[poll] Is it better to use an overarching cosmology?

[Slapzilla]

Yup, clear as mud to this old crank-a-saurous too.

I do know why attacking creatures with brains is reprehensible and I do understand why deities of tyranny could be viewed differently in different cultures.

Lots to respond to but no time now.  See y'all this weekend.  

[Snargash Moonclaw]

An additional consideration comes to mind regarding how such metaconcepts are incorporated into actual setting and play. Usually for a character to state, "I have a Strength of 17," or, "My alignment is Chaotic Good," is considered an absurdity within the conceptual structure of the world as perceived by the characters in it - such statements make absolutely no sense to those hearing them. However when the concepts are incorporated into the consciousness of the milieu's inhabitants this can change things radically. Some form of common quantifiable testing (say physical tests of military inducties) would make the first example analogous to a player stating "I have an IQ of xxx." Given that the various alignment terms are explicitly incorporated into most settings at least via spell names, (otherwise making "I cast Detect/Protection From x Alignment" non-sequitors requiring the renaming of a number of spells,) they can readily be used as abstract philosophical or theological concepts of significance to the world's inhabitants. Debates as to their meanings/classifications could even be the cause of wide schisms among some of the world's academics and/or churches. This of course doesn't mean that the concepts need reflect any functional aspect of the setting's "reality." The concepts could just as readily be nothing more than abstract formulations/projections of a world's inhabitants with no function at all in the game mechanics - alignments and related spells/abilities being dispensed with by the DM (with the resulting fanaticism I've previously described arising among adherents to the various schools of thought). . .

[MythMage]

But I prefer my games where the hard choices are made with real role playing based on in-game circumstances, not rulebook strictures.  And I like a world where the few creatures that have really sunk into depravity or reached a level of sainthood are magnificent, rare examples, not merely just another lich or vampyre.

In my opinion, if you find this impossible in a world with moral and ethical absolutism, you aren't using the absolute scale correctly. Liches are always evil, perhaps, but they are also magnificent, rare examples of intelligent, willing, and complete depravity. A paladin doesn't deserve the title if the only reason he won't do evil is to keep his nifty powers; he could be just as powerful without relying on his morality if he'd just taken fighter levels. The alignment scale is best used as a descriptive tool, not as a limitation.

Of course, some people do use the alignment scale as a crutch, and I think they're doing themselves a disservice by doing so.

[snakefing]

We live in a world in which large numbers of people (claim to) believe in moral absolutism. But the nature of our world is that the moral absolutes are hidden from us, and we need to discover them. (Either that, or there are no moral absolutes.)

There's nothing inherently paradoxical about the existence of moral absolutes and the existence of debate about what those absolutes are - and therefore, the existence of real hard choices where people have difficult decisions to make.

The paradox comes in only when you make the assumption that simple alignment magic provides a readily available, infallible guide to the moral absolutes. In such a cosmology, questions like, "Is it okay to slaughter a bunch of sleeping gnolls?" would long ago have been answered to everyone's satisfaction.

But you could still have a world where the moral absolutes are complicated and highly situational. Then a question like that would always have a definite answer, but the answer is complicated and very context dependent - only an ascetic who had a lifelong dedication to the study of morality could answer the question in context without a Commune spell. In such a cosmology, the alignment spells could provide general guidelines but only the higher level spells could reliably deal with specific situations. For example, King Wenceslaus is Good (simple detect spells are reliable for this) but that doesn't mean he can't perform an evil deed or issue a wrong order from time to time. A paladin does his best to follow the ways of Good, but being a man of action rather than a scholar, at times he is forced to go with his gut instead of a clear-cut answer.

I think something like that works best if the supernatural manifestations for True Evil and True Good are rare enough to preserve the amibiguities. For example, that LE god of tyranny won't be mistaken for LN for long once someone gets close enough to cast Detect Evil on the god (or his direct works or close minions). People would notice that, you know, every time he sends aid to his people, it always turns out to be evil.

[LordVreeg]

But I prefer my games where the hard choices are made with real role playing based on in-game circumstances, not rulebook strictures.  And I like a world where the few creatures that have really sunk into depravity or reached a level of sainthood are magnificent, rare examples, not merely just another lich or vampyre.

In my opinion, if you find this impossible in a world with moral and ethical absolutism, you aren't using the absolute scale correctly. Liches are always evil, perhaps, but they are also magnificent, rare examples of intelligent, willing, and complete depravity. A paladin doesn't deserve the title if the only reason he won't do evil is to keep his nifty powers; he could be just as powerful without relying on his morality if he'd just taken fighter levels. The alignment scale is best used as a descriptive tool, not as a limitation.

