Author: Jocelyn Robitaille (---.videotron.ca)
Date: 08-07-2002 08:20
Howdy,
First and foremost, I wanna say that I'm glad seem to have decided to stick with a more structured style of writing (as with your last article). You do ramble on a good deal, but still, the structure helps skimming through your random thoughts to get to the juice.
Second, I think we could have done without the pedantic tone of your mini-summary.
Third, the individual / global alignement. I think you do have a point, sorta. The whole personal-self v.s. social-self issue is one of the things that do invalidate alignement as an every-RPG-mechanic (see my further). However, I don't think we oughta just create two types of alignement, one global and one individual. That would just be creating two sets of restrictive guidelines leaving no room for variants. This said, used simply as an argument against the use of alignements, you do hold a point in part too, albeit one we've seen spelled out by many people before you.
Fourth, the passive / pro-active alignements (or, as Jung or Eysenck would call them, introverted / extraverted). Again, an interesting point, again one that would've been much more effective if addressed as something else than an alignement. Passiveness and pro-activeness (if that's even a word) are not something that will stick forever as a constant in the actions of the characters. At best they're a tendancy, at worst they're contextual. Presenting them as alignements make them restrictive.
Fifth, I have an issue with the fact that you've chosen fantasy as an example. Granted, the alignement system comes straight from D&D, but still. Like I have said earlier, I agree with you that alignements are not a "every-RPG" mechanic. I can even agree that they're restrictive for fantasy. However, they are there as guidelines of sort, I believe, and as such their spirit should generally be respected. To make a long story short, alignements are there to promote the morally clean-cut tone of fantasy. Even in setings where there are nuances, absolute good and absolute evil do exist. That's what makes the charm of fantasy for many people. Arguing like you do for subjectivist approach to morality like you do is, for me, sucking the fun out of fantasy. Therefore, your arguments felt wrong until I read your piece again a second time while thinking about RPGs as a whole instead of D&D like you suggested. I think your piece would've been better served by talking about RPGs in general, or better yet, a genre which leans itself better to a total absence of absolutes (like modern games, for instance).
Jocelyn
|
|
