The Campaign Builder's Guild

It weakens the game. The bad design causes roleplay problems because it encourages people to view alignment as a restriction instead of a guideline. That's not something you can really deny because it does happen and it happens alot. I have plenty of first hand experience with it. That is why I don't like the DnD 3e alignment system. Had they worded it differently it wouldn't have this problem that causes so much confusion.

Another fairly decent article, I did find it wasn't quite as good as your first part though, mainly because I found it is slightly biased for Good and Lawful.

You make very clear definitions for things with Good and Lawful, but as soon as Neutral or Chaotic show up, your explanations start getting really vague. Chaotic Evil is an exception, I found it well thought out.

You seem to make anything neutral out to be wishy-washy, this isn't really true, someone who has certain good tendencies (friendly and stuff) but has evil tendencies (selfish, little regard for others) would be neutral, even though he isn't wishy-washy at all.

Bd presentation doesn't ruin the entire game, nor the entire system.  The system itself is sound.  You can't fault the 3E alignment system in its design, with a few exceptions (Poison, animals, necromancy), almost all of its problems come from the presentation.  But you shouldn't condemn the whole system on the basis of bad presentation, nor does that prove that relative morality is better than absolute, through even a well done 3E system doesn't prove the opposite)

from
EE

Quote from: EvilElitestI really don't see any way that you can opt out actually, i mean name one character or moral/cultural ideal that doesn't fit within the system.

My position is about rejecting all codes of behavior, whether cultural or moral.

Quote from: LlumAnother fairly decent article, I did find it wasn't quite as good as your first part though, mainly because I found it is slightly biased for Good and Lawful.

You make very clear definitions for things with Good and Lawful, but as soon as Neutral or Chaotic show up, your explanations start getting really vague. Chaotic Evil is an exception, I found it well thought out.
[/quote]
You seem to make anything neutral out to be wishy-washy, this isn't really true, someone who has certain good tendencies (friendly and stuff) but has evil tendencies (selfish, little regard for others) would be neutral, even though he isn't wishy-washy at all.
[/quote]
Your right, but for the purpose of making absolutes, neutral is a little hard to describe, it just a general in-between.  For example, somebody who is a generally good person in all respects, but lives in a society that supports slavery (even if he doesn't have slaves) could be TN.  Its the hardest to describe

Thanks for the comments through
from
EE

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw

Quote from: EvilElitestI really don't see any way that you can opt out actually, i mean name one character or moral/cultural ideal that doesn't fit within the system.

My position is about rejecting all codes of behavior, whether cultural or moral.

And in doing so you will still be committing actions and thus be within the system.  Can you site a specific manner where you can avoid the system, short of losing free will please?
from
EE

Quote from: EvilElitestAnd in doing so you will still be committing actions and thus be within the system.  Can you site a specific manner where you can avoid the system, short of losing free will please?

Animals can avoid it, supposedly because they don't make moral choices.  Anyone who can avoid making moral choices can avoid the system.

Plus I am saying that a system that only allows one to operate within its confines does not allow truly free will.

1) Animals don't have int higher than 3, they can't make moral choices
2) Considering it is a system of classification, i would like to point out that any system can fit within that, it doesn't limit it
from
EE

Quote from: EvilElitestBd presentation doesn't ruin the entire game, nor the entire system.  The system itself is sound.  You can't fault the 3E alignment system in its design, with a few exceptions (Poison, animals, necromancy), almost all of its problems come from the presentation.  But you shouldn't condemn the whole system on the basis of bad presentation, nor does that prove that relative morality is better than absolute, through even a well done 3E system doesn't prove the opposite)

from
EE

I don't know where you are getting stuff from here. I never faulted the 3e system (in fact it is my favorite iteration of DnD). I fault the presentation of the alignment system for ruining many otherwise good games. That is something you cannot argue against, period. It is something that can be easily seen first hand if you play 3e a bit. The alignment systems poor wording means that anyone who isn't good at roleplaying or is unfamiliar with 3e is going to find themselves using alignment as a shackle when it shouldn't be. Thus you get games ruined by lawful stupid paladins and chaotic stupid psychopaths (not to mention the many other flavors out there). Having a player who keeps trying to smite evil on every single thing they see or just randomly walks into a bar and kills anyone and then explains it as following their alignment... That's because the poor wording encourages such things to happen (and they happen often). That does ruin a game, it pulls all the fun out of it for everyone else when someone misunderstands an easily misunderstood setup.

Quote from: EvilElitest1) Animals don't have int higher than 3, they can't make moral choices

And why does 3+ Int make any difference?  I don't remember ever reading an explanation of how 3+ actually works to make a difference.

Quote from: EvilElitest2) Considering it is a system of classification, i would like to point out that any system can fit within that, it doesn't limit it

How does someone who completely rejects the moral framework of what Good and Evil are about fit into that system?

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawAnd why does 3+ Int make any difference? I don't remember ever reading an explanation of how 3+ actually works to make a difference.

I think I remember reading somewhere that you need a minimum of 3 Int to be sentient, so anything with less then 3 Int isn't sentient, therefor it makes no choices, it only acts on instinct. So they don't have "morals", just instinct.

So are the instincts of sentient D&D creatures different from their ability to make choices?  Because in the real world I don't personally believe in that difference, but I've never been sure in D&D.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawSo are the instincts of sentient D&D creatures different from their ability to make choices? Because in the real world I don't personally believe in that difference, but I've never been sure in D&D.

As far as I can tell, for a sentient creature instincts influence them, but do not directly control (most of the time) their actions.

What about animals that don't operate wholly on instinct? An example being chimpanzees (who have to be taught certain things by other chimps).

Quote from: NomadicWhat about animals that don't operate wholly on instinct? An example being chimpanzees (who have to be taught certain things by other chimps).

I believe they would be considered 3 Int. Or their instincts allow them to learn, reinforced behaviour and what not.