PDA

View Full Version : How does having an alignment system affect your game?



Pages : [1] 2

BarbarianNina
2009-12-01, 09:41 PM
So. I see a lot of debate about the D&D alignment system, which seems to be centered on the idea that it can't really mean what it says it means; there can't really be an entire cosmology that supports one particular, inflexible definition of good and evil. But it seems to me that the alignment system does exactly this. An action is good or evil, and it doesn't matter one bit what your culture says about it or what you've been raised to believe or what time you live in or what your peers accept. Intentions matter some, but intentions can also be defined, mostly pretty cleanly, as good or evil.

So, has anyone thought about, or played around with, the alignment system in-game? Right now, I'm playing a good-aligned barbarian who was raised in a neutral culture and doesn't think much about alignment; she values her CN friend far, far more than some paladin or cleric she's never met, doesn't feel any particular kinship with others based on alignment, and has no theoretical objection to evil creatures. She's also unwilling to oppose an evil king if she thinks he's needed to protect his country. In other words, she's pretty indifferent to the cosmic conflict playing out around her.

In my next campaign, I plan to play a sorcerer who firmly and consistently favors Good, but periodically drops to Neutral or even Evil because he will (in emergencies only) use his [Evil] necromancy spells to further his Good ends. For added fun, his little sister is a paladin, and he maintains a delicate alliance with a paladin order.

Now, I've never played a paladin, but I think they'd get into some very interesting issues with the alignment system, considering that they can 'detect evil' at will.

Thoughts?

yilduz
2009-12-01, 10:42 PM
The alignment system has been a major problem for me in past games because of the way the guys I played with thought about it. They often went with the "good or evil, period" method, and even went as far as to decide their characters know the alignment of everyone else. So because we were all good characters, if anyone's alignment became evil for any reason, they decided that it means they must immediately kill this person, even if they never witnessed or knew about a single evil act by the "evil" character.

After they finally got over the "good or evil, period" mentality, we actually ended up mostly disregarding alignment for the most part. The way it's written, I don't like it.

Mike_G
2009-12-01, 10:43 PM
I hate the Alignment system with the white hot fury of a thousand suns.

It's insane that using a necromancy spell to save the lives of innocents is Evil but using a stabby hunk of steel to Smite a sentient creature who endangers those innocents is Good. Animating some skeletons of the first wave of the Orc horde to help defend the City of Townsville against the second wave is wrong and bad since Animate Dead has the [evil] descriptor.

Poison is Evil but Ravages are Exalted.

This is madness. Not Sparta.

We have largely eliminated Alignment in my group. It's not hard. You need to reinterpret a handful of spells and effects, and we changed one class feature on the Paladin, giving him a bonus to Sense Motive equal to his level, to represent the ability to pierce lies with the purity of his spirit or whatever. Smite Evil is easily reflavored to Smite Heretic/Infidel/Those Naughty In My Deity's Sight.

Now, when your character is presented with a decision, he or she makes it based on what the character believes not which two letters are in the box on the sheet. There are no more arguments about whether a Neutral Good character would backstab or a lawful character loot corpses. If you character's philosphy is "only kill bad people, but fair fights are for Paladins and morons," that's fine. I actually wrote "Don't steal anything unless you can't afford it really need it, and don't hurt anybody more than he deserves" in the "Alignment" box for one of my characters.

Basically, you decide your character's personal moral compass looks like, and play it that way. No more worrying about whether your idea of Good matches the DM's.

It's obvious that nobody agrees on this stuff, just read any one of the "What Alignment is this character?" threads. The last one had the guy placed in every category except LG or NG. How can a system be objective when people from the same subculture can categorize the same actions as LN and CE?

Just play the role you create. Don't try to reduce it to a spot on a tic tac toe board.

Lord Thurlvin
2009-12-01, 10:46 PM
I prefer to think of the alignment system as guidelines, not actual rules. You should be flexible, and I hope it wasn't the intention of the writers that the alignments be absolute.
But it is fun to wack good PC's with unholy weapons once in a while.

AslanCross
2009-12-01, 11:08 PM
We rarely even think about the system, but sure, alignment is convenient in matters of Detect Evil.

I did drop the Neutral Good warforged scout to Neutral after he made a habit of executing every single prisoner they got. (He's dead now, though.)

Alignments should be a guideline and as such their treatment should be flexible. Even the PHB says this.

The game can survive without the system, but as it is I think it's alright. Honestly, the trouble with alignment comes from either badly-written rules that refer to it (like the aforementioned necromancy spells and poisons) or people thinking about them too much.

jmbrown
2009-12-01, 11:51 PM
The problem with alignment in D&D is that

A) People think a single act against your alignment immediately makes you the opposite alignment. A good person who kills a known criminal out of cold blood isn't suddenly evil or even neutral. People make mistakes. This is part of life. A good person tries to atone or learn from their mistakes. An evil person sees it as a new way of life.

B) People don't understand the concept in the confines of a fantasy world. D&D wasn't written to reflect real life ideas of morality. Animate dead is an evil spell because nearly every god is opposed to reanimating corpses and it uses negative energy to do that. Simple as that. Poison is evil because you're befouling another sentient creature's body through foul brew.

You can't attach real life rational to an alien world. It was written for that purpose. Nothing is stopping you from changing it but that's just how the fictional world works.

C) People see alignment as a restriction to freedom rather than a doorway to roleplay. We all have our own personal beliefs of what's right and not but try and place a person uncomfortable with story telling in the boots of someone different and he balks at the idea. Alignment should be seen as a new challenge to overcome. Playing a truly good or truly evil character is difficult without coming off as cartoony.

To people who enjoy D&D for the combat aspect, it's a frivolous mechanic. Those that want the challenge of playing against type, it's a threshold for new ideas. Two lawful good characters of different backgrounds can act entirely differently and even argue against the same ideas or beliefs. That doesn't change the fact that they respect authority and put forth the common man before themselves.

Shardan
2009-12-02, 12:22 AM
The only problem I've ever had with alignment was one player who pulled the classic 'I'm chaotic neutral, I can do anything i feel like' thing.

But then, our DM was always more a matter of using judgement over written in stone rules when it came to that. Things like the 'animate dead' rules or poison being 'evil' didn't matter. only whether or not their use was. If you're a rogue trying to stop a BBE with a poisoned blade, i hardly see that as being evil. I had a true neutral necromancer who once used animate dead to have a bunch of villager victims stand up and give themselves a proper burial because the party didn't have enough time to do it themselves. (the village had no survivors)

John Campbell
2009-12-02, 12:34 AM
I hate the Alignment system with the white hot fury of a thousand suns.

It's insane that using a necromancy spell to save the lives of innocents is Evil but using a stabby hunk of steel to Smite a sentient creature who endangers those innocents is Good. Animating some skeletons of the first wave of the Orc horde to help defend the City of Townsville against the second wave is wrong and bad since Animate Dead has the [evil] descriptor.

Poison is Evil but Ravages are Exalted.

This is madness. Not Sparta.

Some of the madness is pure 3.x... there was nothing intrisically Evil about casting animate dead in AD&D, though the spell description did mention that Good clerics probably shouldn't ought to be finding reasons to do it very often.

But that nitpicking aside, I'll heartily second your post. The alignment system is a terrible thing that produces nothing but arguments and grief, and is actively hostile to role-playing. I've called it the single worst concept ever to be introduced to role-playing, and I stand by that.

Also, see sig.

Starscream
2009-12-02, 01:05 AM
I tend to treat it more as guidelines than rules.

No one is all good or all bad in my games. A villain might have some sort of charity they support, or genuinely care for a few people. A paladin can be egotistical and judgmental and still be a paladin, although if he ever pulls a Miko he's going down.

Even Detect Alignment spells can be a bit wonky in my games. It would be more true to say they detect good and evil intentions. If the party comes across an evil goblin who stands between them and his family to protect them, he won't register as evil. If the same goblin later attempts to slit their throats while they sleep, he will.

I treat magic the same way. If you raise a couple of skeletons to help you defend an orphanage from an orcish horde, it's not an evil spell. If you later on put the skeletons to work carrying your stuff, it is.

My only exception to this gray area is when using stuff from the two "alignment books". If a player wants to take something from the Book of Exalted Deeds, their character had better be so full of light and pureness that it hurts to look at them without shades. Just having "Good" on their character sheet doesn't cut it.

Likewise, if I give a villain something from the Book if Vile Darkness, you can bet he still has bits of puppy between his teeth from last night's dinner. If you want to have character features that represent an alignment extreme, you had better be willing to roleplay the hell out of that extreme.

BarbarianNina
2009-12-02, 01:31 AM
See, it seems to me that many of these objections to the alignment system could actually make interesting roleplay material. Just because you live in a world with black and white morality, doesn't mean your character will always agree with the 'good' decision. I'm actually interested in the idea of playing a character who temporarily turns 'evil' when he castes Animate Dead. I figure that undead in our campaign setting are pretty horrifying, and he's channeling a whole ton of negative energy, so it makes a certain amount of sense that he would be 'tainted' for a while afterwards. And actually, he regards it as an appropriate response on the part of the universe.

P.S.

I had a true neutral necromancer who once used animate dead to have a bunch of villager victims stand up and give themselves a proper burial because the party didn't have enough time to do it themselves.

That is a seriously awesome use of that spell, and if you don't want to get pinged as 'evil' for it, I certainly don't see why you should be.

Delwugor
2009-12-02, 01:35 AM
In general I use alignments as a "philosophy" that my characters attempt to live by not a morality code that they must abide.
When GMing I encourage that when the characters use alignments.

One of my favorite characters was a LG halfling wizard. Quite, geeky, polite, soft spoken, loyal, looked out for others and very humble. A real example of a LG character. But he had a problem and was "addicted" to magic and would do anything to further his own skills. This lead to a history that he had murdered his teachers best student for a spell book and was on the run. Great role-playing when the teacher caught up and the rest of the party found out what happened.

My exception is with Paladins and Clerics. This is D&D and fantasy - they must follow their alignments as closely as possible otherwise face the punishment of their deity. They can make mistakes but they better atone for them quickly and not repeat. I had to enforce that once with an evil cleric - it is not nice to PO an evil deity. :smallwink:

Drenn
2009-12-02, 01:40 AM
Here's a question concerning the effects of the alignment system on a game. What do you do with PCs that use their alignment as an excuse to do whatever it is they want to. (ie. Trash everything they come into contact with because "Well, I'm evil" even though it disadvantages them.) It's been mentioned briefly in a couple posts so far, but not addressed directly. (Also, if I need to take this question to a different thread, just let me know)

jmbrown
2009-12-02, 01:49 AM
Here's a question concerning the effects of the alignment system on a game. What do you do with PCs that use their alignment as an excuse to do whatever it is they want to. (ie. Trash everything they come into contact with because "Well, I'm evil" even though it disadvantages them.) It's been mentioned briefly in a couple posts so far, but not addressed directly. (Also, if I need to take this question to a different thread, just let me know)

Challenge them with someone of the imposing alignment or put them in blatant situations where their stupidity glares.

The universe must balance itself. Newton made this one of his basic principles. A person who trashes everything because they're chaotic-stupid will be challenged by an equally powerful person of lawful-bullheaded. If said person tries to rest in any inn, buy anything, or even walk into town he'll be stopped, harassed, or bullied at every corner until the player realizes that his actions have a clear consequence.

What's the best way to hit a PC hard? Where it hits the most; their freedoms as a PC.

Drenn
2009-12-02, 02:05 AM
Challenge them with someone of the imposing alignment or put them in blatant situations where their stupidity glares.

The universe must balance itself. Newton made this one of his basic principles. A person who trashes everything because they're chaotic-stupid will be challenged by an equally powerful person of lawful-bullheaded. If said person tries to rest in any inn, buy anything, or even walk into town he'll be stopped, harassed, or bullied at every corner until the player realizes that his actions have a clear consequence.

What's the best way to hit a PC hard? Where it hits the most; their freedoms as a PC.

Huh. That makes sense. Thanks! I think I may have just the NPC for the job....*evil smile*

Would it be wrong to start subtly prompting the other PCs to crack down on said chaotic-stupid PC by setting up situations where the whole party is constantly taking hits because of their... less-then-optimal social behaviors?

What I'm asking is, to what degree is it a good idea to pit alignments of PCs against one another?

Andras
2009-12-02, 02:40 AM
Huh. That makes sense. Thanks! I think I may have just the NPC for the job....*evil smile*

Would it be wrong to start subtly prompting the other PCs to crack down on said chaotic-stupid PC by setting up situations where the whole party is constantly taking hits because of their... less-then-optimal social behaviors?

What I'm asking is, to what degree is it a good idea to pit alignments of PCs against one another?

It really depends on how sensitive your group is to inner conflict. Some groups can't handle it at all, and others will leap at the opportunity. Additionally, if the chaotic stupid player can't take any inter-party criticism, it could be an issue. The effectiveness also depends on how much your group keeps track of him being the one putting them in the situations.

In most cases, though, that's a very good way to do it.

Katana_Geldar
2009-12-02, 02:56 AM
Speaking as someone who GMs a game without an alignment system, having one would be a handy rule of thumb for me so I knew what sort of characters the players were going towards.

Playing an alignment as opposed to playing a character I have found rather restrictive, considering I went from a no alignment game to LG in the one day....:smallannoyed:

I have heard that some DMs like to keep alignment secret, just between them and the player. That's not a bad idea actually.

Sliver
2009-12-02, 02:57 AM
While I had plenty of theoretical discussions with a friend of mine (one that while seemed to understand the basics of optimizing and the system itself, was far from able to actually play it out) in actual play I don't tend to think about it. It is mostly a roleplaying aid to help me define my character's personality, just a small part of it, and has little to do with the game itself.

I mostly see alignment as a global and personal thing. A character can be chaotic evil and still not effected by smite evil, because he is fighting on the side of good and that is what matters to the world. Not that he will still a few coins from the needy, but that he is still fighting along the paladin to stop the leech from stealing the royal pancake... A drow can care entirely for others and sacrifice all he has, but if his actions are improving the chances of evil to win, then he is evil(something-good), meaning that globally he is evil, but personally he is good.

Temotei
2009-12-02, 03:13 AM
My stepbrother, when he's DM, puts in a karmic system. You do something good, you get "good points." Sort of. Same with evil, and lawful and chaotic. A truly neutral act will move you to the neutral alignments. It works pretty well. Certainly better than "I'm Lawful Good." "You just murdered 200 people, then proceeded to loot their houses, then burn the houses down, while using their pets as food." "But I'm Lawful Good." "*sigh*...fine. You're now Chaotic Evil." "But I'm Lawful Good!"

Satyr
2009-12-02, 03:24 AM
I treat allignment as completely detached from actual morals, behavior and deeds. Allmost all sentient creatures are true neutral - Elves as much as Orcs. Alignment is solely a form of cosmic affiliation to the upper -or lower - dimensions. An aasimar psychopath with a meatsuit sewn out of the skin of his victims is good, simply because of his ancestry. A friendly neighbourhood's necromancer's skelettons which rebuild a pillaged town and plow fields for the staving population are always evil, because they are undeads (even though they are as sentient as the tools they use). In both cases, morals has nothing to do with it. Spells with an alignment can temporarily change the alignment of the caster and the target, though. The terminology of good and evil is pretty much kept only for nostalgic reasons. Using terms like "celestial" and "infernal" would probably more accurate.

Personal morals on the other hand are mostly subjective, and completely detached from the alignment. Characters who cling to a solid moral code of their own (no matter of how this code looks like) gain a bonus to their will-saves due to a stronger personality they from when following a code. This bonus depends on how harsh and rigid this code is.

Drenn
2009-12-02, 03:52 AM
I have heard that some DMs like to keep alignment secret, just between them and the player. That's not a bad idea actually.

I really like this idea. I think it would lend a lot to role playing, if other characters didn't know what each other were.

I wonder though, if a lot of the difficulty with alignment system doesn't arise from people having overly simplistic views of what a good or evil character would do.

Keeping an alignment secret from other players would probably help players with more complex or developed views of good and evil out quite a bit, come to think of it.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-02, 04:27 AM
So. I see a lot of debate about the D&D alignment system, which seems to be centered on the idea that it can't really mean what it says it means; there can't really be an entire cosmology that supports one particular, inflexible definition of good and evil.
The debate is not and has never been centered on the idea that there really can't be an entire cosmology.

Rather, the main issues are (1) that it's a straightjacket, in that there are or should be more than nine personality archetypes, (2) that it's hard to find two people (let alone an entire gaming group) that agree on what those nine archetypes actually mean, (3) that this can lead to arguments about whether or not e.g. a cleric has done an Evil Deed (which would cause his god to be upset), and (4) the TV Tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidEvil) articles on Stupid Evil, Stupid Good, Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid.

Katana_Geldar
2009-12-02, 04:40 AM
They may not be strait jackets, let me tell you a little story...

I've only played on session of 4E at the table as the DM has disappeared into some extradimensional space, but still, as an LG Paladin, I managed to have an arguement with the unaligned rogue about being LG.
We had an NPC, presumably LG himself, who was cursed and he told us to go to tell his master what had happened and he was going to take his own life so not to affect others. I was all for honouring his request, yet the rogue wanted to knock him out and tie him to my horse to stop him.

Which one of us was being more Lawful Good? Me who wanted to honour the request of someone who was going to take his life rather than bring death to others, or valuing this guys life above everything else to the point of preserving it against his will?
The DM agreed with me, but it's still an interesting question.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-02, 04:47 AM
They may not be strait jackets, let me tell you a little story...
They needn't be straitjackets, but much of the discussion and strife about them appears when they are treated as straitjackets.

I've had players in my group that would tell others "you can't do that because you are Good", or that "I have to do this now because I am Chaotic" and frankly I find that annoying.

And I'm sure we've all heard the tales of players who use their Chaotic and/or Evil alignment as an excuse to be nasty to other players.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 04:59 AM
Sounds about right.

The fact that the DMG says player alignment is under the DM's control, not the player's, may be a part of it. While the player can dictate their starting alignment, the DM is supposed to track the player's acts, and shift their alignment if the player has done enough acts.


This is alignment as written in the DMG.

the PHB guides to alignments are very limited- books like BoED, BoVD, Savage Species, FC2, and Champions of Ruin expand on evil acts, good acts, and in the case of FC2, Lawful acts.

They are not just guides to the strongly Evil and Good- they also provide the DM with info about what sort of acts "count" for alignment tracking purposes.

As for "What proportion of the population should be Good/Evil?" the PHB says that "humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral." Suggesting that Good and Evil people should each be a fairly hefty proportion of the population.

BobVosh
2009-12-02, 05:26 AM
The alignment system has been a major problem for me in past games because of the way the guys I played with thought about it. They often went with the "good or evil, period" method, and even went as far as to decide their characters know the alignment of everyone else. So because we were all good characters, if anyone's alignment became evil for any reason, they decided that it means they must immediately kill this person, even if they never witnessed or knew about a single evil act by the "evil" character.

After they finally got over the "good or evil, period" mentality, we actually ended up mostly disregarding alignment for the most part. The way it's written, I don't like it.

I would definitely point out the detect alignment X spells. Then say they fall from good if they do anything like that. If they ask why, I would simply point them to Knight Templar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar).

To spite them a cleric with undetectable alignment is always fun. Find a neutral god with healing domain, take spontaneous domain, tell the DM, write good on the character sheet, and have fun being hideously evil under their noses.

toddex
2009-12-02, 05:33 AM
I hate the Alignment system with the white hot fury of a thousand suns.

It's insane that using a necromancy spell to save the lives of innocents is Evil but using a stabby hunk of steel to Smite a sentient creature who endangers those innocents is Good. Animating some skeletons of the first wave of the Orc horde to help defend the City of Townsville against the second wave is wrong and bad since Animate Dead has the [evil] descriptor.

Poison is Evil but Ravages are Exalted.

This is madness. Not Sparta.

We have largely eliminated Alignment in my group. It's not hard. You need to reinterpret a handful of spells and effects, and we changed one class feature on the Paladin, giving him a bonus to Sense Motive equal to his level, to represent the ability to pierce lies with the purity of his spirit or whatever. Smite Evil is easily reflavored to Smite Heretic/Infidel/Those Naughty In My Deity's Sight.

Now, when your character is presented with a decision, he or she makes it based on what the character believes not which two letters are in the box on the sheet. There are no more arguments about whether a Neutral Good character would backstab or a lawful character loot corpses. If you character's philosphy is "only kill bad people, but fair fights are for Paladins and morons," that's fine. I actually wrote "Don't steal anything unless you can't afford it really need it, and don't hurt anybody more than he deserves" in the "Alignment" box for one of my characters.

Basically, you decide your character's personal moral compass looks like, and play it that way. No more worrying about whether your idea of Good matches the DM's.

It's obvious that nobody agrees on this stuff, just read any one of the "What Alignment is this character?" threads. The last one had the guy placed in every category except LG or NG. How can a system be objective when people from the same subculture can categorize the same actions as LN and CE?

Just play the role you create. Don't try to reduce it to a spot on a tic tac toe board.

Well you have to think exactly what you're doing. Necromancy you are tampering with peoples remains... its pretty much unanimous among every culture in the world someones remains are sacred and shouldnt be tampered with... Some cultures disfigure bodies in some way as an ultimate insult. Ergo EVIL........

oxybe
2009-12-02, 05:34 AM
what's this "alignment system" you speak of... i seem to be "missing" a few pages from my phb :smalltongue:

i usually write down CN in that space and play my character however i want. if the GM says i shift alignment, i mark out CN, write in the new one and keep ignoring that one line.

the main problem comes that "Good" "Evil" "Chaos" "Law" are definite forces in some D&D cosmologies... so they are definite and not something you can say varies from PC to PC. it doesn't matter what PCs A, B, C & D think are Good, Evil, Chaos & Law as these are real forces.

the other problem is that no one can actually define them. the books are generally pretty vague about what defines them so it's very normal for players and GMs to apply their own values in regards to what is Good, evil, yadda yadda...

it's honestly much more confusing when you think about it, so i don't and avoid it as much as possible.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 05:40 AM
Well you have to think exactly what you're doing. Necromancy you are tampering with peoples remains... its pretty much unanimous among every culture in the world someones remains are sacred and shouldnt be tampered with... Some cultures disfigure bodies in some way as an ultimate insult. Ergo EVIL........

In Libris Mortis, part of the reason is that it involves summoning evil, barely-sentient spirits to inhabit the bodies, even those of animates skeletons/zombies.

This works quite well with the idea of undead that thirst to destroy life, whenever not controlled. There is also Atrocity Calls to Unlife- a sufficiently evil act will cause the undead to rise, uncontrolled.

Animate Dead is not Animate Object- in short- an undead, even a mindless one, is not a robot.

As for BoED, most of the "general moral code" seems modelled on the laws and customs of war- Geneva Conventions and the like.

Surrenders must be accepted
Prisoners must be treated reasonably- and not killed out-of-hand
No torture
No targeting noncombatants
No use of diseases of poisons
No engaging in aggressive warfare- only legitimate reason is when you are responding to aggression.

Then they came up with ravages/afflictions and spoiled it a bit. Still, the point stands- BoED morality is pretty much the minimum that modern soldiers are expected to abide by.

Prime32
2009-12-02, 06:24 AM
They may not be strait jackets, let me tell you a little story...

I've only played on session of 4E at the table as the DM has disappeared into some extradimensional space, but still, as an LG Paladin, I managed to have an arguement with the unaligned rogue about being LG.
We had an NPC, presumably LG himself, who was cursed and he told us to go to tell his master what had happened and he was going to take his own life so not to affect others. I was all for honouring his request, yet the rogue wanted to knock him out and tie him to my horse to stop him.

Which one of us was being more Lawful Good? Me who wanted to honour the request of someone who was going to take his life rather than bring death to others, or valuing this guys life above everything else to the point of preserving it against his will?
The DM agreed with me, but it's still an interesting question.I would say that the rogue is Chaotic Good - Screw the Rules, I'm Doing What's Right (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScrewTheRulesImDoingWhatsRight).


I treat allignment as completely detached from actual morals, behavior and deeds. Allmost all sentient creatures are true neutral - Elves as much as Orcs. Alignment is solely a form of cosmic affiliation to the upper -or lower - dimensions. An aasimar psychopath with a meatsuit sewn out of the skin of his victims is good, simply because of his ancestry. A friendly neighbourhood's necromancer's skelettons which rebuild a pillaged town and plow fields for the staving population are always evil, because they are undeads (even though they are as sentient as the tools they use). In both cases, morals has nothing to do with it. Spells with an alignment can temporarily change the alignment of the caster and the target, though. The terminology of good and evil is pretty much kept only for nostalgic reasons. Using terms like "celestial" and "infernal" would probably more accurate.

