Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!rkhs
From: rkhs@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (joseph lee bernstein)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Alignment--the system that made me drop it
Message-ID: <475@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 11-May-85 09:04:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.475
Posted: Sat May 11 09:04:52 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 12-May-85 05:44:35 EDT
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 35


Aways back when I was confidently designing the 'perfect' game system, I came
up with the following five dimensions of alignment.  (Yes, you read right.)
So, obviously, since then I've simply opted for role-playing.  Here's why:

LAWFUL v. CHAOTIC:  Pretty much straight from the AD&D:  society v. individu-
   alism.  The connections between this and personal life (outside strictly
   ethical matters) strike me as confusing--call for subtle role-playing.

GOOD v. EVIL:  I drew this distinction over the idea of rights.  But that's
   my CG bias.  Perhaps it's better stated that Good rests on accepting that
   morality is universal, Evil on otherwise?  Or Good has general happiness
   as its goal, Evil doesn't?  I think a distinction of emphasis matters
   more than one of strict belief;  Evils can claim their doctrines lead
   to the only real kind of general happiness, but then look at their
   *means* to it, or at *what* they mean by it!  By the way, the essentially
   negative nature of evil has a lot to do with the absence of redeemed
   demons in Judaeo-Christian tradition, ergo in most gaming.

MACHIAVELLIAN v. ANTI-MACHIAVELLIAN:  Yup.  Can this be equated w/ Good v.
   Evil?  Unless it can it's obviously necessary.

MORAL v. IMMORAL:  A practical index for DMs.  Many people don't live
   perfectly by their beliefs; why expect paladin-like strictness of thieves?

And kind of following that last question
AMORAL v. ALIGNED:  With 'Selfish' in between, as in 'Selfish Neutral'--very
   different from druidism.  Lots of people don't *have* many beliefs.

Some of these distinctions rest on some pretty major assumptions, e.g. that
there is a worthwhile definition of 'Good' that allows it to be Machiavellian.
But a number of them don't--anybody care to tell me 'immoral'='amoral'?
I think most of them hold, leaving an absurd range of possibilities.  
Suddenly, discarding the pretense that philosophy *has* to be a major part of a 
PC's accouterments looks a lot more attractive.