Of course, some people do use the alignment scale as a crutch, and I think they're doing themselves a disservice by doing so.

No, not incorrectly.  AS I said, it fits in some games, but not in mine.
You actually provide a glowing example, as in my setting their is a certain chickenshit, non-evil lich.  He was scared to die, and was pretty baneful while lioving, but he changed as he got older and more scared.  

and I understand it is best used as a descriptive tool.  But I will stand by the fact you can have a good game with it or without it; and a bad game with and without it.  But you can only use it as a crutch for role playing if you use it.

[Snargash Moonclaw]

Ultimately this really comes down to a matter of DM style and ability. Either choice in setting development has its merits and potential difficulties and it ultimately becomes a question handling. The concept of alignment in DnD has been a constant topic of intense debate and interpretation since it was first introduced.

For example, that LE god of tyranny won't be mistaken for LN for long once someone gets close enough to cast Detect Evil on the god (or his direct works or close minions). People would notice that, you know, every time he sends aid to his people, it always turns out to be evil.

Not necessarily, though this might be a commonly accepted generality (within the inherent perceptions of the setting's inhabitants). Actual opportunities do do so would be exceedingly rare with regard to the god. Anyone attempting to cast a spell in the presence of his avatar, the Emperor, without his explicit permission would be immediately killed by his body guards and no one would consider this odd or even evil. The specific example I've constructed here Malenorian Empire arises from very long consideration regarding the possibilities of successful, intelligent evil in reality and how this might  manifest in game settings along with the exploration of its ramifications should it do so. I'm afraid the comprehensive exposition of my proposed solution to that question and its facets is quite long and detailed. To attempt to summarize the basic concept, it is developed from the premise that even a being of absolute evil will act in ways commonly viewed as good when they are the most practical and efficient means of achieving its goals. Having successfully enslaved an entire nation (a goal of absolute evil), Jessanak has then acted upon the obvious principal that relatively content, well-maintained and gainfully occupied, i.e., prosperous (means of good) slaves are inherently far more tractable, productive and ultimately profitable (in terms of power gained from their devotion) as well as far less inclined to rebellion than otherwise. Preventing them from recognizing their state of slavery has been by far the most potent factor in achieving and maintaining it. This has been accomplished by establishing the concepts of social order and (respect for/obedience to) the properly exercised (varying levels of) institutional authority as the preeminent and overriding cultural values of the nation's people so that they will actually endeavor to support and preserve this very condition! Taxation and public works are instituted and carried out in such a fashion as to be clearly seen as beneficial to everyone's welfare. At that point a very lawful neutral society will concern itself primarily with the very visible, concrete, material aspects of and challenges to the order of its social construct rather than more abstract questions of the relative good or evil of its individual members. Regarding the latter, personal assumptions will freely dominate any consideration which will be viewed as of little import. The populace will generally assume that most citizens are inherently good and while personal evil is sure to exist as well, so long as such individuals don't violate the primary value and function of social order this is inconsequential and therefore tolerable. ("Yes, the minister is a cruel, perverted asshole, but he performs his duties to the Empire well and so benefits those for whom he is responsible in the ways which actually matter, regardless.") Consequently an absolutely totalitarian, fascist theocracy not only exists successfully, but is considered desirable by its citizens. Therefore, ultimately the question of the good or evil nature of the god who has instituted it is inherently assumed to be pointless and irrelevant and his facade remains intact regarding his unquestioning worshipers. (Anyone else trying to convince the populace prospering under his rule that he is evil will at best be dismissed out of hand as proposing something obviously preposterous out of envy of their evident good fortune.)

[MythMage]

But I prefer my games where the hard choices are made with real role playing based on in-game circumstances, not rulebook strictures.  And I like a world where the few creatures that have really sunk into depravity or reached a level of sainthood are magnificent, rare examples, not merely just another lich or vampyre.

In my opinion, if you find this impossible in a world with moral and ethical absolutism, you aren't using the absolute scale correctly. Liches are always evil, perhaps, but they are also magnificent, rare examples of intelligent, willing, and complete depravity. [~snip~]

No, not incorrectly.  AS I said, it fits in some games, but not in mine.