Personal morals on the other hand are mostly subjective, and completely detached from the alignment. Characters who cling to a solid moral code of their own (no matter of how this code looks like) gain a bonus to their will-saves due to a stronger personality they from when following a code. This bonus depends on how harsh and rigid this code is.This fits what I would like to do (including a Will save bonus for being The Fettered (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFettered)). Holy weapons won't hurt the random greedy peasant (well, not any more than normal weapons will) but they will hurt things with a strong aura of evil, like evil clerics. Likewise, a paladin can sense the presence of demons but not bribery. The famous "succubus paladin" would remain Chaotic Evil despite her pious behaviour, unless she went though some kind of complex transformation ritual.

Oslecamo
2009-12-02, 06:25 AM
Then they came up with ravages/afflictions and spoiled it a bit. Still, the point stands- BoED morality is pretty much the minimum that modern soldiers are expected to abide by.

The fact that so few follow them, but are still considered paragons of goodness, just shows that the sad truth is that most people have twisted visions of good and evil.

From what I've seen about alignment discussions, people call "good" "helping themselves", and call "evil" wearing black clothes and/or disagreeing with others.

Miko for example. She's annoying, she liked to boss people around, BUT she still saved countless lifes and destroyed countless evil, untill she snapped and killed her CG lord. She never killed anyone who actualy didn't try (or intend) to kill her first untill she guted her lord. She stoicaly endured the abuses of the Oots all the way to subduing them at the risk of her own life all in order to point them in the right track.

But does that matter? For a lot of people, no. Miko was annoying, so she was EEEVVVIIILLL!!!

I've also seen plenty of people call characters who never did anything that wouldn't benefit themselves as good.

I've seen rampaging bersekers being called lawfull, just because they believed in some broad concept.

All people who actualy follow laws are called stupid.

So I actualy like the alignment system of D&D, because it isn't subjective to people's views. No discussing why undeads are evil just because you're traping/torturing souls, breaking the natural cycle of lifeand puting beings full of hatred in the world. The universe itself tells you it's evil, and no amount of cheap philosophy will change that.

And no, you can't send them to build orphanages or farm, because they don't have int and can only follow simple comands.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 06:42 AM
While this isn't a Miko thread, I suspect a lot of the dislike was due to the fact that Miko came across as a Detect=Smite paladin "They were evil, so I killed them!"

That combined with SoD's handling of just how Sapphire Guard paladins go about "destroying countless evil" are a big part of the dislike- it's not just "she is annoying"

Plus, we don't get to see any "saved countless lives" on screen, nor do we see her or anyone else refer to it.

BoED's "Even evil beings have rights" take seems to be not restricted to that book. Eberron has it, Heroes of Horror has it.

Kiero
2009-12-02, 06:45 AM
The effect is largely negligible because we tend to ignore it in our 4e game. Certainly never have the "let's scan the tavern with detect evil and kill people" issues that some describe.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 06:54 AM
that may be because 4th ed doesn't have a detect evil to scan the tavern with.

If a player, on walking into a bar, sees an orc drinking there, and promptly walks over and stabs the orc because "orcs are chaotic evil- so it's OK" this would be an example in 4th ed of the same 3rd ed Detect=Smite behaviour.

Only, in this case, it would be "acting based on general knowledge" rather than "acting based on the result of a detection spell"

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 07:01 AM
4th ed, while simplifying some things, does retain an element of 3.5's

"What you do is important, not what you are"

It has non-evil chromatic dragons, in Draconomicon, in Open Grave it clarifies that on rare occasions, you can have non-evil undead, or undead turned to a good purpose.

in Forgotten Realms Campaign setting, it has a (relatively) peaceful orc kingdom- with diplomatic relations with its neighbours.

So it could be said to be following from the 3.5 ed (and Eberron) tendency to back away from "It's evil, so you can kill it" and "all X are Always Evil"

Zombimode
2009-12-02, 07:05 AM
Aligments are superfluous.
You dont need an aligment system to play a moral reflective character. You dont need an aligment system to play an egoist. You dont need an aligment system to have angels and demons.

All you need is a character concept: personality traits, strengths, inner conflicts etc.

Oslecamo
2009-12-02, 07:10 AM
So it could be said to be following from the 3.5 ed (and Eberron) tendency to back away from "It's evil, so you can kill it" and "all X are Always Evil"

Let me tell you a litle not so secret: Alignment is decided by your actions.

So if the orc detects as evil, he surely hasn't been leading a peacefull life and helping old ladies cross the streets. No, he's probably been raiding inocent villages and burning down stuff.


If it's an orc who has led a peacefull life, then he won't detect as evil.

That demon/devil? He's basicaly solidified evil. And even if you "kill" him, he'll just form back on his plane, so it's no diferent from kicking a nasty guy out of your house.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 07:14 AM
true- but sometimes, it helps. it can give the DM an idea of where to start.

It may also be a legacy of earlier editions- when there was the idea that there are 4 forces: Good, Evil, Law, Chaos- and certain behaviour can strengthen these four forces.

Other systems have something like alignment- they just call it by a different name. But they still provide personality archetypes, for the GM to use as a baseline, and expand on.

Such as Aberrant, Diabolic, etc, in the case of Pallidium.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 07:19 AM
Let me tell you a litle not so secret: Alignment is decided by your actions.

So if the orc detects as evil, he surely hasn't been leading a peacefull life and helping old ladies cross the streets. No, he's probably been raiding inocent villages and burning down stuff.


If it's an orc who has led a peacefull life, then he won't detect as evil.

That demon/devil? He's basicaly solidified evil. And even if you "kill" him, he'll just form back on his plane, so it's no diferent from kicking a nasty guy out of your house.

Actually, according to 3.5 PHB, roughly 1/3 of the human population will detect as evil. You don't need to be "raiding innocent villages and burning down stuff" to detect as evil.

Alignment is based on actions (and attitudes) but it is possible for somebody to be evil and yet not deserving of instant on-the-spot execution.

Killing somebody just because they have "probably been doing things" is decidedly problematic.

The Eberron Campaign setting makes this clear- but it is not the only source that does.

Celestials- "solidified good" and yet some are of evil alignment (Elder Evils). So why not fiends which are not?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-02, 07:20 AM
1) The game does not suffer unduly when alignment is removed.
2) Despite this, Alignment is underrated and has far more haters than it deserves.
3) Alignment threads don't tend to go places, and I'd strongly discourage discussing Miko and undead (two quite controversial topics). I've harsh words for anyone who dares discuss the former, and harsh words for my debate opponents on the latter.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 07:23 AM
I'd agree with most of this.

I think that one of the tricky things is that all too many people make the assumption that "Evil alignment means they deserve to be killed by the PCs without further ado"- when the game system does not, in fact, support this, and numerous 3.0-3.5 sources argue against this.

So, some people tend to dislike labelling a PC as "evil" unless they are something of a Complete Monster- and treat all beings that are Evil as Complete Monsters to be killed on sight.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 07:30 AM
I wonder what some of the more common PC archtypes that tend to cause alignment arguments are?

Sir Smitesalot- who has his Detect Evil radar on and kills everything that pings.

"For the Greater Good" - who believes that any act is non-evil if it is done for altruistic reasons.

"CN in name only"- player labels them as CN, and insists that theft and murder is OK because they are only doing it for personal gain- not out of sadism.

Etc.

onthetown
2009-12-02, 07:37 AM
Alignment's only a big thing in our game when it comes to either Dragonlance or interactions with deities.

I've got a White and a Black Wizard of High Sorcery, so I can't forsake the alignment system in that case. As for the god thing, I have a good-aligned ranger who's a Chosen of Silvanus; I can't exactly go burning down forests if I want her to keep her Chosen status.

Unfortunately, both situations play a huge part in our game... The two Wizards are main characters, and all of the characters tend to do the whole "heroes of the gods" bit when it comes to the storyline. We don't record every single action that we do and file it under either good, neutral, evil, etc, but we keep an eye on them. When they start consecutively acting a different alignment, we tend to start talking about what to do with them.

Zombimode
2009-12-02, 07:41 AM
true- but sometimes, it helps. it can give the DM an idea of where to start.

It may appear so, and in my first years of roleplaying a had the same opinion.
But if I ask myself, i I would had trouble to come up with the stories and characters I created as a DM if the AD&D 2e PHB dindt contain the aligment section? I dont think so.

Sliver
2009-12-02, 07:42 AM
"For the Greater Good" - who believes that any act is non-evil if it is done for altruistic reasons.

But aren't there evil guys that are sometimes based on this concept? They know what they are doing is evil, but believe someone needs to do it, so they accept the Evil mark and just do what they believe must be done. Others still attempt to stop them, but that is because they are evil and both sides accept it..

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 07:42 AM
We don't record every single action that we do and file it under either good, neutral, evil, etc, but we keep an eye on them. When they start consecutively acting a different alignment, we tend to start talking about what to do with them.

This does appear to be the default in DMG- the DM tracks alignment- notices strong trends of behaviour (even if not noting every single act) and adjust alignment based on these strong trends of behaviour.

Excepting Exalted Deeds feats, it's mostly only paladins and variant paladins (Unearthed Arcana) who are so tightly bound that a single X alignment act will cause power loss.

Not necessarily alignment change, but power loss.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 07:44 AM
But aren't there evil guys that are sometimes based on this concept?

Yes- I'm talking about when the player states that "The alignment system says All altruistic acts are Good/non-evil"

Which is not, in fact what either the PHB or BoED state.

The "only intentions matter" view, in short. The claim that all people who describe themselves as evil who are trying to act altruistically for the good of the many, are in fact, deluded, and will detect as non-evil.

Which is what I disagree with.

Zombimode
2009-12-02, 07:50 AM
Alignment's only a big thing in our game when it comes to either Dragonlance or interactions with deities.

I've got a White and a Black Wizard of High Sorcery, so I can't forsake the alignment system in that case. As for the god thing, I have a good-aligned ranger who's a Chosen of Silvanus; I can't exactly go burning down forests if I want her to keep her Chosen status.

Unfortunately, both situations play a huge part in our game... The two Wizards are main characters, and all of the characters tend to do the whole "heroes of the gods" bit when it comes to the storyline. We don't record every single action that we do and file it under either good, neutral, evil, etc, but we keep an eye on them. When they start consecutively acting a different alignment, we tend to start talking about what to do with them.

I fail to see the NEED of an aligment system here. The white wizard may be moraly reflective and the black wizard pretty selfish, but this is possible without an aligment system.

Likewise with the ranger: Silvanus is (at least) the god of non-civilized nature. Comiting actions that lead to the destruction of this nature is contradictory in being a chosen of said god. So you dont do it or, if you do it, you lose your gods favor. Its easy as that whitout any aligment system involved.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 07:53 AM
It is possible to be both "selfish" and "morally reflective"

A person who is concerned primarily with their own wellbeing and success, but judges the acts they can take by "will it violate the rights of others" and if it does, refuses to take those acts, is the most typical example.

Prime32
2009-12-02, 07:53 AM
But aren't there evil guys that are sometimes based on this concept? They know what they are doing is evil, but believe someone needs to do it, so they accept the Evil mark and just do what they believe must be done. Others still attempt to stop them, but that is because they are evil and both sides accept it..
That's Well Intentioned Extremist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist) versus Necessarily Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NecessarilyEvil).

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 07:56 AM
Depending on the type- both can be of evil alignment.

if they believe (wrongly) their acts are not evil- they are a Well Intentioned Extremist.

if they believe their acts are evil but necessary, and that they are a monster for continuing to commit these evil acts, they are Necessarily Evil.

But it is possible for both to be Evil. Michael Ambrose in Tome of Magic, the witch hunter, is both Lawful Evil, and fully convinced that he is a good guy whose every act is Good.

Firefly's The Operative is more Necessarily Evil.

Zombimode
2009-12-02, 08:04 AM
It is possible to be both "selfish" and "morally reflective"

A person who is concerned primarily with their own wellbeing and success, but judges the acts they can take by "will it violate the rights of others" and if it does, refuses to take those acts, is the most typical example.

Exactly. Without an aligment system, you can just make such a character. With the D&D aligment system, dicussions will arise, wether this character is good, neutral or evil.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-02, 08:08 AM
Exactly. Without an aligment system, you can just make such a character. With the D&D aligment system, dicussions will arise, wether this character is good, neutral or evil.

This.

I've never seen a clear benefit to having an alignment system. On the other hand, I have seen numerous drawbacks, most notably the perennial debate it generates (including during gaming sessions). In my experience, no edition of D&D is adversely affected by simply removing or ignoring all alignment rules.

thubby
2009-12-02, 08:13 AM
alignment has rarely even come up in my games, mercifully.
we've always seen the alignments as single points with enormous gaps between them.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 08:22 AM
this is one way of handling it.

One reason not to remove the alignment system, is that without it, you are playing in a world which does not fit "D&D"- a homebrew world, in short.

Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, even Eberron: without alignment systems, they become a bit different from the novel (and sourcebook) worlds.

Removing alignment might make gaming easier, but it comes at the cost of making it inconsistant with the "world as written"

On discussions- there is usally something to point to.

BoED- without self-sacrificing behaviour, a person cannot be good.
PHB- evil implies oppressing and/or hurting and/or killing others.

Violating the rights of others can be seen as "oppressing them"

A person who goes out of their way to avoid such oppressing behaviour, but at the same time never behaves in a self-sacrificing way: only helping without reward, when it comes at no real cost to them, is Neutral rather than Good or Evil.

Most forms of theft, bullying, tyrannizing, exploiting, etc, can be seen as Oppressing/Hurting. It doesn't have to be especially serious to result in an Evil alignment (hence roughly 1/3 of population detecting as Evil.) At the same time, such "oppression" may not be enough to justify severe punishment.

A petty thief or mugger may be evil- but they get imprisoned, fined, forced to serve the community for a short period. They do not get executed on the spot.

Zombimode
2009-12-02, 08:42 AM
One reason not to remove the alignment system, is that without it, you are playing in a world which does not fit "D&D"- a homebrew world, in short.

Last time I checked, D&D claimed to be a generic system.


Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, even Eberron: without alignment systems, they become a bit different from the novel (and sourcebook) worlds.

Really? How?
If you think if the planes: planes have traits. Those dont vanish, if you remove the aligment system.

Stephen_E
2009-12-02, 09:04 AM
Alignment has a number of problems that are avoidable.

1) The idea that Paladin behaviour has much to do with alignment and their behaviour is a definition of LG. False

2) The idea that Detect Evil is a system of detecting Evil. False. I wish people would actually read the spell. Been of evil alignment is the weakest trigger for the spell.

3) An inability to tell the difference between honourable/dishonourable and good/evil. Also the false connection of Mediaval chivarilic cide had anything to do with good (this touch on point 1 to sone degree). Thus you get people talking about how using poison = Evil, which is false, and other false ideas.

4) Players thinking "Evil" is illegal and deserving of a death.

5) Players assume evil people will betray them and steal and kill from them simply for been evil, abd (and this sometimes comes from GMs as well) people will hate u for been evil.

6) Some character classes have completly unnecesary alignment restrictions, ala Monk and Barbarian (most barbarian societies are quite lawful)

Personally I choose my alignment as part of my character developement and then largely run with it from there.

Stephen E

jmbrown
2009-12-02, 09:14 AM
Last time I checked, D&D claimed to be a generic system.


Perhaps we have different definitions for generic. A generic system makes no assumptions about your game world. D&D makes pretty clear assumptions (elves are haughty forest dwellers, gods are judging your every action, demons and devils fight an endless war, etc.). All versions of D&D assume you're playing in their default world. 2E probably comes the closest to being generic as there are no default gods or locations.



Really? How?
If you think if the planes: planes have traits. Those dont vanish, if you remove the aligment system.

And a major trait is alignment. The planes themselves are alignment personified. Before 4E, D&D attached mechanics to alignment. If you remove that system of alignment you suddenly lose a slew weapons, damage resistance, and the multiverse basically falls apart.

Outside of 4E, ignoring alignment is the quickest way to break the game. You're talking about arguments now, what happens when people end up in the abyss and the DM starts handing random penalties out. "Well, I think this character is pretty good and he sometimes upholds the law... so I'll give him the -2 penalty to attack and..."

Edit: Well, 'quickest' being an exaggeration on my part but still ignoring alignment would be as detrimental as ignoring any mechanic like the domains a deity grants clerics.

onthetown
2009-12-02, 09:16 AM
I fail to see the NEED of an aligment system here. The white wizard may be moraly reflective and the black wizard pretty selfish, but this is possible without an aligment system.

Likewise with the ranger: Silvanus is (at least) the god of non-civilized nature. Comiting actions that lead to the destruction of this nature is contradictory in being a chosen of said god. So you dont do it or, if you do it, you lose your gods favor. Its easy as that whitout any aligment system involved.

I've actually never seen it that way before... I just sort of take for granted that the alignment aspects of both situations is on sort of a sliding scale. Having the alignment written down as a "concrete" thing on a character sheet helps make me think about exactly how they're going to act, too... I'm just a very visual person, though.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-02, 09:19 AM
If you remove that system of alignment you suddenly lose a slew weapons, damage resistance, and the multiverse basically falls apart.
...no it doesn't.

You lose a few minor effects that are easily covered by other methods. No, lawful and chaotic weapons and resistance no longer apply. So replace them by e.g. cold iron weapons, problem solved. Unless you're playing in Melnibone, "chaotic" weapons are a pretty strange concept anyway.

The only remotely common thing that needs changing is the paladin's smite ability, so that should be "smite enemy of my god" or perhaps "smite unnatural creature". It's ok if those are a bit broad, it's not like paladins are overpowered or anything.


what happens when people end up in the abyss and the DM starts handing random penalties out. "Well, I think this character is pretty good and he sometimes upholds the law... so I'll give him the -2 penalty to attack and..."
(1) most adventuring parties never go to the Abyss in the first place, and (2) that attack penalty is a pretty arbitrary effect anyway, and hardly defining for the place.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 09:29 AM
1) The idea that Paladin behaviour has much to do with alignment and their behaviour is a definition of LG. False


Why?



2) The idea that Detect Evil is a system of detecting Evil. False. I wish people would actually read the spell. Been of evil alignment is the weakest trigger for the spell.

But it is still a trigger- and thus, not false.


Thus you get people talking about how using poison = Evil, which is false, and other false ideas.

BoED does make it clear that, at least there, poison is indeed evil- not because it is "dishonorable" but because it "inflicts unnecessary suffering".

Which is odd- given that any method of defeating or killing an opponent has a high chance of involving suffering- often more high than you would expect a poison to inflict.

And other ways of inflicting ability damage- spells, supernatural abilities, and the aforementioned ravages, apparently don't count.

This may be more to do with it's Geneva-like rules on what's acceptable- using poisons and diseases as weapons of war, is a war crime- hence, Evil.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 09:36 AM
Unless you're playing in Melnibone, "chaotic" weapons are a pretty strange concept anyway.

Gygax did draw a lot of inspiration from Moorcock- so it is not surprising. Seeing as originally all we had for D&D was Law, Chaos, and Neutrality, the addition of Good and Evil may be an improvement.

Alignment restrictions are a little odd- but remember that PC classes are the exception, and nearly everyone in a "barbarian society" will not, in fact, be a barbarian- but will be commoners, experts, warriors, adepts.

jmbrown
2009-12-02, 09:48 AM
...no it doesn't.

You lose a few minor effects that are easily covered by other methods. No, lawful and chaotic weapons and resistance no longer apply. So replace them by e.g. cold iron weapons, problem solved. Unless you're playing in Melnibone, "chaotic" weapons are a pretty strange concept anyway.

The only remotely common thing that needs changing is the paladin's smite ability, so that should be "smite enemy of my god" or perhaps "smite unnatural creature". It's ok if those are a bit broad, it's not like paladins are overpowered or anything.


(1) most adventuring parties never go to the Abyss in the first place, and (2) that attack penalty is a pretty arbitrary effect anyway, and hardly defining for the place.

And no good or evil intelligent items, no items that only activate upon an alignment trigger, no axiomatic, anarchic, or holy weapons... you basically cut down the enchantments on items by 40%. You're removing a bunch of cleric-specific spells like holy smite and blasphemy... alignment is a mechanic in D&D.

Aside from you making the assumption that high level parties don't plane hop, the planes cannot exist without their alignment because that's what they are. Any plane strictly aligned will be against the person of the opposite alignment. If you remove alignment you have to refluff the entirety of the planar wheel. Demons and devils don't fight each other because one hate the color of the other's eyes.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 09:53 AM
While alignment is important- even creatures "Made of Law" etc can fight their own alignment tendencies.

The claim that "a fiend/celestial is literally made of it's alignment, and cannot change" is not supported by the rules.

Though the exceptions are exceedingly rare.

D&D "without alignment" does become rather different.

On "honourable/dishonourable" not being the same as "good/evil"- this is a bit shaky.

CG "barbarian hero types" may prize honor highly- and take a "My word is iron" approach- even if they aren't big fans of order and regulation.

Lying is not always evil in D&D (BoVD) but it is "borderline". You need a very good excuse, to do it without committing an evil act.

Most forms of "dishonourable" behaviour, involving deceit, betrayal, theft, etc fall into this category of "Hard to justify as non-evil- needs to be in a very good cause.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-02, 10:05 AM
And no good or evil intelligent items, no items that only activate upon an alignment trigger, no axiomatic, anarchic, or holy weapons... you basically cut down the enchantments on items by 40%.
I suggest you count again, because it doesn't come anywhere near 40%. And of course, holy weapons still work against undead, and intelligent items (or intelligent anything) can still have a personality without requiring an alignment. Exaggerating doesn't help your argument.


Aside from you making the assumption that high level parties don't plane hop,
No I'm not. Don't put words in my mouth.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 10:11 AM
(1) most adventuring parties never go to the Abyss in the first place, and (2) that attack penalty is a pretty arbitrary effect anyway, and hardly defining for the place.

While this doesn't rule out plane-hopping to the outer planes in general, it does imply that "the mechanical effects of outer plane alignment descriptors are irrelevant"

To chuck away all "alignment descriptors" for spells, planes, etc, is basically to do exactly what 4th ed did. The only difference being that they left them in for monsters, though players can't actually tell what the alignments are.

jmbrown
2009-12-02, 10:19 AM
I suggest you count again, because it doesn't come anywhere near 40%. And of course, holy weapons still work against undead, and intelligent items (or intelligent anything) can still have a personality without requiring an alignment. Exaggerating doesn't help your argument.


No I'm not. Don't put words in my mouth.

Holy works against evil, not necessarily undead. If you removed alignment a holy weapon and any weapon modified by alignment is absolutely worthless.

As far as the planes go you might as well rule they don't even exist without alignment as a trait. The negative effects were described as a deterrent to outside invaders. Surely a plane would have slipped by now if creatures of an opposing alignment can invade with absolutely no ill effects on their side.

Stephen_E
2009-12-02, 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_E
1) The idea that Paladin behaviour has much to do with alignment and their behaviour is a definition of LG. False



Why?

Because they aren't. Paladins have certain alignment, code and behaviour restrictions. These are about been a paladin, not about been LG.
The fact that you need to ask why shows how bad the problem is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_E
2) The idea that Detect Evil is a system of detecting Evil. False. I wish people would actually read the spell. Been of evil alignment is the weakest trigger for the spell.



But it is still a trigger- and thus, not false.

Yes it is false because the strongest triggers for Detect Evil" have no direct relationship to evil. If a detector is set of by a number of things, then the things that set it of most strongly are generally what it's set to detect. Things that slightly set it off, in this case evil alignment, are often side effects, or at best weak relations of what you are detecting for.




BoED does make it clear that, at least there, poison is indeed evil- not because it is "dishonorable" but because it "inflicts unnecessary suffering".

Which is odd- given that any method of defeating or killing an opponent has a high chance of involving suffering- often more high than you would expect a poison to inflict.

And other ways of inflicting ability damage- spells, supernatural abilities, and the aforementioned ravages, apparently don't count.

This may be more to do with it's Geneva-like rules on what's acceptable- using poisons and diseases as weapons of war, is a war crime- hence, Evil.

BoED and it's sister are quite definitely not core. Indeed they can be quite contradictory to core. And as u and others have pointed out there Poison=evil is arbitary and inconsistient. And not part of the core alignment system. It's almost as bad as taking the GrayGuard prestige class as a description of LG.:smallfrown:

Stephen E

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 10:28 AM
One option is to remove the 4 alignment descriptors from mortals, but leave it in for everything else (and divine casters). Quintessenial Paladin 2 listed this as one of the alignment options.

This means that serial killers are Neutral, but 1st level clerics of Pelor are Good. That Elves and Dwarves are Always Neutral, but monsters (orcs, goblins) are Evil.

And that only divine casters, and monsters are affected fully by alignment-based weapons and spells

This is, to say the least, not the normal way of doing things.

On Detect Evil- the spell is called Detect Evil, not Detect Fiend or Detect Evil Cleric. It is set to detect the presence of beings aligned evil (and, for some reason, undead) and this is what it does.

On BoVD and BoED contradicting core- where? Which statements in either book directly contradict statements in PHB or DMG- with the core books saying "This is X" and them saying "This is not X"?

On paladin rules "respect legitimate authority" "do not commit evil acts" are pretty basic principles of LG- even if they are not the whole thing.

Stephen_E
2009-12-02, 10:32 AM
Holy works against evil, not necessarily undead. If you removed alignment a holy weapon and any weapon modified by alignment is absolutely worthless.

.

Actually under the alignment rules Holy Weapons always do bonus damage against undead because all undead detect as evil regardless of their alignment.

If u remove alignment there is no requirement to remove the damage undead effect.

Stephen E

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 10:37 AM
The damage undead effect, and the "detects as evil" effect- are tied- the only justification for holy weapons always working on undead, is because they always detect as evil.

If there is no such thing as evil, why would there be such a thing as holy- as written?

Poison being evil is a little arbitrary, but so is paladins being forbidden to use poison. Simplest way to resolve the conflict- make a reason for it being evil.

It may not be a great reason- but it's a valid one- even if it does mean that "some ability damage causes more suffering than other ability damage"

The same applies to making the various things prohibited by "Act with Honor" usually evil- lying, cheating, stealing.

Most people do consider these acts "evil by default- require a lot of justification" after all.

Telonius
2009-12-02, 10:48 AM
Personally I make some houserule changes to have alignment matter ... well, not less, but differently ... to some classes. Alignment restrictions are removed for Monks, Barbarians, and Bards. They're still in place for Clerics.

Paladins are an interesting issue. I've never understood why someone like Garl Glittergold or Corellon or Olidammara would give special favor to Lawful Good servants when they're chaotic. It makes even less sense to me that the gods would be somehow prevented from giving that sort of power to people whose alignments match their own. So, in my games, Paladins must take the alignment of their deity or cause, and act as an exemplar of that deity's (or philosophy's) principles and goals. (So yes, you can play that Randian paladin if you really want to). They use the abilities of the Paladins of Tyranny/Freedom/Slaughter as presented in UA; other abilities are added as appropriate (True Neutral paladins of Obad-Hai, for example, get a "Smite Extremes" ability similar to Smite Good/Evil, and can choose whether their touch deals positive or negative energy).

Otherwise, I generally try not to let alignment squabbles get in the way of the group's fun. Aside from the alignment-based spells and items (i.e. Blasphemy, Holy Avenger) it really doesn't come up often enough to cause any issues.



Actually under the alignment rules Holy Weapons always do bonus damage against undead because all undead detect as evil regardless of their alignment.

If u remove alignment there is no requirement to remove the damage undead effect.

Stephen E

There are a few exceptions. The Ghost template (from the MM) can be applied to creatures of any alignment, and makes it undead. Since text trumps table, the Detect Evil description is a table, and the Ghost template is text, it doesn't register. (This is also a case of specific trumping general; undead are generally evil, but ghosts specifically can take any alignment). You also have things like the Deathless in Eberron. Setting-specific (and often controversial), but they do exist.

Stephen_E
2009-12-02, 10:51 AM
.

On "honourable/dishonourable" not being the same as "good/evil"- this is a bit shaky.

On the contary historically the mediaval concept of honour and chivalry was largely a tool to justify and support the position of those in power, the male warrior aristocracy. No direct relationship to good/evil.

[/quote]CG "barbarian hero types" may prize honor highly- and take a "My word is iron" approach- even if they aren't big fans of order and regulation.[/quote]

And this has what to do with good/evil?


Lying is not always evil in D&D (BoVD) but it is "borderline". You need a very good excuse, to do it without committing an evil act.

I've already pointed out that BoVD and BoED have little relationship to the core alignment system, and this just points out how silly/stupid they are.
Lying is standard normal part of human socity. It is neither inherently good nor evil, as is telling the truth.


Most forms of "dishonourable" behaviour, involving deceit, betrayal, theft, etc fall into this category of "Hard to justify as non-evil- needs to be in a very good cause.

:smallbiggrin: Rubbish. Most forms of "dishonourable" behaviour can be shown to be good as easy as most forms of honourable behaviour can be shown to be evil. Pick your behaviour and I can write a scenario to make either case.

External "honourable" codes can be shown to have a strong linkage to Law/Order, and "Dishounourable" has a strong linkage to chaos/anti-authority, but the Good/Evil linkage is tenous at best.

A lot of this comes from the myths of the medival knights in shining armour.

I forgot to mention another problem with alignemnt. A lot of people like to claim that DnD morality has nothing to do with RL morality/ethics.
The reality is that DnD morality/ethics is basically RL ethics/morality with a few kinks due to the setting. Completely understandable when u consider that the people writing it live in the real world and developed their sense of morality and ethics in the real world.

Stephen E

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 10:52 AM
Dragon 310 provided paladins for all 8 other alignments.

Bard/Monk/Barbarian alignment restrictions are justifiable up to a point- but can be a little irritating.

As for the CG guys- keeping their word has to do with being Good. Lying being non-evil is the exception- not the rule- as is telling the truth being non-good.


For "honorable" behaviour- such as honesty of all kinds, it needs special circumstances for it to be evil.

For "dishonorable" behaviour- it needs special circumstances to be nonevil.

D&D moral behaviour being real-world moral behaviour with a few kinks, is one of the few things I can agree with.

And one of those things about real moral behaviour is that theft, lying, aggression, etc, are considered, by default, Evil- acts that require justifying for a "not evil" claim to be considered valid.

Nonevil lying-
lying to the would-be murderer to save people from them.
lying/shading the truth to the depressive who will react badly to it.

But- as pointed out- it requires this sort of excuse.

The core alignment system is practically nonexistant in terms of definition- a couple of paragraphs in the PHB.

The other books fill it out and define it- and do not, in fact- contradict PHB definitions significantly. Instead, they clarify them.

Stephen_E
2009-12-02, 11:16 AM
The damage undead effect, and the "detects as evil" effect- are tied- the only justification for holy weapons always working on undead, is because they always detect as evil.

They do damge because Holy Weapons are positive energy and undead are negative energy. No good/evil required.



Poison being evil is a little arbitrary, but so is paladins being forbidden to use poison. Simplest way to resolve the conflict- make a reason for it being evil.

Again with this confusing Paladin restrictions with alignment. Stop it. It's just silly. Paladins are forbidden to use poison because it's seen as against the Paladin code. It's no sillyier than vast numbers of religous restrictions (or as silly).


The same applies to making the various things prohibited by "Act with Honor" usually evil- lying, cheating, stealing.

And my rubbishing of your 1st linking of "Paladins code" with "good" applys equally well to the rest of your arguments.


Most people do consider these acts "evil by default- require a lot of justification" after all.

Most people don't. Many do, but equally many people beleive all killing of humans (which in a DnD world includes all humanoids) as evil. You really don't want to touch that.

Various forms of lying, cheating and stealing have been and are seen as abmirable and even honourable, both in past societies and current societies.
What they sometimes do is give the approved versions of these actions a different name. Thus in the days when cattle raiding was seen as a mark of prowess they seperated it from "common theft". Soldiers are seperated from murderers, Inteligence field operatives seperated from "thiefs and serial killers".

Many people differentiate these for good reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that the acts concerned are the same. The classic line, "If you're poor you're crazy, if you're rich you're ecentric".

Stephen E

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 11:26 AM
the point being, that the "approved versions" are the exception, rather than the rule, and that the people have to justify it to themselves- to avoid seeing their acts as evil.

The most basic definitions of "honorable" are:

"trustworthy" "honest" "has integrity"


There may be many extraneous things that get attached to it, but this is what it all boils down to.

"Poison is forbidden by paladins because it's against the paladin's code" is a circular argument. PHB does not explain why it's forbidden.

BoED does. Not very well, but it does explain why.



Most people don't. Many do, but equally many people beleive all killing of humans (which in a DnD world includes all humanoids) as evil. You really don't want to touch that.

PHB: "Evil people kill if it is convenient.

While "All killing is evil" is a minority view "All killing requires some form of justification" is the majority one- and has been for millenia.

No society can thrive without forbidding unsanctioned killing- and putting very firm restrictions on how to sanction it.

Mike_G
2009-12-02, 11:42 AM
BoED does make it clear that, at least there, poison is indeed evil- not because it is "dishonorable" but because it "inflicts unnecessary suffering".


And then they undermine their own position, right here:



Which is odd- given that any method of defeating or killing an opponent has a high chance of involving suffering- often more high than you would expect a poison to inflict.

And other ways of inflicting ability damage- spells, supernatural abilities, and the aforementioned ravages, apparently don't count.

This may be more to do with it's Geneva-like rules on what's acceptable- using poisons and diseases as weapons of war, is a war crime- hence, Evil.

This is just crappy reasoning. Any freshman in Philosophy 101 could come up with better guidelines than that.

A black and white, absolute system of morality is pretty stupid if nobody agrees on what that absolute system is.

The shades of grey in RL morality are consistent with disagreement and interpretation, self delusion and hamfisted rationalization. They also make a more interesting world.

The simplistic and ill justified Alignment system can work for extreme, cartoonish examples, like the puppy-kicking CE ravager, or the diabetes inducing too good to believe Paladidn, a-la Carrot Ironfounderson, but try to play a character with any kind of nuance at all and nobody can agree on what Alignment he is.

Or even what Alignment means. Look at this thread. If an Aasimar wearing the skined remains of his victims is Good, and a redeemed succubus Paladin is Evil, then the system is Broke.

I started gaming in high school, and I'm now in my forties. I've played a lot of games, RuneQuest, Hero system, Harn, Call of Cthulhu, Arcanum, and all worked just fine with no Alignment system. The only thing we lost were the arguments.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 11:47 AM
It's not so much that the system is broke, but that people tend to enforce their own perspectives on the system.

The guidelines in the books are pretty clear- people just refuse to accept them.

As written, Detect spells are flawed- when it comes to beings with an alignment descriptor, it will detect the descriptor rather than the alignment.

The aforementioned Succubus Paladin- Alignment- Good. Alignment according to Detect Evil spells- Evil.

A Solar who commits evil deeds enough, will be Evil aligned, but detect as Good with a Detect Good spell.

(Aasimars are pretty irrelavent here- they can quite easily be evil and detect as evil)

Cuaqchi
2009-12-02, 12:06 PM
The game I am in online right now actually does alignment in an intesting way.

Every alignment is on a 21 point sliding scale.

Good -> Evil // Law -> Chaos

As a result no alignment based action is impossible, though they can effect a characters alignment in small doses.

For example my Cleric of Valour is Law 17/ Chaos 4 // Good 17/Evil 4, he is most definatly LG but he still can however rarely perform questionable actions. The same party has a LG Cleric of Light with the scores of Law 14/ Chaos 7 // Good 18/Evil 3. She is slightly more good than I am and is even less willing then I am to do something remotely evil, but she is also has a less rigid personal code and can if she feels it will help act against certain rules.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-02, 12:13 PM
Maybe I'm just obscenely lucky, but alignment hasn't gotten in my way. Sure, there's occasionally a little quibble over a character's alignment. But the effort saved by removing these arguments is definitely outweighed by the effort required to retool all the alignment-based mechanics. This is 3.5, of course; the linear scale that pretends to be alignment dies a horrible death when I play 4e.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-02, 12:54 PM
The two biggest problems with the alignment system are:
1. The change to detect evil which destroyed the stability of the world.
2. The moral code being based on something that most people do not want to accept.

The first is relatively simple to check if you have a copy of the AD&D rules. Originally, the spell would not detect evil in casual NPCs. They had to be of "name" level (9th or 10th level depending on specific class), be thoroughly committed to evil, and be contemplating specific evil plans at the moment you used the spell. That made the whole paladin evildar shtick a non-issue.

The second is more complex, but the start is that the BoED morality is just not what was intended by Gygax when he wrote the alignment system, and trying to use something like that causes significant conflicts with making the system functional. Dig out his article from Dragon "Good Isn't Stupid" where he addresses a question about a Lawful Good ranger whose player thought he should protect a wounded wyvern, or read his Gord the Rogue books. Accept surrender of Evil? No fighting between the Good alignments?

Get past those two and accept that the Good alignments fight just as hard as the other alginments, and the detect alignment spells are not cheesy radar, and a lot of function is returned to the game.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 01:04 PM
Exactly what is wrong with "accept surrender of those who are Evil"?

Tolkien (in Morgoth's Ring) went so far as to make it compulsary- you must accept the surrender of Orcs- you may not torture them to get information. Etc.

Tolkien (going by those essays) would have held characters to BoED morality.

"no fighting between good alignments" is an ideal, even if it's not always lived up to. When Good fights Good, Evil laughs and laughs.

Yes- there can be strife between the two- but that doesn't mean its OK to slaughter Good people because "My leader told me to."

Krrth
2009-12-02, 01:07 PM
Yes- there can be strife between the two- but that doesn't mean its OK to slaughte Good people because "My leader told me to."

And if you do, you're no longer good.

I agree with you though, good can certainly fight with good. They just don't normally kill each other. Insults, cold wars, disdain, yes. Outright war, deadly raids....not so much.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 01:11 PM
At the celestial level in BoED, it says

"the members of the celestial planes never fight each other- there is no "war between Chaos and Law"- and only when there is corruption afoot, do they fight"

I prefer this.

Krrth
2009-12-02, 01:15 PM
At the celestial level in BoED, it says

"the members of the celestial planes never fight each other- there is no "war between Chaos and Law"- and only when there is corruption afoot, do they fight"

I prefer this.

Heh. Bet ya they still bicker like there's no tomorrow though.

Mike_G
2009-12-02, 01:17 PM
The two biggest problems with the alignment system are:
1. The change to detect evil which destroyed the stability of the world.
2. The moral code being based on something that most people do not want to accept.

The first is relatively simple to check if you have a copy of the AD&D rules. Originally, the spell would not detect evil in casual NPCs. They had to be of "name" level (9th or 10th level depending on specific class), be thoroughly committed to evil, and be contemplating specific evil plans at the moment you used the spell. That made the whole paladin evildar shtick a non-issue.


Yeah, I miss the good old days when Detect Evil didn't ping every peasant who cheated on his taxes, or allow the Paladin to use it to play Marco Polo with the lurking Kobolds.

Clerics of evil gods, Demons, Huge, Ancient Red Dragons, sure, let them pin the needle on the evilometer. Street thugs, not so much.



The second is more complex, but the start is that the BoED morality is just not what was intended by Gygax when he wrote the alignment system, and trying to use something like that causes significant conflicts with making the system functional. Dig out his article from Dragon "Good Isn't Stupid" where he addresses a question about a Lawful Good ranger whose player thought he should protect a wounded wyvern, or read his Gord the Rogue books. Accept surrender of Evil? No fighting between the Good alignments?

Get past those two and accept that the Good alignments fight just as hard as the other alginments, and the detect alignment spells are not cheesy radar, and a lot of function is returned to the game.

I pretty much agree. I think the Book of Exhausting Screeds just applies simplistic Marquis of Queensbury rules to Good characters, and transform sthe epic struggle of Good Versus Evil to Shirts and Skins. The inclusion of Ravages pretty much is an admission of this.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 01:23 PM
One persons: "simplistic Marquis of Queensberry rules" is another's

"The minimum needed to avoid the accusation that all D&D adventurers are war criminals"

The comments about "good old days" is an illustration of this.

To some people, a person being cut down in the street because he "pings on the evildar" does not suddenly become moral merely because- "He was probably an evil priest- otherwise he wouldn't have pinged"

Poison may also be a part of it- until 3rd ed, it had different rules from ability damaging effects. Only in 3rd ed did poisons become virtually identical, mechanically, to certain spells.

Krrth
2009-12-02, 01:24 PM
I'm of mixed opinions about ravages. Making them a "good" version of poison sucks.

Having a substance of pure life that dissolves undead? Unicorn horn causing damage to any evil creature that touches it? These are good, flavorful ideas.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 01:32 PM
Was poison "evil" rather than "banned only for paladins" in editions prior to 3.5 and BoED?

I seem to recall a claim that "Gygax declared poison to be evil after a character in his game cheesed themselves out with poisoned weapons"

The BoED rationale "unnecessary suffering" is the same as the real-world one- which is why the use of poisoned weapons has been banned for most of the century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol#Chemical_weapons_prohibitions

It may sometimes seem like an illogical rationale, but that's the one given.

Krrth
2009-12-02, 01:34 PM
Was poison "evil" rather than "banned only for paladins" in editions prior to 3.5 and BoED?

I seem to recall a claim that "Gygax declared poison to be evil after a character in his game cheesed themselves out with poisoned weapons"

The BoED rationale "unnecessary suffering" is the same as the real-world one- which is why the use of poisoned weapons has been banned for most of the century.

It may sometimes seem like an illogical rationale, but that's the one given.

I'm not 100% positive if poison was evil before, but I do know that the assassin class was one of the few that got use poison as an ability. I know I was always under the impression that it was.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 01:38 PM
Assassination is another controversial example- with BoED attempting to straddle both sides of the fence

"assassination for money is evil- assassination of those who are exceptionally evil- not for money, is justifiable"- (Slayer of Domiel)

and possibly pleasing neither.

Krrth
2009-12-02, 01:44 PM
Assassination is another controversial example- with BoED attempting to straddle both sides of the fence

"assassination for money is evil- assassination of those who are exceptionally evil- not for money, is justifiable"- (Slayer of Domiel)

and possibly pleasing neither.

Which is one of the problems I have with that book. Good is Good, not Evil wearing paint.

Of course it also brings into play what the definition and perception of "Assassination" is.
It's not good to slip into someones castle/house/whatever and kill the being in it's sleep. It may not be evil, but it's not good.
It's not evil if, during war, you ambush someone. It's not good either.

Mike_G
2009-12-02, 01:44 PM
One persons: "simplistic Marquis of Queensberry rules" is another's

"The minimum needed to avoid the accusation that all D&D adventurers are war criminals"


Rubbish.

"Always accepts surrender" isn't always feasible. Four guys in a hostile dungeon cannot guard a half dozen dangerous prisoners. To expect every Good PC to have to do this is unrealistic.

If a PC has a code of honor to always surrender, that's a choice to tie his own hands.

These "minimun rules" have less to do with Good and Evil and more to do with observing facets of honor codes that would appropriately apply to either chivalrous tourneys or large armies who have resources to deal with prisoners.

A small D&D party is not analogous to an army, observing the Geneva Conventions, but to a Special Forces strike team or Recon team.

How many handcuffed prisoners do you think get dragged along by that kind of team as they continue the mission to blow up the Guns at Navarone?



The comments about "good old days" is an illustration of this.

To some people, a person being cut down in the street because he "pings on the evildar" does not suddenly become moral merely because- "He was probably an evil priest- otherwise he wouldn't have pinged"


Detect Evil, in AD&D was useful in uncovering plots, unmasking assassins, piercing illusions. When you apply it to everybody, any intrigue scenario is too easily messed up by the "scan the room" tactic. Even if you don't outright Smiote everyone who pins, if you use that to make a quick list to decide who to suspect, instead of actual reasoning, I think it cheapens the experience.




Poison may also be a part of it- until 3rd ed, it had different rules from ability damaging effects. Only in 3rd ed did poisons become virtually identical, mechanically, to certain spells.

Which is irrelevant.

"Poisons are bad, because they are dishonorable," speaks to codes of conduct, not Good or Evil. Same for Sneak Attack. It may be a tactic that a certain honorable character, good or evil, might consider beneath him, but backstabbing a powerful evil foe isn't really Evil. It's just smart when he hs more HP and a better BAB than you do.

"Poisons are bad because they cause pain" is just silly, since it's OK to burn a bad guy to death with a Flame Strike.

"Poisons are bad but Ravages, which are exactly the same, except they only hurt Evil people are Good." is hypocrisy, and a clear case of White Hat/Black Hat rules.

Krrth
2009-12-02, 01:47 PM
Rubbish.

"Always accepts surrender" isn't always feasible. Four guys in a hostile dungeon cannot guard a half dozen dangerous prisoners. To expect every Good PC to have to do this is unrealistic.

If a PC has a code of honor to always surrender, that's a choice to tie his own hands.

These "minimun rules" have less to do with Good and Evil and more to do with observing facets of honor codes that would appropriately apply to either chivalrous tourneys or large armies who have resources to deal with prisoners.

A small D&D party is not analogous to an army, observing the Geneva Conventions, but to a Special Forces strike team or Recon team.

How many handcuffed prisoners do you think get dragged along by that kind of team as they continue the mission to blow up the Guns at Navarone?



Detect Evil, in AD&D was useful in uncovering plots, unmasking assassins, piercing illusions. When you apply it to everybody, any intrigue scenario is too easily messed up by the "scan the room" tactic. Even if you don't outright Smiote everyone who pins, if you use that to make a quick list to decide who to suspect, instead of actual reasoning, I think it cheapens the experience.




Which is irrelevant.

"Poisons are bad, because they are dishonorable," speaks to codes of conduct, not Good or Evil. Same for Sneak Attack. It may be a tactic that a certain honorable character, good or evil, might consider beneath him, but backstabbing a powerful evil foe isn't really Evil. It's just smart when he hs more HP and a better BAB than you do.

"Poisons are bad because they cause pain" is just silly, since it's OK to burn a bad guy to death with a Flame Strike.

"Poisons are bad but Ravages, which are exactly the same, except they only hurt Evil people are Good." is hypocrisy, and a clear case of White Hat/Black Hat rules.

You do know that modern soldiers are not required to always accept a surrender, right?

We're not arguing about the ravages. They were poorly implimented.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 01:47 PM
BoED went out of its way to say- "Ambushing is OK- A paladin will not not fall for ambushing their enemy"

I figure that, given the heavy emphasis on "Exalted guys should be concentrating on those who are exceptionally evil- not the vaguely sinister scheming baron" the same applies to the Slayers.

They are a "when all else fails, and war would be unfeasible and cause too much suffering" option.

Jayabalard
2009-12-02, 01:49 PM
While even the OP is kind of focused on D&D, keep in mind that it's not the only RPG system that has the idea of alignment... some games have a vastly different idea of how to treat it; off the top of my head:

Palladium: Good (Principled, Scrupulous), Selfish (Unprincipled, Anarchist), Evil (Aberrant, Miscreant, Diabolic)
Powers and Perils: Law, Balance, Chaos, Sidhe, Kotothi, Elder, and Shamanistic Elder.


in general, alignment systems either

give a basic description of how a given entity acts (Palladium).
gives mechanical advantages or disadvantages based on which side you picked (Powers and Perils)
or Both (D&D)


The problems people seem to run into is that some people would like to use them one way or the other in D&D instead of being saddled with having it be both.


If you remove alignment you have to refluff the entirety of the planar wheel. Demons and devils don't fight each other because one hate the color of the other's eyes.Not really, that just removes the meta reason (lawful evil vs chaotic evil). Devils can be orderly and evil, and demons unorderly and evil, and they can have a meaningful conflict based on those differences without having alignments.


You do know that modern soldiers are not required to always accept a surrender, right? [Citation needed]

Sliver
2009-12-02, 01:51 PM
And if you do, you're no longer good.

But if you don't, you aren't lawful anymore. And suddenly you find out the player was playing a paladin and the DM made him fall because of that and he comes to the forums, complaining that his DM made him fall in such a situation where he chose good over law and everybody tell him to quit because the DM is a jerk for making things hard for him while already playing a weak class and he should have picked crusader instead and would have been stronger and had less issues but then everybody find out that the posted hates ToB and everybody argues with him until he says something like "forget it, I will just play a monk. They are awesome right?" and it opens a new can of worms and then someone says something about Hitler and waits for the topic to close but it doesn't until candlejack is brou

Mike_G
2009-12-02, 01:51 PM
You do know that modern soldiers are not required to always accept a surrender, right?

We're not arguing about the ravages. They were poorly implimented.

Unless they changed the rules since I was in the Marines, you are mistaken.

An enemy who drops his weapon and puts his hands up is no longer a valid target.

They court martial you for that.

Assuming anybody sees you do it and actually cares, but yeah, it's against the rules.

Krrth
2009-12-02, 01:53 PM
But if you don't, you aren't lawful anymore. And suddenly you find out the player was playing a paladin and the DM made him fall because of that and he comes to the forums, complaining that his DM made him fall in such a situation where he chose good over law and everybody tell him to quit because the DM is a jerk for making things hard for him while already playing a weak class and he should have picked crusader instead and would have been stronger and had less issues but then everybody find out that the posted hates ToB and everybody argues with him until he says something like "forget it, I will just play a monk. They are awesome right?" and it opens a new can of worms and then someone says something about Hitler and waits for the topic to close but it doesn't until candlejack is brou

Why? Good is perfectly capable of disagreeing, bickering, snubbing, and otherwise making a pain of itself. A paladin is in no way required, by RAW, to fight other good beings, even if ordered.


edit: Mike: There's another part to that. If accepting the surrender would put you or your troops in unreasonable danger, or if you have reason to believe that the surrender is false, you don't have to take it. More specifically, just because one person in the enemy line drops their weapon doesn't mean you have to stop fighting. You have to make every reasonable effort however.

Yahzi
2009-12-02, 01:57 PM
Alignment isn't that hard.

In my world it represents two things: 1) moral development, and 2) political allegiance to a specific pantheon.

Basically, morality is determined by being fair. Alignment is determined by who you feel a duty to be fair to:

Neutral Good = Universal rights. You treat everybody fairly, even people you know aren't going to be fair to you.

Lawful Good = Social Contract. You are fair to people who agree to be fair to you.

Chaotic Good = Peer Approval. You are fair to your family, friends, tribe, or nation - basically, anyone you define as part of your group. Other people are fair game (as long as your group agrees!).

Lawful Evil = Desire for Gain. You are fair to people who can make you profit.

Chaotic Evil = Fear of Punishment. You are fair to people who scare you.

Neutral Evil = Sociopath. The only time you are fair is when it is amusing to do so; otherwise, you're not even particularly fair to your own future self.


Because it represents allegiance, it is possible for a person to be of slightly different alignment than their chosen pantheon. People might either aspire to being as fair as their ideal, or they may feel that being more fair than their gods is a personal choice for them but would be a bad strategic choice for their gods/society. (In particular in my world NG is often considered too "weak" to hold off the monsters). However, few people cross over from Evil to Good or vice versa. Most humans are CG or LE.

Check out my world book for more detail.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 01:58 PM
You do know that modern soldiers are not required to always accept a surrender, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_quarter

Note that this applies to unconditional surrender only- but the rule is- killing a person who is unconditionally surrendering is a war crime.

Same applies to killing a person who has stuck up a white flag in order to surrender- it is a universally recognized "protective sign"

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 02:01 PM
Chaotic Good = Peer Approval. You are fair to your family, friends, tribe, or nation - basically, anyone you define as part of your group. Other people are fair game (as long as your group agrees!)

This is the tricky bit. At least in Savage Species, this is considered normal for evil beings- they are assumed to be nice to their in-group, horrible to their "out-group".

Anyway. The alignment system.

3.0 PHB and 3.5 PHB- a good summary- or far too vague to be useful?

BoVD- a good list of "evil acts" or arbitrary and unrealistic?

BoED- the bare minimum to get out of the "D&D adventurers are mass-murderers and war criminals" accusation- or Pollyannaish and inconsistant?

And possibly variants in between each position.

Sliver
2009-12-02, 02:19 PM
Why? Good is perfectly capable of disagreeing, bickering, snubbing, and otherwise making a pain of itself. A paladin is in no way required, by RAW, to fight other good beings, even if ordered.

Good is, but lawful, and specifically paladins, are expected to obey their lords. I am pretty sure that I saw somewhere that if a paladin is forced to choose good or law, he should go with good but get an atonement...

Krrth
2009-12-02, 02:19 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_quarter

Note that this applies to unconditional surrender only- but the rule is- killing a person who is unconditionally surrendering is a war crime.

Same applies to killing a person who has stuck up a white flag in order to surrender- it is a universally recognized "protective sign"

For the main part, yes. However here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war) it states:


The law of war is binding not only upon States as such but also upon individuals and, in particular, the members of their armed forces. Parties are bound by the laws of war to the extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate military goals. For example, they are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area.

However, I suspect this is wandering into political territory. I'm not sure how much of this part of the discussion is allowed.


edit:Sliver: They are only required to obey reasonable orders, not all orders.

Mike_G
2009-12-02, 02:27 PM
For the main part, yes. However here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war) it states:



However, I suspect this is wandering into political territory. I'm not sure how much of this part of the discussion is allowed.




Considering the Army sergeants recently convicted of murder for shooting detainees, and the Marine charged for shooting a wounded insurgent "playing possum," you have to respect surrender.

When somebody's watching.

Krrth
2009-12-02, 02:30 PM
Considering the Army sergeants recently convicted of murder for shooting detainees, and the Marine charged for shooting a wounded insurgent "playing possum," you have to respect surrender.

When somebody's watching.

And that's why we're wandering into political territory. Spirit vs/ letter, and I'll leave it at that.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 02:32 PM
edit:Sliver: They are only required to obey reasonable orders, not all orders.

The source that states this flat out, however- is the BoED.

PHB says "respect legitimate authority" but doesn't say much about "unless it is acting unreasonably"

Anyway- the point has been made, that (at least in BoED) adhering to the "laws and customs of war" is considered a requirement for Good characters (Whereas the PHB says nothing about it), so we'll leave it at that.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 03:14 PM
Detect Evil, in AD&D was useful in uncovering plots, unmasking assassins, piercing illusions. When you apply it to everybody, any intrigue scenario is too easily messed up by the "scan the room" tactic. Even if you don't outright Smiote everyone who pins, if you use that to make a quick list to decide who to suspect, instead of actual reasoning, I think it cheapens the experience.


The point of the 3.0-3.5 version- is that you do need actual reasoning to determine who is responsible, and that "detecting as evil" does not automatically

"uncover plots, unmask assassins, pierce illusions"

With the 3.5 approach (stressed in Heroes of Horror) the player's actually have to do some thinking, and can't just kill the guy who pings.

jmbrown
2009-12-02, 03:24 PM
Not really, that just removes the meta reason (lawful evil vs chaotic evil). Devils can be orderly and evil, and demons unorderly and evil, and they can have a meaningful conflict based on those differences without having alignments.

You still have two opposing alignments. Devils are lawful and demons are chaotic. They're both evil but they fight each other because they disagree on the application of evil.


PHB says "respect legitimate authority" but doesn't say much about "unless it is acting unreasonably"

Eye of the beholder here. I think unreasonable authority isn't legitimate. People defect all the time but that doesn't make them any less respectful of the law.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 03:44 PM
Simple example- the general is poor at it, the paladin is under their authority-and is given an "unreasonable order" that has a high chance of getting them killed for no benefit.

Yet, "unreasonable" does not always mean "illegitimate"

When its an "evil order" then, and only then, does the "legitimate authority" issue come into play.

For example, if "no quarter" is given- this is the sort of thing a paladin should refuse to accept, since giving that order is a war crime. And, according to BoED- choosing to make that decision to refuse all offers of surrender, evil.

Krrth
2009-12-02, 03:58 PM
I'm not so sure about some of that. More specifically, I remember an old dragon article by....Roger Moore, I think...that talks about Paladins. SItuations were give and discussed. THis is from memory, but here goes:

1)a "Friendly"Dryad attempts to charm a party member. Paladin punches here in the nose. Penalty assessed? None. The paladin had a +5 holy avenger. A punch was the least amount of violence necessary.

2) A paladin sees a demon that is way out of his ability to injure, let alone kill. The paladin leaves, playing rear guard for the party. Penalty: None. It does the forces of good no favors by being stupid, and the amount of evil vanquished over the is most certainly greater than if he was killed now. It's not to say the paladin shouldn't come back later when he's higher level to destroy the demon (assuming it hasn't been already), but dying foolishly isn't one of the tenants of good.

3) A lair of lycanthropes has been destroyed, killing most of the adults. There are only a few women and children left, all of whom are infected. The nearest available shelter for them (other than the lair) is several weeks travel away through dangerous terrain. The paladin slew the lycanthropes because they were unable to get them back to "safety" and they couldn't just leave them there to continue terrorizing the are. Penalty: Didn't fall, but did take a ding. Had a long discussion with his god.

Gamerlord
2009-12-02, 04:09 PM
When I first played D&D, I always played TN, and just did what I though was the right decision in the situation, not bound by a paragraph of role playing rules.

Mike_G
2009-12-02, 04:18 PM
I'm not so sure about some of that. More specifically, I remember an old dragon article by....Roger Moore, I think...that talks about Paladins. SItuations were give and discussed. THis is from memory, but here goes:

1)a "Friendly"Dryad attempts to charm a party member. Paladin punches here in the nose. Penalty assessed? None. The paladin had a +5 holy avenger. A punch was the least amount of violence necessary.

2) A paladin sees a demon that is way out of his ability to injure, let alone kill. The paladin leaves, playing rear guard for the party. Penalty: None. It does the forces of good no favors by being stupid, and the amount of evil vanquished over the is most certainly greater than if he was killed now. It's not to say the paladin shouldn't come back later when he's higher level to destroy the demon (assuming it hasn't been already), but dying foolishly isn't one of the tenants of good.

3) A lair of lycanthropes has been destroyed, killing most of the adults. There are only a few women and children left, all of whom are infected. The nearest available shelter for them (other than the lair) is several weeks travel away through dangerous terrain. The paladin slew the lycanthropes because they were unable to get them back to "safety" and they couldn't just leave them there to continue terrorizing the are. Penalty: Didn't fall, but did take a ding. Had a long discussion with his god.


But, see, Alignment is unnecessary to any of those. Those situations all hinge on a Paladin's Code of Conduct.

Code's are perfectly fine RP fodder. Alignment is a pain in the arse.

Leaving aside the Paladin, let's say Swashy McBuckle is in a party fighting orcs. The last Orc alive does the math, drops his falchion and grunts "Grondash give up."

Knowing that they can't spare the effort to guard him, and not trusting the Orc to keep his word, Swashy says "Sorry old boy, but we just aren't playing by the Queensbury rules today. But, I hate to kill an unarmed....man? So, I'll wait while you pick up your sword and we can finish this."

Now, that's solidly just a character acting within his own code, but will very likely start an Alignment debate. Some will argue that refusing surrender is Evil, which is debatable, some will call this Chaotic, some will judge it Lawful, since Swashy adheres to a Code, and then they'll argue he's Chaotic when he seduces the Baron's wife back in town, even though that's consistent with his personality.

In short, a nuanced PC is hard to pin down with the existing system, and with five people at the table, at least one will call this an alignment violation, when it is, in fact, just playing the character's persona.

Drenn
2009-12-02, 04:28 PM
I'm not so sure about some of that. More specifically, I remember an old dragon article by....Roger Moore, I think...that talks about Paladins. SItuations were give and discussed. THis is from memory, but here goes:

1)a "Friendly"Dryad attempts to charm a party member. Paladin punches here in the nose. Penalty assessed? None. The paladin had a +5 holy avenger. A punch was the least amount of violence necessary.

2) A paladin sees a demon that is way out of his ability to injure, let alone kill. The paladin leaves, playing rear guard for the party. Penalty: None. It does the forces of good no favors by being stupid, and the amount of evil vanquished over the is most certainly greater than if he was killed now. It's not to say the paladin shouldn't come back later when he's higher level to destroy the demon (assuming it hasn't been already), but dying foolishly isn't one of the tenants of good.

3) A lair of lycanthropes has been destroyed, killing most of the adults. There are only a few women and children left, all of whom are infected. The nearest available shelter for them (other than the lair) is several weeks travel away through dangerous terrain. The paladin slew the lycanthropes because they were unable to get them back to "safety" and they couldn't just leave them there to continue terrorizing the are. Penalty: Didn't fall, but did take a ding. Had a long discussion with his god.

As far as Paladins go, I think the trouble they tend to run into more than other classes is that they're expected to look either at the "global" good almost to the exclusion of the immediate situation, or see only the situation before them and not consider the larger scheme of things. Their almost expected to constantly set up false dichotomies for themselves.

Think Dark Knight, in the situation with saving either Rachel or Harvey Dent as an example.

deuxhero
2009-12-02, 04:38 PM
I would say that the rogue is Chaotic Good - Screw the Rules, I'm Doing What's Right (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScrewTheRulesImDoingWhatsRight).


He said it was 4.0. Pretty sure 4.0 made the alignment system worse by removing Lawful evil/Chaotic Good and amde x neutral into one alignment.

Jayabalard
2009-12-02, 04:43 PM
You still have two opposing alignments. Devils are lawful and demons are chaotic. They're both evil but they fight each other because they disagree on the application of evil.Nope, there are no alignments in that, just behaviors.

Removing the alignments from the game does not say anything about whether the behaviors of a specific creature or a class of creatures (ie devils, demons) is going to change. So removing alignments from the game does not necessarily require refluffing that particular conflict.


Code's are perfectly fine RP fodder. Alignment is a pain in the arse.There's really no reason to treat alignment as anything other than a code of conduct; they work fine as long as you treat them that way.


PHB says "respect legitimate authority" but doesn't say much about "unless it is acting unreasonably""Respect" is not the same thing as "Obey"

The evil king who has rightfully inherited the throne from his father is legitimate authority. You should be respectful of him, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you should obey him.

Stephen_E
2009-12-02, 05:50 PM
It's not so much that the system is broke, but that people tend to enforce their own perspectives on the system.

The guidelines in the books are pretty clear- people just refuse to accept them.


You do make your case for this point quite well because you've done exactly what you talk about been a problem.

Refuse to accept the guidelines and make up your own.

And using BoVD and BoED is doing just that since they are considerably different from core.

Stephen E

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 06:03 PM
Using BoED and BoVD is not the same as "making up your own guidelines"

According to the Living Greyhawk FaQ- BoVD in particular is supposed to be "the" guideline as to what constitutes an Evil act. If a Dm is asked "why is casting an evil descriptor spell an evil act, the answer is "Because BoVD says so."

It's not ideal, but the point to be made is "core" is not "the complete alignment guidelines"- it is sorely incomplete-

and the supplements were written for a reason- to answer the questions DMs and players have on alignment, that the PHB fails to answer.


"BoVD and BoED are considerably different from core" is a claim that has been made several times- what, precisely, are the exact differences?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-02, 06:05 PM
In short, a nuanced PC is hard to pin down with the existing system, and with five people at the table, at least one will call this an alignment violation, when it is, in fact, just playing the character's persona.

Well, if your friends are inclined to whine about alignment, yeah. But if a guy's dedicated enough to be described as playing a character persona, nobody is going to be a jackass and whine that the guy is breaking character.

And I'm not sure why it's so hard to pin down a character when it comes time for Holy Smites. On the internet, yeah, but the only people who post in alignment threads are people that disagree with something. In a group of 5, agreement is much simpler.


It's not ideal, but the point to be made is "core" is not "the complete alignment guidelines"- it is sorely incomplete-
Why, exactly, are they incomplete? 3.5 core is fine; it's not until Bo_D that WotC started taking objectionable stances and presenting them as rules.


"BoVD and BoED are considerably different from core" is a claim that has been made several times- what, precisely, are the exact differences?
BoED is ******* stupid, BoVD is questionable, and both make philosophical assumptions that I'm uncomfortable assuming as the rules of my universe.

hamishspence
2009-12-02, 06:12 PM
"Slaughtering orc babies is OK- beacuse there's nothing in PHB that forbids it"

"Killing everything that detects as evil is OK- because it wouldn't be detecting as evil if it hadn't committed enough harm to justify instant execution"

- are two of the most common claims I hear from people who dislike BoED's take on alignment that directly contradicts these.

This is the main reason I figure that 3.0-3.5 PHB alignment is lacking- because this position is so common.

BoED and BoVD were the first to back away from what I see as a pretty objectionable "anything done to evil beings is OK" attitude.

Stephen_E
2009-12-02, 06:31 PM
Bard/Monk/Barbarian alignment restrictions are justifiable up to a point- but can be a little irritating.

Anything CAN be justified. I play a Drug Addicted vampire in World of Darkness and he justfies everything he does. Doesn't change the fact it's all BS.


As for the CG guys- keeping their word has to do with being Good. Lying being non-evil is the exception- not the rule- as is telling the truth being non-good.

And your beleif has nothing to do with what's in the core alignment rules.

Overtime I've become more impressed with the core alignment definitions, simply because if u read them they don't hardwire define everything. They don't Black/white everything. They talk about this alignment imply this or that. Note that "implying" =/= equals.

Far to many people both in RL and in game what the alignment system to be a rigid starighjacketed affair, and so they do as you have, had a bunch of rigid rules as suits there own personality and alignment.



For "honorable" behaviour- such as honesty of all kinds, it needs special circumstances for it to be evil.

Humans thrive on delusions. This is one of them. People lie all the time and do it as a matter of course. Indeed lying is socially expected and even approved and celebrated more than despised. Lying is only fairly consistently disapproved of when used for the purpose of hurting others.



D&D moral behaviour being real-world moral behaviour with a few kinks, is one of the few things I can agree with.

And one of those things about real moral behaviour is that theft, lying, aggression, etc, are considered, by default, Evil- acts that require justifying for a "not evil" claim to be considered valid.

And in RL while humans talk about this been so they don't actually do it.
I've spent 40+ years watching humans. As the saying goes "to be human is to beleive 2 contradictory things before breakfast". Humans rarely actually look at the dissaociation between what the do and what they say they do. They are more comfortable operating with their moderate delusions (if the delusions grow to seperate from reality u get problems) and lets be honest. This is mentally healthy as a rule.


Nonevil lying-
lying to the would-be murderer to save people from them.
lying/shading the truth to the depressive who will react badly to it.

"How are you today?"
"Fine"
Non-evil lie that people do all the time. They mostly don't want to know all your problems, and you mostly don't want to tell them. So you lie and everyone is happy.



The core alignment system is practically nonexistant in terms of definition- a couple of paragraphs in the PHB.

And here we have you lying, in that perfectly normal non-evil way that humans lie all the time.
The core aligment system is just over 2 pages of a 313pg book in the PHB. I also found 1/2 a page in theDMG but this wasn't a conclusive look.

The truth is more like "the core alignment system doesn't really do want you want" so as normal for humans you downplay and disparage it while promoting stuff that better suits your tastes, such as BoED and BoVD. Perfectly normal everyday human dishonesty. Not evil, bad or worthy of despisement in any way. I wouldn't even call it doshonourable, but not honourable either. Apologies if this seems to personal but you provided a perfect RL example of what I was talking about, and why your claims fail.


The other books fill it out and define it- and do not, in fact- contradict PHB definitions significantly. Instead, they clarify them.

Right. They clarify and lock in what the PHB went to considerable trouble to not lock in or be precise over. And you don't see this as been a significant change. :smallwink:

Stephen E

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-02, 06:38 PM
EDIT: Stephen_E's post right before mine said it better


"Slaughtering orc babies is OK- beacuse there's nothing in PHB that forbids it"
Good entails respect for life and concern for the dignity of sentient beings. From the PHB. This prohibits orc genocide.


"Killing everything that detects as evil is OK- because it wouldn't be detecting as evil if it hadn't committed enough harm to justify instant execution"
lolwut


- are two of the most common claims I hear from people who dislike BoED's take on alignment that directly contradicts these.
Ok, then; that's nice. I'm fine with the part of the BoED where those things are directly prohibited, the same way I'm fine with the PHB section on alignment. Parts of the BoED are alright. A lot of the BoED is alright. But then again, a lot of the Ptolemaic astronomical system is alright.

The parts I object to are ravages, Sanctify the Wicked, the association of positive/negative energy with alignment (although that's hardly a point against BoED specifically), the insistence on mercy, the exemptions afforded to noncombatants, the universal evilness of torture, et cetera. Mostly the Geneva Convention-type stuff being treated as absolute Good rules rather than good guidelines.



This is the main reason I figure that 3.0-3.5 PHB alignment is lacking- because this position is so common.
A relic from older editions; the actual 3e text is an adequate description.


BoED and BoVD were the first to back away from what I see as a pretty objectionable "anything done to evil beings is OK" attitude.
That attitude has little to do with the alignment system as written, and more with historical precedent. BoVD is too arbitrary and BoED is just plain bizarre. PHB backed away from that attitude, it's just that nobody read the alignment section. Bo_D talked about it longer, so it was noticed, but in talking longer said a lot of stupid stuff.

Stephen_E
2009-12-02, 06:43 PM
The source that states this flat out, however- is the BoED.

PHB says "respect legitimate authority" but doesn't say much about "unless it is acting unreasonably"


And here we have the classic people don't read what is written.
"respect legitimate authority" =/= obey legitimate authority.

Stephen E

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-02, 06:46 PM
That's arguable. If you respect it, you will most likely obey it. You aren't required to obey the canon law of Heironeous to get spells; you merely need to have faith. But if you have faith in Heironeous you'll obey canon law anyway. A similar relationship may occur with respect. I don't think it does, but it's very reasonable to believe that and still read the text.

They're not equal, but there's a potential causal relationship.

Stephen_E
2009-12-02, 06:53 PM
Using BoED and BoVD is not the same as "making up your own guidelines"

Fair point. It's taking a different set of guidelines.




It's not ideal, but the point to be made is "core" is not "the complete alignment guidelines"- it is sorely incomplete-

No it's pretty complete. It's not very precise, but given the continous use of imprecise language this was deliberate.


and the supplements were written for a reason- to answer the questions DMs and players have on alignment, that the PHB fails to answer.

That the PHB failed to answer in a way the players and DMs wanted. Important difference.



"BoVD and BoED are considerably different from core" is a claim that has been made several times- what, precisely, are the exact differences?

The core rules are carefully written to be full of gray areas. "x" tends to be good, "y" suggests evil. BoVD and BoED are for the Black/White market. This is evil, that is good.

Huge difference.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-12-02, 07:00 PM
"Slaughtering orc babies is OK- beacuse there's nothing in PHB that forbids it"

"Killing everything that detects as evil is OK- because it wouldn't be detecting as evil if it hadn't committed enough harm to justify instant execution"

- are two of the most common claims I hear from people who dislike BoED's take on alignment that directly contradicts these.

This is the main reason I figure that 3.0-3.5 PHB alignment is lacking- because this position is so common.

BoED and BoVD were the first to back away from what I see as a pretty objectionable "anything done to evil beings is OK" attitude.

Neither of the 2 examples you give are supported by the core alignment rules.
And I've seen people try and use the Bo_D to support those examples as well.
The truth is that significant numbers of people hold those views and think thye're good, so they will try and take that view in a game as well.
That shouldn't surprise people.
Most evil people don't think they're evil.

Stephen E

Dracomorph
2009-12-02, 11:40 PM
You still have two opposing alignments. Devils are lawful and demons are chaotic. They're both evil but they fight each other because they disagree on the application of evil.

What if they're two groups of morally bankrupt beings who are organized along different principles, and just happen to absolutely despise each other?

Say, one group adheres to a rigid hierarchy and military discipline to make up for their smaller numbers, while the other swarms frothing at the mouth in true horde style because their soldiers are expendable? Torturing the souls of the damned is a side hobby.

Just because you can couch it in alignment terms doesn't mean that's the only way to see it.


Eye of the beholder here. I think unreasonable authority isn't legitimate. People defect all the time but that doesn't make them any less respectful of the law.

Well, then the problem is usage of terms. What defines authority as legitimate is a cultural thing mostly. Sometimes it's inheritance by blood, sometimes it's election by the majority, sometimes it's delegation by some higher authority, and occasionally it's the man with the biggest club. Agree to a definition of legitimacy and stick to it.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-02, 11:48 PM
Yeah, I miss the good old days when Detect Evil didn't ping every peasant who cheated on his taxes, or allow the Paladin to use it to play Marco Polo with the lurking Kobolds.

