PDA

View Full Version : Replacements for an alignment system?



Horoar
2010-10-25, 04:18 PM
I find that in general our groups Moral Relativism doesn't sit so well with the traditional idea of alignments. Whether this be D&D's dual axis system, or a mono axis karma system. They just don't feel right.
And they become problematic when classes have alignment restrictions.

While I agree that a paladin should be held to a higher standard than the rogue, the alignment system doesn't feel right.

I'm running an Ad Hoc homebrew so I can ignore any cannon that I don't like.

Does anyone have any ideas for replacements? I don't really mind them too much as an RPing aid.

Kylarra
2010-10-25, 04:23 PM
Well the paladin has a built-in CoC, so you don't really have to care about alignment if you don't want to, insofar as being held to higher standards than a rogue anyway.

hamishspence
2010-10-25, 04:30 PM
The Color system of Magic The Gathering might be an interesting variant.

WarKitty
2010-10-25, 04:33 PM
I've basically made the paladin closer to the cleric in feel. Paladins are beholden to uphold the tenents of their god and may not directly take actions that would oppose that god's morality. This does require the paladin variants to be in play.

hamishspence
2010-10-25, 04:39 PM
If the PCs all tend to be moral relativists- they could still be aligned- it's just that their moral relativism manifests in different ways.

A Neutral Good PC might use moral relativism as a reason to be merciful toward their enemies on a "these evil deeds are not so evil when done by people who believe the deeds to be Good by their own cultural standards"

In this case it would be "how evil a deed is depends, at least in some part, on how the people doing them feel about such deeds"- partial moral relativism combined with cultural relativism- rather than total moral relativism.

Callista
2010-10-25, 04:39 PM
You can, if you want, remove the alignment system altogether and let the players hold themselves to their own standards. Regarding paladins, clerics, and characters who have taken oaths of allegiance--since you're running the gameworld, you're running the gods and the kings of that gameworld. But I wouldn't do this unless you really, really trust yourself not to screw your players over.

It does take some changes: Detect spells would no longer work, and alignment-associated planes might have different effects; schools of magic and clerics might work differently. In general, though, it can be done, if you really hate alignment that much.

The thing I like about explicit alignments is that they allow you a shorthand for who is likely to be on what side--you probably won't have a Good king allied with an evil dragon unless there's coercion involved; your chaotic freedom fighter probably won't be making contracts with Mechanus. There's a very general expectation of ethical and moral values depending on alignment as well, though of course that can change as character development happens. It's a simplification that allows for a more idealistic world (though still a very frightening one where souls can be used as currency or evil spellcasters can live forever as liches...). Maybe you don't like idealism in your stories; if so, it could be a useful thing to take out alignment.

There's an in-between option; you could just decide that alignment doesn't matter, and you don't care whether your players put an alignment down on their character sheets; however, they need to have a background written for their character so you know what their personality is like.

You don't have to remove alignment to solve problems related to alignment. As a DM, I require both the background and the alignment, but the PCs are free to change alignment anytime--I don't hold with having it as a straitjacket, and I don't penalize players whose characters stray out of alignment requirements. If a character does end up changing alignments to something that his class doesn't allow, I won't gimp his character for it--either I'll allow for Atonement spells (and associated quests in some cases) or else I'll allow a rebuild somewhat like the Paladin/Blackguard switch; for example, a cleric switching alignments can pick a new deity and new domains. That kind of thing. I do like alignments; but that one effect has never been particularly useful for me, so in general I want to make sure that being a certain class doesn't limit your character development.

Raum
2010-10-25, 04:44 PM
Does anyone have any ideas for replacements? I don't really mind them too much as an RPing aid.Do you really need a replacement? I think I played AD&D without alignments far more often than with...

As for the paladin, just have him choose a code he must follow. As long as the code meets the god's agenda and provides a few actual limitations, it should be fine.

Horoar
2010-10-25, 04:49 PM
I might keep them around as a purely descriptive attribute rather than a prescriptive thing.
And just ignoring it seems to have worked fine up until this point.

Also why do I need to know what the characters personalities are like. I just present them with a situation and watch as they decide what to do.

EDIT: The want of a replacement is because it's pretty... 'built in' to the game what with it being based on High Fantasy and all.

hamishspence
2010-10-25, 04:51 PM
One way of looking at it is- personality comes first, alignment comes second. The GM decides what the characters alignments are- after seeing how the characters tend to respond to various situations.

