Larrx
2015-08-05, 05:33 PM
Subjective ethics might be fun, but they don't work as a game mechanic. So . . . ethics are objective. Okay.
There are three popular frameworks upon which to hang ethics.
Virtue ethics (think Aristotle and the golden mean), claims that good behavior is achieved by trying to embody virtues. It doesn't matter what you do as long as you aspire to courage, and a sense of duty, and kindness, and what not. This leaves the player in complete control of what alignment they decide to be. Not very interesting as a mechanic, so we'll discard it.
A teleological framework (think Bentham and the hedonic calculus) is troubling in the opposite way. If ethics are based on the end result, which can never be known for certain, then alignment is completely controlled by the GM (and maybe simply the dice!).
So we're left with a deontological approach (think Kant and the categorical imperative). Acts are in and of them selves good, lawful, neutral, etc.
For example . . . accepting an enemy's surrender is good. Stealing (if the theft doesn't cause critical hardship) is neutral. Killing is evil.
Of course, 3.5 is primarily a combat engine, so we have to relax the no killing rule. Killing to defend life is a good action, and the player's own life counts. Self defense is okay.
There are still a few problems. A good player may accept a foes surrender because it's the right thing to do. A neutral character might do the same because they fear legal repercussions. An Evil guy might want to let him live so that he can torture him for information. We don't want the neutral or evil character to fall (bounce?) for this action. I know that this harkens back to the virtue/intention framework I already discarded (here is a good place to yell at me), but I think there is a solution.
Aligned acts are exclusive. An evil character can perform as many good acts as he wants with no effect on their alignment. A good character cannot perform neutral or evil acts without risk. This brings up two big problems. First, how do evil characters find redemption if everyday good deeds aren't sufficient? That one is fairly easy to solve, there simply has to be a new category of acts beyond good. I'll call them 'exalted' in honor of a terrible book. These would include thinks like contrition, amends, and reparations.
The other problem is a little trickier, and I don't have a solid answer. Why would anyone play a good or lawful character if a chaotic or evil one could do all the good stuff they want with no repercussions, and also have the freedom to do anything else? Relaxing alignment prereqs helps (I've never understood why we can't have lawful bards or chaotic monks . . . they're ubiquitous in media) so that an alignment shift doesn't kill class features. As a DM it's possible to give good characters more trust, so that's a perk. In a perfect world players would choose an alignment based on who they want to pretend to be, and I'm not sure this accomplishes that, but otherwise I think it's pretty solid. Thoughts?
There are three popular frameworks upon which to hang ethics.
Virtue ethics (think Aristotle and the golden mean), claims that good behavior is achieved by trying to embody virtues. It doesn't matter what you do as long as you aspire to courage, and a sense of duty, and kindness, and what not. This leaves the player in complete control of what alignment they decide to be. Not very interesting as a mechanic, so we'll discard it.
A teleological framework (think Bentham and the hedonic calculus) is troubling in the opposite way. If ethics are based on the end result, which can never be known for certain, then alignment is completely controlled by the GM (and maybe simply the dice!).
So we're left with a deontological approach (think Kant and the categorical imperative). Acts are in and of them selves good, lawful, neutral, etc.
For example . . . accepting an enemy's surrender is good. Stealing (if the theft doesn't cause critical hardship) is neutral. Killing is evil.
Of course, 3.5 is primarily a combat engine, so we have to relax the no killing rule. Killing to defend life is a good action, and the player's own life counts. Self defense is okay.
There are still a few problems. A good player may accept a foes surrender because it's the right thing to do. A neutral character might do the same because they fear legal repercussions. An Evil guy might want to let him live so that he can torture him for information. We don't want the neutral or evil character to fall (bounce?) for this action. I know that this harkens back to the virtue/intention framework I already discarded (here is a good place to yell at me), but I think there is a solution.
Aligned acts are exclusive. An evil character can perform as many good acts as he wants with no effect on their alignment. A good character cannot perform neutral or evil acts without risk. This brings up two big problems. First, how do evil characters find redemption if everyday good deeds aren't sufficient? That one is fairly easy to solve, there simply has to be a new category of acts beyond good. I'll call them 'exalted' in honor of a terrible book. These would include thinks like contrition, amends, and reparations.
The other problem is a little trickier, and I don't have a solid answer. Why would anyone play a good or lawful character if a chaotic or evil one could do all the good stuff they want with no repercussions, and also have the freedom to do anything else? Relaxing alignment prereqs helps (I've never understood why we can't have lawful bards or chaotic monks . . . they're ubiquitous in media) so that an alignment shift doesn't kill class features. As a DM it's possible to give good characters more trust, so that's a perk. In a perfect world players would choose an alignment based on who they want to pretend to be, and I'm not sure this accomplishes that, but otherwise I think it's pretty solid. Thoughts?