Clerics of evil gods, Demons, Huge, Ancient Red Dragons, sure, let them pin the needle on the evilometer. Street thugs, not so much.

Exactly.
And by changing that, it creates the problem of wondering not merely what if a paladin is running around smiting anything his Evildar picks up, but why all paladins are not doing such.


I pretty much agree. I think the Book of Exhausting Screeds just applies simplistic Marquis of Queensbury rules to Good characters, and transform sthe epic struggle of Good Versus Evil to Shirts and Skins. The inclusion of Ravages pretty much is an admission of this.

The problem is it reduces it such for Good characters only, while throwing egregious power (Vow of Poverty) wrapped in hypocrisy (Ravages and Afflictions) at players in an attempt to compensate for reducing them to such useless cardboard cutouts with its anti-heroic morality.

That is why the BoED falls short while the BoVD manages to provide functional material.

Edje
2009-12-02, 11:56 PM
So. I see a lot of debate about the D&D alignment system, which seems to be centered on the idea that it can't really mean what it says it means; there can't really be an entire cosmology that supports one particular, inflexible definition of good and evil. But it seems to me that the alignment system does exactly this. An action is good or evil, and it doesn't matter one bit what your culture says about it or what you've been raised to believe or what time you live in or what your peers accept. Intentions matter some, but intentions can also be defined, mostly pretty cleanly, as good or evil.

So, has anyone thought about, or played around with, the alignment system in-game? Right now, I'm playing a good-aligned barbarian who was raised in a neutral culture and doesn't think much about alignment; she values her CN friend far, far more than some paladin or cleric she's never met, doesn't feel any particular kinship with others based on alignment, and has no theoretical objection to evil creatures. She's also unwilling to oppose an evil king if she thinks he's needed to protect his country. In other words, she's pretty indifferent to the cosmic conflict playing out around her.

In my next campaign, I plan to play a sorcerer who firmly and consistently favors Good, but periodically drops to Neutral or even Evil because he will (in emergencies only) use his [Evil] necromancy spells to further his Good ends. For added fun, his little sister is a paladin, and he maintains a delicate alliance with a paladin order.

Now, I've never played a paladin, but I think they'd get into some very interesting issues with the alignment system, considering that they can 'detect evil' at will.

Thoughts?

Seems like your problem is more with the assignment of alignment alteration to spells.

i'd say the morality system is elegant and well defined in its simplicity
Selfless vs. Selfish intent = Good vs. Evil
Compliance with Established Order vs. Non-Compliance = Lawful vs. Chaotic
Apathy, balance, or mix = Neutral

Though the circumstances of the evaluation vary from culture to culture
The measure of the evaluations remain constant

This actually does reflect real world morality, If you look at a lot of studies on comparative Sociology on both Global and historical scales you'll find that though mankind's traditions change its measure of good and evil does not, Thats how Buddha, Mohomid, Confucius, Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, And Christ can all agree. or a man in new gueni and a man in France can both say murder, rape, and stealing is bad on principle.

The idea of relativistic morality judgments have always been around (see the sophists to the existentialists) but to believe that it is true would require you to say the Germans were justified in the Holocaust (their culture said it was ok so it must have been ok), so that doesn't turn out to well

I've done a ton of research on this, I'm a game designer who wants to implement morality effectively into Narrative games, and so far the system of D&D is one of the most efficient and elegant modes I have come across.

Remember a 9 point system can't be black and white. Or a 3 point one for that matter

Tiktakkat
2009-12-03, 12:24 AM
Neither of the 2 examples you give are supported by the core alignment rules.
And I've seen people try and use the Bo_D to support those examples as well.
The truth is that significant numbers of people hold those views and think thye're good, so they will try and take that view in a game as well.
That shouldn't surprise people.
Most evil people don't think they're evil.

Stephen E

Again we have the problems of the change in function of a simple spell and the change in intent of the alignment definitions.

For the second, if the creature did detect as Evil under the AD&D rules then by definition it was in fact Evil enough to deserve instant death.

As for the first, as I said, original intent. Example:
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=35588&p=714895&hilit=destruction+is+lawful#p714895
"This of course oft spurs a side-issue debate about whether or not these 'noncombatant' evil beings (though in practice most mates will fight, and some young) are irredeemable. In many cases, the players decide that they might be so -- but it's often easier to skirt the issue and leave them to fend for themselves (almost always left penniless) after the combatants are eliminated.

I do make it clear to players of LG characters, well in advance of such encounters, that the position obviously endorsed by the published game is that evil creatures are and will remain evil, resisting any redemption short of a Wish, and that their destruction is Lawful. I have no patience for wasting precious game time debating the contrary. As to whether the slaying of evil but defenseless young creatures is a Good thing to do... that much debate I can deal with, and it never goes on for long once the Lawful aspects are shelved."

So from an original RAI perspective, it is in fact supported by the same.
You can debate it, but the options are extremely limited when you have redemption limited to Wish spells.

Yes, I know the basic response is "That is AD&D, not 3.5".
That is my point.
Because of the changes to function and intent, the alignment system is more than a little dysfunctional. Reverse those changes and you will eliminate a great deal of the perceived problems.

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 03:50 AM
I do make it clear to players of LG characters, well in advance of such encounters, that the position obviously endorsed by the published game is that evil creatures are and will remain evil, resisting any redemption short of a Wish, and that their destruction is Lawful.

This was the bit that attracted accusations of Fantastic Racism. And was one of the biggest elements of moral dissonance in pre-3rd ed D&D.



Because of the changes to function and intent, the alignment system is more than a little dysfunctional. Reverse those changes and you will eliminate a great deal of the perceived problems.

Only to set up old problems in their place. AD&D alignment was even worse than 3.5- with Neutral being portrayed as attacking whichever side they thought was more powerful, and paladins Falling permanently for a single Evil act.

Does "evil creatures" include "members of PC races that are evil"?

Most D&D novels, even in AD&D days, make it clear that evil is a choice, and it is possible for beings such as orcs, to choose to not be evil, or to stop being evil, without the use of Wish.

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 04:45 AM
The parts I object to are ravages, Sanctify the Wicked, the association of positive/negative energy with alignment (although that's hardly a point against BoED specifically),

these bits nearly everyone agrees on being poorly thought out...


the insistence on mercy, the exemptions afforded to noncombatants, the universal evilness of torture, et cetera.

And these bits, not so much. Tolkien took a similar approach when writing about Orcs- torture is wrong- even of orcs- refusing to accept an honest surrender is wrong, even of orcs, etc.

Fiendish Codex 2 took a similar approach.


PHB backed away from that attitude, it's just that nobody read the alignment section.

Again- it is pretty hard to see.

Most common claim appears to be that-

"neutral means compunctions against harming the innocent"

can be translated to-

"but, as Neutral as well as Good have absolutely no compunctions against harming the non-innocent"

While "you can't be good unless you're willing to make sacrifices to help others" is not quite as well thought out as the emphasis on forgiveness and mercy- it is supported by PHB:

"Good people make personally sacrifices to help others"
"Neutral people only make personal sacrifices for people they have a commitment to- friends, family"

Savage Species takes the approach that evil beings are often willing to make personal sacrifices for friends, family, etc.

Which, I think, was an improvement on PHB. Evil does not necessarily mean "behaves badly toward everyone" after all.

On the claim that the part of the paladin's code "act with honor" actually has nothing to do with "act Lawful Good"- PHB:

"Lawful good people tell the truth, keep their word, etc"

"Act with honor- do not lie, steal, etc."

You could make the case that there are rare circumstances in which Lawful Good people would lie- but that's just it- they are rare circumstances.

Zombimode
2009-12-03, 04:48 AM
And here we have the classic people don't read what is written.
"respect legitimate authority" =/= obey legitimate authority.

Stephen E


Its even worse. What "Legitimate" means, is debatable too.
Eg. Rousseau would say, whenever an act of the authority is not within the volónté général it stops being the legitimate authority.

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 04:53 AM
So- what's required for an authority the paladin is committed to obeying (head of their order, king, general, etc) to cease to be legitimate?

A "stupid" order?

or an "evil" order?

(Fiendish codex 2 is possibly the only source in 3.5 that tries to define "lawful acts"- under the name "Obesiant acts".

For an example, obeying an order you consider stupid, is one.

Obeying an order from an "authority you do not respect" is another.)

My guess is that, in this context, "respect" is "respect as a person"- if you lose respect for the general due to his being venal, foolish, arrogant, etc- he becomes an "authority you do not respect"

If you continue to obey him anyway- you are being very Lawful.

Theodoric
2009-12-03, 05:04 AM
You just need to set your mind to a world with absolute moral standards. It's a bit hard to imagine, but the best way to 'solve' the problems that creep up.

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 05:12 AM
True- the problem is, some people take as an absolute standard :

"it's always OK to kill evil beings- because they are non-innocent, and thus exempt from the "respect for life" clause in PHB"

I prefer BoVD's "context matters" thing-

walking up to a person in the street and stabbing them to death simply because they "detect as evil" is not OK- killing somebody who is trying to kill you, who has given no justification- when it's the only way to keep yourself alive, is- even if they don't detect as evil.

Context can make the difference between a justified homicide, and a murder.

BoED takes a similar approach- some contexts make it OK to kill evil beings, some don't.

So does Eberron- the "grayest" of the D&D worlds- which, in some sourcebooks, has characters that make use of the BoED rules.

(though I notice that fans of AD&D appear to be claiming that it is OK to kill people solely for detecting as evil, in the absence of other evidence- and that 3.5 ought to go back to it and that it would end the arguments).

Theodoric
2009-12-03, 05:23 AM
Context can make the difference between a justified homicide, and a murder.
That's true, but it can greatly make it more complicated if some is in a philosophical mood. Ofcourse, it only really becomes so difficult when the campaign gets postmodern, which isn't always the case.

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 05:38 AM
yes.

While "because the DM says so" is an answer to questions like "Why is X act, for which my character Fell/lost powers, being considered evil"- it's not a very good one.

before saying "3.5 D&D morality doesn't make sense" it might help to figure out what it is.

Absent the other sourcebooks, there are no clues as to whether acts are context-sensitive or not- all the players can do is guess:

PHB: "evil implies oppressing, hurting, killing others"

Player: "But if paladins do some of this all the time and are not being considered evil, then there must be a reason."

result- people end up deducing their own reasons as to why the players are not being considered to be doing evil acts.

One is "because their victims are evil- thus, normally evil acts become not-evil"

Another, supported by the sourcebooks, is "because the context- such as self defence, direct defence of others, etc, made it non-evil"

According to BoED, morality is universalist, and, in the case of some acts, absolutist- some acts are evil, even if the culture in which the acts are committed, doesn't think so.

According to BoVD, many (but not all) acts are context-sensitive- sometimes a killing can be Evil- deemed Murder- and sometimes, in the right situation, it is not.

These two precepts ("some acts are always evil" "some acts are only evil in a certain context") don't have to be contradictory, but it is very easy for them to be interpreted that way.

Nero24200
2009-12-03, 05:40 AM
I don't like alignment in D'n'D. I feel it makes the morale aspects too abstract and it makes it harder to adjust the game to different settings.

Having said that, the only real problems I've seen with alignment comes in a few flavours..

1: When DM's try to enforce alignment as a means of control. This means telling the paladin that "if they disobey the evil king, they'll fall since it's unlawful" or some such. In other words, chopping and changing what alignment's actually mean to acheive an effect. The worst offenders are making the party follow the railroads by abusing the fact that the paladin has a code.

2: PC's with questionable alignments. Nine times out of ten, the people I've seen arguing against alignment do so because they make a PC, which, quite frankly should be evil, but they don't want to slap an "evil" tag on them. That's just an example, but theres others, like someone wanting to play a "Good" necromancer but still wants to animate undead in front of the party paladin. (In fact, in most examples it's generally a player wanting an evil PC, but not wanting to write "LE""NE" or "CE" on the top of their character sheet).

3: Alignment misinterpretation and making them ridgid. Telling a single lie in your life doesn't turn you from Lawful to Chaotic. Likewise, a single evil act shouldn't make you evil if your've been good your entire life. Additionally, most players only take into account actions for alignment, not motive, which means quite alot. A poor man stealing bread to feed his starving family is different from a rich man stealing "for fun".

4: Assuming alignments are the same. Good and Evil aren't just different points of view in D'n'D, they represent characters acting differently. Alot of people seem to forget that just because evil character swalk around killing on sight doesn't make it okay for good or neutral characters. Paladins or LG clerics played poorly seem to be the best examples of this, who kill anyone comming up as "Evil" on the radar.

It's reasons like this that I wish they'd get rid of alignment altogether. Even groups which have RP'ed alot and well over the years can have arugments over alignment, and quite frankly it add's little to the game but takes alot.

Innis Cabal
2009-12-03, 05:41 AM
You just need to set your mind to a world with absolute moral standards. It's a bit hard to imagine, but the best way to 'solve' the problems that creep up.

Or, take alignments as guide lines and not throw believability out the window.

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 05:49 AM
1: When DM's try to enforce alignment as a means of control. This means telling the paladin that "if they disobey the evil king, they'll fall since it's unlawful" or some such. In other words, chopping and changing what alignment's actually mean to acheive an effect. The worst offenders are making the party follow the railroads by abusing the fact that the paladin has a code.

2: PC's with questionable alignments. Nine times out of ten, the people I've seen arguing against alignment do so because they make a PC, which, quite frankly should be evil, but they don't want to slap an "evil" tag on them. That's just an example, but theres others, like someone wanting to play a "Good" necromancer but still wants to animate undead in front of the party paladin. (In fact, in most examples it's generally a player wanting an evil PC, but not wanting to write "LE""NE" or "CE" on the top of their character sheet).

these two do look like big part of the problem.


3: Alignment misinterpretation and making them ridgid. Telling a single lie in your life doesn't turn you from Lawful to Chaotic. Likewise, a single evil act shouldn't make you evil if your've been good your entire life. Additionally, most players only take into account actions for alignment, not motive, which means quite alot. A poor man stealing bread to feed his starving family is different from a rich man stealing "for fun".

DMG says quite a bit about this.

PHB doesn't say much about motive. BoVD and BoED do- making motive a big part of at least some acts.

BoVD- motive and context can make the difference between a killing being Evil, and it being not.

BoED- motive can make the difference between apparently charitable acts being Good, and being Neutral.


4: Assuming alignments are the same. Good and Evil aren't just different points of view in D'n'D, they represent characters acting differently. Alot of people seem to forget that just because evil character swalk around killing on sight doesn't make it okay for good or neutral characters. Paladins or LG clerics played poorly seem to be the best examples of this, who kill anyone comming up as "Evil" on the radar.

The "Evil goes around killing on sight" is one problem- it is cartoonish. Even BoVD goes out of its way to say most evil is not like that.

Evildar may be a holdover from AD&D when (at least according to some posters) it was OK- and making it not OK in 3.5 was a mistake.

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 06:04 AM
I see the combination of "some acts are context-sensitive- some aren't sensitive enough to be entirely excused" as pretty realistic.

Most legal and moral codes take a similar approach- with context determining whether a certain act is permissible, forbidden, obligatory,

and for other acts, context only makes the difference between "Bad" and "Really Bad"

dsmiles
2009-12-03, 08:10 AM
Suspension of disbelief, people.

The PHB definitions of alignments are meant to work in a world where there are objective definitions of good and evil, lawful and chaotic. The BoVD and BoED explain how to handle subjective definitions of alignments.
Without objective definitions of alignemnts, holy/unholy/axiomatic/anarchic weapons and aligned spells just aren't as effective.

Imagine if you will:
The LG paladin walks up to the CE ogre and smites it with his holy avenger.
No problem, with objective definitions.

Now...consider this:
The paladin who obeys the laws of his society which he considers to be "good" attempts to smite the ogre who obeys the laws of his society and which he considers to be "good."
Who wins? Are ogres inherently evil because their societies are different from the paladins? Maybe the ogres consider the paladin's society evil, bevause they keep coming to kill the ogres. Who knows? Alignment is out the window! OH THE HUMANITY!!!

Kurald Galain
2009-12-03, 08:17 AM
The PHB definitions of alignments are meant to work in a world where there are objective definitions of good and evil, lawful and chaotic.
And yet it is very hard to find two people who agree on those definitions. That means they're not very objective.

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 08:18 AM
or, that the PHB was horribly vague.

Jayabalard
2009-12-03, 08:51 AM
In short, a nuanced PC is hard to pin down with the existing system,They may have aspects of one or the other but it's generally pretty simple to pick out the alignment by observing the behaviors.


and with five people at the table, at least one will call this an alignment violation, when it is, in fact, just playing the character's persona.Alignment violation... what a ludicrous concept. Alignment is not a straightjacket; it does not control your character's actions. It's a descriptor only. If your behaviors are to the point that your alignment has to change to remain an accurate descriptor, then you change the descriptor.

It's no different than if your character is described as "short" and then grew... So now the new descriptor is "tall"


And yet it is very hard to find two people who agree on those definitions. That means they're not very objective.I'd argue that they're not supposed to be, that they are left intentionally a bit vague there. That this is, in fact, a good thingtm.


Evildar may be a holdover from AD&D when (at least according to some posters) it was OK- and making it not OK in 3.5 was a mistake.I don't personally know anyone who played AD&D that way.

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 08:56 AM
DMG:

"the player made a mistake on writing NG on their character sheet- the character does not behave in an NG fashion- change alignment to Neutral"

Not quite the same as "alignment violation"- but the point stands.

Kurald Galain
2009-12-03, 08:59 AM
I'd argue that they're not supposed to be, that they are left intentionally a bit vague there. That this is, in fact, a good thingtm.

I agree, but that contradicts dsmiles's assertion that the alignment is meant to work in a world where there are objective definitions thereof.

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 09:02 AM
I don't personally know anyone who played AD&D that way.


if the creature did detect as Evil under the AD&D rules then by definition it was in fact Evil enough to deserve instant death.


I do make it clear to players of LG characters, well in advance of such encounters, that the position obviously endorsed by the published game is that evil creatures are and will remain evil, resisting any redemption short of a Wish, and that their destruction is Lawful. I have no patience for wasting precious game time debating the contrary.

It looks like some people do, though.

Sliver
2009-12-03, 09:16 AM
Like I read in some comic I forgot its name, paraphrased:

Good does everything evil does (kill, steal etc), but has excuses ("the orcs were evil" and such). At least evil is honest about what it does. Good is more evil then Evil.

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 09:22 AM
Good played badly does.

When Good is played well, the excuses are a bit more valid.

I still haven't seen a convincing explanation for

"the paladin's code, such as not lying, has nothing to do with being Lawful Good"

compared to PHB:

"Lawful good people tell the truth and keep their word"

This suggests that this particular part of the code- honesty- is, in fact, a function of being Lawful Good.

Concerning BoED- probably the best thing about it, is that it requires more of an excuse than "They were evil"

Such as "we were putting a stop to repeated, unprovoked attacks"

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 09:29 AM
So, is the PHB leaving things vague, a good thing, or the source of many arguments?

Such as what "respecting life" is, and when killing beings violates this, and when it doesn't.

Or what "hurting, oppressing, and killing" is- and when it's evil, and when it's not.

The PHB seems to be a big part of it.

Though I suspect there were similar arguments in AD&D- when the alignment section was rather longer, examples of alignments in play were given- and it still wasn't always well thought out (Neutral is a particular example of this.)

Jayabalard
2009-12-03, 09:35 AM
DMG:

"the player made a mistake on writing NG on their character sheet- the character does not behave in an NG fashion- change alignment to Neutral"

Not quite the same as "alignment violation"- but the point stands.Sorry, what point is that? And how does that not match up with what I said?

Alignment violation, as in you are acting against your alignment, implies that alignment in some way should be controlling what the character does; that isn't true in the slightest. Behavior controls alignment, not the other way around. The language in the DMG quote you posted supports that (quite clearly so, at least to me).

Mike_G, on the other hand, seems to be saying that it's hard to play the persona of a nuanced character because alignment is stopping the player from behaving in a certain way, which means that he's implying that alignment has some sort of control over the character's behavior. That attitude is what I find ludicrous.


It looks like some people do, though.That's one person, quoted twice, so that doesn't really back up the "some people" part of that statement

Not that I'm disagreeing... I'm sure that some people did play that way. My disagreement was that you seemed to be implying that it was the norm for AD&D, when that does not match up with my experience in the slightest.


So, is the PHB leaving things vague, a good thing, or and the source of many arguments?Yes (fixed).

Roupe
2009-12-03, 09:46 AM
It depends on the supernatural or goverment enforcecment in the campaign setting on how much it affects and matters.

In some settings I have had Gods, and powerful creatures play a more active role willing to affect and inflict the characters. In that setting its not just the morality of the individual - Its about gaining favors, blessings and avoiding wrath. The alignment is aligned against something else. Not just the characters inner self.

So I have The patron deity just as important as the alignement, and its quite possible to have it replaced or angered, by not following its tendants or the alignment.

"Oh dear, according to this reading: the God of Misfortune thinks Its your patron god -and Its not happy"

Another way of looking at it is that these powerfull entities blackmail, bully and protects the populace. But between themselfs they have a rule of conduct on how they should affect their own followers or followers of another god.

Thus the alignment is a crude measurement for the code of conduct & faith that wards against direct undesired interference, manipulations or intrest from gods or authorities.

Even minor misteps may give inconviences, because the players (self proclaimed?) patron god could get grumpy. Better follow their commandments or suffer.

Even in campaigns lacking supernatural interference, people may still belive it -and measure the actions acordingly.

Roderick_BR
2009-12-03, 09:47 AM
I prefer to think of the alignment system as guidelines, not actual rules. You should be flexible, and I hope it wasn't the intention of the writers that the alignments be absolute.
But it is fun to wack good PC's with unholy weapons once in a while.
The majority of people that dislikes alignment, usually doen't know how it works, unfortunatelly. They think it IS actual rules, even when the books themselves say "alignments are not straightjackets"....

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 09:50 AM
Maybe it is to do with the benefits gained from an alignment.

A player who's character is aligned, has feats or powers dependant on this (paladin, healer, monk, barbarian, etc) yet who wants to do, basically, what they want, without mechanical repercussions) is going to complain when the DM says "That act is X alignment- and doing it a lot may have repercussions"

on "Evildar" I don't know if its the norm, but there are an awful lot of threads saying that "it's for telling you who to kill"

TV Tropes mentions the problem under Detect Evil.

Even if it isn't the norm, there are enough people claiming it is the correct way to play, that I suspect it may be a fairly large minority.

OoTS, especially with Start of Darkness, seems to showcase the moral dissonance when alignment is played this way.

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 10:01 AM
That's one person, quoted twice, so that doesn't really back up the "some people" part of that statement

Not that I'm disagreeing... I'm sure that some people did play that way. My disagreement was that you seemed to be implying that it was the norm for AD&D, when that does not match up with my experience in the slightest.

Also, within this thread- not so much Evildar as response to what Evildar would have shown:


The alignment system has been a major problem for me in past games because of the way the guys I played with thought about it. They often went with the "good or evil, period" method, and even went as far as to decide their characters know the alignment of everyone else. So because we were all good characters, if anyone's alignment became evil for any reason, they decided that it means they must immediately kill this person, even if they never witnessed or knew about a single evil act by the "evil" character.

You can probably think of others.

"Evil means you are supposed to kill it" seems to be a pretty common trope.

Maybe not so far as to be the norm- but after reading the OoTS threads on V, Redcloak, Familicide, etc, it seems that a lot of people think the same way.

Stephen_E
2009-12-03, 10:24 AM
or, that the PHB was horribly vague.



Deliberately so, which means that morality isn;t objective in the DnD universe.

Stephen E

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 10:27 AM
PHB "Good and Evil are not abstracts- they are the forces that define the cosmos"

The term "morality is objective" does not mean that "morality is absolute" but that "morality is universal"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

That is- that it does not matter what a particular culture thinks.

Also- how do we know the vagueness is "deliberately so"?

Kurald Galain
2009-12-03, 10:28 AM
"Evil means you are supposed to kill it" seems to be a pretty common trope.

Maybe not so far as to be the norm- but after reading the OoTS threads on V, Redcloak, Familicide, etc, it seems that a lot of people think the same way.

SOD spoiler,

That's because in the OOTS world, "evil means you are supposed to kill it" is explicitly and deliberately true. The gods created the evil races like goblins and orcs for no other purpose than being killed by their followers, so that the followers could level up and gain cool abilities.

Predictably, the goblins were upset when they found out about that one.

