PDA

View Full Version : Humans Tend Towards No Alignment....



EthanRayne
2010-02-13, 09:48 AM
Okay, so humans aren't supposed to tend towards any alignment either neutrality. I assume this means humans are 1/3 evil, 1/3 good, 1/3 neutral and 1/3 chaotic, 1/3 lawful, and 1/3 neutral.

However, does this mean that the law-chaos and good-evil dimensions are independent so each of the nine alignments is equally likely in humans?

JellyPooga
2010-02-13, 10:01 AM
The Law-Chaos axis and Good-Evil axis are, indeed, independant of one another...being Chaotic is no more Good than being Lawful and being Evil makes you no more Chaotic than Lawful. So yes, theoretically, for a race that has no tendency toward any alignment there should be about as many Lawful Good Humans as there are Chaotic Neutral or any other alignment.

However, it should be noted that extremes of alignment are probably more rare than the less extreme examples, which basically means there's probably a lot more True Neutral humans than anything else, if only because it's the default alignment of someone who really doesn't care that much about the whole affair and would rather just get on with their life.

Yora
2010-02-13, 10:08 AM
It really depends how much you think a character would have to be chaotic to have an Chaotic alignment. If you take a rather lose definition, you get a ratio of 1:1:1.
I like non-neutral alignments to really be noticably different from neutral, so I set it more along the line of 1:2:1 for humans.

JellyPooga
2010-02-13, 10:15 AM
I should probably also mention that Alignment is very setting specific. In a world where virtues such as greed, avarice and cruelty are valued higher than generosity and kindness (such as in a Drow campaign), obviously there's going to be a greater percentage of Evil people than Good. Just something to consider if you're using a setting other than the "D&D Generic" setting.

Devils_Advocate
2010-02-13, 11:03 AM
Okay, so humans aren't supposed to tend towards any alignment either neutrality. I assume this means humans are 1/3 evil, 1/3 good, 1/3 neutral and 1/3 chaotic, 1/3 lawful, and 1/3 neutral.
I generally assume that it means that humans lack a natural inclination towards any particular alignment, not that there's necessarily an equal number of humans of each alignment.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-13, 11:06 AM
They tend towards no alignment.

Therefore, they must originate from the only plane with no alignment trait, right?

So, in D&D...

Humans are Cthulhu. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumansAreCthulhu)

Hazkali
2010-02-13, 11:08 AM
Alignment is a messy issue, but I'd personally say that humans would be something like 30% good, 60% neutral, 10% evil. It does somewhat depend on your particular devolution of lawfulness and goodness though as to what counts as evil and what just chaotic.

BardicDuelist
2010-02-13, 11:14 AM
Generally, the way I play it, N is the most common alignment for humans. The distribution is as such:
G

121
L 242 C
121

E

BenTheJester
2010-02-13, 11:25 AM
I should probably also mention that Alignment is very setting specific. In a world where virtues such as greed, avarice and cruelty are valued higher than generosity and kindness (such as in a Drow campaign), obviously there's going to be a greater percentage of Evil people than Good. Just something to consider if you're using a setting other than the "D&D Generic" setting.

It's not because you're in a Drow campaign that the world revolves around you. While you are busy being chaotic evil in your caves, Humans on the surface continue living their Neutral lives.

Devils_Advocate
2010-02-13, 11:40 AM
Y'know, this discussion is reminding me about an old post of mine (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5643131#post5643131) (largely reproduced below) about racial alignment tendencies. Mostly discussing nonhumans, because there's more of a question how to run nonhumans; humans are generally run basically however the DM perceives humans to be in real life. Still, it applies to humans as much as to any other race.

Point the first: I remember a discussion on this board in which one poster said that she thought it was silly to remove racial alignments from the game, because it's absurd to think that every race would have the same proportions of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil as humans.

Which is, of course, completely missing the point. That's not getting rid of alignment tendencies, that's giving every race the same alignment tendencies.

Some of you may look at that statement and scratch your heads. "Given a finite number of orcs in the world, some percentage of them will be Chaotic Evil, some percentage of them will be Chaotic Neutral, and so on", the intuitive argument goes. Well, true. And if a group of high-level PCs go on a quest to test the alignments of a representative group of orcs randomly selected from all the orcs in the world, that demographic information actually becomes relevant.

In the meantime, a given orc's alignment will be determined by the complex interaction of various factors including, but not limited to: inborn predisposition, upbringing, culture, neighbors, and local resource availability. These factors will interact with each other in a complex way that cannot even implicitly be modeled by rolling on a table. Alignment plus mental ability scores is insufficient to specify personality, anyway. On the other hand, a detailed description of a creature's personality is probably sufficient to specify alignment. So if you want your intelligent monsters to have actual personalities, you might as well determine their alignments in a bottom-up fashion.

Point the second: The vast majority of members of a given race may share unifying psychological characteristics, but this need not consistently express itself as a given alignment or range or alignments. For example, let's say that kobolds are fundamentally vengeful. They're generally driven to redress any perceived slight in a grossly disproportionate way. So they're usually Lawful, because they know that violating their culture's standards of behavior leads to a whole world o' hurt at the hands of other kobolds, and usually Evil, because they inflict unjustified levels of suffering on others with righteous glee. But that doesn't mean that you can't have a Chaotic Good kobold dedicated to protecting individual liberty by avenging cruel oppression. He still has the basic kobold mindset, just in an unusual way.

(And of course, if the typical gnome mildly annoys people for fun, and the typical kobold likes to stab obnoxious twerps like that in the face, that explains why kobolds and gnomes rarely get along.)

The unifying human characteristic, incidentally, is a deep-seated craving for an at least somewhat predictable life. There is very much a limit to how well a normal human can cope with constantly changing circumstances. On the other hand, humans will put up with a surprising amount of crap so long as they're only getting screwed in familiar ways that they can see coming. This trait gives them a racial tendency towards Law and away from Chaos -- they'll set up and agree to abide by a bunch of rules to ensure a level of predictability. Those who violate these rules usually simply don't care about how disruptive their behavior is to others, so Chaotic humans are rarely Good. This gives humans an unfortunate cultural tendency to conflate Chaos with Evil, and Good with Law.

Point the third: Sometimes listed alignments are just B.S. that's simply not in keeping with how the race in question is described as behaving. You cannot, for example, have a remotely normal army composed of Chaotic Evil creatures, because they simply will not reliably follow orders. If orcs are patriarchal and racist and hierarchical and organize themselves into vicious raiding parties because their god tells them to, they aren't CE. Lacking the strategic competence of hobgoblins doesn't make them a different alignment. If anything, that indicates greater stupidity, not greater rebelliousness, and is already covered by orcs having lower mental ability scores.
tl;dr: The statistical distribution of alignments within a race isn't an inherent property of the race, and should not be treated as such.