I think you misunderstand me. Note I said "if you find this impossible in a world with moral and ethical absolutism", not "if you recognize the possibility and choose not to use it", as these are two entirely different things. You don't understand the alignment scale if you don't recognize it is possible to run it in a manner other than limitation on actions. If you choose to use it as a limitation because that's what suits your game best that's one thing; using it as a limitation because you don't realize it's possible to run it otherwise is something else, a trap that DMs should be careful to avoid falling into.

You actually provide a glowing example, as in my setting their is a certain chickenshit, non-evil lich.  He was scared to die, and was pretty baneful while lioving, but he changed as he got older and more scared.

A glowing example of what? Is this lich one of those one-in-a-million exceptions to the "always" alignment rule, or are you using a nonstandard lich?

[Tombowings]

I never liked the way planescape had FR and DS and all those all in one setting. So I guess I would have to say, "No."

[Moniker]

I am a big proponent of KISS. The Great Wheel was a tool used to wrap practically every real-world myth and TSR campaign world gods into one nice, succinct package. And frankly, I HATED it.

Whenever I wrote my campaign world, the first thing I did was dump the entire D&D cosmology. I instituted one, and only other one, plane beyond man's reach that was an imperfect echo of the world they lived within. There is no heaven, there is no hell. There simply is the Well of Souls, and each faith and religion interprets it differently. Some saw it as a place of salvation, whereas others saw it as a place of eternal torment. Some speak of it as the wellspring of all life, and others as a decrepit sinkhole of evil. Either way, it in itself is undefined and cannot be traversed into, but it *can* and often does spill out into the world, thus corrupting the land, the people, etc...in many different ways. It makes things more..."divine", so to speak. Not divine as in goodly, but simply otherworldly - without morality, without human emotion, without a sense of time and mortality. It cannot be understood as it manifests itself in many different ways.

That's how I handle my players whenever we first made the jog to my homebrewed campaign world. By eliminating the extraplanar vistas and making them mutable and approachable within the material realm, there no longer was a need to Star Trek the party around the unknown universe via Planeshift.

[LordVreeg]

MM, I did understand exactly what you wrote. I did not misunderstand or misread your words.  I understood the alignment scale and argued about it back in the late 1970's, used it and variations on it through all of the 1980's, and still score my players (for my own dm purpose) on a behavior graph every session on their major actions.  There are  Celestial Planars in my setting that still demand more lawful behavior, or churches that teach a strict moral code of behavior.  There is actually 'Moral Absolutism' within my game as there are religions and sects that demand certain behaviors regardless of the circumstances.  
And I never used the alignment system or moral/ethical absolutism incorrectly.  Sure, when I was younger, It was a little extreme, but by the 80's I was, I think, creating a game with as much role playing as possible, which suits my game-style preference.  and I dumped it very consiously based on decreasing level of positive effects it has on a game as the game moves past simplistic 'good vs evil'.
The Gnoll example made earlier decribes the problems clearly.  And the problem is not just 'within game' morality, it's the fact that using that crutch in the rules, a player did not have to think, because 'gnolls are evil'.
Snagash's Malinorean Empire example, while a very complete and worthy story in and of itself, also exemplifies the decreasing utility of the aformentioned alignment scale in a game moving towards the moral complications often needed to create a more complete setting for a game or a book.  Is an act evil if it makes people happy?  Is an act chaotic if it brings about greater order?  Capital punishment...Good or evil on the alignment scale?  Can a man keeping slaves in a country that most of the upper class keeps slaves be considered a good man?  In my game, I want these questions and questions like them to enhance the experience.  My days of playing with 'Standard Lichs', or a standard anything, are long past.
The Good Cap'n Xeviat brought up another great example in the recent 'myth' thread about a wonderful game he ran with a group of adventurers being hired to track down a group of orcs whe captured the mayor's daughter.  At the last second, it was discovered that the daughter ran away with the orcs of her own accord.  

I answered originally from the office, so I was somewhat brief, and perhaps slightly oblique.  Let me clarify.  I do not find it Absolutely Impossible to have a game with talented role playing and a frequency distribution of extreme examples of personality types with a big bulge in the middle and very long tails while playing with a traditional, D20/Ad&D/WoTC alignment scale.  I understand very well the machinations and permutations needed to make this fly, or, to 'play it correctly', in your words.  

I declared it could be used as an excuse for role playing in some games, and that it can only be used as a crutch if it is instituted.  It's a decent descriptive tool and guidline, I admit freely.  But it is far easier and more natural to have a game with adult moral ambiguity, to have valorous orcs and timid, not-evil lichs, in a game without arbitrary moral absolutes.  
I guess this thread is being shanghaid away from the question about an overarching cosmology into one of the alignment system, or at least partially, and for that I apologize, Mythmage.

