RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to Game Proposals, Input, and Advice

12:10, 29th March 2024 (GMT+0)

alignment variant d&d 3.5.

Posted by Ravidge
Ravidge
member, 15 posts
Thu 15 Feb 2018
at 20:11
  • msg #1

alignment variant d&d 3.5

So trying to mess around with a variant of alignments so that I can play around with people believing they are good and righteous when they could actually be evil depending on who's view you take. also I am messing around with the way gods and pantheons work, for example racial pantheons will be used rather than over arching pantheon that covers and mixes races. I would like to get some thoughts on how spells/spell like abilities such as protection from good/evil and smite would work since this could technically ruin these spells.

Here is the basic idea:

Morality is subjective at best, often used as superficial justification rather than true ethical code. For example, in the eyes of humans massacring a tribe of kobold in the mountains is a righteous act that is morally right and good. Yet, in the eyes of kobold the massacre of their ilk is seen as a heinously evil act. Even among the gods the idea of morality is often muddied by perspective and circumstance. A god that condones or supports violence against humanity would be evil in the eyes of the human pantheon, a god that is indifferent to humanity neither condoning violence nor supporting them would be neutral and those gods who support humanity would be good. The only time absolutes come into play is in the case of negative and positive energy. IE healing/inflict spells, angels, demons, devils, undead, and gods who deal specifically with good/evil/healing/undead domains.

I was thinking of handling alignment purely from the view point of the pantheon supported by that god/cleric/paladin... For example human and orc pantheons are enemies so orcs as a whole are treated as 'evil' by humans and subject to smite evil and protection from x. Whereas halfling pantheon are close supporters of the human pantheon and the two almost always move together and support each other so halflings are as a whole are treated as 'good'. Then deal with outliers case by case, a human mass murderer would still be evil but a tyrannical ruler who fervently supports the human pantheon might not be evil.

Does this seem like a reasonable approach?
Cubist
member, 77 posts
Thu 15 Feb 2018
at 23:07
  • msg #2

alignment variant d&d 3.5

I think you’re on the verge of opening a very large can of very squirmy worms. I wouldn’t want to play in such a campaign, but I’d be interested in lurking to see how it works out.
Davy Jones
member, 89 posts
Preacher
Veteran
Thu 15 Feb 2018
at 23:18
  • msg #3

alignment variant d&d 3.5

Alignments are supposed to represent objective truths, rather than some form of partisan ideology.

Massacring a village of kobolds who are minding their own business, even if they are a bunch of yippy dogmen or dragon-spawn, is an evil act to any god who is of good alignment, even if their aspect is one that opposes kobold-kind.

You may want to uncouple your idea from alignment, allow objective truths to stand, and instead add a layer of partisan or faction zealot-sy. Give the players a rating for each faction, be it religion, or guild, or race, or realm.

Even better, have the characters only know their Zealotsy rating for each faction, and track the objective alignment based on their actions. (Only when dealing with divine magic will they learn their true alignment.)
steelsmiter
member, 1840 posts
BESM, Fate, Indies, PBTA
NO FREEFORM! NO d20!
Thu 15 Feb 2018
at 23:19
  • msg #4

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

Ravidge:
Does this seem like a reasonable approach?

Maybe. It's probably better than my last approach to salvaging any connection I had with d20. I made it a "points" system, where harm caused point loss, justification, could mitigate point loss, and and doing stuff without justification or harm caused point gain. I'd have to track it down, but since it's the only game I played where alignments are absolute enough to affect the character gaining or losing statistics, it's probably a wash.
Ravidge
member, 16 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 01:49
  • msg #5

alignment variant d&d 3.5

In reply to Cubist (msg # 2):

Ya trying to toe the line playing around with different concepts and what not.


In reply to Davy Jones (msg # 3):

What if their business is eating human babies (good ol' kobold ate my baby!)? So then bringing the army to massacre the village of kobold who had been terrorizing, killing human villagers, and eating their babies would then be an evil or good act? Is it an evil act because we have a dominating force so they have no way to fight back? Does the the act being good or evil depend completely on the alignment of those involved? Does it matter who was there first?