Harperfan7
2010-02-13, 12:36 PM
The PHB says that humans tend towards no alignment, not even neutral, so it should be equal nine parts distribution.

Siosilvar
2010-02-13, 12:38 PM
They tend towards no alignment.

Therefore, they must originate from the only plane with no alignment trait, right?

So, in D&D...

[evil TVTropes link removed]Yes, that was redundant.

AFAIK, the Prime has no alignment trait. So.... not so much. Also: Ethereal, Astral, and Shadow.

Tiki Snakes
2010-02-13, 12:44 PM
The PHB says that humans tend towards no alignment, not even neutral, so it should be equal nine parts distribution.

This. Very much so.

Swordgleam
2010-02-13, 12:46 PM
I'd assume that it starts equal, but there are more existing humans of neutral and good alignments because evil people are more likely to get themselves killed off. Probably more neutral than good for the same reason.

Harperfan7
2010-02-13, 12:51 PM
I'd assume that it starts equal, but there are more existing humans of neutral and good alignments because evil people are more likely to get themselves killed off. Probably more neutral than good for the same reason.

You could argue that evil people kill off threats instead of suffering them to live, and good people protect each other when others wouldn't, meaning both have their own means for surviving that the other two types wouldn't.

EDIT: The same goes to lawful and chaotic.

Tiki Snakes
2010-02-13, 12:52 PM
I'd assume that it starts equal, but there are more existing humans of neutral and good alignments because evil people are more likely to get themselves killed off. Probably more neutral than good for the same reason.

But if there are more neutral than anything, then they would tend towards neutral.

Yora
2010-02-13, 01:03 PM
Few people would object if I say that the alignment descriptions in 3rd Edition don't make much sense. :smallwink:

Harperfan7
2010-02-13, 01:09 PM
Few people would object if I say that the alignment descriptions in 3rd Edition don't make much sense. :smallwink:

My brain asplode.GLAUHGHAHAHGUDFHYSHNGH DZZZZZZ

(weeps in corner) /sanity

Swordgleam
2010-02-13, 01:10 PM
But if there are more neutral than anything, then they would tend towards neutral.

No. Let's say that if 99 humans are born, 11 of them are of each alignment. Before the age of 30, 5 of the chaotic evil ones will have been hanged for murder, 3 of the chaotic neutrals will have died in brawls, 4 of the lawful good will have died protecting the weak, etc, and 1 of the true neutrals will have been killed in a riding accident. Now you have more neutrals than good or evil, not because humans tend toward neutrality, but because the more extreme alignments tend toward getting you killed.


You could argue that evil people kill off threats instead of suffering them to live, and good people protect each other when others wouldn't, meaning both have their own means for surviving that the other two types wouldn't.

EDIT: The same goes to lawful and chaotic.

True, but I think it's a well-known trope that good (and lawful) people tend to work together better, and teamwork leads to increased survival most of the time.

Je dit Viola
2010-02-13, 01:24 PM
To me, what the statement means is that, as a whole, you will find no general trend. Specific humans will trend towards specific alignments, and specific societies will trend towards specific alignments.

As an example, let's say that there's a human society that values power even if you have to step on others to get it.. You'll likely find the Lawful Evil proportions slightly higher than the society that values helping old ladies across the street.
I think that's because, in this LE society listed, the heroes of the little kids would be LE because they're the dominant ones in power, the LE one will have no problem punishing people for being Chaotic, and society will repress people from being overtly Good because they aren't following the status quo.

So, I think that 'Humans tend towards no Alignment' means that, as a whole there is no trend because the smaller groups of them all have different societial trends.

Swordgleam
2010-02-13, 01:27 PM
So, I think that 'Humans tend towards no Alignment' means that, as a whole there is no trend because the smaller groups of them all have different societial trends.

That was going to be my initial response, but then it made me wonder if alignment is something that's a part of you no matter what (genetics, soul, destiny, whatever) or something that can be influenced by society. And that seemed like a whole 'nother thread's worth of discussion. (Though I suppose you could just say that since you can change alignment during your life, it obviously must not be inherent, but what if the alignment change is just part of your preset destiny?)

JellyPooga
2010-02-13, 01:31 PM
It's not because you're in a Drow campaign that the world revolves around you. While you are busy being chaotic evil in your caves, Humans on the surface continue living their Neutral lives.

Just thought I'd mention that this rather misses my point. The example of a Drow campaign is just an example of a style of game and game setting in which the dominant race is not neutral. If I decide that, in my game setting, Humans live lives much like the typical Drows, then that's my perogative. Just because the rulebook says that Humans are predisposessed toward no alignment in particular, does not mean that that's the case in my setting. So yes, whilst I agree with you in general terms that just because the campaign is an "Evil game", "horror" or any other genre/style at all, that the whole world is like the events in that campaign, my point was that the Human lack of racial alignment stereotype only applies if you, the GM, decide that it is so.

Tiki Snakes
2010-02-13, 01:31 PM
No. Let's say that if 99 humans are born, 11 of them are of each alignment. Before the age of 30, 5 of the chaotic evil ones will have been hanged for murder, 3 of the chaotic neutrals will have died in brawls, 4 of the lawful good will have died protecting the weak, etc, and 1 of the true neutrals will have been killed in a riding accident. Now you have more neutrals than good or evil, not because humans tend toward neutrality, but because the more extreme alignments tend toward getting you killed.



True, but I think it's a well-known trope that good (and lawful) people tend to work together better, and teamwork leads to increased survival most of the time.

Look, a mass of people stands before us! Surely this must be the gathered masses of humanity.

Oh look, evil/extreme individuals tend to get weeded out by society, leaving a noticeable dominance of neutral individuals. Looks like Humanity tends towards neutral.

Swordgleam
2010-02-13, 01:34 PM
Look, a mass of people stands before us! Surely this must be the gathered masses of humanity.

Oh look, evil/extreme individuals tend to get weeded out by society, leaving a noticeable dominance of neutral individuals. Looks like Humanity tends towards neutral.

I guess we have a different definition of "tend." I see the original question as asking, "Do humans naturally come in equal proportions of each alignment?" not "Which alignment is more likely to survive in human society?"

Harperfan7
2010-02-13, 01:35 PM
No. Let's say that if 99 humans are born, 11 of them are of each alignment. Before the age of 30, 5 of the chaotic evil ones will have been hanged for murder, 3 of the chaotic neutrals will have died in brawls, 4 of the lawful good will have died protecting the weak, etc, and 1 of the true neutrals will have been killed in a riding accident. Now you have more neutrals than good or evil, not because humans tend toward neutrality, but because the more extreme alignments tend toward getting you killed.