Callista
2010-10-25, 04:52 PM
I might keep them around as a purely descriptive attribute rather than a prescriptive thing.They were never meant to be prescriptive. Alignments change as the characters' personalities change.


Also why do I need to know what the characters personalities are like. I just present them with a situation and watch as they decide what to do.Because otherwise you get players who don't think about who their characters are beyond the set of stats on their character sheet.

WitchSlayer
2010-10-25, 04:53 PM
Eh, Alignments are more graphs than solid "You're this and only this" anyway

Horoar
2010-10-25, 04:55 PM
Well it seems like much of my issues may have stemmed from my interpretations then.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-25, 04:56 PM
Just use the Nine Alignments System as a RP aid and remove all in-game effects that rely on Alignment. Or replace those in-game effects with "Tainted" and "Holy" (for G/E) and "Order" and "Chaos" (for L/C) descriptors for exceptional creatures.

For example, Holy will affect "Tainted" descriptor creatures, ignore "Holy" descriptor creatures and affect everyone else as if they were Neutral. Angels and divine-powered characters of "good" Gods count as "Holy" while Demons/Devils and divine-powered characters of "evil" Gods count as "Tainted."

EDIT: IMHO, the sort of "alignment debates" you see online are the exception, not the rule. I've yet to meet a person IRL who has trouble parsing the SRD desription of Alignment; chances are you're capable of reading it correctly as well.

Don't take the sort of arguments you see hereabouts as evidence that Alignment is broken; if it works for you, there's no problem. If it doesn't work for you, either ditch it or replace it with my suggestion above.

Horoar
2010-10-25, 05:01 PM
I suppose it can live. My main issue with alignments is generaly more a CRPG thing anyway. Who is my computer to pass moral judgement on me?

I'll just ignore it anyway.

prufock
2010-10-25, 05:05 PM
Mutants and Masterminds allegiance system is a good alternative. You choose ideals, morals, groups, people, causes, whatever to which you are loyal. You could choose good, law, evil, or chaos, but you don't have to. Porting it to D&D, the alignment-restrictive classes could still work, they'd just have an alignment allegiance. But it's much more flexible than that. In M&M you can have up to 3 allegiances. You can have none, if you want. They're also subject to priority - so one allegiance may be stronger than another. They can change over time.

The-Mage-King
2010-10-25, 05:08 PM
Yeah, try Lord Gareth's variant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136177) made with the MtG color system. Looks solid to me.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-25, 05:10 PM
Law and Order can be entirely replaced by Crazy and Love of Pie. Those two attributes are all you need to properly define the morality of an individual.

Susano-wo
2010-10-25, 05:15 PM
pre-ninja'd by Oracle Hunter

basically, the only reason you 'need' alignment in DnD is the spells and abilities that function off of them (which are really cheapened when even sort of evil people get called 'Evil.' Holy Smite! take that you selfish dude!). So if you subsitute something like what Oracle Hunter posted, and simply udjudicate as makes sense, then you'll be fine.

Kaervaslol
2010-10-25, 05:19 PM
What I tend to do is leave aligments up to play. So everyone starts without an aligment and they develop it through play.

Of course as the DM I decide what's your aligment after you actions.

I also use 3 aligments only: chaotic, lawful and neutral.

WarKitty
2010-10-25, 05:26 PM
Just use the Nine Alignments System as a RP aid and remove all in-game effects that rely on Alignment. Or replace those in-game effects with "Tainted" and "Holy" (for G/E) and "Order" and "Chaos" (for L/C) descriptors for exceptional creatures.

For example, Holy will affect "Tainted" descriptor creatures, ignore "Holy" descriptor creatures and affect everyone else as if they were Neutral. Angels and divine-powered characters of "good" Gods count as "Holy" while Demons/Devils and divine-powered characters of "evil" Gods count as "Tainted."

EDIT: IMHO, the sort of "alignment debates" you see online are the exception, not the rule. I've yet to meet a person IRL who has trouble parsing the SRD desription of Alignment; chances are you're capable of reading it correctly as well.

Don't take the sort of arguments you see hereabouts as evidence that Alignment is broken; if it works for you, there's no problem. If it doesn't work for you, either ditch it or replace it with my suggestion above.

You should meet my group. We've had some pretty long discussions trying to make the alignment-restricted classes playable without leading to long arguments between the player and the DM.

Horoar
2010-10-25, 05:27 PM
I present a grey and gray world so passing judgment in my players seems abominable. Even if it's only on the Law vs Chaos Axis.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-25, 05:31 PM
I've never seen a paladin or other character with an alignment based CoC in play WITHOUT alignment debates coming up. They may or may not be friendly, and they may not wreck the game, but inevitably, people differ in opinion over which is which, and of course, squabble over it.

