Alignment has caused many arguments and debates. The rules state them in what appears to be a clear and concise fashion. So why all the debate? Why all the heated arguments?
What the rules don't state or cover clearly is the subjective nature of morality. What is the difference between angels waging war on devils and vice-versa? Paladins commit genocidal acts rather frequently, against both humanoids and monsters; yet their alignment is rarely in question.
What separates genocide from rightful crusade? What separates justice from vengeance?
Intent.
Not to veer too far into moral relativism, but many acts committed by PCs can be done either for good or for evil, for chaos or for law. A death can throw an area into chaos or restore order. Can serve the greater good, the self, or the worst evil.
I think the alignments are an internal structure for the characters. Someone who is lawful aligns his ethics with the laws, yet can lead rebellion against unjust laws (good) or enact or uphold laws that oppress others for personal gain. Someone who is "free-spirited" (chaotic) can steal to help those in need (good) or for personal gain (evil).
Alignments aren't boundaries that cannot be crossed. Once crossed, they can be crossed again. Or the character may discover that they enjoy the new found freedom or structure of their new alignment.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment