Canuvea frankly your post was a relief to read.
Sometimes I feel like everyone just accepts alignment and defends the idea because its the status quo, rather than because it is useful or makes sense.

I would still be entertained to see peoples theories about what alignment characters in Harkovast would be, though.

Harkovast character alignment?

Okay. Let me see… there is evil, neutral, good, and chaotic, lawful, neutral? (Is there actually two neutrals? I wouldn't think so).

Ki is Neutral, (does what he has to regardless, good or evil, would kill babies) Lawful, (always works for Nymus republic's best interests…so is predictable), Awesome (Cause he is).

Shogun is Neutral (cause he kills shit like Ki… with little regard for moral rules, might kill babies, would kill children), Lawful (follows strict societal rules etc), Grouchy (cause he is)

Sir Muir is Good (obvious chivalry nut, wouldn't kill babies, or those surrendering, for example), Chaotic (this guy doesn't know what he himself is doing half the time… or so it seems), Awesome Crazy (really, Sir Muir is pretty damn cool, even if he is kinda crazy).

Chen Chen is Good (has her own ethics that seem goody goody, will kill in self defense… as she sees it), Lawful (…yeah, she's a nun), Neato (surprisingly good fighter, and pretty cool too).

The Gunsmith is Neutral (Works for best interests of the Golta nation, likely, and doesn't care beyond that), Lawful (predictable, only works for money, but upholds bargains etc), Cocky… with guns…(Yeah, thats a pun too).

The Heretic is Evil (working for his own gain as he wants power, even if he does want a “better” nation, will kill babies, wounded, etc), Lawful (is goal directed, wants power, and so needs organization and direction. Is not some kind of rogue exactly), With Anger Issues.

The Speaker is Evil (seeks domination over others for his King, will do whatever it takes to make everyone slaves), Lawful (Goal directed, reliably working for The KITW), Religious nutter asshole who is, admittedly, pretty awesome.

Problem is that this restricts character development and has a tendency to make characters 1 dimensional. Essentially this is a snapshot of character behavior at the moment in the comic, and so cannot really be classified as “alignments” as such. But, I hope this entertained you!

Sir Muir is insane (so chaotic), but follows his code of chivalry even at the risk of his own safety! He is both the most chaotic AND the most lawful person in the comic.
I guess that pretty much proves right there why alignment systems blow!

That's a pretty good point actually. But… being good automatically means following the “good code” even if you are also “chaotic.” Or so I'd assume… What that means is that perhaps the alignment Good Chaotic itself makes no sense…

Quote Jack Sparrow about honesty here…

You can always trust a “good” person to be “good” regardless of if they are “chaotic” or “lawful.” Does that mean that there can be no such thing as “good” “chaotic?” Or does Good Chaotic cover situations just like Sir Muir's.

The thing is, that from a Darsai's perspective (their religion etc) sir Muir is possibly so good as to be perfect. Hence good… and good in Darsai religion means following the laws of Chivalry. Hence he can be called “good.”

But even from a Darsai perspective I would call him chaotic… why? He (at least not currently) is not part of the Feudal hierarchy (again, I stress at the moment), and he cannot keep his mind on a single track (or so it seems), as well as seemingly wandering around at random.

Rather from seeing Sir Muir's predictability in the realm of chivalry as negating the rating “chaotic” but instead seeing it as adding to Muir's “good” rating. Maybe we don't have a paradox here…

A “Lawful” soldier of darkness doesn't have to have a code of conduct in battle, it can still fight dirty, so long as it follows the rest of the rules laid out by the evil overlord… And it is evil…

Is, for example, the Geneva convention a symptom of “good” or “lawful?” The “bad” guys can still follow it… So long as it is followed…

Does “Good” and “Evil” depend on intent? I suppose someone could do random things with good intentions. But none of this actually has anything to do with Sir Muir… in fact it all comes down to predictability of action… which Sir Muir has both Lawful and Chaotic aspects of.