If you were to talk to certain druid sects/ nature gods the act of having livestock is no different than slavery and just as evil. Does that then make all those paladins, clerics, and knights of 'good aligned gods' evil because they ride and eat animals raised in captivity instead of hunting for their every meal and giving thanks to their prey the way the goodly god of nature intended it?

Why can the followers of a 'good faith' eat meat but a mind flayer who raises people and feeds on them like cattle is evil. Humans are little more than cattle in the mind flayer's eyes and it treats its humans humanly keeps them well fed and more or less 'happy' in their tiny caged off fields and gives them a switch, clean, painless death...

The mind flayer is evil and the people are good because your gods have explained to you that it is morally right to eat animals because he made them for you to eat (didn't actually make them not part of his domain but hey who are you to argue). Whereas, the mind flayer is evil because you are good and god's people and it is wrong for it to kill god's people.

And what about those orcs who work as highway men killing good humans and robbing them of their things? Well they are of course evil and deserve to be killed off without a second thought. Don't mind the fact that in a war a hundred years ago we slaughtered them by the thousands and took their lands as our own. They were evil aligned then just as they are evil aligned now, it was us or them and we won. Now they have no way to feed their family because their land is now our and they are evil orcs who are unwelcome here, they should go to their wastelands and leave our country alone!

I do like the idea of hiding the good/evil alignment from the player and replacing it with a some sort of zealot/ fanatic score. The one concern I would have is every character capable of casting spells pretty much would be aware of their evilness/goodness.
gladiusdei
member, 629 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 01:56
  • msg #6

alignment variant d&d 3.5

The distinction the books make is preying on sentient beings.  That would set the mindflayers raising human like cattle and the kobolds eating human babies on the evil side.  a pretty clear cut distinction that separates the sides in each example you gave.

The problem you're going to face is if you make morality wholly subjective, it becomes very, very murky.  And very easily made hypocritical and perverse.
This message was last edited by the user at 02:13, Fri 16 Feb 2018.
Ravidge
member, 17 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 02:38
  • msg #7

alignment variant d&d 3.5

Except for maybe the case of the orcs, yes you are correct with the addition of the books that distinction is made clear. Granted I am trying to make morality wholly subjective just partially. It would be wholly subjective to each specific pantheon of gods as a whole. So if that pantheon designated another god and its followers as enemies they would fall into the evil category for followers of that pantheon. Granted it does become more subjective to criminals, dnd always made that rather subjective. Robinhood was good because he was looking out for the people where as the prince was evil because he was abusing his people.
gladiusdei
member, 630 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 02:46
  • msg #8

alignment variant d&d 3.5

it's up to you if you want to run with something like that.  You're making alignment religion based.  But what about people who do not believe in the gods, or are outside of a religion?

despite people's tendency to argue the grey areas, morality isn't actually as subjective as people sometimes say.  No one on earth can make an argument for when the acts of rape or molestation of the young or killing in fury or selfishness are acts of GOOD.  They may try to justify the acts by saying that circumstances made the act necessary for some sort of other good, or that it wasn't what it seemed, or that their intentions were altruistic.  But no one is ever really going to argue that those acts are acts of good in and of themselves.  Even when 'justified' by individuals as something asked of them by a higher power, those people have very rarely been agreed with by others at large.

having different races and different religions may cloud the issue, but you can sort of boil it down to acting in harm of others for the benefit of yourself is wrong.
steelsmiter
member, 1843 posts
BESM, Fate, Indies, PBTA
NO FREEFORM! NO d20!
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 02:49
  • msg #9

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

gladiusdei:
The problem you're going to face is if you make morality wholly subjective, it becomes very, very murky.  And very easily made hypocritical and perverse.

I see that as much less of a problem, and much more interesting to explore than clear cut black and white.

quote:
despite people's tendency to argue the grey areas, morality isn't actually as subjective as people sometimes say.  No one on earth can make an argument for when the acts of rape or molestation of the young or killing in fury or selfishness are acts of GOOD.  They may try to justify [...]  But no one is ever really going to argue that those acts are acts of good in and of themselves.

This kind of thinking is the reason I think morals are objective things applied through a subjective lens. I don't think whether the thing is "wrong" is what changes, I think it's whether the thing is "acceptable".
This message was last edited by the user at 02:52, Fri 16 Feb 2018.
gladiusdei
member, 631 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 02:52
  • msg #10

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

then go for it.  IF you want to play a game where that'd the case, and can find others who'd enjoy it, more power to you.