It only gets worse if theres a danger of the pally falling. See, the player of the pally will almost never do things he knows will cause him to fall, because he wants to play a pally, not a feat-less fighter. So, anything that someone else thinks might cause him to fall is going to cause an argument, with fairly high stakes for him.

It gets even messier if anyone else wants him to fall.

Dust
2010-10-25, 05:32 PM
Awesome --- Reliable

Horoar
2010-10-25, 05:39 PM
Awesome --- Reliable

Can't I rely on someone to be awesome?

dsmiles
2010-10-25, 06:12 PM
Did I miss my cue?

Sorry. *AHEM*

WoD has the nature and demeanor system which I find better represents a character than either the 9-point or the new 5-point alignment system.

*Takes bow*

Thank you, carry on. :smallbiggrin:

John Campbell
2010-10-25, 06:16 PM
The way my group handles it, alignment just goes away for everything but a few strongly-aligned beings... outsiders with alignment subtypes, deities with alignment domains, and their works, basically. Things detect [alignment] spells, holy word and its ilk, (un)holy/anarchic/axiomatic weapons, and so on, work only on those beings. Other effects are simply generalized to work regardless of alignment... protection from [alignment] and magic circle against [alignment] just become protection and magic circle of protection.

Clerics, paladins, and similar divinely-powered types have to follow a deity, from whom they receive their powers, and are expected to behave according to their deity's standards (which replaces any stock code of conduct with a more specific deity-appropriate one). If their deity is strongly aligned, their aura reflects their deity's alignment. (Our cleric follows Haela Brightaxe, who has the Chaos and Good domains, so she detects as Chaotic Good, regardless of her behaviour (and even though she actually chose the Luck and War domains)... unless she gets far enough out of line that Haela revokes Her blessings.)

Any cleric can choose either positive or negative channeling, like a Neutral under standard rules... though one or the other might be strongly indicated for clerics of some deities. e.g., A cleric of a healing god needs a darn good reason to choose negative channeling.

Paladins can follow any deity, regardless of alignment, though one that provides extreme motivation in some direction or another is suggested. Powers may be tweaked a little depending on the exact deity. One consistent change is that Smite works on anything the paladin feels needs to be smote... but willful misuse of it will result in falling.

And, yeah, this means that followers of evil deities are likely to be a lot less restricted in their behaviour than followers of good deities. No one said being good would be easy.

And as for everyone else... well, see sig:

mucat
2010-10-25, 06:57 PM
Mutants and Masterminds allegiance system is a good alternative. You choose ideals, morals, groups, people, causes, whatever to which you are loyal. You could choose good, law, evil, or chaos, but you don't have to. Porting it to D&D, the alignment-restrictive classes could still work, they'd just have an alignment allegiance. But it's much more flexible than that. In M&M you can have up to 3 allegiances. You can have none, if you want. They're also subject to priority - so one allegiance may be stronger than another. They can change over time.

D20 Modern has he allegiance system too, and I think it works a lot better then alignments. By "works better" I mean that reading a character's allegiances tells you more about them, and gives far more roleplay hooks, than reading their alignment. Two characters could both be Lawful Neutral under the standard alignment system, but one whose allegiances are to "The Empire of Foo, the honor of my family, and the preservation of art," will play very differently from one whose allegiances are "The advancement of magic, universal literacy, and gender equality".

RagnaroksChosen
2010-10-25, 07:32 PM
we do it slightly different. We keep the alignment system. However Players submit to the gm what they want there characters alignment to be(generaly this is how they precive there characters) then through out game play generaly the Gm may shift the alignments as needed, and generaly players play they way they want there character to act and it allows the mechanics to not be tweeked with. Though we generaly toss out alot of the alignment restrions as far as loosing powers imidiatly for violating alignment restrictions and make it a more drawn out. (for example, we had a paladin in our last group who pritty much was playing a grey gaurd with out the PRC. Slowly over the course of 5-6 sessions his alignment went from LG to LE as his character commited more evil acts[mostly smiting and killing "heretics"], though the pc didn't relise untill another paladin rel;ised what was going on and his smite worked on the pc, it was very fun)

Little more work on the GM's part but i think it adds to it.

OldTrees
2010-10-25, 07:46 PM
The MTG color wheel as mentioned before is a perfect system to use. It bases conflict off differing core values (cultural relativism).

