Subjective Alignment: Is it viable?

[nc-edsl]

OK, but how opposed to that definition would someone have to be to be affected? Where do you draw the line? And does the character even know what they think is "good" or "evil" if the DM is allowed to shift the definitions at will? Or can the PCs shift their definitions at will too?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. The definitions wouldn't be shifting often, and would likely only change slowly over time or in the case of something dramatically affecting their outlook on life.

An easy example is this: someone believes that they are CG, meaning that they "don't like cities but do like people." He arrives at a temple that believed itself to be LN, meaning that they "dedicated themselves to strengthening communities and personal ties."

Is the CG Guy affected by the LN's Ward against Chaos? On one hand, the Guy doesn't seem to like cities or collections of people, but he probably is honest in his dealings - that is, he respects personal ties. Does the Guy show up as "neutral" then, even if he thinks of himself as chaotic? When the Priest put the ward up, would he have wanted to keep out all those who don't like living in communities, or just does that actively try to break down communities?

If your response is "I need more information" then you see the problem already. You will either requires pages of philosophical dissertation to cover all the nuances of a given "alignment structure" or you'll just decide, ad hoc, that "well, he thinks he's chaotic, so he triggers the ward." Neither is an improvement over a fixed alignment system, and can make any attempt to use alignment-based magic a farce.

By my ruling, he wouldn't trigger the ward. By the temple's definition, he would be neutral (he doesn't oppose communities and personal ties, he just doesn't like the impersonal city structure) and they cast the spell, so their definition determines it's effects. Those ideas are rather vague, though. Ideally each character would write a paragraph (or a few) outlining their definition of each of good, evil, law, and chaos, rather than having a single vague phrase summing up their whole philosophy.

But what are the prerequisites? If you're thinking of standard Intelligent Weapon design, then I submit those are not "aligned" weapons either. Is it morally relevant whether someone things "Elves are Evil" or "Orcs are Evil?" when they're designing a weapon? And if you draw these "prerequisites" narrowly, how can you, as the DM, be sure how a given player fits the prerequisites without practice?

Example: A Sword of Justice declares that "the strong shall never prey on the weak" as the measure of a Good person. A LG Fighter shows up and says "I think it's wrong for creatures to prey on those who cannot defend themselves." Sounds good, yes? But what happens when the Fighter uses the Sword to slay goblins that, while they could defend themselves, they didn't stand a chance against the Fighter. And what if the Fighter killed them for the reward given by the town mayor, because they had been stealing chickens?

It is quite possible that the Sword will suddenly reject the Fighter even though the Fighter thinks he is doing Good (and is doing good by his own lights).

In this case, does it even make sense to think about this interaction as being "alignment" based? If so, why?

I agree that the sword would reject the fighter, but the fighter wouldn't be following his own code here either. The goblins could try to defend themselves, but they couldn't actually defend themselves from him. However, this is more due to the simplicity of the fighter's viewpoint than anything.

I agree this would require more work than the standard alignment system, but I think it could still work if everyone were willing to cooperate.

Why would you say that? Clearly the cleric sees the world as one of Others and Self. It is "good" to be selfless and expend all your energies to helping others, but such a path is self-defeating. "Evil" is just the choice of your own well being over that of others; you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

This sounds like a reasonable conception of "Good" and "Evil" under a subjective alignment system and I don't find it depressing. Heck, it's a highly motivating philosophy if you ask me.

It sounds like you are imposing your own constructions of "good" and "evil" upon his personal definitions. Naughty, naughty.

It wasn't so much that he thought of himself as evil, it was that he defined evil as himself, rather than the other way around. If he said "I consider <definition> to be evil. I fall within <definition>. Therefore, I consider myself evil." then that would be fine. But if someone asks "Hey, what is a list of everything in the world you think is bad" and he responds "Me. Oh, and people who like me." then he's got some issues.