of them surround and make up the Prime Material.
Note, I could have that slightly wrong since I'm running from memory, but I do remember that they're part of the elemental/energy planes. If I remember correctly myself, that is how it works, as Kamin has discussed with people many a time, but destruction is just as much a part of existence as creation, and I don't see where Negative energy contributing to the overall existence of the Prime Material necessarily means it's strictly creative. I don't see decay and entropy and whatnot as being a creative force, whether or not it's a part of the world somebody inhabits. It may contribute, yes, but it doesn't create. I'm sorely tempted to start expounding on Kamin's Conflict nonsense here, but that'd probably be a wee bit useless, seeing how I just BSed all of that into existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kudark
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 18:13 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
Location: The Dark Side of the Moon
|
Yossarin wrote: malkavianman_2000 wrote: Wrong. Lathandran paladins and clerics are expressly interested in building better societies founded on virtue ethics. The clerics teach it by dogma and logic, the paladins teach it in living by example. Paladins are holy 'warriors', they seek out evil, they fight it, they live for it...and die for it. If a paladin is spending his time digging ditches and planting flowers, then he's not a paladin, or else he's retired, and if he's retired...he's dead. Yeah, sure they have the virtue thing going on, and chivalry, but they need to be in the fight, or finding one. I think the current system is fine. It is basic in its simplicity, and covers a wide range. Too much detail takes away from the game and makes for more rule discussion and less role-play. Remember, the system was created for those of us who play D&D...at a table...with people around you. The video game was created for those of us who wanted to play D&D during the times we can't be with our group. Then they put it online...how cool was that? Role-play and video game wrapped into one juicy morsel, now I just need to tell my group to pike off and convert my comfy chair into a commode. Not really...there's nothing like real role-play experience, it's cool and all online, but it pales beside the real deal. That's when your characters' alignment shines, also, your understanding of your characters' class (and alignment) in relation to D&D rules makes all the difference. Fun is the key, that's the whole point of the game. _________________ 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grymia
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 20:49 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Location: Kohlingen, and a Basement in Canada
|
|
Actually, this is interesting.
I implement something of a similar concept but not as an actual alignment axis in one of my worlds, Salamanca.
Tormak (and any others who might recognize them): I know you probably think of them as cheesy but do you remember the Kenneko that I had? They were from the same world. *And would very much, in spite of their militant nature fit more on the creative side of things*
I admit as a concept it does help type characters in general:
Tuomas, would be more creative vs. Destructive.
Vaelmith, more destructive then creative.
Both, are good aligned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
malkavianman_2000
|
Posted: Mon, May 03 2010, 6:09 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
|
I know that Kamin would be Chaotic Neutral Creative, and now I'm kinda curious as to how other people would classify their characters on this axis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peeves
|
Posted: Mon, May 03 2010, 6:46 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 08 Jul 2008
|
Vrok: Neutral Evil Neutral He really doesn't give a (censored), and he'll do as he damned well please as long as he's content.
_________________
Persephone Ashallin - Persistant Salandran
Vrok - Cudgel?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logicality
|
Posted: Mon, May 03 2010, 10:52 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Location: The Otherworld
|
|
Cane: Lawful Neutral Neutral
_________________
"A somebody was once a nobody who wanted to and did." - Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle-Opustus
|
Posted: Mon, May 03 2010, 11:01 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Location: Finland
|
|
Couldn't we just pick alignments that are somewhat right for our characters? Never really understood the alignment system at all. Only needed for clear cases, such as BG is evil because it is, Paladin is good because it is, HS is good because it is (although strangely neutrals are allowed too, but meh), etc.
_________________  UCE THIS, YOU COW.
|
|
|
|
|
|
HellScourge
|
Posted: Mon, May 03 2010, 12:44 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Location: GMT+1
|
|
Niya Nightshade: Chaotic Neutral Random ?
_________________ "Most assume that all the followers of Lathander are great morning people. They're very wrong." "I think we are the only group where AD&D stands for Attention Deficit Disorder." TeroSNS wrote: Hello Everyone [...] I like tentacles [...]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ego680
|
Posted: Mon, May 03 2010, 14:32 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Location: Flying Battery Zone
|
|
Richard Johnson: Chaotic Neutral Destructive, pretty sure that's beyond argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Login
