Re: Cultural thematics of Dwarves.
- From: Brent <digital.brent@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Nov 2007 15:41:25 -0700
On Nov 1, 3:58 pm, Matt Frisch <matus...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 31 Oct 2007 15:27:07 -0700, Brent <digital.br...@xxxxxxxxx> scribed into
the ether:
On Nov 1, 4:10 am, Lorenz.L...@xxxxxx wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:08 pm, Brent <digital.br...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 30, 4:07 am, Lorenz.L...@xxxxxx wrote:
On Oct 29, 2:40 pm, Brent <digital.br...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:48 pm, tussock <sc...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Brent wrote:
Christopher Adams wrote:
Alignment isn't relative to each society - it's an objective thing. If
your paternalism crosses the line into Evil, the Good people of your
society will agitate for change. Lawful Good people believe in the
greatest good for the greatest number, after all.
I disagree, on three counts. Firstly, Alignment has to be
circumstantially relative to each culture, otherwise you have a one-
size-fits-all moral code which not only restricts creative
verisimilitude, but also becomes very very tired.
No it doesn't, no you don't, and no it doesn't. Each culture's ideals
are relative to alignment, without being at all restrictive in any way.
Are your games as simplistic as this?
Alignments are broad categories, that's not a bug...
Having alignments as broad categories is a hopelessly inappropriate
way of handling what that mechanic is supposed to bring to the game.
Maybe you expect more than the game intends?
North, East, West, South are enough directions on a map...
Alignment is not designed to model human societies and psychology
for you, that's still your task as DM if you use alignment rules.
I'm not asking it to. All I require is a system of alignment
management that allows for both axiomatic conflict (angels, devils,
smite good, protection from evil and such) as well as an unrestrictive
system of assignment which is culturally and individually considerate.
The current system performs this with no alterations whatsoever.
And I have one. It just factors in cultural and individual differences
though juxtaposition of different standards through one bracket of
abstraction against a blanket standard of benevolence vs.
malevolence.
Do you really think that the above sentence makes any kind of sense? I
mean, it's great and all to inject a bunch of large sounding words, but
what you've written is semantic gibberish. At least, it comes out gibberish
if we read it with the intent of understanding that you oppose the current
alignment system. A strict reading of it basically says that your system
exactly duplicates the RAW.
The RAW doesn't juxtapose different standards through one bracket of
abstraction in terms of benevolence or malevolence. It juxtaposes
different moral standards directly against a over-arching standard
which as culturally bound terms of benevolence and malevolence. I
didn't mean to confuse you, but this kind of dialogue requires one to
depart from mono-syllabic banter into occasionally descriptive
language. Still, it isn't that complicated.
As soon as you inject cultural relatavism into it, then one of two things
will happen:
1) The axiomatic conflicts you want cannot exist because everyone thinks
they are Good.
or
2) The axiomatic conflicts become irrelevant, since "Smite Evil" becomes
"Smite Them". You get to define the Us and the Them however you want, and
thus everyone you fight becomes Them. There's no need for Smite Evil or
Magic Circle Against Evil...it's just "Smite" and "Magic Circle Against
Everyone Else".
Yes, this is what happens if you try to work relativism into the core
alignment rules. This is not what I am suggesting, and indeed the very
reason why I am required to juxtapose via one bracket of abstraction.
This means the tenets of the
over-alignment apply universally on all cultures, individuals, and
concepts.
Yes, indeed.
Right, so one set of moral values enforces itself as the overarching
and objectively 'correct' set. Foregoing the irrelevance of these
Which alignment is correct? That's (one of) your major
misconception(s),
I think. Replace G, E, C, L with names of colours or something and the
rules
still work. Most people in a a CE Orc society will think their way is
correct.
"Them humans think we're not good. Them stupids, we are BETTER! KILLEM
ALL!
WAAAARRGGGHHH!"
However, regardless, one moral code is used to classify and regulate
the rest.
You mean it's comparing it to a blanket standard of benevolence and
malevolence? Why, that sounds almost exactly like what you are trying to
do...except that the rules don't need to be changed to do it.
Absolutely, the key difference is the bracket of abstraction. In order
to have any meaningful manifested moral conflict there must be some
point of reference (lest we end up with the us vs. them result you
discussed earlier), however in order to have cultural sensitivity and
relativistic depth there must be systemic relativism. The one thing
which is common between fairly well all moralities is subjectively
perceived benevolence for what is considered virtuous, and malevolence
for what is rejected as wicked. Using this common ground one can
simply 'differentiate' a cultural moral code into these terms to
ascertain a relative alignment spread. LG should mean a very different
thing to each culture, just as NE should, and so on. I don't pretend I
have invented some god-system which combines reality with fantastic
moral conflict. I am simply making quarter for more in depth play with
a relatively simple yet effective adjustment.