Okay. Yeah. Muir is Good Chaotic/Lawful… So I just wasted internet space. Thankfully there is a lot of that.

Unless you take different aspects of the character's lives and classify that… Muir is Good in Darsai ethics… Evil in Golta ethics (he isn't a golta)… “Lawful” in how he fights etc, adheres to code of conduct… “Chaotic” in his decision making process due to being slightly insane, etc…

But at this point the “alignment system” would become so complex as to implode upon itself…

DM: “So, are you casting detect Golta evil or Darsai evil?” Player: “Which will give a decipherable meaning?” DM: “None. All members of your party are Golta evil, and at least two are Darsai evil (along with that plant over there) so you really aren't gonna get anything discernible.” P: “Ah. Well crap.” DM: “Try casting detect ‘Intent to Harm’ instead.” Player: “But I already know Shogun wants to strangle Sir Muir!”

Alignment system… as I stated before… is crap. Hark is right, and even my considerable Devil's advocate skills have failed.

I should start anew thread of stuff that pisses me off in dungeons and dragons!

You are quite right about Harkovast morality being variable.
Sir Muir is deffinitely good under Darsai ethics…but he would be considered a dangerous maniac by Nymus standards!

I dunno if Ki is neutral. He is rather cheerful abotu killing people! However loveable, charming and cool he may be, he is (by his own admission) a very bad person!

The Speaker would definitely be lawful. He has a VERY rigid and ordered world view that he wants to inflict on everyone else.

The Heretci is a bit harder to pin down, he has an ideology, but he seems to spread a lot of disorder with all his bandits and his ideas are all about “strong people should beat up weak people and take their stuff, Tang-Dao are the best race and everyone else should shut the hell up!” which feels like a more chaotic world view.
Maybe neutral evil?
Damn these classifications really are stupid, but its fun to try adn assign them all the same!

Here is a tough one….what about Quinn-Tain?

Well, then the question about Ki is would he kill if it wasn't necessary. He may be a bad person, but he is a good warrior for the Nymus Republic… I dunno, you know the character best. But, let me ask you this, if there was someone begging Ki for his/her life who it was NOT necessary for Ki to kill, would Ki take the time to kill them? Just for the sake of it?

I said the Speaker is Lawful, didn't I? He is definitely lawful!

The Heretic… I still say that he is goal driven and objective oriented. His world view, or how he wants things to be, is chaotic in a sense… but… Neutral evil? Yeah, maybe, I'd still say lawful (rule of the strongest is still rule! Okay, that's just semantics (I think)) Evil though.

It is fun.

Quinn-Tain. Forgot about him, strangely enough. Hmm. Definitely lawful. Lawful in the overall scheme because he is playing a game of chess with the West. Quinn-Tain has no scruples about doing “evil” as a counter move to the West (even if he would prefer good)… And I think his overwhelming sense of “lawful” plays into that. The rules of the great game trump ethics. Quinn-Tain is too Lawful to be “Good” but not mean enough to be “bad” hence I dub Quinn-Tain: Totally Lawful, Neutral, with really large teeth and a tendency to cause spit to fly into the face of his victims.

What differentiates Quinn-Tain from Ki is QT's larger viewpoint and his probable dislike of being “evil” if he has to (he still does it though). Ki simply doesn't mind (And possibly enjoys it). Also, QT's probably smarter.

The difference between Quinn-Tain and Ki is that while they both do bad things because they think they are necessary, Ki doesn't care and actually enjoys doing it, while Quinn-Tain feels really bad about it and regrets it but thinks there is no choice.
Does that make one morally better than the other?
That's a very subjective question.
Which is really the point with Harkovast. The morality of the situation, who is right and who is wrong, is often very murky.
I don't feel I need to patronise the audience by always making it clear who is in the right.
A case in point is the reaction to Shogun killing wounded Junlocks. Is he smart and pragmatic? Or a merciless monster?
The idea of an alignment system really is the antithesis of Harkovast.