Stephen_E
2009-12-03, 10:30 AM
I still haven't seen a convincing explanation for

"the paladin's code, such as not lying, has nothing to do with being Lawful Good"

compared to PHB:

"Lawful good people tell the truth and keep their word"

This suggests that this particular part of the code- honesty- is, in fact, a function of being Lawful Good.



It would help if you read the general Lawful definition that says Lawful people tell the truth and keep their word.

Then your claim falls apart.

Steohen E

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 10:34 AM
According to Redcloak.

There still remains the possibility that the story Redcloak told is incorrect.

The actual result of Familicide- the comment by the fiends, and the comment by the celestials about V's "alarming turn", implies that killing chromatic dragons (which were monsters also created by the deities) is not always non-evil.

That said- the question was- how does "alignment" affect the game- and so far, it seems that there are a lot of negatives.

And most of those negatives seem to be PHB or AD&D related.

PHB:

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Nowhere in that does this use the phrase "telling the truth"

Though "trustworthiness" can be taken to imply this.

Only in the description of Lawful Good, not Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil, does it stress that people of that alignment are truthful.

Indeed, one of the signature traits of devils (LE) is deception- to the extent that one is even called the Lord of Lies.

dsmiles
2009-12-03, 10:41 AM
PHB "Good and Evil are not abstracts- they are the forces that define the cosmos"

The term "morality is objective" does not mean that "morality is absolute" but that "morality is universal"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

That is- that it does not matter what a particular culture thinks.


This is my point exactly. In a subjective alignment system, each culture would see itself as the "good" culture, and the game mechanics that define holy/unholy/etc weapons and aligned spells would fall apart, as either nobody would be considered evil, or everybody would be considered evil.

Also, consider the paladin's detect evil ability. In a subjective alignment system, pretty much any other creature that didn't follow the paladin's society's rules and social norms would be evil. He would just go around smiting everything! There would be chaos! It's madness, I tell you, MADNESS! :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2009-12-03, 10:44 AM
That said- the question was- how does "alignment" affect the game- and so far, it seems that there are a lot of negatives.

And most of those negatives seem to be PHB or AD&D related.

See, it's not going to help to assume that the only people who don't like alignment are those who don't understand it (or who haven't read the "proper" books like the widely-derided BOED and BOVD). Because if so many people don't understand it, then it still follows that it's a badly written rule.

The question is if alignment actually adds something to gameplay, other than a convenient excuse to have a character act in some way, or a ham-handed way for the DM to prevent certain actions.

Jayabalard
2009-12-03, 10:49 AM
Deliberately so, which means that morality isn;t objective in the DnD universe.THat doesn't really follow.

Morality isn't objective for all D&D universes, but it is for specific gaming groups.

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 10:50 AM
It could certainly do with better writing.

It can be a handy shorthand though- a rough guide for how the DM is to roleplay NPCs- what traits are inappropiate (with the occasional exception, to make the character more nuanced)

Kurald Galain
2009-12-03, 10:51 AM
The term "morality is objective" does not mean that "morality is absolute" but that "morality is universal"
That's good in philosophy, but it doesn't help to have a universal morality if there are so many different opinions on what it might be.

Real-life Declarations of Morality are much clearer than the alignment descriptions in the PHB, and yet they are still subject to lengthy philosophical discourse, not to mention court cases. I find that OOC discussion about the morality of IC actions distracts from a roleplaying game.

Stephen_E
2009-12-03, 10:54 AM
Also- how do we know the vagueness is "deliberately so"?

They consistently use terms like "Implies" when defining alignemnet.

Occams razor says that professional writers don't consistently use such vague terms unless they mean to, unless there is evidence to the contrary.


Stephen E

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 10:59 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_razor

Summed up, it is "the simplest answer is most likely to be the correct one"

Not quite the same thing.

dsmiles
2009-12-03, 11:02 AM
As both a DM and a player, I tend to use the objective alignment rule, and I also have a copy of the lengthy description/example format from ADnD. Objective alignments make the game mechanic work, subjective alignments cause too much problems with the game mechanic, although they are closer to real-life morality issues. But this is a fantasy fiction world. It doesn't have to be like real-life.

Stephen_E
2009-12-03, 11:19 AM
PHB:

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Nowhere in that does this use the phrase "telling the truth"

Though "trustworthiness" can be taken to imply this.

Only in the description of Lawful Good, not Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil, does it stress that people of that alignment are truthful.

Indeed, one of the signature traits of devils (LE) is deception- to the extent that one is even called the Lord of Lies.

It might help if you read the 1st sentance.:smallsigh:

"Law Vs. Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. "


Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-12-03, 11:22 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_razor

Summed up, it is "the simplest answer is most likely to be the correct one"

Not quite the same thing.

Yes it is.
They consistently used vague terms.
The simplest answer, that they did so deliberately, is most likely true.
I merely made clear why it was the simplest answer.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-12-03, 11:24 AM
As both a DM and a player, I tend to use the objective alignment rule, and I also have a copy of the lengthy description/example format from ADnD. Objective alignments make the game mechanic work, subjective alignments cause too much problems with the game mechanic, although they are closer to real-life morality issues. But this is a fantasy fiction world. It doesn't have to be like real-life.

When it comes to eyhics/Morality, by and large it does, simply because that's what everyone know. Very few makes things up of whole cloth. Instead they take what they know, RL ethics, and tweak it slighlty.

Stephen E

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 11:28 AM
"Law Vs. Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. "


Except, generally, when they are Lawful Evil- especially in the case of fiends (Lord of Lies?)

PHB states some things as facts "lawful characters tell the truth" some as implications "Law implies trustworthiness" and alternates between them.

Inconsistant.

Tiki Snakes
2009-12-03, 11:33 AM
I dance on the corpse of the alignment system. Pah!

Seriously though, yeah. I never felt it added much, and even consider the appendage of an alignment system that 4e left intact to essentially be there just to give a bit of a comfort blanket for alignment grognards.
If 'Good' or 'Evil' mean anything in a DnD world, for me, it's closer essentially a declared interest in 'cosmic' politics, ie, a direct and active affilation with 'Team Celestia' or Mum-Ra's 'Ancient Spirits of Evil!'.

I think the final nail in it's coffin, for me, was the idea that it was in some way objectified. A Concrete, definable and possible even pseudo-sentient componant of reality itself. See, this essentially means that Good and Evil itself lose all attachment to actual morality. If Good is a THING, and the a Good act is one that furthers the existential cosmic agenda of the THING, then a Good act has nothing to do with doing the right thing, or being good. If it is the right thing, basically, it's just coincidence.

but yeah, I tend to just write 'Unaligned' on my character sheets and get on with playing a person these days.

Kalirren
2009-12-03, 11:41 AM
In my experience, the general rule is that imposing alignment upon a game makes that game less character-focused and more alignment-focused. This in my view is bad.

Again in my experience, the exceptions to this rule also show the pattern that the more coherent alignment is with the setting and theme of the game, the more easily one can pursue either a character focus or an alignment focus without forsaking the other.

This makes sense; characters, after all, are shaped more directly by the events that happen around them and to them than they are by any moral absolutes which may be presumed to exist in their world. When alignment and setting coordinate, characters' organic behaviors are more likely to fall neatly within alignment categorizations, which leads to less gaming agenda conflict between character focus and alignment focus.

Stephen_E
2009-12-03, 12:02 PM
Except, generally, when they are Lawful Evil- especially in the case of fiends (Lord of Lies?)

And WWW federa5tion members have all sorts of fancy names. Smart people don't assume the names have a literal meaning. :smallsigh:


PHB states some things as facts "lawful characters tell the truth" some as implications "Law implies trustworthiness" and alternates between them.

Inconsistant.

:smallsigh:
It sets out the general outlines of what Lawful characters do (although it should be noted that it doesn't claim only lawfuyl characters do these things) and then gives a list of things that are implied by law, and then implied bt Chaos. It did exacrly the same for Good/Evil.

Consistent.

Now if u want ti ignore the PHB aliognment rules for the Bo*D rules, as you appear to want to, you can just say "I prefer to use this alternate system".
You don't have to quote 1 line and pretend the line above it didn't exist, attempt to nit pick and misread and various other things to claim that the PHB need to use the Bo*D.

Stephen E

dsmiles
2009-12-03, 12:19 PM
If you want a more real-life type of alignment system, you should check out the Palladium (RIFTS Publisher) alignment system. Much closer to real-world morality.

Gorilla2038
2009-12-03, 01:57 PM
I fine alignment incredibly helpful for beginners, and to help show character growth with a definite change. For example, we had a bard go from CN to LG in the course of a campaign, and it was well roleplayed: he got stuck as party leader, and grew in the role.

We use a point system kept in the Dm's notes: you have 4 points on each axis. Good acts build points till good. Ive never tested it with a true thought out character shift tho, just with natural character growth and morons.

Mostly, alignment seems a useful crutch: when your having a bad day, its hard to remember your LG paladin doesnt wanna kill the stupid jerk hes talking to, but if the 2 letter bumpersticker is staring you in the face, it gets easier.

hamishspence
2009-12-03, 02:10 PM
You don't have to quote 1 line and pretend the line above it didn't exist,

I didn't have the book to hand- I was checking off wikipedia for a quick answer.

That said, AD&D-

Thief. Can be Lawful. Can be Good. Cannot be Lawful Good.

Wouldn't that suggest, that Lawful Good and Theft do not mix? In short, that "do not steal" in the paladin code, is there for a reason?

Similarly, on lying, people who are Neutral are "honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others"

This suggests lying and deceiving are the exception, and honesty, the rule.

Mike_G
2009-12-03, 03:50 PM
Mike_G, on the other hand, seems to be saying that it's hard to play the persona of a nuanced character because alignment is stopping the player from behaving in a certain way, which means that he's implying that alignment has some sort of control over the character's behavior. That attitude is what I find ludicrous.



You've got it a bit wrong.

I find that a simplistic, and "objective" (which is impressive in that everyone has a different definition for it, that usually applies to subjective things) interferes with my enjoyment of Roleplaying.

I'm going to play my character the way I have conceived him, regardless of whether he seems to fit neatly in a category or not, so nothing as asinine as the Alignment system has ever "stopped" me from playing the way I choose.

What does irk me, is that having the system at all leads to:

A) The "A Lawful Good character wouldn't do that" argument,
B) The closely related "We can't trust him, he's Chaotic" argument
C) The abuse of Detect Evil
D) Silly Alignment restrictions for classes (No Lawful bards, etc)
E) Direct Hypocrisy (Like Ravages, Smite on Sight players)

Many other fantasy RP systems work just fine without it. D&D works just fine without it.

Pretty much my opinion is that I will play my characters or DM my NPC's the way I choose, and the Alignment system can service me orally.

The authors of the BOED don't even get that much courtesy from me.

dsmiles
2009-12-03, 04:18 PM
Many other fantasy RP systems work just fine without it. D&D works just fine without it.

Pretty much my opinion is that I will play my characters or DM my NPC's the way I choose, and the Alignment system can service me orally.


Used to play HARP. No real alignment system. A character is a character. I was pretty much a chaotic greedy bounty hunting ninja archer. I convinced the entire party that they worked for me and I paid them minimum wage, except for one who started the game as my partner. Chaotic Greedy works as an alignment for me. Or maybe Neutral Hungry. How about Chaotic I'm Gonna Kick Your @$$?

Jayabalard
2009-12-03, 04:38 PM
I find that a simplistic, and "objective" (which is impressive in that everyone has a different definition for it, that usually applies to subjective things) interferes with my enjoyment of Roleplaying.I think you may have left out a noun here:

I find that a simplistic, and "objective" [noun] interferes with my enjoyment of Roleplaying.


What does irk me, is that having the system at all leads to:

A) The "A Lawful Good character wouldn't do that" argument,
B) The closely related "We can't trust him, he's Chaotic" argument
C) The abuse of Detect Evil
D) Silly Alignment restrictions for classes (No Lawful bards, etc)
E) Direct Hypocrisy (Like Ravages, Smite on Sight players)
Well, A and B are players not getting how the alignment system is supposed to work.

C is kind of a vague complaint, but for the most part I'm guessing that you're talking about people using detect evil to shortcut the info gathering portions of adventures... it's only an issue if the DM sets it up that detect evil can be used as shortcut like that.

D is enforced codes of conducts for classes; you may object to the design, but that doesn't necessarily make it bad design.

E (Ravages) is generally bad design (my opinion); E(smite on sight) is players not getting how alignment works.

Personally, I'm of the opinion tat none of these are problems that are strictly due to having an alignment system.


Many other fantasy RP systems work just fine without it.Many other RP systems also work fine without classes, or magic, or psionics. Nor is it really relevant that you can play D&D fine without it. You can play D&D just fine without wizards, etc. The people who think that wizards add something to the game, and want to play D&D with wizards can do so, and the people who think otherwise can leave them out.


Pretty much my opinion is that I will play my characters or DM my NPC's the way I chooseIE, using alignment the way that you're supposed to use it. I applaud the fact that you use the alignment system correctly.

Dracomorph
2009-12-03, 04:56 PM
IE, using alignment the way that you're supposed to use it. I applaud the fact that you use the alignment system correctly.

I think it's reasonable to say that a system that functions best or as intended when ignored entirely is a system that should not be there. You could substitute "not used" for "ignored entirely" if you feel like nitpicking word choice.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-03, 06:09 PM
Wall of Text. Only the last two quotes/responses are essential.



Because of the changes to function and intent, the alignment system is more than a little dysfunctional. Reverse those changes and you will eliminate a great deal of the perceived problems.

Why is it so dysfunctional? What are these "perceived problems" exactly? Because the only perceived problems I see are that alignment causes too much debate (not solved by reverting to AD&D mentality) and that alignment encourages lazy "characterization" and pigeonholing (definitely not solved by reverting to AD&D mentality).


And these bits, not so much. Tolkien took a similar approach when writing about Orcs- torture is wrong- even of orcs- refusing to accept an honest surrender is wrong, even of orcs, etc.
I don't give half of a rat's ass what Tolkien thinks. He has little moral authority and little direct tie to alignment as presented in 3.5 D&D.



Fiendish Codex 2 took a similar approach.
I really do prefer how Stephen_E said it. PHB is intentionally vague. BoED sets down things as laws too much. Torture is almost always evil, yes. But that "almost" is worth mentioning. It's not like the chance of rolling all 1s in a game session, where the incidence is pathetically small - in the situations adventurers deal with, there is a non-trivial percentage of scenarios where torture is "justified" and therefore neutral.


Most common claim appears to be that-

"neutral means compunctions against harming the innocent"

can be translated to-

"but, as Neutral as well as Good have absolutely no compunctions against harming the non-innocent"
Can you give a citation for this being a common claim? A thread where lots of people espouse this viewpoint? An area in which you have played where lots of players have this viewpoint? I'm sure you have one, it's just that my experience with alignment seems to be an outlier, so...


While "you can't be good unless you're willing to make sacrifices to help others" is not quite as well thought out as the emphasis on forgiveness and mercy- it is supported by PHB:
OK. It's supported by the PHB. That's great, I like the PHB.


Savage Species takes the approach that evil beings are often willing to make personal sacrifices for friends, family, etc.

Which, I think, was an improvement on PHB. Evil does not necessarily mean "behaves badly toward everyone" after all.

Why does PHB imply that evil beings behave badly towards everyone? It can most definitely be interpreted that way, yes. But the fact that humans tend towards no alignment, the (arguably) selfish nature of love, and the description of LE would seem evidence against it. So Savage Species (and to an extent) made it clear that Evil is not like that. That's great, a point for Savage Species. A point for BoED, while we're at it. That doesn't change my dissatisfaction with BoED illustrating things in stark black and white lines - lines placed with altogether too much authority.


You just need to set your mind to a world with absolute moral standards. It's a bit hard to imagine, but the best way to 'solve' the problems that creep up.

I do that IRL. The thing is, IRL I only really see two alignments. These correspond to Good and Neutral, when I'm feeling hopeful; Neutral and Evil, with a theoretical Good, when I'm feeling cynical; and Good and Evil when I'm feeling judgmental. I'm not opposed to what Bo_D sets forth as the boundary between Good and non-Good - those are in line with absolute moral standards. I'm opposed to what Bo_D sets as the boundary between Neutral and Evil, because I believe that if that boundary exists it really, really should be vague.


and for other acts, context only makes the difference between "Bad" and "Really Bad"

Yes, but many "Bad" things are merely neutral. Torture/Murder/etc to save thousands of lives is still bad. But it's neutral IMO, and I don't think WotC ought to be meddling around and declaring its status with authority.


or, that the PHB was horribly vague.

Or, that the PHB was merely acceptably vague, and people argue over it far too much because they're too argumentative.


Concerning BoED- probably the best thing about it, is that it requires more of an excuse than "They were evil"

Such as "we were putting a stop to repeated, unprovoked attacks"

Yes, that's the best part of it. It's also a part that ought to be part of any moral system. The good/best parts of a book aren't a problem, the worst parts are. And the worst parts of BoED, aside from the ridiculousness that we can all agree to ignore, were the blackwhite lines it put down. It didn't put them down everywhere, but the PHB didn't put them down anywhere.


on "Evildar" I don't know if its the norm, but there are an awful lot of threads saying that "it's for telling you who to kill"
Links please?


Seriously though, yeah. I never felt it added much, and even consider the appendage of an alignment system that 4e left intact to essentially be there just to give a bit of a comfort blanket for alignment grognards.
4e alignment is pathetic. The way they mangled law/chaos is an unhealthy tribute to old AD&D mentality. Either keep the relatively mature 3e system or throw out alignment entirely and leave the Grognards to face reality.


I think it's reasonable to say that a system that functions best or as intended when ignored entirely is a system that should not be there.

The purpose of alignment is for effects like Holy Word to work. If alignment was removed, Holy Word (and its cousins) would become "Word Against Those Whose Beliefs are Sufficiently Similar to Those of My God". Better RP-wise, but a pain to adjudicate. Alignment is a simplification enabled to help that. And, to an extent, it forces some lazy people to think about morality.
D&D works fine when it's removed, but the improvement isn't coming from the removal of alignment. It's related to the removal of bullheaded idiots who think alignment is something that it really isn't. Thus, it might be wise to remove alignment, as it is the easiest route to that removal. But there's nothing wrong with it, exactly, and for Holy Word effects it can be a useful simplication.


IE, using alignment the way that you're supposed to use it. I applaud the fact that you use the alignment system correctly.

Well, I'd argue that unless he's being targeted by Chaos Hammer, Blasphemy, or similar effects, he's not using alignment the way that you're supposed to use it. But the point is moot; he's playing actual characters without strangling himself on alignment constructs,

Dracomorph
2009-12-03, 06:58 PM
The purpose of alignment is for effects like Holy Word to work. If alignment was removed, Holy Word (and its cousins) would become "Word Against Those Whose Beliefs are Sufficiently Similar to Those of My God". Better RP-wise, but a pain to adjudicate. Alignment is a simplification enabled to help that. And, to an extent, it forces some lazy people to think about morality.
D&D works fine when it's removed, but the improvement isn't coming from the removal of alignment. It's related to the removal of bullheaded idiots who think alignment is something that it really isn't. Thus, it might be wise to remove alignment, as it is the easiest route to that removal. But there's nothing wrong with it, exactly, and for Holy Word effects it can be a useful simplication.


Why wouldn't it both work better and be simpler if it were more like "Word Against Those I'm Currently Fighting"? It would make intrigue WAY more appealing. At any rate, I'd be pretty happy to see Holy Word and it's ilk leave entirely. The whole alignment thing is certainly a simplification, and therefore not perfect, and that's fine. It's also not very good at what it's supposed to do, i.e. express an aspect of a character, and that's not fine. And a system that both 1) needlessly complicates things and 2) fails its intended purpose is a system I'd rather see pruned.

I'd also rather see an acknowledgement that maybe graverobbing hobos (a.k.a. adventurers) are a bit morally ambiguous, even when their armor is spotlessly clean, and they help out all the little kids at the orphanage.

floydhead
2009-12-03, 07:04 PM
I use alignments as a guideline for my character's actions rather than a strict way to act. People aren't perfect, so why should my character's be?

This is my opinion of course.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-03, 08:19 PM
This was the bit that attracted accusations of Fantastic Racism. And was one of the biggest elements of moral dissonance in pre-3rd ed D&D.

Accusations are not proof.
The mere existence of an inherently aligned race is not a demonstration of moral dissonance.
The elements of a fantasy game are not the elements of the real world.


Only to set up old problems in their place. AD&D alignment was even worse than 3.5- with Neutral being portrayed as attacking whichever side they thought was more powerful, and paladins Falling permanently for a single Evil act.

You fall permanently from qualifying for exalted feats for a single Evil act in the BoED.
The concept of the Balance as an element of the Neutral alignment is not problematical, only the suggestion that people of that alignment will act in an uncontrollable fashion according to spontaneous poll numbers (or however they know which other alignment is suddenly more powerful or what not).


Does "evil creatures" include "members of PC races that are evil"?

Obviously not. A simple examination of the rules is clear enough on that account.


Most D&D novels, even in AD&D days, make it clear that evil is a choice, and it is possible for beings such as orcs, to choose to not be evil, or to stop being evil, without the use of Wish.

Novels are not games, and the egregious issues of morality in many of the novels only demonstrates the biases of the authors, not the issues of the game.


That's one person, quoted twice, so that doesn't really back up the "some people" part of that statement

Not that I'm disagreeing... I'm sure that some people did play that way. My disagreement was that you seemed to be implying that it was the norm for AD&D, when that does not match up with my experience in the slightest.

Actually, to be clear, that is one person citing the creator of the 9-point alignment system, along with one of the early primary game developers as to the intent of the alignment system.
Yes, experience may vary, but you do hit a point of telling Vonnegut he does not know Vonnegut if you insist those two were "playing it wrong".


Why is it so dysfunctional? What are these "perceived problems" exactly? Because the only perceived problems I see are that alignment causes too much debate (not solved by reverting to AD&D mentality) and that alignment encourages lazy "characterization" and pigeonholing (definitely not solved by reverting to AD&D mentality).

It becomes dysfunctional because things like Evildar + Smite on Sight become possible.

The "perceived problems" have been noted repeatedly. Otherwise self-obvious questions become endless, angst-ridden, pseudo-philosophical bull sessions; alignment is treated as a mandatory limit on action rather than a general guideline of behavior with simple, though mechanically different consequences - a wizard using a sword is going to be woefully ineffective, a fighter trying to find traps will trigger them, and so forth, instead of simple task failure you suffer penalties in training that require you to spend more money to advance in level, slowing your progression as you need to find more loot.
"AD&D mentality", whatever that is supposed to mean, is irrelevant. I am citing AD&D RAI with some RAW, something completely different. Use decent rules and consider how the game creators and initial developers intended certain monsters to function in regards to alignment, and the problems asserted are simply not there.

As a side note, this is directly related to why I always say non-basic European settings inevitably fail, or at best become a weak self-parody of what they want to present. The core assumptions of behavior, which are just another form of alignment, are both sufficiently different and just as restrictive as alignment to make people who reject the AD&D alignment system reject those systems as well.

Mike_G
2009-12-03, 10:12 PM
I think you may have left out a noun here:

I find that a simplistic, and "objective" [noun] interferes with my enjoyment of Roleplaying.



Yeah, good catch. The noun should have been "system of morality" but since that was what we were discussing anyway, I think the point came acorss.




Personally, I'm of the opinion that none of these are problems that are strictly due to having an alignment system.





D&D works fine when it's removed, but the improvement isn't coming from the removal of alignment. It's related to the removal of bullheaded idiots who think alignment is something that it really isn't. Thus, it might be wise to remove alignment, as it is the easiest route to that removal. But there's nothing wrong with it, exactly, and for Holy Word effects it can be a useful simplication.



These two comments kind of make my point. The Alignment system may work, in a perfect group, but communism might work with the right population.

Given the wide range of interpretations that people have of a supposedly objective system, and given the mechanical factors that hinge on it, it's just too easy a thing to fight about at the game.

If If Sir Smitesalot wants to kill the orc young, on the grounds that "little orcs just grow up to be big orcs," that's a perfectly valid way to play a character.

If Sunflower Peaceandlove objects, that's a good roleplaying opportunity. In a world without Alignment, or arguably, in one where it was played properly, being a meta concept that existed solely behind the scenes, she could disagree on moral grounds, or argue that it was against a code of honor, or the tenets of a religion or whatever.

