• Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The actions were always lawful good. There’s a large philosophical argument about actions versus intent for a reason. It’s not that simple.

    • neatchee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m speaking to alignment of a character, not a specific action. In your example, regardless of the action itself, the character is not being Lawful Good. They are not interested in the creed itself for its own sake. They are interested in what they get from following the creed. That’s not Lawful Good, no matter how you slice it IMO

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sure, I agree. There are plenty of philosophers who would argue otherwise though. I just think alignment as the nine quadrants gets stale. People should be willing to take other outlooks.

        There are millinia of philosophers arguing about morality. The typical D&D quadrants are boring in comparison. The people in the world won’t care if something good happens just because the paladin wanted to impress their god. They’ll just be happy that something good happened. Will the god care? That’s up to them (and the DM).

        Does a lawful character follow the law because something bad will happen otherwise, or do they morally agree with lawfulness? Both follow laws equally, but one doesn’t always agree with them.

        • neatchee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think that’s a bit off track though. The purpose of the alignment chart is not to accurately cover the full history of philosophy. It’s about providing structure around which the player can internalize their character’s motivations, and a guide for the DM and other players who won’t have as clear an understanding of that as the player themself.

          Imagine instead of a 9x9 grid, it’s a 900x900 grid, split into 9 broad segments.

          Your character’s actual internal moral compass might fall anywhere on that 900x900 grid, and the edges of each quadrant blur together, but it’s a solid rubric for everyone to align (heh) on what to expect from a character.

          And for new players it can provide a starting point for understanding their own character.

          My point is to stress that how the character feels is more important than what they do when it comes to alignment because that best serves the goal of the system: encouraging deeper connection with the character and moving players more towards actual role-play instead of simple play-acting

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree it’s a good starting point, and I think that’s how it should remain. It’s also faster to describe “I’m lawful good” instead of “my code of ethics involves…” but I don’t like it when people use it as a defining characteristic for their character.

            What reasons they have for following that alignment is much more interesting than just saying they’re following it. How does their personality and desires play into it? Where might they do something against it?

            I agree it’s useful for communication, but a lot of people stop at that and don’t consider their character’s opinions, desires, and goals further.