  In my experience, it leads to people justifying whatever they want to as 'ok.'  Not really bothering to think about it, just arguing to get away with whatever they want.

to me, just run a normal D&D game and don't worry about alignment.  Play in a setting like eberron with chaotic evil kings who fight for world peace and evil bishops of a good god.  Just keep the campaign focused on their exploits, and keep the more divine focused alignment out of it.
steelsmiter
member, 1844 posts
BESM, Fate, Indies, PBTA
NO FREEFORM! NO d20!
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 02:54
  • msg #11

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

gladiusdei:
then go for it.  IF you want to play a game where that'd the case, and can find others who'd enjoy it, more power to you.

Sorry for the confusion, but that was me, not OP.
Ravidge
member, 18 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 03:23
  • msg #12

alignment variant d&d 3.5

In reply to gladiusdei (msg # 8):

I mean if what you are saying is true we wouldn't be having so many issues in the middle east. And just to clarify I am not talking about trying to paint rapists and murders in a good light. I am simply looking at situations where you have multiple sides that all claim to be good and righteous fighting each other. Like say the crusades, both the Christians and the Muslims claimed to be good and righteous when in actually both side would probably be of neutral or evil alignment if looked at from an objective side...
Alex Vriairu
member, 426 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 04:12
  • msg #13

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

Davy Jones:
Alignments are supposed to represent objective truths, rather than some form of partisan ideology.


But that's my very problem with any alignment system no where In any form of existence is there an objective truth, in anything. Ever.  Period.

Edit: I cannot even understand how any person could ever think their could be, in real life or game.  It is so alien as to be almost if not Literally incomprehensible to me.
This message was last edited by the user at 04:14, Fri 16 Feb 2018.
gladiusdei
member, 632 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 04:15
  • msg #14

alignment variant d&d 3.5

I disagree.  In the case of things like the middle east, or people acting horribly in God's name, it is never really viewed as good.  Contemporary sources of the crusades mourned the deaths at jerusalem and vilified the crusade leaders.  But they justified the bad by saying it must have been god's will, since it happened.  That's justification.  It doesn't mean that rape and pillage is now good.

Same thing happened with Pope Innocent III and the fall of Constantinople.  He railed against the crusade leaders, he excommunicated the entire Venetian navy for the taking of the christian city of Zara.  then he basically said, there's nothing I can do to change what you did now, so we must make the best of what happened.

yet again, same thing happened with the Albigensian crusade, which led to the inquisition and hundreds of Dominicans using torture on thousands of french Cathars.  These acts were JUSTIFIED by those people who did it saying they were necessary.  But it never really changed the solid belief in christendom that causing human suffering was an evil act.

but it's always a mixed situation.  Some crusaders went on the crusade for personal gain, and did horrible things to get it.  Others fought at their sides because they genuinely believed that God wanted them to defend pilgrims from Turks.  But when each act came about, it was a personal choice.  That's where the good or evil lies.

To me, you're arguing about wider world view of situations, not personal alignment.  For instance, like I described earlier, in Eberron the King of one of the darker nations is a chaotic evil vampire.  He's a horrible creature of the night.  But he believes the only way for his people to survive is for there to be lasting peace.  So he works to ensure peace across the continent.  That's a good act, and a good goal.  Doesn't change the fact that eating people to stay alive makes him evil.

quote:
Edit: I cannot even understand how any person could ever think their could be, in real life or game.  It is so alien as to be almost if not Literally incomprehensible to me.


Well, name one culture, group, or individual that says raping a 16 year old girl for your own personal pleasure is good.  Seems like a pretty objective case of an evil act.
Alex Vriairu
member, 427 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 04:25
  • msg #15

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

gladiusdei:
quote:
Edit: I cannot even understand how any person could ever think their could be, in real life or game.  It is so alien as to be almost if not Literally incomprehensible to me.


Well, name one culture, group, or individual that says raping a 16 year old girl for your own personal pleasure is good.  Seems like a pretty objective case of an evil act.