But I think, at least in my experience, that what I am really answering is how much realism and complication a GM wants to have in their game.  Moral Absolutism (and moral relativism) have been argued in the philosophical arena for millenia, and are the subject of more books and debates than you or I could read in a lifetime.  Even if I ascribed to the philospophical belief of moral absolutism (and I do not; I am more of a 'moral realist' with some 'moral skepticism' thrown in), I think I would still have to have some understanding of the complexity of morality.  As such, the simplistic moral absolutism of the alignment system has felt terribly naive, inadequate and unrealistic since I was in my early twenties and thus, to me, belongs in less complicated, less realistic games than mine.

But I also think an overarching cosmology gifts the foundation of your setting with originality annd the flavor you want from the beginning.  I think whatever system or game is played, this is important.


 

[Snargash Moonclaw]

I think that the question would be better defined as to the desirable extent of an overarching cosmology - as the existence of one is inherent barring a world in which there is no afterlife and the gods (if any) dwell solely within the physical parameters of the setting. Once you introduce the existence of anything outside of those parameters you have created a larger cosmology encompassing more than a single plane. In this regard the Great Wheel may be needlessly complicated, especially if the setting doesn't require the concrete manifestation of such abstract principals as the alignments. Including access to the physical planes of other settings seems even more unnecessary unless the principal play setting is the realm connecting them (e.g., Spelljammer and Planescape). Personally I incorporate the Great Wheel as cannon primarily so that I can focus my creative efforts on Panisadore itself without have to also build from scratch the domains of gods and other extraplanar beings active in the setting. This also relieves the players from having to comprehend even more unfamiliar setting material which, for the most part, they will never actually visit.

[Xeviat]

Personally, I feel the Great Wheel is truly great if you're a Planescape fan and have all the old 2E Planescape material. I really liked Planescape: Torment, and it wouldn't have been the same without the Great Wheel.

On the other hand, I find the Great Wheel to be too big and complicated for standard games. I'm a big fan of the simplicity of 4E's cosmology (and, interestingly enough, you can retain all of the great wheel planes as divine realms on the Astral Sea if you really want to).

To answer the OP's question, I do not think the capacity for having crossover worlds to be a big enough perk to using a preconstructed cosmology. The best defense of using one is that players can bring in their current knowledge and not have to learn anything new about the planes before jumping into things. That's really it.

Originality is great, but being too original can be confusing.

[MythMage]

I am a big proponent of KISS. The Great Wheel was a tool used to wrap practically every real-world myth and TSR campaign world gods into one nice, succinct package. And frankly, I HATED it.

Ah, to each his own I suppose. That succinct package is one of the things I adore about the Great Wheel. (Considering my username, are you surprised? :P )

MM, I did understand exactly what you wrote. I did not misunderstand or misread your words.  I understood the alignment scale and argued about it back in the late 1970's, used it and variations on it through all of the 1980's, and still score my players (for my own dm purpose) on a behavior graph every session on their major actions.  There are  Celestial Planars in my setting that still demand more lawful behavior, or churches that teach a strict moral code of behavior.  There is actually 'Moral Absolutism' within my game as there are religions and sects that demand certain behaviors regardless of the circumstances.
And I never used the alignment system or moral/ethical absolutism incorrectly.  Sure, when I was younger, It was a little extreme, but by the 80's I was, I think, creating a game with as much role playing as possible, which suits my game-style preference.  and I dumped it very consiously based on decreasing level of positive effects it has on a game as the game moves past simplistic 'good vs evil'.

Just so we're clear, I never meant to imply that you didn't understand the alignment system - I used the word "you" in the hypothetical sense, which was why I was throwing around so many "if" statements. I'll try to stick to "one" instead in the future to make sure it's clear.

The Gnoll example made earlier decribes the problems clearly.  And the problem is not just 'within game' morality, it's the fact that using that crutch in the rules, a player did not have to think, because 'gnolls are evil'.