The thing that makes me want to reach for a crowbar or hip flask is when the argument is "But you're Lawful Good," when it should be "Let not the children suffer for the sins of the fathers" or "Maybe they just need a chance to grow up decent," or "This butchery is unworthy of a warrior."

Now, I'm not saying an Alignment system prevents the second kind of discussion, but in my experience it certainly enables, and even encourages the first.

rezplz
2009-12-03, 10:18 PM
To be honest, as a DM I don't even know the alignments of half the people in the party I'm DMing for. Sooooo I guess it really doesn't affect my game at all. It's as if it's not there at all. I just let my players play their characters based on their personality.

Of course, we also have a very casual game so that probably helps.

Kelb_Panthera
2009-12-04, 01:11 AM
In answer to the OP's original question: having the alignment system doesn't affect my group's game unless we decide that it should, in which case it is used to further character development and campaign arcs with characters that are strongly tied to their alignment (IE: Paladins, Clerics, Incarnates, soulborns, etc...)

The alignment system in D&D is intended, like all the rest of the rules, as a tool to further the game-play experience. For those who want to play the righteous characters (zealots?) that take the fight against evil to the "bad-guys" doorstep, it gives a guideline for how to label a character for the sole purpose of adjudicating the effects of certain spells and class features. The Books of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness were intended to expand upon these guidelines for just such a campaign, in addition to adding options to make these characters clearly different beyond simple behavior, and mechanically different in a way other than simply a two letter description on their character sheet.

If that's the kind of campaign you and your group like to play, then the alignment system can be just what it was intended to be, a tool, but like any real tool, if you don't need it to get the job done you don't have to use it. If your group prefers to keep to a more morally and ethically ambiguous feel to the game; then alignment can, and perhaps should, be ignored. As a mechanical balancing point, should alignment be ignored the spells, class features, etc.. that rely on them should also be removed.

On the note of the oddness of ravages, afflictions, the Vow of Poverty, etc...: these things were intended as much as a mechanical balancing point as anything else. The game's designers had to balance the fact that evil characters can gain mechanical benefits from the sacrifice of sentient creatures and the consumption of a creature's soul. The fact that ravages and afflictions are mechanically identical to poisons and diseases is just that, mechanical. While these mechanics suggest hypocrisy, their descriptions seem more in line with making manifest the targets own evil rather than actually doing some considerable harm. This is particularly true of afflictions which can only be passed on to other evil creatures and even so, are most likely to be transmitted by the very evil trait they magnify. These traits are represented mechanically as ability damage because without some mechanical affect they would be meaningless.

That's my two cp anyway, and sorry for conjuring such a vicious wall of text.

Stephen_E
2009-12-04, 03:24 AM
I didn't have the book to hand- I was checking off wikipedia for a quick answer.

That said, AD&D-

Thief. Can be Lawful. Can be Good. Cannot be Lawful Good.

Wouldn't that suggest, that Lawful Good and Theft do not mix? In short, that "do not steal" in the paladin code, is there for a reason?

ADnD isn't 3rd, so no it doesn't suggest a thing about 3rd Ed.
And having played 1st and 2nd I'd say it just show that alignment and character mechanics shouldn't mix as a general rule. They're silly.
With the so-so exception of Paladins the use of alignment as a mechanics for PC class restrictions are a race between stupidity and foolishness.


Similarly, on lying, people who are Neutral are "honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others"

This suggests lying and deceiving are the exception, and honesty, the rule.

Now you just have to come up with a viable definition of honesty. :smallwink:
But yes, most people are generally truthful. This is due to a mixture of reasons, a major reason been lying takes effort for most people. This applys across the board. Evil peoiple are as likely to tell the truth as good people on the whole. Lying for personal gain, now that's a different matter.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-12-04, 03:40 AM
You've got it a bit wrong.

I find that a simplistic, and "objective" (which is impressive in that everyone has a different definition for it, that usually applies to subjective things) interferes with my enjoyment of Roleplaying.

I'm going to play my character the way I have conceived him, regardless of whether he seems to fit neatly in a category or not, so nothing as asinine as the Alignment system has ever "stopped" me from playing the way I choose.

What does irk me, is that having the system at all leads to:

A) The "A Lawful Good character wouldn't do that" argument,
B) The closely related "We can't trust him, he's Chaotic" argument
C) The abuse of Detect Evil
D) Silly Alignment restrictions for classes (No Lawful bards, etc)
E) Direct Hypocrisy (Like Ravages, Smite on Sight players)



The vast majority of this comes under "Don't mix alignment with mechanics unless you absolutely have to".
And add in "if you think you absolutely have to, check again, you probably don't".

a) Unless the player of the LG character is making a big thing of been LG others should be told to butt out. The self-fighteous deserve to have their ballon pricked, spindled and mutilated.

b) Groan. The only reason I have any sympathy for this position is I've know several players who run their characters on "I'm chaotic therefore I'm a kleptomaniac and steal from anyone and can change sides at the drop of a hat". Dorks. :smallmad:

c) Detect Evil is like Darkness. People read the spell title and stop paying attention to the rest of the spell description that makes it clear that it isn't really a Deyect Evil or Darkness spell. The title would never misrepresent the spell.:smallsigh:

d) With the possible exception of Paladins (that should never be discussed as part of a general alignment discussion) I've described these as a race between stupidity and foolishness.

e) Some of the bad players mentioned in b) become game designers as well.

IMHO about the only time that alignment should be relevant as a game mechanic is when you have unholy word ect targeting you.

Stephen E

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 03:41 AM
What makes "personal gain" so different?

Lying is neutral.
Lying for personal gain is evil.

Stealing is neutral.
Stealing for personal gain is evil.

These seem to be the positions presented here- but I think they might be pushing it a little too far in the neutral direction.

Whereas:

Lying to protect others from harm is neutral.
Lying for other reasons tends to be evil.

Stealing to protect others from harm (say, starving children) is neutral.
Stealing for other reasons tends to be evil.

Seems to be a bit closer to the way most people see things.

Stephen_E
2009-12-04, 04:34 AM
What makes "personal gain" so different?

That should be simple for you to workout.
One of the core elements in 3rd Ed Good/Evil alignment is that evil is selfish and good is selfless.

I'll also correct your statements for the vital element that seems to be a large part of your failure to understand DnD alignment.

Lying tends to be neutral.
Lying for personal gain tends to be evil.

Stealing tends to be neutral.
Stealing for personal gain tends to be evil.


These seem to be the positions presented here- but I think they might be pushing it a little too far in the neutral direction.

Whereas:

Lying to protect others from harm is neutral.
Lying for other reasons tends to be evil.

Stealing to protect others from harm (say, starving children) is neutral.
Stealing for other reasons tends to be evil.

Seems to be a bit closer to the way most people see things.

Further correction -
Seems to be a bit closer to the way many people claim to see things, but far from how they actually behave and respond.

2 facts about humans. The vast majority of humans tend to tell the truth, and all humans lie. They especially tend to lie by reflex to tell people what the want to hear, including lying to themselves.

So you have these people who say that they think lying is bad but lie all the time and think badly of people who ar to truthful.
"Do I look fat in this?"
You don't answer truthfully because you will get in big trouble if you do. You lie in various degrees and everyone is ussually happier for it.

Stephen E

dsmiles
2009-12-04, 05:04 AM
I've been reading this, and reading this, and I still don't see the problem people are having committing to an objective alignment system. My friends and I have been playing for over 25 years, and have never had a conflict between the alignment system and role-playing, or between the alignment system and game mechanics.

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 05:09 AM
Most of the problems come, I suspect, when the DM's definition of various things is different from the player's.

Edition change might also have something to do with it- if one edition defines everything that detects as evil as "deserving of death" and another doesn't, a player who plays the old edition and acts the same way in the new one, might get angry when they are penalized for doing so.

According to some of the people in this thread, RAI for AD&D was, anything that pinged on Detect Evil deserved to be killed.


For the second, if the creature did detect as Evil under the AD&D rules then by definition it was in fact Evil enough to deserve instant death.

Though a few others appear to dispute this.

The claim that "detect evil" is a misnomer, and it doesn't actually do that, seems a little lacking in support, though.



2) The idea that Detect Evil is a system of detecting Evil. False.

"being of evil alignment" is a weak trigger- but it is still a trigger.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-04, 05:14 AM
I've been reading this, and reading this, and I still don't see the problem people are having committing to an objective alignment system. My friends and I have been playing for over 25 years, and have never had a conflict between the alignment system and role-playing, or between the alignment system and game mechanics.There are multiple issues that cause problems:
1: People being idiots about it. Lawful Stupid/Chaotic Crazy/You can't X because you're Y, it leads to alignment being a reason rather than a side-effect.
2: D&D writers being stupid. Poisoning someone is evil, even if you just paralyze them so you don't have to kill them, while lighting them on fire isn't. Mindrape is Evil, Programmed Amnesia isn't. Undead are evil just because.
3: An objective morality can get...difficult from an RP perspective. Picture a small child. His villiage is wiped out when he is 5 or 6, and every adult killed. The other children in the village are taken away and raised to support the executioners of their parents. He was hidden and escapes, and dedicates his life to wiping out all those who killed his family. Good or evil? The way I wrote that, he could either be an Orc whose tribe(admittedly, a tribe of bandits, but still his family) were wiped out by paladins, or a human whose village was wiped out by orc raiders looking to swell their numbers. One ends up with a human who hunts orcs, the other with an orc who hunts paladins.

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 05:50 AM
"dedicating life to wiping out all those who did X" is always a shaky motivation.

It can depend on the DM as to whether it is "completely justified" "partially justified" or "unjustified"

A closer parallel would be a man concerned with killing everyone who brought in a "guilty" verdict on his family, for crimes committed when he was young, and sentenced them.

Were the family, in fact, guilty, and was the sentence justified?

If so, then he is not "avenging a wrong".

It doesn't matter that much whether its humans or orcs on either side.

In Eberron, in the more savage areas, you could have an orc paladin who hunts human bandits.

Same principle.

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 06:11 AM
Now you just have to come up with a viable definition of honesty. :smallwink:


Probably the simplest is "not attempting to deceive"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honesty

Wikipedia definition of dishonesty- behaviour performed with intent to deceive. It may be an oversimplification- but what, exactly, is a better definition of it?

Honesty is generally considered a virtue and dishonesty a vice- yes, there are situations where dishonesty might be preferable, but the general rule, is that most of the time, it is considered immoral.

The fact that "most people are a little dishonest all the time" says nothing about whether this is right-

the is-ought fallacy- the idea that because people are a little dishonest all the time, they ought to be a little dishonest all the time.

True, it might also be a fallacy that because societies consider dishonesty in general (but not necessarily in particular cases) to be immoral, that this is therefore to be assumed to be true in D&D.

Still, as you said, alignment is based on "real world moral views" with a few minor twists.


One of the core elements in 3rd Ed Good/Evil alignment is that evil is selfish and good is selfless.

True in part- but a bit of an oversimplification.

Harming people (absent context) is more likely to be evil, and helping them, more likely to be Good.

"Selfish" can simply mean "concerned with personal gain" and "Selfless" "concerned with personal sacrifice"

(PHB- Good people make personal sacrifices to help others)

But these alone don't dictate everything- they are usually tied to Harm/Help.

A person who never harms anybody, but helps because there is personal gain in it (say, a person who studies to be a doctor because he hears doctors gait paid well) is.... what?

A person who just does their job, never trying to harm or help anyone, but focussed on their own self-interest is... Evil? or Neutral?

I'd say neutral.

Jolly Steve
2009-12-04, 06:52 AM
Often, 'neutral' is used to mean 'evil, but not the servant of an evil god.'

Stephen_E
2009-12-04, 06:53 AM
Probably the simplest is "not attempting to deceive"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honesty



You are making extremly selective use of the wikipedia article.
The complete article is full "tends" and "implies" + some interesting comments on the psychcology of lying.
None of which really support your posistion, as I understand it, which is much more one of absolutes.

Stephen E

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 07:56 AM
Actually, it's relative- but not as relative.

A position that lying to people, like stealing from people, or killing people, requires a justification, rather than being "neutral, with context determining whether it is good or evil."

The three important bits:

Honesty is typically considered virtuous behavior, and has strong positive connotations in most situations.

While there are a great many moral systems, generally speaking, honesty is considered moral and dishonesty is considered immoral.

And- for the "sometimes dishonesty is moral"

even in moral systems which approve in general of honesty over dishonesty, there are situations in which dishonesty may be preferable.

It's a general rule, rather than an absolute one.

The same applies to theft, for that matter. Except it may be frowned on a bit more, and the justification required a bit bigger- saving lives, for example.

As opposed to saving hurt feelings.

dsmiles
2009-12-04, 08:09 AM
There are multiple issues that cause problems:
1: People being idiots about it. Lawful Stupid/Chaotic Crazy/You can't X because you're Y, it leads to alignment being a reason rather than a side-effect.

Key Word Bolded.



2: D&D writers being stupid. Poisoning someone is evil, even if you just paralyze them so you don't have to kill them, while lighting them on fire isn't. Mindrape is Evil, Programmed Amnesia isn't. Undead are evil just because.


Harkening back to ADnD here, I think, but only Good aligned characters refuse to use poison. Thus, poisoning isn't necessarily evil, but rather just something that is generally taboo.



3: An objective morality can get...difficult from an RP perspective. Picture a small child. His villiage is wiped out when he is 5 or 6, and every adult killed. The other children in the village are taken away and raised to support the executioners of their parents. He was hidden and escapes, and dedicates his life to wiping out all those who killed his family. Good or evil? The way I wrote that, he could either be an Orc whose tribe(admittedly, a tribe of bandits, but still his family) were wiped out by paladins, or a human whose village was wiped out by orc raiders looking to swell their numbers. One ends up with a human who hunts orcs, the other with an orc who hunts paladins.

Vengeance isn't necessarily good or evil. I see vengeance as a non-aligned act, as long as bystanders aren't hurt in the pursuit of that vengeance (that is what makes it an evil act). Pursuit of vengeance above all else doesn't define your alignment. How you pursue vengeance does.

Sliver
2009-12-04, 08:38 AM
1: People being idiots about it. Lawful Stupid/Chaotic Crazy/You can't X because you're Y, it leads to alignment being a reason rather than a side-effect.
Key Word Bolded.

Thing is, it is not hard to be an idiot about it, even if you don't intend to. If the alignment system was written better, there would be much less misunderstanding and hate towards it.

Stephen_E
2009-12-04, 09:03 AM
Thing is, it is not hard to be an idiot about it, even if you don't intend to. If the alignment system was written better, there would be much less misunderstanding and hate towards it.

I disagree.
I think the alignment system is quite well written, given the space allocated to it.
There is much hate towards it because
1) some people want a list of this good, that evil, that agrees with their views, and
2) Others are sick of having people try and tell them how their character should behave based on the list of dos and don't that other person has tried to create from the rules.
3) And because some of the designers tried to use the alignment system as a mechanic for controling some of the character classes, which it is neither designed to do (or if it is, then it really is badly written) nor suited to do.

Stephen E

Jayabalard
2009-12-04, 09:23 AM
4e alignment is pathetic. The way they mangled law/chaos is an unhealthy tribute to old AD&D mentality. Either keep the relatively mature 3e system or throw out alignment entirely and leave the Grognards to face reality.Not AD&D mentality; AD&D (event 1e) had both the law/chaos and good/evil alignment axises. You're probably thinking D&D before AD&D.


I think it's reasonable to say that a system that functions best or as intended when ignored entirely is a system that should not be there. While that may be what he does, that's not actually what he said in the piece that I quoted, the "I will play my characters or DM my NPC's the way I choose" bit. The point here: he seems to think that alignment is supposed to be controlling his character's actions, and that by not doing so, he's scrapping the alignment system... this is simply not the case.


Thing is, it is not hard to be an idiot.You can place the period of your sentence here, and it works just fine.

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 09:40 AM
3) And because some of the designers tried to use the alignment system as a mechanic for controling some of the character classes, which it is neither designed to do (or if it is, then it really is badly written) nor suited to do.


That's one way of looking at it. Another is that several of the designers decided to try and provide lists of things (good, evil, lawful) that most of the players and DMs would agree with.

And, apparently, failed.

Deciding every single act on a case-by-case basis, can be tricky, with only vague guidelines to go by- people will inevitably weight them differently.

Result- DM saying:
"That act was evil because (cites part of PHB)"

and player responding:
"It shouldn't be, because (cites another part of PHB)"

Not all alignment arguments involve idiocy on the part of player or DM- some involve genuine, reasonable differences of opinion as to what parts of the alignment guidelines are more important.



Vengeance isn't necessarily good or evil. I see vengeance as a non-aligned act, as long as bystanders aren't hurt in the pursuit of that vengeance (that is what makes it an evil act). Pursuit of vengeance above all else doesn't define your alignment. How you pursue vengeance does.

If the child of an executed murderer, goes after the judge and jury that tried and sentenced him (but avoids harming "bystanders")- is that Neutral?

Draco Dracul
2009-12-04, 10:38 AM
If the child of an executed murderer, goes after the judge and jury that tried and sentenced him (but avoids harming "bystanders")- is that Neutral?

It's evil because his father deserved it, and ultimately the judge and jury were doing what was write.

However, if his father was innocent, the judge corrupt, and he didn't attack the ultimately innocent jury, it would be a neutral or good thing as he is eliminating corruption and allowing his father's name to be cleared.

Vengeance in and of itself is neither good nor evil. It depends on the reason for vengeance, the person on the receiving end, and who your willing to hurt to get it.

KAGOME05W
2009-12-04, 10:55 AM
I tend to treat it more as guidelines than rules.

No one is all good or all bad in my games. A villain might have some sort of charity they support, or genuinely care for a few people. A paladin can be egotistical and judgmental and still be a paladin, although if he ever pulls a Miko he's going down.

Even Detect Alignment spells can be a bit wonky in my games. It would be more true to say they detect good and evil intentions. If the party comes across an evil goblin who stands between them and his family to protect them, he won't register as evil. If the same goblin later attempts to slit their throats while they sleep, he will.

I treat magic the same way. If you raise a couple of skeletons to help you defend an orphanage from an orcish horde, it's not an evil spell. If you later on put the skeletons to work carrying your stuff, it is.

My only exception to this gray area is when using stuff from the two "alignment books". If a player wants to take something from the Book of Exalted Deeds, their character had better be so full of light and pureness that it hurts to look at them without shades. Just having "Good" on their character sheet doesn't cut it.

Likewise, if I give a villain something from the Book if Vile Darkness, you can bet he still has bits of puppy between his teeth from last night's dinner. If you want to have character features that represent an alignment extreme, you had better be willing to roleplay the hell out of that extreme.

I agree with your point just saying some one is evil is not good enough noone just wakes up in the morning and says ,hey I'm going to commit mass murder today. You have to have a motivation as to why you act the way you do so you will have not just the alignment system as a guide line but your characters personality and history as well.

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 12:00 PM
It's evil because his father deserved it, and ultimately the judge and jury were doing what was write.

However, if his father was innocent, the judge corrupt, and he didn't attack the ultimately innocent jury, it would be a neutral or good thing as he is eliminating corruption and allowing his father's name to be cleared.

Vengeance in and of itself is neither good nor evil. It depends on the reason for vengeance, the person on the receiving end, and who your willing to hurt to get it.

How about if the jury was corrupt but the judge wasn't? (say, unbeknown to the judge, the jury was bought)

The judge still killed him, in the sense that he imposed the sentence, but he was unaware that he was imposing a sentence on an innocent man.

The reason is exactly the same: "person important to me was killed by these people"- only difference is whether the killing was wrong or not.

Proportionality may also be a factor- if the act of vengeance is out of proportion to the wrong done, it may be evil even if a genuine wrong was done.

Resulting in the conclusion that vengeance is only not evil, when it is just vengeance- which means one has to define just vengeance separately.

The idea that Detect Alignment spells only detect good and evil intentions- is interesting (and more in line with AD&D) but it still doesn't work that well with Detect-&-Smite, simply because intending to do something is not quite the same as doing it.

Curtain by Agatha Christie had an interesting example- thanks to the manipulations of the villain, Hastings intends to commit murder. Of a person who, in fact, doesn't deserve his hatred. A paladin passing through at that moment and scanning him, could quite reasonably detect him as evil.
Would the paladin be justified in killing him on the spot- without any evidence of what he intends, only that it is evil?

That would appear to be the position of people who say that, "in AD&D, if you detected something as evil it deserved to die"

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-04, 12:22 PM
That would appear to be the position of people who say that, "in AD&D, if you detected something as evil it deserved to die"

Based on tiktakkat's posts, in AD&D, that would not detect as evil. Evil was defined as being deserving of death. "Detect Evil" was equivalent to "Detect Irredeemable Wickedness that Deserves to Die". Lesser "evil" wouldn't register, since its aura isn't strong enough. Such lesser evil may even be neutral by the rules.

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 12:29 PM
He also stated that "Detect evil intent" was in full force.

which means that a Good or Neutral character who has, at this moment, evil intentions, as written in the book (it makes it clear that this can happen) is apparently "deserving to die" even if they haven't done anything yet.

Interestingly, in 3.5, the table is phrased "Evil outsider" not "outsider with the evil subtype"

Which means, as written, an evil aasimar, genasi, etc. will glow more brightly than an evil human- even if their personality is no worse.

Same applies to "cleric of an evil deity" a Lawful neutral cleric of Bane, would detect strongly as evil even if they haven't ever don't anything objectionable (besides being a cleric of Bane)

It's been a while since I read AD&D PHB- but I don't recall it saying that

"only evil people can have evil intentions that ping on Detect Evil"

Or, that

"any intention strong enough to register, deserves instant death, just for having it for a time- and just intent to murder isn't enough"

if a intent to murder wouldn't register, what would?

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 01:45 PM
it's interesting to read AD&D DMG guide to alignment though- while some things handled differently (intent, rather than actual alignment, in the case of detection ability) it stressed that a DM should:

Never tell anyone they can't do that. At most "are you sure you want to do that, given your alignment"

Alignment is not a hammer to beat misbehaving players with.

Alignment should generally change slowly

Etc.

(It also provided the same example that the PHB did, of an instant-alignment changing act, though- burning the village full of people to contain the disease outbreak- instant change to evil alignment)

Tiktakkat
2009-12-04, 02:11 PM
He also stated that "Detect evil intent" was in full force.

which means that a Good or Neutral character who has, at this moment, evil intentions, as written in the book (it makes it clear that this can happen) is apparently "deserving to die" even if they haven't done anything yet.

No, I said that active intent was additionally required, not that active Evil intent could, by itself, qualify as Evil.
To elaborate, the following is from the AD&D (1st ed) DMG, page 60 in my printing:

DETECTION OF EVIL AND/OR GOOD
It is important to make a distinction between character alignment and some powerful force of evil or good when this detection function is considered. In general, only a know alignment spell will determine the evil or good a character holds within. It must be a great evil or a strong good to be detected. Characters who are very strongly aligned, do not stray from their faith, and who are of relatively high level (at least 8th or higher) might radiate evil or good if they are intent upon appropriate actions. Powerful monsters such as demons, devils, ki-rin and the like will send forth emanations of their evil or good. Aligned undead must radiate evil, far it is this power and negative force which enables them to continue existing. Note that none of these emonations are noticeable without magical detection.


Look at what it says there:
The spell does not detect character alignment!
Another spell does, but detect evil/good does not, unless:
1. The character is very strongly aligned
2. The character does not stray from their faith
3. The character is relatively high level (minimum 8th)
4. The character is intent upon approriate actions
At which point they might radiate an alignment aura.

What does the spell work on?
"demons, devil, ki-rin, and the like"
You know, outsiders, and a magical beast that should be an outsider.

It would take an epic level amount of parsing to somehow construe that a character type, which would include non-player characters, could somehow possibly detect as Evil according to those above requirements and still somehow not have committed enough Evil, including being in the frame of mind to perpetrate additional such acts, that they are on the level of an appropriately aligned outsider, a creature that is effectively formed of an alignment, does not, by any reasonable standard, in fact, deserve immediate death, or reasonable smiting equivalent thereof.

Fred the brutish thug, who actually pets puppies and kittens every third Sunday, does not rape every woman he leers at, only casually worship the local deity of brutal thuggery, and is a paltry 2nd level punk, does not radiate a detectable aura of Evil.