True, but I think it's a well-known trope that good (and lawful) people tend to work together better, and teamwork leads to increased survival most of the time.

You're making a judgement call on an issue that is way too complicated to possibly know every angle of.

For instance, an evil character is most likely to kill for whatever reason. This means he is the most likely to get tried for killing. An evil character is going to be harder to pin the crime on because he will resort to almost anything to get out of trouble when a neutral/good person wouldn't.

How many neutral/good people die for every evil one? There might be less evil people to start with, but they kill more people than good/neutral people do. Yeah, they kill each other too, but so do neutrals.

Now, if you are right, at first, that there will be more neutrals around just because they are least likely to be killed or get killed killing, that means more neutrals will die in any random accident or disaster.

It's just too complicated an issue. Go easy on yourself as a DM and say that its an even split. Remember, even though there are an equal number of each alignment, neutral policies will still be the most common. There are always more non-lawfuls than lawfuls, and non-goods than goods, and so on.

Optimystik
2010-02-13, 01:38 PM
Nobody's quoted it yet, so I will. From Races of Destiny:



The variety of human existence naturally pulls human personalities in different directions. For example, humans crave having their own voice and standing out from the crowd, but they also have a tendency to “follow the herd” and adhere to the status quo. An individual human who strives to break from the mold can later become a defender of the status quo—or can defend some aspects of the status quo while advocating radical change in other aspects. Because of this inner conflict, humans as a race are decidedly neutral in alignment.

I read the above as: individual humans run the gamut of alignments - but as a whole, we all cancel each other out, thus arriving at a 'mean' neutral.

Harperfan7
2010-02-13, 01:40 PM
I read the above as: individual humans run the gamut of alignments - but as a whole, we all cancel each other out, thus arriving at a 'mean' neutral.

Yes, but they still consist of 1/9 each alignment.

Tiki Snakes
2010-02-13, 01:40 PM
I guess we have a different definition of "tend." I see the original question as asking, "Do humans naturally come in equal proportions of each alignment?" not "Which alignment is more likely to survive in human society?"

Basically, the actual statement on alignment, like a vast portion of everything relating to alignment, is maddeningly and unhelpfully vague.

In essence, I'd agree with your argument entirely. In most cases, Humanity does infact, basically, tend towards neutral due to the simple mechanisms of society. The RAW statement that 'Humanity tends towards no alignment, not even neutral' just doesn't fit except in the most torturously quibbling of ways, really.

(I personally see the line about alignment tendancies to be something like a guide on what you might expect to meet, so pretty much a little of the former, but mostly the latter.)

Personally, I favour the new approach;
Most things are Unaligned. :smallcool:

SensFan
2010-02-13, 01:44 PM
Now, if you are right, at first, that there will be more neutrals around just because they are least likely to be killed or get killed killing, that means more neutrals will die in any random accident or disaster.
It makes absolutely no sense to take a phrase saying "humans don't tend towards any alignment, including Neutral" to mean that "Neutral people are more likely than average to die in random fires because they don't get hanged or killed."

TheCountAlucard
2010-02-13, 01:46 PM
Few people would object if I say that the alignment descriptions in 3rd Edition don't make much sense.You mean like how creatures who are Always Alignment X are only mostly Alignment X, and rarely Alignment Y? Yeah, I get a kick out of that.

Harperfan7
2010-02-13, 01:47 PM
It makes absolutely no sense to take a phrase saying "humans don't tend towards any alignment, including Neutral" to mean that "Neutral people are more likely than average to die in random fires because they don't get hanged or killed."

That is completely not what I said.

Swordgleam
2010-02-13, 02:00 PM
You're making a judgement call on an issue that is way too complicated to possibly know every angle of.


I believe that is the point of alignment discussions. :smallyuk:

hamishspence
2010-02-13, 02:17 PM
Maybe we should start with what the core books say- then go on to the official splatbooks?

DMG, for NPCs, has 20% Good, 30% Neutral, 50% Evil (page 110) Though this might not be valid for the population as a whole.

DMG- for power center alignment, has 41% Good, 33 23% Neutral, 36% Evil (Also, on the Law/Chaos axis, 81% Lawful, 14% Neutral, 5% Chaotic)

Cityscape, for Urban Community Alignment, (anything bigger than small town) has 36% Good, 33% Neutral, 31% Evil (Also, on the Law/Chaos axis, 65% Lawful, 20% Neutral, 15% Chaotic)

The one thing they all seem to agree on, is that not more than a third of the population are Neutral on the Good/Evil axis.

Taken as a whole, DMG seems to suggest Lawful people are more likely to hold power than Chaotics, and that large communities are more likely to be Lawful overall, than Chaotic.

Optimystik
2010-02-13, 02:20 PM
Yes, but they still consist of 1/9 each alignment.

Whether it's 1/9 evenly, or 1/3 LG 1/3 CE and the rest in eighteenths or whatever isn't very relevant to me. We're discussing humanity as a race, not the breakdown.


Taken as a whole, DMG seems to suggest Lawful people are more likely to hold power than Chaotics, and that large communities are more likely to be Lawful overall, than Chaotic.

Communities tending towards Law shouldn't be surprising, as you would need laws to keep order and structure.

That doesn't mean, however, that individual citizens are Lawful - that they will tend to submit to the system even when they could get away with not doing so, and gain advantage thereby.

When a vending machine drops two sodas, how many people try and put one back?

hamishspence
2010-02-13, 02:27 PM
I think of it this way if humans had a place in the monster manual, and 51% of humans were True Neutral, it would be required, to label them Usually True Neutral.

But this would conflict with "tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral"

Thus, the proportion shouldn't, logically, be that high.

Optimystik
2010-02-13, 02:31 PM
I think of it this way if humans had a place in the monster manual, and 51% of humans were True Neutral, it would be required, to label them Usually True Neutral.

But this would conflict with "tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral"

Thus, the proportion shouldn't, logically, be that high.

I don't think it's high either. Like others in this thread, I think we run the gamut.

Siosilvar
2010-02-13, 02:31 PM
DMG- for power center alignment, has 41% Good, 33% Neutral, 36% Evil

May I point out that that adds up to 110% and the actual number for neutral is 23%?

hamishspence
2010-02-13, 02:36 PM
Sorry about that- was still looking at Cityscape when entering all the details in.