I can't name a culture or group, but I can say that in certain situations, it -Might- and I stress the word might, because I myself am VERY much Against the idea of rape, be justified, such as in the prevention of an extinction level event after a mass failure reduces a population to dangerous levels.

Again I can't say I Support the idea, but I doubt if the survival of a culture or species was at stake they would be judged to harshly.
gladiusdei
member, 633 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 04:29
  • msg #16

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

you used the exact word I used to explain why you're not quite arguing it correctly.  The act of rape will always be evil.  Always.  But you may 'justify' it by saying it had to happen.  Just like you'd 'justify' stealing food to feed your starving family.  that doesn't now mean taking other people's property without permission is now a good act.

and again, saying they wouldn't be judged harshly is implying normally, they would be.  because the act is evil.  They just might have decided that evil had to happen.
Alex Vriairu
member, 428 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 04:35
  • msg #17

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

In reply to gladiusdei (msg # 16):

I don't see stealing food to feed your family as evil, as long as you truly had no other alternative, then stealing to provide for your family in my opinion is never evil?

My entire outlook on life is based on Situational Morality, it is impossible to for me to judge an act without looking at all factors within the act and basing my moral idea of said act exclusively within the bounds of that act, past actions have no baring on weither an act is good or evil, moral or immoral, because every act in life, has unique and differing circumstances as to any other act around it.
gladiusdei
member, 634 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 04:37
  • msg #18

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

but you would definitely feel if someone broke into your house and stole your last loaf of bread as something they shouldn't do, right?  You wouldn't find them, ask why the did it, then leave them alone, right?  The act itself is wrong, even if the individual feels justified.

and I think many things are subjective, but every human being has a certain level of belief in things being right or wrong.  We can argue forever where that idea may come from, but very few people would think it was ok for someone else to decide that it was ok to punch them and steal their lunch money, or kill their parents for fun.  The act and the intention combined would be evil in pretty much everyone's eyes.
Alex Vriairu
member, 429 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 04:41
  • msg #19

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

In reply to gladiusdei (msg # 18):

*thinks a bit* I would wonder why they did it, track them down and ask if I could.  I'd feel bad that they did it, but would I say it's something they Shouldn't do?  I'm not so sure, thinking on it.  Because I can't tell why they did it, I don't have a position on which I can pass good judgement.  I may not like that they did it, and I would want them found.  But until I know WHY they did it, I would not want them punished.
MalaeDezeld
member, 56 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 04:42
  • msg #20

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

Ravidge:
I would like to get some thoughts on how spells/spell like abilities such as protection from good/evil and smite would work since this could technically ruin these spells.


From what I have read, you could go the same way that 5th edition went. Well, a step further and actually remove the notion of alignment, but I digress. I don't think any mechanic refer to a character or monster alignment anymore. The paladin detect celestial, fiend, and undead. They can smith anyone. Spells that were aligned now deal with creature types.


And for the rest, instead of alignment, you use a system of allegiances; ranging from "kill on sight" to "savior". From your example, the party would be on "kill on sight" term with the kobolds, but the town people would consider them their saviors.
Davy Jones
member, 90 posts
Preacher
Veteran
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 07:25
  • msg #21

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

Ravidge:
What if their business is eating human babies (good ol' kobold ate my baby!)? So then bringing the army to massacre the village of kobold who had been terrorizing, killing human villagers, and eating their babies would then be an evil or good act? Is it an evil act because we have a dominating force so they have no way to fight back? Does the the act being good or evil depend completely on the alignment of those involved? Does it matter who was there first?


Well, "minding their own business" implied that they were not menacing a population. If the kobolds were actually snatching up children from villages, or doing other malicious acts, then there's a level of righteousness in driving them off. And, in fact, the act of protecting innocents from harm is considered objectively good.

However, it still wouldn't justify the murder of non-combatants. If they defeat the kobold combatants, good-aligned characters would not and should not continue the fight to non-combatants (women and children). To do so would be an objectively evil act, regardless of the righteousness of the initial action.

The line, here, is pretty darn clear.

Ravidge:
If you were to talk to certain druid sects/ nature gods the act of having livestock is no different than slavery and just as evil. Does that then make all those paladins, clerics, and knights of 'good aligned gods' evil because they ride and eat animals raised in captivity instead of hunting for their every meal and giving thanks to their prey the way the goodly god of nature intended it?