Dave the sociopathic devotee of the deity of torture porn, who haunts the internet seeking virgin catgirls so he can sacrifice them (drinking their blood not optional), who steals pennies from beggars, and makes demons edge away just in case he gets in a mood, who is, right at this moment, planning to do something unspeakable (no, I won't tell you what it is, it's unspeakable!), and unleashes 5th level spells of utter death for casual amusment, does just manage to radiate such a detectable aura of Evil.

That is the AD&D requirement for Evildar to function.
Again, on that basis, I find it impossible to construe that anyone who does detect as Evil, by that standard, is not deserving of instant death.

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 02:18 PM
The "relatively high level" bit? 8th level characters detecting when lower level ones wouldn't, yet the same iamount of intent applies?

also "intent upon the appropriate actions" is something that can be a little tricky to define.

If "Fred the brutish thug", is above 8th level, and intent on mugging you, will he detect as evil?

That said, the "very strongly aligned" and "does not stray from their faith" might qualify as making the difference.

Maybe it is more 3rd ed than 2nd ed, in which Detect Evil became basically equivalent to Know Alignment (evil) - that has the problem.

I was reading the DMG (2nd ed) which seemed to imply that it was intent or being a high level evil cleric:

page 41 :
Some characters- the paladin in particular, possess a limited ability to detect alignments, particularly good and evil. Even this power has more limitations than the player is likely to consider. The ability to detect evil is really only useful to spot characters or creatures with evil intentions or those who are so thoroughly corrupted that they are rotten to the core, not the evil aspect of an alignment.

The "radardin" complaint applied to AD&D, would probably apply better to clerics who cast Know alignment every time they come across something- using that as a decision for what to kill.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-04, 02:52 PM
The "relatively high level" bit? 8th level characters detecting when lower level ones wouldn't, yet the same iamount of intent applies?

also "intent upon the appropriate actions" is something that can be a little tricky to define.

If "Fred the brutish thug", is above 8th level, and intent on mugging you, will he detect as evil?

Is mugging by default Evil, or just criminal?
There is a difference, and in general a common mugging is just criminal. It would take a desire to mug someone with specific intent to cause deliberate hardship (mugging the poor widow woman so her family starves, and she is forced into prostitution) to raise it to the level of willful Evil.

Also remember that 8th level was, particularly when considering other statements made by Gygax and other original players, very much "relatively high level" compared to the 3.5 standard where every PC is expected to hit 20th level.


That said, the "very strongly aligned" and "does not stray from their faith" might qualify as making the difference.

Maybe it is more 3rd ed than 2nd ed, in which Detect Evil became basically equivalent to Know Alignment (evil) - that has the problem.

That is why I said that change is a key source of the problem.


I was reading the DMG (2nd ed) which seemed to imply that it was intent or being a high level evil cleric:

page 41 :
Some characters- the paladin in particular, possess a limited ability to detect alignments, particularly good and evil. Even this power has more limitations than the player is likely to consider. The ability to detect evil is really only useful to spot characters or creatures with evil intentions or those who are so thoroughly corrupted that they are rotten to the core, not the evil aspect of an alignment.

2nd ed changed a few things, particularly the descriptions of the alignments, introducing the bizarre concept that Chaotic Neutral was the equivalent of Two-Face and such, but otherwise still did not enable Evildar.
Later on 2nd ed began to introduce the elements of wimping out Good that became the absurdity of the BoED. Compare differences in descriptions, including the origin of the Quesar in the original loose sheet MC with the later retconnings in things like Warriors of Heaven which tried to pretend such an event could never actually happen, and suggesting the fighting was all non-lethal and such.
There you get the second group of changes, confusing the intents of the alignments, and beginning the downgrading of the raw threat supremely powerful Good should present as well.

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 02:57 PM
Shall we say that Evildar makes much less sense in 3rd ed than 2nd and earlier, and leave it at that then?

That, and me taking TV Tropes on Detect Evil in AD&D 2nd ed too literally:


The Second Edition rules avoided this issue for Paladins. While they eventually gained the "Know Alignment" spell (at a very high level), their initial Detect Evil power didn't actually register evil alignments, but evil intent. Thus, scanning a priest of Bane might result in nothing at all if he isn't plotting at the moment (though, when weren't they back then?), while your good-aligned thief buddy might register as minor evil for considering plucking up that ripe apple back in the market without paying.

The "evil can mean jerk, rather than complete monster" idea didn't start in 3rd ed, but the change to detect evil, and the removal of know alignment in the process, did.

that and the use of "usually X evil" or even "often X evil" for many monsters.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-04, 03:56 PM
Shall we say that Evildar makes much less sense in 3rd ed than 2nd and earlier, and leave it at that then?

The "evil can mean jerk, rather than complete monster" idea didn't start there, but the change to detect evil, and the removal of know alignment in the process, did.

that and the use of "usually X evil" or even "often X evil" for many monsters.

Not just less sense, and not something to agree to.
As I see it, it is just a simple commentary on the rules, much as saying that 3E haste with its extra action was non-functional, or the pre-errata wild shape and polymorph was non-functional.

The system can work when Evil means "severe jerk" as well as "complete monster", just as it can work when Good means "reasonably polite" as well as "walking saint".
The system can work when non-player races have unchangeable alignments while player races have variable alignments.

The system strains massively when Evildar shows up.
It strains again with variably aligned monsters.
It doubly strains when "realistic" lairs of monsters with non-combatants show up. (As noted in the comments from Frank Mentzer.)
Combining all of those, Evildar, variably aligned monsters, and swarming non-combatants, and the system collapses, unable to handle situations it was never really intended to deal with.

That does not mean you can only play D&D as a dungeon crawl, far from it. It just means you will never manage complex real world ideological analysis within the framework of the 9-point alignment system. As long as you remain reasonably within heroic adventuring, and keep Evildar and orc babies out of the mix, it serves quite well.
In that context, it has always been a benefit to my campaigns.

Dracomorph
2009-12-04, 04:08 PM
While that may be what he does, that's not actually what he said in the piece that I quoted, the "I will play my characters or DM my NPC's the way I choose" bit. The point here: he seems to think that alignment is supposed to be controlling his character's actions, and that by not doing so, he's scrapping the alignment system... this is simply not the case.

Right. So, in order for his characters/NPCs to remain who they are, he is forced to avoid questions of "what would a person of this alignment do?" That says to me that the system which indicates such questions need to be asked is at best tangential to roleplaying, and at worst opposed to it.

What I mean is that alignment asks the wrong questions, like "Is that a lawful thing to do," when the right questions are more like, "Is that what this character would do?"

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 04:11 PM
How to keep Evildar and orc babies out of the mix?

One option (if you are playing in a slightly more Eberron-ish game, that still uses the 9 point alignment system):

Tell the player, right from the beginning, that Detect Evil is not to be used as Evildar for killing anything that pings.

If playing 3rd ed/3.5 ed, this seems like the quickest answer.

Especially given that in 3.5 Detect Evil pings based on what something is, rather than how evil it is:

LN/CN Cleric of evil deity- very strong evil alignment aura

Outsider with evil alignment (even aasimar, genasi, etc)- very strong evil alignment aura

Undead (even good aligned archlich)- very strong evil alignment aura

Mike_G
2009-12-04, 06:48 PM
While that may be what he does, that's not actually what he said in the piece that I quoted, the "I will play my characters or DM my NPC's the way I choose" bit. The point here: he seems to think that alignment is supposed to be controlling his character's actions, and that by not doing so, he's scrapping the alignment system... this is simply not the case.



You certainly are reading way too much into my posts and concluding that I think things I don't.

I think we may have dated in the past.

I don't think Alignment is suppsoed to be controlling anybody's actions. I think that some people have that view, and I want to play my character without having to debate Simplistic Morals 101 with those people at my table.

Alignment as shorthand for expected NPC or monster actions: fine. Alignment as a guide for new players....ehhhh, I can see the argument, but I don't think it's useful enough to make up for the stupid arguments. Aligment as Evildar for the Smitehappy Exalted Paladin who spreads Ravages around from his VoP: inexcusable crap.

hamishspence
2009-12-04, 06:53 PM
Actually BoED specifically said you're not supposed to be using Evildar

"even the existance of evil orcs, is not enough to justify warring on them, if the orcs have been causing no harm"

Being Smitehappy is far from a problem limited to BoED- quite the reverse, if anything.

tribble
2009-12-04, 07:08 PM
Seems we're overcomplicating things. What definition of Good makes attempts on the lives of complete strangers whose actions, motivations, etc. he knows nothing of?:smallconfused:

Jayabalard
2009-12-04, 07:14 PM
I think we may have dated in the past.Nope, based on our listed genders I can rule that one out :smallbiggrin:


Right. So, in order for his characters/NPCs to remain who they are, he is forced to avoid questions of "what would a person of this alignment do?" Correct, you should ask "what would THIS CHARACTER do?" That's using the alignment system correctly. If you continue to act in a way that is not consistent with your listed alignment, then your alignment should change over time (generally quite slowly).

The question "what would a person of this alignment do?" is meaningless.


I don't think Alignment is suppsoed to be controlling anybody's actions. I think that some people have that view, and I want to play my character without having to debate Simplistic Morals 101 with those people at my table.You could limit your gaming to people who get it. Generally, if someone is going to argue that I can't do something because I'm alignment X, then they're a person I don't want to be gaming with. So for me alignment systems serve as a Badplayerdar.


What definition of Good makes attempts on the lives of complete strangers whose actions, motivations, etc. he knows nothing of?:smallconfused:Self Defense

Dracomorph
2009-12-04, 08:55 PM
Correct, you should ask "what would THIS CHARACTER do?" That's using the alignment system correctly. If you continue to act in a way that is not consistent with your listed alignment, then your alignment should change over time (generally quite slowly).

The question "what would a person of this alignment do?" is meaningless.

I agree with you, but this is why I find alignment misleading for roleplaying. As I said, it suggests that you keep the wrong things in mind. It doesn't make you do it, and it can be convenient shorthand in some instances, but more often than not I've found it distracting.

Tiktakkat
2009-12-04, 10:59 PM
How to keep Evildar and orc babies out of the mix?

One option (if you are playing in a slightly more Eberron-ish game, that still uses the 9 point alignment system):

Tell the player, right from the beginning, that Detect Evil is not to be used as Evildar for killing anything that pings.

If playing 3rd ed/3.5 ed, this seems like the quickest answer.

Well, no.
The quickest answer would be:
House errata detect evil back to the AD&D rule.
Do not include orc babies (I believe the iconic apocryphal version is actually kobold babies) in adventures.

Solve both problems at the source.

hamishspence
2009-12-05, 04:29 AM
If every time the player meet orcs, or are sent to deal with orcs, there are no orc children or infants anywhere, this may break suspension of disbelief.

And it's not just orc babies, its orc (or kobold, or drow) non-combatants in general. Even if you impose a ruling that baby anything with a non-Always alignment, always detect as Neutral, you are frequently going to run into things which it might be questionable to kill, even if they are Evil.

The suggested "no orc babies" bit seems like its a "Never throw anything at the players that they might ask moral questions about"- which is just a reversion to "black and white" gaming.

(the Lord of the Rings movie solved "No orc babies" by saying there are no orc babies- they come into being fully grown. Which may be an interesting option- but it doesn't fit with D&D as written)

and in MM4, which outlines orc society, it says the most common exception to Often Chaotic Evil, is Chaotic Neutral. Not Neutral Evil.

House ruling detect evil back to the AD&D version is an option, but it is not entirely consistant with most of the game material. Especially since there is no Know Alignment spell: it appears to have been subsumed into the 4 Detect spells.

Just telling the ex-AD&D players that what they have is the equivalent of 1/4 of Know Alignment - and to treat it as such, makes more sense to me.

"self defense" can seem like a pretty iffy claim when the being that is attacked for "being evil" is not doing anything, nor is it even aware you are there till attacked.

It might be valid in AD&D, but not 3rd ed as written.

Kobolds are a player race in Races of the Dragon- and a bit less evil than some people might think.

and in MM4, which outlines orc society, it says the most common exception to Often Chaotic Evil, is Chaotic Neutral. Not Neutral Evil.

hamishspence
2009-12-05, 05:05 AM
I think that a very big part of 3.0-3.5 was widening the range for all the "monstrous races" making orcs, kobolds, drow, etc Usually or even Often rather than Always X alignment.

Combine that with X Neutral clerics of X Evil deities, and the room for "shades of grey" seems to be pretty great.

Add in Savage Species comments on Evil alignment, and the many other sourcebooks which make evil alignment less monstrous and more realistic, and the redesign of the Detect X spells, and it pretty much makes it impossible for a paladin or cleric who slays everything that pings, to avoid committing an evil act, for very long.

Which, I think, is an improvement, rather than a bad thing. Since it means the paladin needs to think- judge the morality of their actions carefully, rather than just slaying everything that detects as evil the moment they meet it.

But not everyone seems to think this way.

Some points worth remembering about AD&D alignment- if a paladin committed a Chaotic act- they Fell. If they committed an Evil act, they fell permanently- unless they genuinely didn't know it was evil, or were under magical compulsion.

3.0 removed Falling for Chaotic acts, but kept permanent Falling for intentional Evil acts.

Only in 3.5, did they make it possible for a paladin to un-fall after an intentional Evil act- by atoning.

So, in that sense, when one Chaotic act could make you Fall, alignment could be more annoying in AD&D than in 3.5.

Stephen_E
2009-12-05, 08:27 AM
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that several of the designers decided to try and provide lists of things (good, evil, lawful) that most of the players and DMs would agree with.

And, apparently, failed.


:smallbiggrin:
Not surprising that they failed.
You aren't the 1st to talk about most people think this or that is evil/good, but the truth is that there is no such concensus.

So when they try and make hard rules on good/evil it is roundly reviled except by the minority who roughly agree with the designers particular interpretation of their moral code.

For all some people talk about DnDs moral code been objective, it's rubbish because that "objective code" is interpretated sunjectively (and there is no core hard good/evil list to support the claim).


Stephen E

zarakstan
2009-12-05, 09:18 AM
Alignment has a minimal affect on the game. My group cares more about how your character acts and less about some boolean value that is "good".

Yahzi
2009-12-05, 12:26 PM
Don't forget there is a war on. The gods are at war, or least engaged in a pretty dangerous contest. Alignment is one way of identifying with a particular side in that contest.

So smiting evil orcs for being evil is perfectly acceptable, because you're fighting the enemies of your god. In fact, smiting evil people is fair, too: the reason paladins can't do that is because their society won't let them, not because their god won't. If you smite all the evil humans you won't have enough people to defend yourself against the orcs.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-12-05, 12:37 PM
Just telling the ex-AD&D players that what they have is the equivalent of 1/4 of Know Alignment - and to treat it as such, makes more sense to me.
You shouldn't tell them. You should open the book and show them. If you let them get away with not reading the Detect Evil rules, they'll not read other important rules, which will cause problems in the future.

Hamishspense, what exactly are you arguing? I'm not trying to be hostile; but I'm a wee bit out of it and can't quite find your main point.

Sinfire Titan
2009-12-05, 12:57 PM
Maybe I'm just obscenely lucky, but alignment hasn't gotten in my way. Sure, there's occasionally a little quibble over a character's alignment. But the effort saved by removing these arguments is definitely outweighed by the effort required to retool all the alignment-based mechanics. This is 3.5, of course; the linear scale that pretends to be alignment dies a horrible death when I play 4e.

You and me both. I only keep alignment around for a few reasons (Incarnate, Elder Evils, Abyssal Heritor feats...) but my players manage to avoid those arguments (except Midge, but he doesn't count).

Cyanic
2009-12-05, 01:04 PM
What I told my player in the last game I ran.

ME "Ok, leave the alignment part blank on the character sheet, we will not be using it."

PC Paladin "How is my smite going to work ?!?!!?!"

ME "If you tell me you feel its evil and smite it, it WILL work. Lets just hope your god agrees when he sees what you did."

PC Paladin :smallbiggrin: ..... :smallconfused:.....



TL;DR (trash the crap)

hamishspence
2009-12-05, 03:27 PM
You shouldn't tell them. You should open the book and show them. If you let them get away with not reading the Detect Evil rules, they'll not read other important rules, which will cause problems in the future.

Hamishspense, what exactly are you arguing? I'm not trying to be hostile; but I'm a wee bit out of it and can't quite find your main point.

The main points I was trying to make were- black and white thinking "anything detecting as evil deserves to be killed on the spot" is a product of AD&D- and that 3.0 moved away from that- but a lot of people didn't seem to catch on.

Also, that the claim that BoED is all about reverting to "smite anything that detects as evil, on the spot" is not, if fact- correct, and that it underlined the fact that this is wrong, with "evil beings, such as villages full of evil orcs, don't necessarily deserve to be slain on the spot"

As for "opening the book and showing them" I keep seeing people claim that "In 3.5, it is ok to slay anything detecting as evil, without further investigation"- and stick to that, despite all evidence to the contrary.

For an example of an "its always morally ok to kill evil beings" statement:



So smiting evil orcs for being evil is perfectly acceptable, because you're fighting the enemies of your god. In fact, smiting evil people is fair, too: the reason paladins can't do that is because their society won't let them, not because their god won't. If you smite all the evil humans you won't have enough people to defend yourself against the orcs.

Or that "3.5 would work better if it went back to AD&D- and had it so that anything detected as evil, it would be morally ok to kill it on the spot"

And I tend to disagree with these claims.

hamishspence
2009-12-05, 03:34 PM
You aren't the 1st to talk about most people think this or that is evil/good, but the truth is that there is no such concensus.

Really? I seem to recall a lot of books and writings on the "moral universals" of society- that nearly all societies condemn the same things as evil/good.

I could be wrong though.

imp_fireball
2009-12-05, 04:26 PM
I prefer to think of the alignment system as guidelines, not actual rules. You should be flexible, and I hope it wasn't the intention of the writers that the alignments be absolute.
But it is fun to wack good PC's with unholy weapons once in a while.

The writers also decided to have a laugh at seeing players with low wisdom scores jerk around their higher thinking affectionates. :smallbiggrin:


that nearly all societies condemn the same things as evil/good.

Again, evil and good are labels that civilized cultures use. Particularly those with books.

'Savage' cultures consisting of small tribes like the Mongolians don't have a conception of evil/good. Just protect your friend and do what you feel is right. That's kinda how I'd imagine every human tribe actually, particularly warrior centric ones (or if you wanna go with the 'good' theme).

Small tribes of orcs, generally having a fascination with war, will probably focus on their racial hatreds (usually of other 'competitors' such as humans whom they may or may not consider equal to themselves) with a hate ceremony (much like the hate exercises in 1984). Many 'evil savage orcs' are generally nastier then the 'human savage' to the point that you need to find another system of judging morality when one stoops below 'rape of thousands' (something Genghis Khan allegedly did) or even spontaneous homicide after a night of incredible drinking - most of this will probably just end up being freaky alien stuff like constructing poop statues, face tattoos (even though humans get face tattoos literally all the time), piercings through the skull (something which no human I have ever seen, even in fiction, to have done). If you wanna play up the stupid on the evil orcs and lower the badassitude, you can have them stick bones through their ears (also something that only normally applies to cartoons). Oh and scary war drums. Rhino/whale hide too.

Neutral orcs on the other hand, boast of very gruesome kills, are essentially everything orc to the core. But they have small quirks that don't make them evil. They rape, but they don't torture, for example. They also appreciate the help of comrades.

Good orcs are virtually the same as neutral orcs until they encounter civilization. At that point they find themselves longing civilization but are deemed weak for this. Many end up committing suicide, overcome with revulsion as they are.
-----

This still makes orcs seem a lot like humans, which wasn't what I was going for. Ah well.

Can anyone else think of any racial behavior/alignment axioms?

hamishspence
2009-12-05, 04:30 PM
or course, it isn't solely a player problem.

I wouldn't be surprised if DMs who only take certain parts of the PHB, interpret them their own way, and insist on making playing Good a misery for the players, are also a big cause of all the bad feeling over alignment.

imp_fireball
2009-12-05, 05:00 PM
or course, it isn't solely a player problem.

I wouldn't be surprised if DMs who only take certain parts of the PHB, interpret them their own way, and insist on making playing Good a misery for the players, are also a big cause of all the bad feeling over alignment.

Hence why Neutral is the real Good. :smalleek:

In all seriousness, there was a paladin variant that I created, rooted in its attempts to make the thing more about 'smite infidel' then 'good/evil'. Originally, I allowed one of the paladins to be a representation of his god, but then I realized that it went better as a sort of fluff thing involving paladin being bestowed the power by his deity or actually training until the church/order in question chose to bathe his body in holy light or other divine energy which gave him his powers.

Volkov
2009-12-05, 05:36 PM
It helps players remember that Law, Neutrality, and Chaos are also important powers, without them, people seem to just remember Good and Evil, most likely due to these two sides being hammered into their skulls by a Judeo-Christian upbringing.

Shademan
2009-12-05, 06:16 PM
Neutral orcs on the other hand, boast of very gruesome kills, are essentially everything orc to the core. But they have small quirks that don't make them evil. They rape, but they don't torture, for example. They also appreciate the help of comrades.


I believe rape send them head first into the pit of evil

Stephen_E
2009-12-05, 06:31 PM
Really? I seem to recall a lot of books and writings on the "moral universals" of society- that nearly all societies condemn the same things as evil/good.

I could be wrong though.

Yep, you find lots of writings, and those writing generally disagree when it comes down to the nitty gritty of what those "moral universals" are.

Even when they agree on general terms like "honesty", "Truthfulness" and Compassion, when you start putting concrete example in front of them they fall apart.

It's like "Objective Morality". If it's so objective then why are there so many arguments. If they're so universal then why are there so many arguments.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-12-05, 06:48 PM
I believe rape send them head first into the pit of evil

And yet for much of human existance it has often been seen as a minor crime/moral failure, or no crime/moral failure at all.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-12-05, 06:55 PM
The biggest failure I see with the Alignment system is that it gives a single alignment for a character. This is simply wrong.

Even keeping things at a relative simple level humans operate under 2 alignements.
Internal - which guides their personal reactive behaviour.
External - which guides what society they support and work towards.

I've never noticed any strong connection between the two. So while they can be similiar they can also be complete opposites.
Thus I know someone who's internal alignment is CN-CG but his external is LN-LE.

The Agent from Serenity would be a good example of Internal - NE-LE and external LG.

Stephen E

Starbuck_II
2009-12-05, 06:59 PM
And yet for much of human existance it has often been seen as a minor crime/moral failure, or no crime/moral failure at all.

Stephen E

BoED and BoVD both say rape is high on evil list.

Shademan
2009-12-05, 07:28 PM
And yet for much of human existance it has often been seen as a minor crime/moral failure, or no crime/moral failure at all.

Stephen E

dosn't make it less wrong

Tiki Snakes
2009-12-05, 07:28 PM
BoED and BoVD both say rape is high on evil list.

They also agree that Poison is a horrible, evil thing, except when good people use Good-Brand-Poison. Then it's actively good.

Also Exalted Mindrape, etc. Yeah.

Pretty much worth ignoring those two for making serious points.

Stephen_E
2009-12-05, 07:29 PM
BoED and BoVD both say rape is high on evil list.

Which means dipsh*t in my book. They're sufficiently different from Core that they are essentialy a different alignment system.

My point is that the concept of rape as a serious crime/serious evil is relatively modern. Indeed in past times it was often more a matter property rights.
So are people here saying that for NPCs raised in a society where rape isn't seen a immoral or unethical in many, or even most, circumstances are still evil for raping?
I suggest you think long and hard before you answer yes to that.

Stephen E

Shademan
2009-12-05, 07:36 PM
Which means dipsh*t in my book. They're sufficiently different from Core that they are essentialy a different alignment system.

My point is that the concept of rape as a serious crime/serious evil is relatively modern. Indeed in past times it was often more a matter property rights.
So are people here saying that for NPCs raised in a society where rape isn't seen a immoral or unethical in many, or even most, circumstances are still evil for raping?
I suggest you think long and hard before you answer yes to that.

Stephen E

by that logic orcs raiding and pillaging are not evil at all, theyre just doing what is normal in their culture. which would be true IRL since there is no good and evil. it's a man made invention.

Stephen_E
2009-12-05, 07:37 PM
dosn't make it less wrong

True, but that's not what you were talking about.

You were saying "Evil".
As my previous post asked.
Is it evil if the person ahs been raised in a cultural where it isn't seen as evil?

And does it change things if they're still in the bounds of that cultural with minimal exposure to other differing views compared to if they have been significantly exposed differring views, or are in the bounds of another culture?

Stephen E