Siosilvar
2010-02-13, 03:09 PM
Nah, don't apologize. I'm just in a nitpicking mood today.

hamishspence
2010-02-13, 03:12 PM
So- would you say that Eberron's take on alignment- that is, that Evil alignment is fairly common, and not necessarily justifying of on-the-spot execution, is actually closer to "core alignment" than the:

"90-something % of people are Neutral- Good is very rare and heroic, Evil should be killed on the spot"

take, that some people claim alignment is?

randomhero00
2010-02-13, 03:17 PM
I think humans are about 25% good, 25% evil, and 50% neutral. 50/50 for lawful and chaotic. The only reason it seems like there are less evil and more good is because its in everyone best interest to act good. Very few people play "chaotic stupid" (evil.) Most humans are neutral and the rest is divided evenly, hence, no alignment.

hamishspence
2010-02-13, 03:21 PM
Wouldn't that result in "often true neutral"?

I figure the proportion should be slightly lower than that.

Harperfan7
2010-02-13, 03:29 PM
So- would you say that Eberron's take on alignment- that is, that Evil alignment is fairly common, and not necessarily justifying of on-the-spot execution, is actually closer to "core alignment" than the:

"90-something % of people are Neutral- Good is very rare and heroic, Evil should be killed on the spot"

take, that some people claim alignment is?

Absolutely.

hamishspence
2010-02-13, 03:32 PM
Savage Species outlined a common reason why Evil people may not seem evil under most circumstances- because they confine their Evil deeds to "enemy groups" and most of the time- among friends, family, colleagues, etc, behave in a positively benevolent fashion.

Ravens_cry
2010-02-13, 03:47 PM
Savage Species outlined a common reason why Evil people may not seem evil under most circumstances- because they confine their Evil deeds to "enemy groups" and most of the time- among friends, family, colleagues, etc, behave in a positively benevolent fashion.
And that is the most chilling evil I know of.
They will be mourned. Even if you with righteous cause wipe out this stain upon the face of the world and destroy this evil that infects society, there will still be a little girl crying 'Dada, where's Dada?' How do you explain to a child that their father was in fact a brutal murderer, or worse?
You can't, you just can't.
Also, it's so familiar. Evil is not a monster or an aberration, it is within all of us, we all have that potential to do evil. It does not twirl it's moustache, it does not cackle madly, it carries no card saying ' Evil Member of the Evil Club of Evil, Evil Deeds Done Cheap', Evil is Righteousness in Evils eye.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-13, 04:13 PM
AFAIK, the Prime has no alignment trait. So.... not so much. Also: Ethereal, Astral, and Shadow.

All mildly neutral-aligned (which gives no penalties or bonuses, but it's still an alignment trait). The Far Realm has no alignment trait.

Siosilvar
2010-02-13, 04:16 PM
All mildly neutral-aligned (which gives no penalties or bonuses, but it's still an alignment trait). The Far Realm has no alignment trait.

Really? *checks DMG* Huh.

The elemental planes don't have any alignment traits.

hamishspence
2010-02-13, 04:17 PM
And the quickest to to become that kind of evil, is by seeing others as "stains to be wiped out" rather than as individuals.

He Who Fights Monsters, and all that.

On power center alignment, Dragon magazine 295 had an alignment chart much less biased in favour of law- for dramatic purposes, but also with a logical justification:


The logical justification for this dramatic choice is as follows- if you look at our real world today, or at almost any historical era you care to name, the average person is much more likely to live in political chaos as in an orderly regime. We who live comfortable existances in modern, industrial democracies enjoy a level of safety and stability unknown in medieval or ancient times.

Further, a chaotic community need not be one in which the streets reverberate with the sound of continual rioting, with looting and vandalism the order of the day. A community with a chaotic bent might simply have rulers making decisions acording to momentary political instinct, without reference to laws and precedents. This is not unrealistic, rule by fiat was far from uncommon in the pre-modern world. The rulings of a wise, chaotic good leader can be at least as admirable as those of his lawful equivalent.

A chaotic community might also be one in which the schemes of competing factions collide, with unpredictable, jumbled results. In other words, chaotic communities need not be places where order has completely broken down, they can just as easily resemble peaceful but factionalized places.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-13, 04:20 PM
Really? *checks DMG* Huh.

The elemental planes don't have any alignment traits.

Yes they do. Mildly Neutral-aligned. Manual of the Planes p66.

Ravens_cry
2010-02-13, 04:24 PM
And the quickest to to become that kind of evil, is by seeing others as "stains to be wiped out" rather than as individuals.
Exactly.:smallamused:

hamishspence
2010-02-13, 04:27 PM
Going by Champions of Ruin, the "driven to evil" "he who fights monsters" etc. types, seem pretty common. Maybe as common as, or commoner than, the basic, PHB "evil personality" which lacks compassion and exploits others indiscriminately.

Bibliomancer
2010-02-13, 04:37 PM
Whether or not True Neutral humans are more common than other kinds is unclear, given that they do not have a Monster Manual entry and our only reference sentence in Core is "humans tend towards no alignement, not even neutral." However, couldn't 'tend' in the above quote simply mean that they have no strong inclination towards any alignment, meaning that if they grow up without a major outside influence (or have outside influences cancel) they will end up as True Neutral?

Thus, for most peasants and city members, True Neutral would be the common alignment since their society does not provide them with any alternative influences. Extending this, humans would be "Often Neutral" but would "tend towards no alignment" since the above can be easily superseded by a specific life event or societal trait.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-13, 04:43 PM
Whether or not True Neutral humans are more common than other kinds is unclear, given that they do not have a Monster Manual entry and our only reference sentence in Core is "humans tend towards no alignement, not even neutral." However, couldn't 'tend' in the above quote simply mean that they have no strong inclination towards any alignment, meaning that if they grow up without a major outside influence (or have outside influences cancel) they will end up as True Neutral?

Thus, for most peasants and city members, True Neutral would be the common alignment since their society does not provide them with any alternative influences. Extending this, humans would be "Often Neutral" but would "tend towards no alignment" since the above can be easily superseded by a specific life event or societal trait.

That would be "often neutral", not "tends toward no alignment". We're all over the place. No hat for us.

hamishspence
2010-02-13, 04:45 PM
The people at the top tend to put their stamp on the society.

Fiendish Codex 2 goes into some detail on "LE societies" and how they work.

It could be that without influence a person defaults to neutral- or it could be that, even in the absence of a forceful upbringing, people tend to manifest the common personality traits of the nonneutral alignments as commonly as the Neutral ones.

Instead of: "people are born with no alignment leanings"
"people are born with alignment leanings, and their societies try to strengthen them, or weaken them"

Though its not clear either way.

For an OoTS example- Roy's little brother Eric. Did he get into Celestia because he had LG family members, like his grandfather, or because he already had Lawful and Good personality traits, even at a young age?