This isn't an objective alignment issue. This is ideology. Druid sects or nature religions that oppose the keeping of livestock or the riding of mounts aren't any more objectively good than pious knights who ride a large steed and keep cattle and sheep on their manors.

However, the druids acting upon that ideology will inform their alignment.

Ravidge:
Why can the followers of a 'good faith' eat meat but a mind flayer who raises people and feeds on them like cattle is evil. Humans are little more than cattle in the mind flayer's eyes and it treats its humans humanly keeps them well fed and more or less 'happy' in their tiny caged off fields and gives them a switch, clean, painless death...

The mind flayer is evil and the people are good because your gods have explained to you that it is morally right to eat animals because he made them for you to eat (didn't actually make them not part of his domain but hey who are you to argue). Whereas, the mind flayer is evil because you are good and god's people and it is wrong for it to kill god's people.


So, you're equating the eating of animals with the eating of sentient beings? This one's a bit of a stretch. Scratch that; it's quite a stretch.

Look at it this way; even dark elves, arguably the most selfish and sadistic of the playable races, don't stoop to eating other sentient beings.

Ravidge:
And what about those orcs who work as highway men killing good humans and robbing them of their things? Well they are of course evil and deserve to be killed off without a second thought. Don't mind the fact that in a war a hundred years ago we slaughtered them by the thousands and took their lands as our own. They were evil aligned then just as they are evil aligned now, it was us or them and we won. Now they have no way to feed their family because their land is now our and they are evil orcs who are unwelcome here, they should go to their wastelands and leave our country alone!


Okay, I think this one is purposefully over the top.

IF the orcs were "evil aligned" then, what were they doing that made the humans believe that? Were they raiding and pillaging border regions? Attacking caravans?

(I've run out of time for the night, so I'll have to leave this one here, but I think you understand where I'm coming from.)
Ravidge
member, 19 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 15:25
  • msg #22

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

First off up until a few hundred years ago a man's wife was his property and having carnal relations with her was considered his right whether she agreed or not. This was a morality supported and re-enforced by the church so get off your high horses of it has always been morally wrong in all situations. Yes we can go into the fine points of people who were blatant abusers but the fact is it was common for a 13 or 14 year old girl to be wed to a 40 year old man. It was quite common and everyone saw as well good and above bored, and I can guaranty you most of those girls were raped on their wedding night by there husband. Hell there was probably a priest in the room to bless the rape as a successful union of man and wife.

Secondly in the case of the kobolds there is a question of inherent evil. If you are playing in a campaign where kobold can be of any alignment under the sun then yes I agree with you. However, if you are playing in a campaign where certain races are inherently evil (drow were intended to be inherently evil) your argument falls apart. If every kobold or drow or whatever is guarantied to be evil then killing off the women, children, and disabled is not an evil act it is simply taking the weeds out by the roots. So no I don't agree with your blanket statement.

The argument is similar for the humans and orcs, if they have a racial hatred (like many settings have between elves and orcs, or dwarves and giants/goblins) then they automatically see all orcs as evil enemies. It doesn't matter that they invaded the orcs land and that is what caused the raids, orcs are evil so they don't deserve that land anyways.

Thirdly, in a setting where you are one spell or racial ability away from holding a conversation with an animal blurs the lines of sentient beings. The fact that you can hold a coherent conversation with an animal in most settings even if they only have the competency to speak similar to a child would suggest they are sentient beings. The litmus test for sentience becomes even muddier with awaken/mass awaken. These spells makes the argument of whether it is ok or not to eat something based purely on level of intelligence, you hit this certain threshold and it is wrong for me to eat you... An animal doesn't have a high enough level of intelligence without awaken or becoming the familiar of a mage or the mount of a paladin for us to acknowledge it as sentient. By that same argument the average human is a lot stupider than a mind flayer so it has just as much right to eat lesser sentient creatures as we have to eat animals.

MalaeDezeld, I haven't actually played 5e yet I was so disgusted and disappointed in 4e that I haven't had the heart to look at 5e. Will have to check it out, but that is a great idea.
Going Eberron style was what I was originally thinking before I came up with this hair brained idea. More or less was just interested in seeing what people thought of this dramatic change. Still not sure if it is a decent idea or more trouble than it is worth. If nothing else, this is a fun and interesting thread!