Snagash's Malinorean Empire example, while a very complete and worthy story in and of itself, also exemplifies the decreasing utility of the aformentioned alignment scale in a game moving towards the moral complications often needed to create a more complete setting for a game or a book.  Is an act evil if it makes people happy?  Is an act chaotic if it brings about greater order?  Capital punishment...Good or evil on the alignment scale?[/quote]The Good Cap'n Xeviat brought up another great example in the recent 'myth' thread about a wonderful game he ran with a group of adventurers being hired to track down a group of orcs whe captured the mayor's daughter.  At the last second, it was discovered that the daughter ran away with the orcs of her own accord.[/quote]I do not find it Absolutely Impossible to have a game with talented role playing and a frequency distribution of extreme examples of personality types with a big bulge in the middle and very long tails while playing with a traditional, D20/Ad&D/WoTC alignment scale.[/quote]But I think, at least in my experience, that what I am really answering is how much realism and complication a GM wants to have in their game.  Moral Absolutism (and moral relativism) have been argued in the philosophical arena for millenia, and are the subject of more books and debates than you or I could read in a lifetime.  Even if I ascribed to the philospophical belief of moral absolutism (and I do not; I am more of a 'moral realist' with some 'moral skepticism' thrown in), I think I would still have to have some understanding of the complexity of morality.  As such, the simplistic moral absolutism of the alignment system has felt terribly naive, inadequate and unrealistic since I was in my early twenties and thus, to me, belongs in less complicated, less realistic games than mine.[/quote]I guess this thread is being shanghaid away from the question about an overarching cosmology into one of the alignment system, or at least partially, and for that I apologize, Mythmage. [/quote]
I think this is relevant. The question of alignment is inextricably linked to one's cosmology, due to its importance in the afterlife.

[Xeviat]

Actually, there is an alignment scale for actions, if we want to get "technical". The Phylactery of Faithfulness, an item in the DMG, will tell a character if an action will be against their alignment, a useful item for a cleric, paladin, monk, or any other devout character trying to hold to a difficult alignment.

Alignment is very important to a setting, and it IS related to the cosmology. 4E appears to be changing alignment so that it is Good, Evil, and Unaligned. A character who is Good or Evil is someone who is sworn to that alignment, not just your every day nice guy or jerk. When someone detects as evil (which apparently there will not be detect spells), you can surely know that they're evil to the core.

Really, I think the largest issue in 3E was that many people did forget the definitions of "Always Evil", "Usually Evil", and "Sometimes Evil". Demons and Chromatic Dragons were largely unredeemable, while Orcs were.

[LordVreeg]

[blockquote=MM][blockquote=hIS cRABBINESS]MM, I did understand exactly what you wrote. I did not misunderstand or misread your words. I understood the alignment scale and argued about it back in the late 1970's, used it and variations on it through all of the 1980's, and still score my players (for my own dm purpose) on a behavior graph every session on their major actions. There are Celestial Planars in my setting that still demand more lawful behavior, or churches that teach a strict moral code of behavior. There is actually 'Moral Absolutism' within my game as there are religions and sects that demand certain behaviors regardless of the circumstances.
And I never used the alignment system or moral/ethical absolutism incorrectly. Sure, when I was younger, It was a little extreme, but by the 80's I was, I think, creating a game with as much role playing as possible, which suits my game-style preference. and I dumped it very consiously based on decreasing level of positive effects it has on a game as the game moves past simplistic 'good vs evil'.[/blockquote]
Just so we're clear, I never meant to imply that you didn't understand the alignment system - I used the word "you" in the hypothetical sense, which was why I was throwing around so many "if" statements. I'll try to stick to "one" instead in the future to make sure it's clear.[/blockquote]
Yeah.  Well I'm glad you made that clear, because I did take that the wrong way, as you probably could tell.  I'll try to reel in my crankiness before I am sure of that next time.  I'd like to pretend that this is some abberation, if the rest of you will go along with that.


[blockquote=MM][blockquote=LV]The Gnoll example made earlier decribes the problems clearly. And the problem is not just 'within game' morality, it's the fact that using that crutch in the rules, a player did not have to think, because 'gnolls are evil'.[/blockquote]

Of course you have to think. You can't go around killing random gnolls in their sleep - there's nothing inherently evil about gnolls, and plenty of gnolls are non-evil in a normal morally-absolute D&D world (their alignment line says "usually", not "always"). "Always evil" does have its uses - it's nice to have a villain such as a demon who's plainly evil sometimes - but it certainly isn't something that has to pop up much in a D&D game. Just sticking to mortal foes gets rid of most of the offenders there. The hypothetical act is usually going to be clear-cut "evil act" murder under the alignment system described in the PHB.[/blockquote]  I know that, and I know you know that.  But my point was that not everyone uses it the same way, which is why I brought up the gnolls.
e.g.
[blockquote=Slapzilla]Not to be too argumentative LordVreeg, but I do think that having a debate on whether or not to ambush some sleeping Gnolls has no place at my gaming table. The Gnolls would have no compunction about ambushing you. They're Gnolls. They're evil. Kill them. Nothing is ever quite that simplistic, of course and yes, I would expect the Paladin to participate.

Once you get down to parsing deeds vs nature, I'm out. I realize that alignments are an imperfect system and PLENTY of games manage without them just fine, but I like them as it adds an element that in a DnD fantasy context, makes sense. Evil is EVIL and Good is GOOD.[/blockquote]
The gnoll example was there not because I thought you did not understand my point but as an object example of a different GM seeing the game quite differently through the alignment lens. Everyone's game is different, and you can say 'Of Course you have to think', but in many of the games I have seen and read threads on in many sites, alignment is often used to garner the exact opposite value judgement of what you are calling clear cut.  Hence my opinion that alignment is a crutch.



Now we get to the meat of the issue...
[blockquote=MM, from 2 posts in this thread]There is no "detect alignment" for actions, and this is why. Because it's not supposed to be clear sometimes. While the alignment scale is absolute and fixed, circumstance varies enough and is often complex enough to make that absolute scale be of little help to those who hope to live by it.

I think you misunderstand me. Note I said "if you find this impossible in a world with moral and ethical absolutism", [/blockquote]
My friend, this is obviously part of the problem we are having.  You talk about moral absolutism, then mention it being affected by circumstance.  You probably notated that I mentioned moral relativism and moral skeptisism, as well.  These are not loose, self-descriptive terms I am throwing around.  These are philosophical schools of thought with clear-cut definitions, like Moral Absolutism.   Probably the biggest issue I was having was trying to figure where you were coming from mentioning 'Moral/ethical absolutism' and an 'absolute scale', and then talking about the morality of an action being affected by the context or circumstance.
[ic=Moral Absolutism, as defined by Wikipedia]
Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. "Absolutism" is often philosophically contrasted with moral relativism, which is a belief that moral truths are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and to situational ethics, which holds that the morality of an act depends on the context of the act.[/ic]

so commments like these are difficult.
[blockquote=MM]There is no "detect alignment" for actions, and this is why. Because it's not supposed to be clear sometimes. While the alignment scale is absolute and fixed, circumstance varies enough and is often complex enough to make that absolute scale be of little help to those who hope to live by it.

As you admit that moral absolutism has generally been considered a valid possible morality in real life, do you agree that it is completely workable in a game setting, and that your perception of it as unrealistic is based at least partially on your own personal preferences for a relatively subjective moral system?
[/blockquote]  
MM, these are your posts, and by the very definition of the Moral Absolutism you mention, they are each internally incompatable.  You actually could have a 'detect alignment' for actions if you also have an absolute scale for morality. That's what Moral Absoluteness is.


[blockquote=mm][blockquote=LV]'¦But I think, at least in my experience, that what I am really answering is how much realism and complication a GM wants to have in their game. Moral Absolutism (and moral relativism) have been argued in the philosophical arena for millenia, and are the subject of more books and debates than you or I could read in a lifetime. Even if I ascribed to the philospophical belief of moral absolutism (and I do not; I am more of a 'moral realist' with some 'moral skepticism' thrown in), I think I would still have to have some understanding of the complexity of morality. As such, the simplistic moral absolutism of the alignment system has felt terribly naive, inadequate and unrealistic since I was in my early twenties and thus, to me, belongs in less complicated, less realistic games than mine.[/blockquote]

As you admit that moral absolutism has generally been considered a valid possible morality in real life, do you agree that it is completely workable in a game setting, and that your perception of it as unrealistic is based at least partially on your own personal preferences for a relatively subjective moral system?[/blockquote]  Yes.  I agree with your statement, that it is workable and that my perception is based on my personal preference. And I stand by this just as strongly.

[blockquote=LV]As such, the simplistic moral absolutism of the alignment system has felt terribly naive, inadequate and unrealistic since I was in my early twenties and thus, to me, belongs in less complicated, less realistic games than mine.[/blockquote]

[blockquote=mm]I think this is relevant. The question of alignment is inextricably linked to one's cosmology, due to its importance in the afterlife.[/blockquote]  And I agree, and appreciate your openmindedness on this thread.

[blockquote=The Good Kap'n]Originality is great, but being too original can be confusing.[/blockquote]  Story of my life, my friend.