Harperfan7
2010-02-13, 05:18 PM
For an OoTS example- Roy's little brother Eric. Did he get into Celestia because he had LG family members, like his grandfather, or because he already had Lawful and Good personality traits, even at a young age?

I would assume neither. All children would go to the upper planes, and if their family was in one, they would go to whichever one that was.

hamishspence
2010-02-13, 05:44 PM
wouldn't that mean children tend to get separated from their parents?

If Neutral is a bit more common than Good, the suggested idea would mean those who die in childhood get promoted straight to the Upper Planes, whereas if they live just a little longer, they immediately get demoted to the Outlands (or possibly Limbo or Mechanus).

Yora
2010-02-13, 05:49 PM
Souls go to a plane appropriate to their alignment IF they are not claimed by the deity they worshiped in life.
Which is another think why one should give some good thought before changing your religion.

Harperfan7
2010-02-13, 05:49 PM
wouldn't that mean children tend to get separated from their parents?

Yes. They're in a plane of unending happiness.

NOT A PROBLEM.

hamishspence
2010-02-13, 05:53 PM
"all children go to upper planes" might be a little extreme though.

There is that line in Fiendish Codex 2 about the acts that define afterlife destination usually being committed at "the age of reason" but there isn't much about what alignment destination is considered the norm, before that.

"Enfant Terribles" seem to be not that uncommon in fantasy fiction.

Though according to BoED, Zaphkiel, the highest of the archons of Celestia "protects the innocent spirits of stillborn babies and sacrificed children"- suggesting that the truly innocent, regardless of lack of good actions, go straight to Celestia.

Ravens_cry
2010-02-13, 08:49 PM
Idea. Children who die before whatever arbitrarily decided Age of Reason get reincarnated for another chance at life. Thoughts?

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-13, 08:55 PM
Personally, I favour the new approach;
Most things are Unaligned. :smallcool:

If you hadn't capitalized that word I'd agree with you. Capitalization implies association with a certain alignment system.

Bibliomancer
2010-02-13, 09:00 PM
That would be "often neutral", not "tends toward no alignment". We're all over the place. No hat for us.

"Tends toward no alignment" has no inherent meaning. It is not the same as "Any" which would be a MM valid alignment line. The operative word there is "tends," indicating a lack of inherent motion, even towards neutral, meaning that it is very easy to move a human's alignment. However, according to Newton's Laws of Morality, an alignment at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force, so a plurality of humans are neutral. Since "tends towards no alignment" is not something that would be written anywhere in the MM, it is not contradictory with "Often Neutral."


If you hadn't capitalized that word I'd agree with you. Capitalization implies association with a certain alignment system.

Agreed. I personally dislike said system because it claims that one cannot be Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good. I believe Darth Vader and Robin Hood would love to dispute that.

Swordgleam
2010-02-14, 12:07 AM
Agreed. I personally dislike said system because it claims that one cannot be Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good. I believe Darth Vader and Robin Hood would love to dispute that.

If you actually read it, it says that Lawful Evil falls under Evil and Chaotic Good falls under Good. So you still can be those alignments, they just are no longer broken out separately for some reason. But 4e alignment is a whole 'nother debate.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-14, 12:56 AM
"Tends toward no alignment" has no inherent meaning. It is not the same as "Any" which would be a MM valid alignment line. The operative word there is "tends," indicating a lack of inherent motion, even towards neutral, meaning that it is very easy to move a human's alignment. However, according to Newton's Laws of Morality, an alignment at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force, so a plurality of humans are neutral. Since "tends towards no alignment" is not something that would be written anywhere in the MM, it is not contradictory with "Often Neutral."

It says we don't even tend towards Neutral, though. Often Neutral would be "tends toward Neutral".

Devils_Advocate
2010-02-14, 05:14 PM
DMG, for NPCs, has 20% Good, 30% Neutral, 50% Evil (page 110)
The tables for generating random NPCs mostly don't produce humans, y'know. But I ran the numbers, and the human characters it spits out are roughly 19% Good, 33% Neutral, and 48% Evil. Assuming I didn't make a mistake.

Here I was planning on contradicting you, but no. Do you know how much math I went through just to essentially affirm what you said? You were basically right by accident, and I did all of the work required to prove it. Dagnabbit. :smalltongue:


Though this might not be valid for the population as a whole.
Well, given that those tables randomly generate characters with PC classes, and the majority of the population is stated to have NPC classes, it seems safe to assume that they're not terribly representative of the population as a whole.

Basically, we have some evidence that about half of all adventurers are Evil. Well, heck, I could have guessed that. "Adventuring" is generally about breaking into people's homes, killing them, and taking their stuff.


Cityscape, for Urban Community Alignment, (anything bigger than small town) has 36% Good, 33% Neutral, 31% Evil (Also, on the Law/Chaos axis, 65% Lawful, 20% Neutral, 15% Chaotic)
The alignment of a community as a whole isn't necessarily the most common alignment amongst its individual members, though. Like how your individual Neurons being Neutral doesn't mean that you have to be.


Taken as a whole, DMG seems to suggest Lawful people are more likely to hold power than Chaotics, and that large communities are more likely to be Lawful overall, than Chaotic.
Well, duh.


When a vending machine drops two sodas, how many people try and put one back?
How many vending machines look like there's any way to possibly put a soda back? Just accepting the few occasions when a vending machine gives you zero or two items when you paid for one isn't Chaotic, it's reasonable. Yeah, you could attempt to rectify the error, but even working out how to do that is not worth the bother.


if humans had a place in the monster manual, and 51% of humans were True Neutral, it would be required, to label them Usually True Neutral.

But this would conflict with "tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral"

Thus, the proportion shouldn't, logically, be that high.
Still, they could be usually Unaligned, since Unaligned encompasses Lawful Neutral, Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral.

The alternative is that the distribution of alignments is different in 4E.


So- would you say that Eberron's take on alignment- that is, that Evil alignment is fairly common, and not necessarily justifying of on-the-spot execution, is actually closer to "core alignment" than the:

"90-something % of people are Neutral- Good is very rare and heroic, Evil should be killed on the spot"

take, that some people claim alignment is?
Just because a dictator kills twenty peasants a day doesn't mean that assassinating him will improve things. His slated replacement could be worse. And just because a villain's dominated minion is Good-aligned doesn't mean that killing him isn't necessary to protect innocents.

Killing someone isn't Neutral or Good because that individual is Evil. Not directly.


Savage Species outlined a common reason why Evil people may not seem evil under most circumstances- because they confine their Evil deeds to "enemy groups" and most of the time- among friends, family, colleagues, etc, behave in a positively benevolent fashion.
So, they're cruel to their enemies but kind to their friends? How Neutral of them. I hope they like Acheron.