Here are some sources to gauge color affiliation

Tests
1 Color (http://www.wizards.com/magic/playmagic/whatcolorareyou.asp)
2 Colors (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/toys/testgen/5261/)
3 Colors (http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=246516)

The colors in detail
Red (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr133)
Green (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr43)
White (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr57)
Blue (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr84)
Black (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr109)

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-26, 01:43 AM
You should meet my group. We've had some pretty long discussions trying to make the alignment-restricted classes playable without leading to long arguments between the player and the DM.
Really, I've found that restricting said argument to the SRD text is a fine way to resolve these issues.

RANT
Too often someone will say "good means X" or "evil means Y" without providing any citation in support. That's fine for philosophical discussions, but Alignment is a game mechanic that deals with defined terms. One might as well try to adjudicate HP loss by having a DM say "I think losing 8 HP is like losing an arm" and the player say "I think it's more like stubbing a toe" - you get people talking past each other and resolving nothing.

Next time someone argues that a given Alignment means a certain thing, have them cite language in the SRD that supports their position. If you disagree, you can at least talk around mutually agreed terms (i.e. the RAW) instead of having airy discussions on the true nature of Good and Evil :smallsigh:
If the above is helpful, I'm glad I said it. If not - or if you like having these lengthy arguments - just ignore it and assume I'm a crazy old man or something. People on the Internat are no reason to change behavior you otherwise enjoy :smallsmile:

Mastikator
2010-10-26, 03:20 AM
Replace the absolutes with arbitraries. Paladins don't have to be lawful good, they have to be pious and chivalrous because it's a part of their religion. They can still call themselves good. And if they fall it's because their deity doesn't like what they're doing, not because it's "evil".
Detect/smite evil can be detect/smite disbeliever (which doesn't necessarily need to be anyone who isn't a paladin, it could be someone who worships an enemy deity or breaks a important religious rule).

Also you can use culture, reputation and commandments of deities instead. It should come naturally to moral relativists and nihilists.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 06:38 AM
Really, I've found that restricting said argument to the SRD text is a fine way to resolve these issues.

Too often someone will say "good means X" or "evil means Y" without providing any citation in support. That's fine for philosophical discussions, but Alignment is a game mechanic that deals with defined terms. One might as well try to adjudicate HP loss by having a DM say "I think losing 8 HP is like losing an arm" and the player say "I think it's more like stubbing a toe" - you get people talking past each other and resolving nothing.

Next time someone argues that a given Alignment means a certain thing, have them cite language in the SRD that supports their position. If you disagree, you can at least talk around mutually agreed terms (i.e. the RAW) instead of having airy discussions on the true nature of Good and Evil.

The problem with restricting things to the SRD is that the various terms are very, very subject to interpretation.

SRD: Good implies respect for life and dignity.

Hypothesis- an "act that shows a lack of respect for life" or "an act that shows a lack or respect for dignity" is an evil act.

But, many people will say that it is possible to forfeit life, dignity, or both- thus, making an act that shows a lack of respect for the dignity of this particular person who has forfeited it, Not Evil.

Thus, torturing someone to death as a punishment for a crime, because "they have forfeited the right to both life and dignity" becomes "Not Evil".

The splatbooks at least provide explicit answers to some of these questions, rather than leaving it all up to the DM. BoED states torture, slavery, and discrimination are evil- and later books confirm this.

In Cityscape "slavery should be considered an evil by any good-aligned characters in the setting"
And "nations that practice discrimination in the law officially tend to be Lawful, ones that practice it unofficially tend to be Chaotic. No good nation permits this kind of discrimination"

And on torture, FC2 lists torture from non-damaging, to severely damaging, as a Corrupt act.

If you rely on the SRD alone, some DMs can say that torture is always an evil act, and others can say that it's often a nonevil act- and the SRD does not confirm one way or another which is the case.

WarKitty
2010-10-26, 08:00 AM
Really, I've found that restricting said argument to the SRD text is a fine way to resolve these issues.

RANT
Too often someone will say "good means X" or "evil means Y" without providing any citation in support. That's fine for philosophical discussions, but Alignment is a game mechanic that deals with defined terms. One might as well try to adjudicate HP loss by having a DM say "I think losing 8 HP is like losing an arm" and the player say "I think it's more like stubbing a toe" - you get people talking past each other and resolving nothing.

