Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

05-06-2003, 12:34 AM

I know some of those here don't like referring to good and evil, talking about how non-absolute they are.

First of all, my perception of the good-evil axis is fluid, with no real beginning or end. This means that such concepts as 'pure evil' aren't really practical, given that there is at least some good to them... even if in the end you could argue it only helps themselves, there is still some good quality to them.

Ok, I think a lot of us think of morality as well, and how it factors in. The way I see that isn't too hard: Everyone has morals, even if they're messed up ones. Perhaps even an honor among theives type of thing. There might be that supposed angel looking for people to serve a demon, but he's going about it in what looks good, so what does it matter if he is evil as long as no one else is hurt?

But for the sake of arguement and since it seems to be the focus of the thread, I'll look at how I personally see AD&D, because the system has its merits, regardless of what some people say. (Yes, a shift for me, admittedly.)

As much as sometimes I in particular like to think good and evil are pointless, I can't really believe that all that much. The problem being that some people do things that are good for humanity/civlization/whatever, and other seek their own influence, while others just go around aimlessly.

It is easy to create a 'good' or 'evil' character, in a way. But to create a character that hs parts of that good and evil apply is different.

In AD&D, there are 2 factors to conider, and it could be applicable to non-alignment type systems as well.
The two, to my notice are:
Action-What's actually done.
Intent-Why the action was done.
This is how the AD&D system has much use, to my notice, and it hints at a rather good instrument, even if it seems rather crude.
Actions inherantly are what are done, helping someone, killing someone, doing nothing, getting a drink, injecting yourself with drugs, all matters of the act, regardless of intent are included. When considering the action, forget everything about why, just include the 'what.'
Intent... this is a little harder. But what was trying to be done, why would it be done? Don't worry about what happened here, just think of what was the goal of the act.
Combine them, and a rough alignment of the entire act can be found.
Act in this case being the combination of the action and the intent.
The true alignment is just a 'rough average' in my perception. Nice to make one, but really shouldn't apply to all situations.

05-06-2003, 12:34 AM	#7
Yev Posts: n/a	I know some of those here don't like referring to good and evil, talking about how non-absolute they are. First of all, my perception of the good-evil axis is fluid, with no real beginning or end. This means that such concepts as 'pure evil' aren't really practical, given that there is at least some good to them... even if in the end you could argue it only helps themselves, there is still some good quality to them. Ok, I think a lot of us think of morality as well, and how it factors in. The way I see that isn't too hard: Everyone has morals, even if they're messed up ones. Perhaps even an honor among theives type of thing. There might be that supposed angel looking for people to serve a demon, but he's going about it in what looks good, so what does it matter if he is evil as long as no one else is hurt? But for the sake of arguement and since it seems to be the focus of the thread, I'll look at how I personally see AD&D, because the system has its merits, regardless of what some people say. (Yes, a shift for me, admittedly.) As much as sometimes I in particular like to think good and evil are pointless, I can't really believe that all that much. The problem being that some people do things that are good for humanity/civlization/whatever, and other seek their own influence, while others just go around aimlessly. It is easy to create a 'good' or 'evil' character, in a way. But to create a character that hs parts of that good and evil apply is different. In AD&D, there are 2 factors to conider, and it could be applicable to non-alignment type systems as well. The two, to my notice are: Action-What's actually done. Intent-Why the action was done. This is how the AD&D system has much use, to my notice, and it hints at a rather good instrument, even if it seems rather crude. Actions inherantly are what are done, helping someone, killing someone, doing nothing, getting a drink, injecting yourself with drugs, all matters of the act, regardless of intent are included. When considering the action, forget everything about why, just include the 'what.' Intent... this is a little harder. But what was trying to be done, why would it be done? Don't worry about what happened here, just think of what was the goal of the act. Combine them, and a rough alignment of the entire act can be found. Act in this case being the combination of the action and the intent. The true alignment is just a 'rough average' in my perception. Nice to make one, but really shouldn't apply to all situations.