On a side note I don't mean to offend anyone and please let me know if I have.
gladiusdei
member, 637 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 16:04
  • msg #23

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

The argument is a bit pointless now, but most people did not marry at such a young age, even in the height if the middle ages.  That was only common in nobility and royalty, because they wanted to cement alliances and ensure an heir before the lord died.

You're right, it was probably rape for a lot of those women.  But it was still not viewed as morally right.  It was viewed as necessary.  Justifying something as being necessary is not the same as saying it is a good thing.  Rape was still illegal.  They just turned a blind eye to that evil because it suited their purposes.  Never said that the medieval mind was always good.  Just saying as a culture and religion they always clearly delineated good and evil, even if many of their adherents ignored those lines.  That's a distinction that is true of every creed, religion, and code in history.

And the line between harming sentient life is the line made in the books.  Since the books clearly describe how mindflayers enjoy causing pain and suffering in the humans they kill because it tastes good, sort of makes it clear its an evil thing to do.  Just like people argue now thst it is evil to be inhumane to cattle.  Its sort of impossible to kill human beings for food without destroying their conscious will.

Either way, the idea of switching the spells from being alignment based to being type based seems like the best mechanical way to get aroundc alignment.  Without it divine magic will be a lot more complicated and difficult to use in game, since a lot of it functions along lines of alignment.  That's your only big problem with ignoring alignment in a D&D game.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:11, Fri 16 Feb 2018.
Tortuga
member, 1773 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 16:09
  • msg #24

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

quote:
First off up until a few hundred years ago a man's wife was his property and having carnal relations with her was considered his right whether she agreed or not.


This is not universally historically accurate. The rights of women in historical society have fluctuated wildly throughout human civilization, even if you're only considering medieval Christian Europe.
Davy Jones
member, 92 posts
Preacher
Veteran
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 16:16
  • msg #25

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

Alex Vriairu:
Davy Jones:
Alignments are supposed to represent objective truths, rather than some form of partisan ideology.


But that's my very problem with any alignment system no where In any form of existence is there an objective truth, in anything. Ever.  Period.

Edit: I cannot even understand how any person could ever think their could be, in real life or game.  It is so alien as to be almost if not Literally incomprehensible to me.


So, you don't believe in an objective morality? That there are acts that are universally good or evil? Leave politics out of it, and look at the collective of humanity.

Universally, murder is wrong. The mistreatment of another human being or animal is wrong. Kidnapping, raping, stealing is wrong.

That's what we're talking about in an "objective" sense.

Look at Hitler and Stalin, do you not believe that they were evil men? Or that Mister Rogers wasn't a good man?

In any game, things get simplified for the sake of ease of play. In a game where the disposition of gods matters, because they are real and their powers manifest through chosen disciples, its useful to have these alignments to guide characters in how they view the world and how they are viewed by others. It's not perfect, but I've found it useful.

Ravidge, you don't have to agree with me, but I will say that someone of GOOD alignment is still forbidden by their code/beliefs from harming even "inherently evil" creatures, if said creatures are not acting on their inherent alignment. To do otherwise is murder, plain and simple.

The inherent alignment of someone doesn't matter to objective good or evil. If you are good, you don't commit murder. Period. You certainly don't commit genocide, wiping out a village just because they are inherently evil. And trying to use their inherent alignment as justification is not a useful defense when trying to explain your actions at the end of your life.

Okay, the "women are property" thing. Do you not consider it objectively wrong? I certainly do. It doesn't matter what is approved by a culture or society, and I will say the way women were treated in some societies was a non-good act. It taints them, even if their society believed it was justified or even moral.

You're conflating what the society itself thinks with "objective alignment." They are two different things. That's why I suggested a faction/societal moral zealotsy as an overlay, because the objective alignment can't be swayed by moral relativism. If your society treats women poorly, your society isn't as objectively good as it thinks.

Anyway, I'm sure you can tell I believe that moral relativism is a cancer on any society. I've said my piece, and I hope I've given you things to consider for your game, should you pursue it. Thanks for letting me opine, and good luck with your game. :)
Sign In