Next time someone argues that a given Alignment means a certain thing, have them cite language in the SRD that supports their position. If you disagree, you can at least talk around mutually agreed terms (i.e. the RAW) instead of having airy discussions on the true nature of Good and Evil :smallsigh:
If the above is helpful, I'm glad I said it. If not - or if you like having these lengthy arguments - just ignore it and assume I'm a crazy old man or something. People on the Internat are no reason to change behavior you otherwise enjoy :smallsmile:

Well there's two different issues that typically come up. One is the placement on the alignment system of the well-intentioned extremist. I've fielded characters that were capable of both making high personal sacrifices to further a good cause or protect innocent life, and at the same time rampantly slaughter innocents that were "obstructing the cause." The bigger arguments actually seem to come up surrounding law versus chaos though. A character with a strong personal commitment to a code of honor, but who resents the rulers of his land and takes every opportunity to defy them, is what alignment? Lumping all these into neutral tend to make "neutral" a catch-all term for "any character that doesn't exactly fit the SRD concepts."

The other problem, like I said, is that the arguments tend to come up around alignment-restricted classes. Can you have a paladin in a land ruled by an evil overlord that consciously works to aid the resistance? Can you have a druid (this is actually one that's come up for me) that believes the authority of humanoid rulers is nonsense and everyone should work towards good as they see fit, and is firmly committed to helping others even if it involves personal risk? You're supposed to play a character and not an alignment, but what do you do when your character and the alignment you're supposed to have come into conflict?

Eldan
2010-10-26, 08:03 AM
I present a grey and gray world so passing judgment in my players seems abominable. Even if it's only on the Law vs Chaos Axis.

In that case? Don't tell them their alignment.

dsmiles
2010-10-26, 08:08 AM
Well there's two different issues that typically come up. One is the placement on the alignment system of the well-intentioned extremist. I've fielded characters that were capable of both making high personal sacrifices to further a good cause or protect innocent life, and at the same time rampantly slaughter innocents that were "obstructing the cause." The bigger arguments actually seem to come up surrounding law versus chaos though. A character with a strong personal commitment to a code of honor, but who resents the rulers of his land and takes every opportunity to defy them, is what alignment? Lumping all these into neutral tend to make "neutral" a catch-all term for "any character that doesn't exactly fit the SRD concepts."

This is exactly why I prefer the term used in 4e. "Unaligned."


Unaligned
"Just let me go about my business."
If you’re unaligned, you don’t actively seek to harm others or wish them ill. But you also don’t go out of your way to put yourself at risk without some hope for reward. You support law and order when doing so benefits you. You value your own freedom, without worrying too much about protecting the freedom of others.
A few unaligned people, and most unaligned deities, aren’t undecided about alignment. Rather, they’ve chosen not to choose, either because they see the benefits of both good and evil or because they see themselves as above the concerns of morality. The Raven Queen and her devotees fall into the latter camp, believing that moral choices are irrelevant to their mission since death comes to all creatures regardless of alignment.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 09:32 AM
Well there's two different issues that typically come up. One is the placement on the alignment system of the well-intentioned extremist. I've fielded characters that were capable of both making high personal sacrifices to further a good cause or protect innocent life, and at the same time rampantly slaughter innocents that were "obstructing the cause."

This fits rather neatly into certain evil-aligned archetypes in Champions of Ruin.

Heroes of Horror does suggest that the "flexible Neutral antihero" will do minor Evil acts toward a Good cause- and lack the normal Neutral trait of "lack the commitment to make personal sacrifices to help strangers" in the PHB.

A trickier question is- how cruel does a person have to be toward the "not innocent" for their cruelty to override other Good or Neutral traits (like being unwilling to harm the innocent, and/or being willing to make personal sacrifices to help strangers, and give them an Evil alignment regardless of the assumption some people make that "anyone who is unwilling to harm the innocent for fun or profit, cannot be evil"?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-26, 09:45 AM
Well there's two different issues that typically come up. One is the placement on the alignment system of the well-intentioned extremist. I've fielded characters that were capable of both making high personal sacrifices to further a good cause or protect innocent life, and at the same time rampantly slaughter innocents that were "obstructing the cause." The bigger arguments actually seem to come up surrounding law versus chaos though. A character with a strong personal commitment to a code of honor, but who resents the rulers of his land and takes every opportunity to defy them, is what alignment? Lumping all these into neutral tend to make "neutral" a catch-all term for "any character that doesn't exactly fit the SRD concepts."
Well... I'll make a quick post here:

If you're having trouble parsing the SRD, the trick is to look for commonalities within the descriptions

Take Well-Intentioned Extremists for example:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
. . .
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Is your Extremist destroying or debasing Innocent life? Then Evil.
Does your Extremist have compunctions about killing the Innocent, but won't make personal sacrifices to save them? Then Neutral.
Does your Extremist protect Innocent life? Then Good.