Bah. Morality always seemed subjective to me. In fact, talking about morality as if there is an objective law or rule behind it bothers me immensely.

Does a god say what is right and what is wrong? What gives that god the right? Power? Well, I don't like that in the least. That makes the “god” simply a person who can force it's views onto other people and the universe itself. That is one thing that I simply abhor.

If there is no god? Well then, it's simply a bunch of people with their own views that sometimes coincide, but sometimes do not, for many many reasons.

The only reason an alignment system could work is if we recognize that the “good” refers to the views of “Heaven” (or whatever particular plane is in charge in the D&D worlds) and evil is the opposite. Essentially it's just “good according to…”

I agree about QT and Ki.

On the subject of objective vs subjective morality, Plato asked “Do the gods command it because it is good, or is it good because the gods command it?”

Makes ya think!

The Greek Gods should have been the last to lecture anybody about ethics… I mean, really!

Let me take a shot at that quote: “Do the gods command it because they think it's good, or is it good because the gods are more powerful than you and they say so?” Er. Wait. That's almost saying the same thing though, isn't it? Yeah. Don't let me paraphrase Plato… Actually, I just made that up with little regard for what Plato said.

No, it isn't saying the same thing! If the gods are simply more powerful than you and just tell you what to do then they don't have to behave the same way they say you should because they are your masters and you are a slave; what applies to the slave does not necessarily apply to the master and vice versa. If they think it's good then they will also try to behave that way; making them, oddly, equal to the average human on an ethical level.

Gee, I wonder which type of “God” the King in the West is… hmm… who knows? Well, you do, you write this stuff. And most can guess pretty accurately.

How does this tie into Plato? Well, if “the gods command it because it is good” than it should even call the gods to account. If “it is good because the gods command it” then we go straight back to the master/slave thing I mentioned earlier, and it doesn't really bind the gods (unless an even more powerful god says so too, etc)…

Essentially, if something is good because a god says so; then that means good “is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” and Plato hated that idea (or so it seems).

So it seems that if there are gods, or a God, or whatever, then we may want there to be an objective morality because we aren't slaves that way… unless being a slave to a god has an appeal which I don't see (though I'm sure some do see an appeal). Then again, something isn't true just because we want it to be. And I'm not even sure I would want it.

I'm sticking with my subjective morality, thank you kindly, and if some god were to tell me I'm wrong… too bad for them! My response would be: “Provide sound reasoning for that claim then.” Or, an equally arrogant, “Prove it.” And “because I'm a god” doesn't qualify as a valid answer.

So, yeah, that did make me think. Here's my thoughts. I tend to think as I type, helps me that way. Also explains some of the erratic behaviour of said thoughts.

what does anger the tsavokraH in dnd, outside of the well established hate of anlignment and most likely elves and hobbits?

Okay, okay, I will make a list! But not right now, cause I'm tired.
I will see if I can knock one up over the weekend.
Probably on the “Random Nonsense” section.

Pretty sure the first edition did have alignments, i hae it somewhere but can't be arsed digging it out to check.

You know what i hate? Humans. Humans are in everything, well except Harkovast and they have been done to death. Humans are lame, they have no funky powers, they sometimes get an extra skill point in some rpgs but wow that's exciting isn't it. Humans are boring and over exposed, they are ALWAYS the same no defining feature like pointed ears or hairy feet, nope they are average in every way which makes them about as interesting as this rant. which in turn is about s interesting s watching paint dry, but not funky immortal elven paint, no bog standard average human magnolia fucking paint.

Actually you make a good point.
Humans are just not as interesting as whacky fantasy races.
If I included humans in Harkovast they would just seem the dull side that contrasts with the others to make them more interesting.
What would I make their culture like anyway? All the cultures are in some way based on a human culture, so how could I pick one as the definitively ‘human’ culture?

That's easy, they would be English. England is the centre of the civilized world after all :)

By jove! I think you are on to something!
*takes a sip of tea*