Also, it doesn't help the moral complexity deficiency in that
a Paladin of White cannot be unsure of what is white and what is
black, because what is white is clearly laid out in an objective and
unwavering way.
This is only true if you are so inept at storytelling that everything
exists solely in black and white. It's not the system's fault that you
can't see grey.
Grey only exists subjectively in D&D (i.e. the paladin himself creates
the grey through his unsurety of what is the right thing to do).
Objectively there are plain and simple categorical boundaries for each
moral concept. Typically D&D-style moral conflict will come in the
form of either the two branches of a characters alignments guiding him
in different ways, or in simple misunderstanding or confusion of what
precisely an alignment entails. A paladin cannot move through a moral
grey, as his values warp. He is LG, and then he is not. He'll know he
is doing the wrong thing when he loses his spells. (though this is a
different matter again, as I tend to have moral reprimand placed in
the hands of the upper echelons of the clergy- creating a niche for
inquisitions, and allowing for internal church corruption in true
theocratic style).
values, you have also eliminated any moral complexity your games would
ever hope to see.
You don't know my games, do you?
If good is covered in a static definition as it is in the core rules,
you can't have real moral complexity.
Maybe you can't. I can. Easily.
Perhaps there is something that one of us has, that the other lacks.
Yes, indeed. But why do you think that's inane?
Seriously? You can't see the problem in branding an entire culture and
all it involves as objectively evil? :/
Saying a culture is Evil is shorthand for "The major forces and the
majority
of the people are Evil.". There's almost always at least one
opposition, of course.
You don't see a problem with the 'majority' being morally 'wrong'?
They don't see themselves as wrong. In fact, the rules don't see them as
wrong either. The rules do, however, call them evil. You are the one
placing a value judgement that being evil is wrong.
Oh that is a stretch, but still demonstrates a separate point quite
well. If evil as D&D uses it isn't indicative of any moral iniquity or
corruption, then it has lost it's representation for genuine moral
concepts and conditions, degenerating into a meaningless and empty
team jersey battle. If evil as D&D uses it is indicative of a level of
immorality or lack of moral fiber, then it is inaccurately applying
such moral qualities upon groups that simply don't fit it's rather
simple and culturally bound criteria. Either way, the deficiencies
shine.
Yes, and the RAW is plagued with post-renaissance christian morality.
That is my point. Thats what I am trying to escape.
Which is not a problem with the alignment system, nor is it a flaw. That's
simply you disagreeing with the definitions provided, Bruce.
It's not a problem, but it can be a flaw. If you are happy with
monolithic moral objectivism (and it isn't necessarily a bad thing),
it really isn't a problem. However if you want complex intercultural
moral dynamics it is a flaw that must be danced around or dealt with.
Also, I am not Bruce. Surely you can argue with someone who isn't him
(not suggesting that you are in any way argumentative ;) ).
If you don't like them...change them. The system itself doesn't need to be
altered at all. Just change what is defined as Good. What you might change
it to, I have no idea, but that's a problem you are creating for yourself.
That wouldn't fix anything. Then I would have the exact same systemic
problem with a new aesthetic face. I am not out to defnine what is and
isn't good, or even contest that what the RAW says is good isn't. I am
simply unshackling good (and all the alignments for that matter) from
the static core definitions to a variable definition as leashed to an
abstracted platform of comparison.
If you want cultural relativism, please don't bother calling it alignment,
because it isn't. It's fungible "us vs them" cloaked in fancy words, and
ceases being a system at all. Again, just simplify to "Smite Them" and
"Magic Circle Against Everyone Else".
You have pre-emptively criticised my alternative for something that it
isn't. I encountered this problem with moral relativism in D&D quite
some time ago. The game is built for moral objectivism, breaking that
breaks the game (or large parts of it). Really I am not even
advocating moral relativism, so much as measured relativism as chained
to an abstracted moral objectivism. It's really not all that
different, just critically more flexible. It allows for the
functionality of moral relativism and objectivism side by side. Quite
a nice combo, actually.
.
- References:
- Re: Cultural thematics of Dwarves.
- From: Brent
- Re: Cultural thematics of Dwarves.
- From: Matt Frisch
- Re: Cultural thematics of Dwarves.
- Prev by Date: Re: Known spells in your spellbook
- Next by Date: Re: Exemplars of Evil -- anyone?
- Previous by thread: Re: Cultural thematics of Dwarves.
- Next by thread: Re: Cultural thematics of Dwarves.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