How do you explain to a child that their father was in fact a brutal murderer, or worse?
"Kid, your dad was a bad, bad person who murdered a lot of people. So some other people decided to kill him so that he'd stop doing that. So now he's dead and in one of the Lower Planes somewhere. There's a lesson in all that, kid."


Yes they do. Mildly Neutral-aligned. Manual of the Planes p66.
However, that's a change from the DMG and the SRD. Furthermore, the individual descriptions of the Inner Planes in the MotP don't list this trait, even though they list the Normal Time and Infinite Size traits common to all of the Inner Planes. Maybe it's a mistake?


However, couldn't 'tend' in the above quote simply mean that they have no strong inclination towards any alignment, meaning that if they grow up without a major outside influence (or have outside influences cancel) they will end up as True Neutral?
Yes. Yes, it could.


I would assume neither. All children would go to the upper planes, and if their family was in one, they would go to whichever one that was.
What's the basis for that assumption?


Though according to BoED, Zaphkiel, the highest of the archons of Celestia "protects the innocent spirits of stillborn babies and sacrificed children"- suggesting that the truly innocent, regardless of lack of good actions, go straight to Celestia.
But do all dogs go to Heaven?


Idea. Children who die before whatever arbitrarily decided Age of Reason get reincarnated for another chance at life. Thoughts?
An arbitrary Age of Reason sounds bad to me, but other than that it seems reasonable. Infants are defined more by their potential to become various alignments than by Neutrality, so it makes sense that their souls would retain the former.

On the other hand, it also makes sense for them to go to wherever the souls of Neutral creatures without deities go, and that's precisely how it works per the rules. That means that in the core cosmology, deceased infants go to the Outlands, in Eberron and the 4E generic world they go to the same dark icky plane as everyone else, and in the Forgotten Realms setting, they get stuck in the Wall of the Faithless, because the gods of Faerûn are cruel like that. Animals, too.

This isn't particularly fair, but the multiverse as a whole isn't particularly fair, and the afterlife is a part of the multiverse. So this sort of thing is what we call "par for the course".


I personally dislike said system because it claims that one cannot be Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good.
No, it doesn't. The 4E PHB contains no mention of "Lawful Evil" nor "Chaotic Good".


If you actually read it, it says that Lawful Evil falls under Evil and Chaotic Good falls under Good.
No, it doesn't. The 4E PHB contains no mention of "Lawful Evil" nor "Chaotic Good".


It says we don't even tend towards Neutral, though. Often Neutral would be "tends toward Neutral".
Only for one definition of "tend".

Bibliomancer
2010-02-14, 05:18 PM
It says we don't even tend towards Neutral, though. Often Neutral would be "tends toward Neutral".

Not necessarily. "Tend" has never been used in an alignment description, so we don't know what it would translate as.


No, it doesn't. The 4E PHB contains no mention of "Lawful Evil" nor "Chaotic Good".

Exactly. It ignores the possibility of their existence (presumes that they don't exist or are irrelevant), which I dislike.

Devils_Advocate
2010-02-14, 06:30 PM
Does the d20 system presume that Unprincipled (http://wadesigns.net/rifts/Alignment.html) doesn't exist or is irrelevant? It seems more accurate to say that it simply doesn't use that category. Likewise with 4E, LE, and CG. See? Hee hee.

Tiki Snakes
2010-02-14, 09:06 PM
Does the d20 system presume that Unprincipled (http://wadesigns.net/rifts/Alignment.html) doesn't exist or is irrelevant? It seems more accurate to say that it simply doesn't use that category. Likewise with 4E, LE, and CG. See? Hee hee.

Actually, by strictly what they are described as covering, CG and LE are probably more accurately placed as G and E than anything.

(Though personally I simply trim off LG and CE, and treat anything less than exalted or vile as unaligned.)

hamishspence
2010-02-15, 05:33 AM
So, they're cruel to their enemies but kind to their friends? How Neutral of them. I hope they like Acheron.

Not really. Cruelty tends to lead to evil alignment- whether the victims are your enemies or not.

Savage Species, Champions of Ruin, Fiendish Codex 2, BoED- all these support this.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-15, 05:54 AM
So, they're cruel to their enemies but kind to their friends? How Neutral of them. I hope they like Acheron.

Actually... it's not Neutral. Evil people can have friends and still be evil, they don't have to be Xykon.


However, that's a change from the DMG and the SRD. Furthermore, the individual descriptions of the Inner Planes in the MotP don't list this trait, even though they list the Normal Time and Infinite Size traits common to all of the Inner Planes. Maybe it's a mistake?

Well, mildly neutral-aligned would seem reasonable and likely. The Far Realm is specified as having no alignment trait because it "has no connection to morals or ethics" (after all, it is a realm of insanity).

There's also the fact that a lot of the descriptions in the SRD don't mention gravity traits, for planes which have gravity like the Elemental Plane of Fire, or time traits. You're generally meant to assume "as Material Plane except as noted" IIRC.

Devils_Advocate
2010-02-15, 06:04 PM
Cruelty tends to lead to evil alignment- whether the victims are your enemies or not.
Yeah, and kindness tends to lead to Good alignment, and Neutral people tend to be committed to others by personal relationships.

Amiel
2010-02-15, 10:26 PM
It's interesting that you say humans tend towards no alignment...or alignments in equal variance, how would you explain Zarus (LE human xenophobic supremacist, and with predominately LE worshippers); he's a greater deity, which would mean an enormous worshipper base.

hamishspence
2010-02-16, 03:36 AM
Yeah, and kindness tends to lead to Good alignment, and Neutral people tend to be committed to others by personal relationships.

The above two are meaningless without context. Kind to some + exceptionally cruel to others, is Evil, not Neutral.

In the same way, "committed to others by personal relationships" isn't much help, unless you know how the person behaves toward their enemies, and toward people they don't have a personal relationship toward.

An evil person might make sacrifices for their friends, or their spouse, or their children- and still be Evil.

Optimystik
2010-02-16, 07:31 AM
It's interesting that you say humans tend towards no alignment...or alignments in equal variance, how would you explain Zarus (LE human xenophobic supremacist, and with predominately LE worshippers); he's a greater deity, which would mean an enormous worshipper base.

"Worship" in D&D does not mean what you think it means.

Many Evil gods are venerated out of fear, rather than devotion - but those mortals that merely pay them lip service still count when determining their divine rank.

Example - Sailors hate Umberlee, but very few of them will not pray to ward her away before they set sail. The same is true for Beshaba, Talos, Bane etc.

