Pegasos989
2006-08-20, 11:40 AM
Heya. I am quite new here so I am not sure which board is appropriate for this. Did I make the correct choice?
Anyways, I already have similar thread posted on wizards' forums but thought that I would ask opinions here too...
So, I have been thinking about some changes to alignment system lately. I have no problem with lawful-chaotic axis as most people agree on those. The good-evil axis however seems to be too wide on definition and still too strict to be good to use.
A few common examples are:
-Everyone thinks diffrently of what is good and what is not. Some people think that sacrifices (including lives of others) can be made for the sake of greater good while others believe that it is exactly what Lawful Evil is about.
-All evil and all good creatures are in a way on a same level with others. Like a kobold priest and orc priest who both think all the other races should be destroyed but still neither can use spells affecting opposite alignment, smiting, etc. on other cause they are both evil.
-Non-good creatures can not have classes that need great personal sacrifices or protect others (like paladins).
As everyone has diffrent morals and views of good, I think that it should be possible to view things subjectively. Everyone who believes he is doing the right thing (a huge majority of people) has a good alignment from his point of view. Everyone who has similar values is concidered good for him and everyone who has opposite is concidered evil.
So, as an example:
-A goblin who wants to defend his village, family, friends, etc. even though they might raid and kill humans can become a paladin. It is not about whether some of us thinks that he is good or not, but he thinks he is doing the right thing. If a traditionally "good" character tries to stop the goblins by killing some of them, the goblin can smite the character.
So it is changing good-evil to opposite moral codes really. To quote a person who understood my point on another thread:
"Well, in theory you are right, however, the OP is not talking about the Cleric of Gruumsh being good, he is saying that he has his own point of veiw, and because (Cleric of Gruumsh != Cleric of Heironeous ) both Clerics can consider the other "Evil" and they can both smite each other."
So for example, a paladin raised among a society with clerics of vecna or nerull might not see anything wrong in channeling negative energy, animating undead, assasinations etc. as they were all concidered daily stuff. Some people say assasinations are always evil, some say it is situational but from his point of view it is not.
This system has both good and poor sides.
Good sides:
No more arguing about can the paladin smite the other guy. If the other guy has completely diffrent principles, he can.
No more class restrictions by alignment. If goblin wants to defend his village, he can be a paladin. (If someone claims I have found inspiration from this http://goblinscomic.com/d/20051014.html... Well, he would be right.
More depth as the orc and goblin can smite each other even though traditionally both would be evil.
Poor sides:
Needs more defining on how far views must be to be "smitable", what subjects are smitable, etc.
There are propably a lot more that I haven't thought of yet.
So I would like to have some opinions of this here too. Do people find this useful or useless? More harm or good? Any downsides I haven't noticed?
Anyways, I already have similar thread posted on wizards' forums but thought that I would ask opinions here too...
So, I have been thinking about some changes to alignment system lately. I have no problem with lawful-chaotic axis as most people agree on those. The good-evil axis however seems to be too wide on definition and still too strict to be good to use.
A few common examples are:
-Everyone thinks diffrently of what is good and what is not. Some people think that sacrifices (including lives of others) can be made for the sake of greater good while others believe that it is exactly what Lawful Evil is about.
-All evil and all good creatures are in a way on a same level with others. Like a kobold priest and orc priest who both think all the other races should be destroyed but still neither can use spells affecting opposite alignment, smiting, etc. on other cause they are both evil.
-Non-good creatures can not have classes that need great personal sacrifices or protect others (like paladins).
As everyone has diffrent morals and views of good, I think that it should be possible to view things subjectively. Everyone who believes he is doing the right thing (a huge majority of people) has a good alignment from his point of view. Everyone who has similar values is concidered good for him and everyone who has opposite is concidered evil.
So, as an example:
-A goblin who wants to defend his village, family, friends, etc. even though they might raid and kill humans can become a paladin. It is not about whether some of us thinks that he is good or not, but he thinks he is doing the right thing. If a traditionally "good" character tries to stop the goblins by killing some of them, the goblin can smite the character.
So it is changing good-evil to opposite moral codes really. To quote a person who understood my point on another thread:
"Well, in theory you are right, however, the OP is not talking about the Cleric of Gruumsh being good, he is saying that he has his own point of veiw, and because (Cleric of Gruumsh != Cleric of Heironeous ) both Clerics can consider the other "Evil" and they can both smite each other."
So for example, a paladin raised among a society with clerics of vecna or nerull might not see anything wrong in channeling negative energy, animating undead, assasinations etc. as they were all concidered daily stuff. Some people say assasinations are always evil, some say it is situational but from his point of view it is not.
This system has both good and poor sides.
Good sides:
No more arguing about can the paladin smite the other guy. If the other guy has completely diffrent principles, he can.
No more class restrictions by alignment. If goblin wants to defend his village, he can be a paladin. (If someone claims I have found inspiration from this http://goblinscomic.com/d/20051014.html... Well, he would be right.
More depth as the orc and goblin can smite each other even though traditionally both would be evil.
Poor sides:
Needs more defining on how far views must be to be "smitable", what subjects are smitable, etc.
There are propably a lot more that I haven't thought of yet.
So I would like to have some opinions of this here too. Do people find this useful or useless? More harm or good? Any downsides I haven't noticed?