Ugh, I’ve always hated the two axis alignment system ever since I actually played a real game of tabletop instead of the baldur’s gate / icewind dale stuff. Still, it is humorous how well it matches the lovely repugnants.
Everyone is the hero of their own story. Almost nobody thinks of themselves as evil. Often the most evil acts are the ones done by people who have convinced themselves that what they’re doing is for the best. Take the Great Leap Forward in China or other similar disasters. Tens of millions of people dying because the leader thought they had identified the true problem.
I’d much prefer a “selfishness” or “size of group that matters” axis. On one side of that axis you’d have tree-hugging environmentalists who think every life matters and are willing to make personal sacrifices to make a better world for people they’ve never met and never will meet. On the other side you’d have selfish people who want what’s best for themselves and are willing to make their close family members suffer if they personally can benefit. Somewhere in the middle are people like NIMBYs who agree access to affordable housing is important, but don’t want a tall building going up in their neighbourhood because it will ruin its character.
This can also lead to “dark paladins” that make sense. Instead of an evil paladin crusading on behalf of evil, you get a very selfless paladin who is willing to put his life on the line for a cause he believes in. It’s just that that cause conflicts with the belief system of the adventurer’s party.
Like, Good is you’re willing to sacrifice some of you’re for the benefits of others, Evil is you’re willing to sacrifice some of others’ for benefits of yourself?
Evil people only don’t think of themselves as evil because they have internalized that “evil” is a bad thing. But that what makes you evil, they often even openly admit to.
I like it, but my personal grudge has always been with the lawful/neutral/chaotic axis. Bloody people playing chaotic characters think that means they can justify doing whatever the player feels like by, quite literally, just saying, “well he’s chaotic!”
The arguments about whether someone is evil or not are more common, I suppose, when you get to levels where the spells that target alignments come into play.
To be fair, maybe a fae creature is truly chaotic. They might act in ways that seem insane to other people. But, other than fae creatures, it should really be a matter of believing in hierarchies and deferring to people above you in the hierarchy, or having your own moral code that you follow even if it conflicts with the laws or your orders. A paladin should be a rule follower. A rogue should normally be someone who lives by their own rules. But, they’re not really “chaotic”.
Right, the problem is that the lawful/chaotic thing is cribbed from elric of melnibonea (am I spelling that right? It’s been a while) where the concepts of law and chaos were actual big things in the world (and like most novels, the things that players get up to don’t factor in as far as the story and ‘world rules’ are going to be). I think there was something similar in the renshai books, where chaos and law were a part of the story in an interesting ‘world’ sort of way, and not a factor as much in what a person in the world is.
Ugh, I’ve always hated the two axis alignment system ever since I actually played a real game of tabletop instead of the baldur’s gate / icewind dale stuff. Still, it is humorous how well it matches the lovely repugnants.
You can tear AD&D2e rules out my cold, dead hands 😆
Tbf, the reworked versions are better.
I’m CN, btw.
I’m sure you are.
Same, but I’m really just stubborn and spent too many years playing AD&D2 and creating PC games that used those rules.
“Evil” is just a shitty term and/or axis.
Everyone is the hero of their own story. Almost nobody thinks of themselves as evil. Often the most evil acts are the ones done by people who have convinced themselves that what they’re doing is for the best. Take the Great Leap Forward in China or other similar disasters. Tens of millions of people dying because the leader thought they had identified the true problem.
I’d much prefer a “selfishness” or “size of group that matters” axis. On one side of that axis you’d have tree-hugging environmentalists who think every life matters and are willing to make personal sacrifices to make a better world for people they’ve never met and never will meet. On the other side you’d have selfish people who want what’s best for themselves and are willing to make their close family members suffer if they personally can benefit. Somewhere in the middle are people like NIMBYs who agree access to affordable housing is important, but don’t want a tall building going up in their neighbourhood because it will ruin its character.
This can also lead to “dark paladins” that make sense. Instead of an evil paladin crusading on behalf of evil, you get a very selfless paladin who is willing to put his life on the line for a cause he believes in. It’s just that that cause conflicts with the belief system of the adventurer’s party.
That’s just what good and evil are, though?
Like, Good is you’re willing to sacrifice some of you’re for the benefits of others, Evil is you’re willing to sacrifice some of others’ for benefits of yourself?
Evil people only don’t think of themselves as evil because they have internalized that “evil” is a bad thing. But that what makes you evil, they often even openly admit to.
I like it, but my personal grudge has always been with the lawful/neutral/chaotic axis. Bloody people playing chaotic characters think that means they can justify doing whatever the player feels like by, quite literally, just saying, “well he’s chaotic!”
The arguments about whether someone is evil or not are more common, I suppose, when you get to levels where the spells that target alignments come into play.
Yeah, chaotic is a bad name for it.
To be fair, maybe a fae creature is truly chaotic. They might act in ways that seem insane to other people. But, other than fae creatures, it should really be a matter of believing in hierarchies and deferring to people above you in the hierarchy, or having your own moral code that you follow even if it conflicts with the laws or your orders. A paladin should be a rule follower. A rogue should normally be someone who lives by their own rules. But, they’re not really “chaotic”.
Right, the problem is that the lawful/chaotic thing is cribbed from elric of melnibonea (am I spelling that right? It’s been a while) where the concepts of law and chaos were actual big things in the world (and like most novels, the things that players get up to don’t factor in as far as the story and ‘world rules’ are going to be). I think there was something similar in the renshai books, where chaos and law were a part of the story in an interesting ‘world’ sort of way, and not a factor as much in what a person in the world is.