And this is all from Faerun, with the least gray morality of any D&D setting.

Amiel
2010-02-16, 08:34 AM
"Worship" in D&D does not mean what you think it means.

Wrong, it still exactly means what it think it means.
Worship and venerate (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/venerate) are used interchangeably; a synonym for venerate is fear. And it's perfectly logical for any deity to be 'adored' out of fear; in fact, many D&D deities demand it.


[...] but those mortals that merely pay them lip service still count when determining their divine rank.

Not so, paying any deity lip service does not inflate or diminish their divine rank; in fact, paying lip service to any deity in D&D terms does nothing. You need to an active worshipper, a participant in that deity's congregation for any numerical changes to divine rank to occur; otherwise, those settings and deities that depend on mortals would be vastly more powerful than they are.


Example - Sailors hate Umberlee, but very few of them will not pray to ward her away before they set sail. The same is true for Beshaba, Talos, Bane etc.

You forget that Umberlee is still an intermediate deity, a deity with a relatively small worshipper base. It means sense that sailors hate Umberlee and only offer lip service prayers with no overall effect. It's been documented many times that she still drowns or ravages the ships of even those who do pray to her. She's the Bitch Queen after all.
She is also concerned with a sphere of influence beyond sailors; oceans, currents, waves, sea winds.

And all this not only applies to Umberlee, it holds true for all other Faerunian deities, and indeed other D&D deities.

Then there are deities that don't depend on worshippers.

Optimystik
2010-02-16, 08:47 AM
Wrong, it still exactly means what it think it means.
Worship and venerate (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/venerate) are used interchangeably; a synonym for venerate is fear. And it's perfectly logical for any deity to be 'adored' out of fear; in fact, many D&D deities demand it.

Quoting the dictionary does you no good in a D&D context.

Since you aren't taking my word for it, here's WotC's instead:


Individuals - both clerics and laity - generally follow one deity of a loose pantheon above all others, choosing one as a patron deity. Because each deity is the undisputed master of all things relating to his or her portfolio, however, lay believers often devote prayers and sacrifices to other gods than their patrons, as long as those other gods are not direct enemies of their patrons. Even a devout follower of Heironeous would do well to make an offering to Fharlanghn before setting out on a journey, for example, and might offer prayers to Wee Jas at a funeral. No self-respecting devotee of Heironeous would consider making a sacrifice to Hextor, however, because Heironeous and Hextor are mortal enemies.


Not so, paying any deity lip service does not inflate or diminish their divine rank; in fact, paying lip service to any deity in D&D terms does nothing. You need to an active worshipper, a participant in that deity's congregation for any numerical changes to divine rank to occur; otherwise, those settings and deities that depend on mortals would be vastly more powerful than they are.

[citation needed]


You forget that Umberlee is still an intermediate deity, a deity with a relatively small worshipper base. It means sense that sailors hate Umberlee and only offer lip service prayers with no overall effect. It's been documented many times that she still drowns or ravages the ships of even those who do pray to her. She's the Bitch Queen after all.
She is also concerned with a sphere of influence beyond sailors; oceans, currents, waves, sea winds.

She is intermediate for a reason - how many people in the entire world actually sail for a living? And recall that by the rules above, any direct servants of Shaundakul cannot and will not venerate her at all. (Nor do they need to, since he will provide protection from her wrath.)

Amiel
2010-03-01, 11:34 PM
Quoting the dictionary does you no good in a D&D context.

Why? :smallconfused: Usually where there is disagreement in word meaning or word semantics, it is the dictionary that clears up any confusion. In this case, all meanings within the D&D context fall within the definitions provided by the dictionary.


[citation needed]


Actually, it seems I was wrong. It's even worse than that.
This is what happens in the Forgotten Realms


[...]The Faithless firmly denied any faith or only gave lip service to the gods for most of their lives without truly believing[...]All Faithless receive the same punishment. They form a living wall around the City of Judgment, held together by a supernatural greenish mold. This mold prevents them from escaping and eventually breaks down their substance until their soul and its consciousness are dissolved.

Emphasis mine.


She is intermediate for a reason - how many people in the entire world actually sail for a living? And recall that by the rules above, any direct servants of Shaundakul cannot and will not venerate her at all. (Nor do they need to, since he will provide protection from her wrath.)

Yes, the reasons for which I already stated above; lack of veneration (her small worshipper base) and her general horribleness (being needlessly malicious).
I'm unsure what the relevance of bringing Shaundakul to this discussion is.

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 03:31 AM
Deities & Demigods suggests that "people with no patron deity" merely wander the Fugue Plane, whereas the Faithless are those who "actively opposed the worship of the gods"

Amiel
2010-03-02, 03:39 AM
Deities & Demigods suggests that "people with no patron deity" merely wander the Fugue Plane,

I'm not sure you can reconcile the two (Forgotten Realms and "standard"); considering how they're entirely different cosmologies.


whereas the Faithless are those who "actively opposed the worship of the gods"

What? :smallconfused:
There is a difference between only giving lip service without truly believing and "actively opposed to the worship of the gods"
Even demagogues and iconoclasts fall within a different category.

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 03:45 AM
It was in the section of Deities and Demigods that discussed Faerun afterlives-

"In Faerun, those with no patron deity wander the Fugue Plane- whereas those who actively oppose the worship of the deities are imprisoned in the Wall of the Faithless"

Amiel
2010-03-02, 04:15 AM
That's very interesting; it seems to directly contradict at least one statement already established in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. What you are describing seems to evoke the False (rather than the Faithless as above), those who intentionally betrayed a faith they believed in (in other words, active opposition to worship). They were punished according to their crimes in life.
The fate of the Faithless, of those who had firmly denied any faith, seem to have it easier. They get to wander the Fugue Plane, whereas previously they were imprisoned within the wall.

Incidently, those who actively oppose the worship of deities can be interpreted in several different ways.

Which is the correct interpretation? D&DG is too generic and unfocused for the material to be directly transferable to the Forgotten Realms. Not to mention the cosmology established in the Manual of the Planes and adhered to in Deities and Demigods is inconsistent with that of the Forgotten Realms.

What does Faiths and Pantheons have to say, I wonder?

What happens to those who only pay lip service without truly believing?

magic9mushroom
2010-03-02, 04:24 AM
What happens to those who only pay lip service without truly believing?

There's a difference between "believing" and "worshipping properly". I'd say that just about everyone in Faerun believes in the Gods, seeing as they're, y'know, obviously there.

Amiel
2010-03-02, 04:28 AM
Especially since with worshipping properly, you needn't actually need to believe...

I'd actually say more people pay lip service without actively truly believing. That's why the worshipper base of some deities is still small, otherwise the Forgotten Realms would be overwhelmed with greater deities.
It's not like the average layperson knows what's in store for them in the afterlife.


The one who only pays lip service may still have a patron deity, only the degree of worship or veneration is dissimilar to that of a member of a deity's congregation.

magic9mushroom
2010-03-02, 04:36 AM
Especially since with worshipping properly, you needn't actually need to believe...

I'd actually say more people pay lip service without actively truly believing. That's why the worshipper base of some deities is still small, otherwise the Forgotten Realms would be overwhelmed with greater deities.
It's not like the average layperson knows what's in store for them in the afterlife.


The one who only pays lip service may still have a patron deity, only the degree of worship or veneration is dissimilar to that of a member of a deity's congregation.

In a world like Faerun, you've got to be pretty wilfully ignorant to be an atheist.

Amiel
2010-03-02, 04:54 AM
Atheist =/= paying lip service without actively believing.
Atheist also =/= no patron deity; one could be believe in concepts or in archdevils or demon princes.
Finally, atheist =/= no belief.

As for those are willfully ignorant; there's Artemis Entreri (high intelligence and wisdom), Jarlaxle (high intelligence and wisdom). The deities in Faerun are portrayed as extraordinarily powerful, yes; but also as extremely fallible and human-like. To some, this question remains, what divinity is worthy of respect?

If all Faerunians at least believed in a deity, and were not willfully ignorant as you say, and as divine ranks in the Forgotten Realms are directly influenced by the number of worshippers, it is logical that there would be many more powerful deities. But this is not the case.

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 05:02 AM
The False are those whose patron deity has rejected them- usually because their actions have severely offended the deity.

If Deities & Demigods, rather than FRCS, is taken as a guideline, to be "The Faithless" requires a bit more active behaviour than just not worshipping gods.

The Athar in Planescape, if members exist in Faerun, would be a prime candidate for people who are "The Faithless"

Amiel
2010-03-02, 05:13 AM
The False are those whose patron deity has rejected them- usually because their actions have severely offended the deity.

Or it could be taken to mean that the False actively renounces the deity in question. Rather, it is the False who abandons the deity; by being so willing to intentionally betray them. Cause and effect, if there is no cause, there would be no effect; the deity would be not be so severely offended by their actions if they did not commit any treason to begin with.
Hence, the False should be the Faithless; they actively oppose the worship of a deity.


If Deities & Demigods, rather than FRCS, is taken as a guideline, to be "The Faithless" requires a bit more active behaviour than just not worshipping gods.

Yes, and this is the bit that would contradict the established sentence; not only is there content contradiction, additions are applied.


The Athar in Planescape, if members exist in Faerun, would be a prime candidate for people who are "The Faithless"

Agreed. Have fun in Faerun, athars.

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 05:17 AM
The novels seem to go with it being the deity doing the rejecting- in the sense that the person doesn't actually have to act against the deity- they just have to not be devoted enough- result- they are put with The False for judgement.

In Prince of Lies, a character who considers himself to be a devotee of Torm- but has never acted in a fashion appropriate for one- is deemed one of the False. He appeals, Torm turns up to try and see if he's enough of a devotee- but he fails the test.

Cyric has the character delivered to The Wall of the Faithless- telling Torm "I know he's not one of them- but I want you to know you made it worse for him by butting in"

Amiel
2010-03-02, 05:22 AM
Ah, but novels usually have author interpretation of D&D rules. The Drizzt saga are also novels, but it's difficult to reconcile the fluff into actual D&D mechanics. Not to mention, many novels may have actions taken that seem to be inconsistent with mechanical rules or fluff.
Stories are told for the sake of the story, rather than any solid or strict adherence to rules readings.

Possibly the same would be true of the example you have given.

hamishspence
2010-03-02, 05:23 AM
Possibly. Its one of the more notable examples of showing what counts as The False, and what The Faithless, though.

magic9mushroom
2010-03-02, 06:03 AM
Finally, atheist =/= no belief.

On the contrary; an atheist IS someone who doesn't believe in gods. The word literally derives from "no god".

Eldan
2010-03-02, 06:56 AM
Agreed. Have fun in Faerun, athars.

The dickish behaviour of the faerunian deities makes them one of the prime targets of ATHARRR RAAAGE!

I mean, really. "Worship one of us, or end up nailed to a wall which dissolves you. We are even nice enough to let you choose which one you want to worship."

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-02, 11:24 AM
The dickish behaviour of the faerunian deities makes them one of the prime targets of ATHARRR RAAAGE!

I mean, really. "Worship one of us, or end up nailed to a wall which dissolves you. We are even nice enough to let you choose which one you want to worship."

I try to ignore it and play along because if I'm not careful then my characters Epic Motivation would be to KILL ALL GODS. The time has come for them to pay for their petty tyranies! It is the duty of all sentient life to rail against the uncaring stars!

It'd just feel a little like an act of vandalism towards the poor DM's campaign, or get me in trouble, or generally annoy people.

But it's so clearly the only worthwhile goal for people in such a setting, really.

Starting with Ao.

chiasaur11
2010-03-02, 12:33 PM
I try to ignore it and play along because if I'm not careful then my characters Epic Motivation would be to KILL ALL GODS. The time has come for them to pay for their petty tyranies! It is the duty of all sentient life to rail against the uncaring stars!

It'd just feel a little like an act of vandalism towards the poor DM's campaign, or get me in trouble, or generally annoy people.

But it's so clearly the only worthwhile goal for people in such a setting, really.

Starting with Ao.

Quite right and proper.

Unfortunate hpw the ability to do that sort of thing was removed from Mask of the Betrayer.

I mean, there might be an excuse for Ao...

If someone other than Myrkul built the wall.

Drakyn
2010-03-02, 12:38 PM
Quite right and proper.

Unfortunate hpw the ability to do that sort of thing was removed from Mask of the Betrayer.

I mean, there might be an excuse for Ao...

If someone other than Myrkul built the wall.

I actually whined a bit about MotB's ending a few months ago when I finished it, and was told that Obsidian originally DID want there to be an ending with the Wall getting torn down, but were forced otherwise (with 4th edition around the corner removing it ANYWAYS >_<). Is there any more info on that? I'm curious as to what could've been.

Blackfang108
2010-03-02, 01:50 PM
I should probably also mention that Alignment is very setting specific. In a world where virtues such as greed, avarice and cruelty are valued higher than generosity and kindness (such as in a Drow campaign), obviously there's going to be a greater percentage of Evil people than Good. Just something to consider if you're using a setting other than the "D&D Generic" setting.

But... Greed IS Good!