An Extremist who "protects innocents" but then kills people who simply get in his way is Evil. If he tries to avoid killing Innocents, but will let them die "for the greater good" then Neutral. Few Well-Intentioned Extremists are Good, naturally.


The other problem, like I said, is that the arguments tend to come up around alignment-restricted classes. Can you have a paladin in a land ruled by an evil overlord that consciously works to aid the resistance? Can you have a druid (this is actually one that's come up for me) that believes the authority of humanoid rulers is nonsense and everyone should work towards good as they see fit, and is firmly committed to helping others even if it involves personal risk? You're supposed to play a character and not an alignment, but what do you do when your character and the alignment you're supposed to have come into conflict?
Take another look at L/C

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

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Bolded for emphasis.

A Paladin in an Evil society needs to "respect authority and honor tradition" but does not need to follow it; Chaotic creatures, on the other hand, are innately hostile to this sort of "received wisdom" and won't follow it unless it was their idea. In an Evil society, the Paladin can still be a freedom fighter, but he's not going to be an iconoclast: he will focus his efforts on organizing a new Order rather than just tearing down the existing one.

The Druid example can be NG. See SRD

A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.
You can ignore the whims of humanoid kings without being Chaotic - you just need to have a "normal respect for authority." An actual CG character cannot be a Druid in the same way that a NE character cannot be a Paladin - part of the class is the Alignment restriction.

The moral of the story is to pick an Alignment that fits your character. If Alignment Restrictions prevent you from having a particular Alignment/Class combination then you have two choices:

- play the concept with a different class
- change the concept to fit the class

Back in the day of TSR D&D a Class's Alignment Restriction was as much a part of the class as its HD or Saving Throws; speaking of a CG Druid or Paladin (or a CN Ranger!) was nonsensical. It was just How Things Were Done, but it admitedly made a lot more sense when your Class was who you are, not just a particular bundle of powers you can choose at a given level.

EDIT: Also, if it isn't clear - I don't see eye-to-eye with Hamishspence. IMHO, the Alignment Splatbooks and Easydamus are an incoherent mess that has done more to confuse the Nine Alignments System than clarify. If you need a good description of how Alignments work, the AD&D PHB's Alignment chapter is pure gold.

WarKitty
2010-10-26, 11:00 AM
See, my second example wasn't about character creation, it was about character development. I have a currently in play NG druid. Now, the way it seems natural for her to develop would be more and more "almost all humanoid rulers are idiots and ought to be brought down." But if I develop her that way and she turns chaotic, then I lose druidic powers. Even though as far as I can see that's a perfectly consistent view with everything else in the druidic code and what druids are supposed to stand for.

Basically, alignment restrictions encourage metagaming because they often don't make sense with the character fluff. I can't play a naturally developing character if I have to worry about whether my alignment is going to shift. Again, seems to come up primarily on the law/chaos axis rather than the good/evil axis.

And yes, we have gotten into long discussions on good/evil stuff as well. The latest one was whether a character that relied on deceit as an important tool in his or her job could be qualified as good.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-26, 11:15 AM
See, my second example wasn't about character creation, it was about character development. I have a currently in play NG druid. Now, the way it seems natural for her to develop would be more and more "almost all humanoid rulers are idiots and ought to be brought down." But if I develop her that way and she turns chaotic, then I lose druidic powers. Even though as far as I can see that's a perfectly consistent view with everything else in the druidic code and what druids are supposed to stand for.
And yes, we have gotten into long discussions on good/evil stuff as well. The latest one was whether a character that relied on deceit as an important tool in his or her job could be qualified as good.

Has every humanoid ruler been a idiot that she has met? What sample size does she have?
Deceit isn't innately evil: what he uses deceit for can be.

Same as a sword: they aren't evil, but if you use it for murder it can be.

mucat
2010-10-26, 11:23 AM
See, my second example wasn't about character creation, it was about character development. I have a currently in play NG druid. Now, the way it seems natural for her to develop would be more and more "almost all humanoid rulers are idiots and ought to be brought down." But if I develop her that way and she turns chaotic, then I lose druidic powers. Even though as far as I can see that's a perfectly consistent view with everything else in the druidic code and what druids are supposed to stand for.

Basically, alignment restrictions encourage metagaming because they often don't make sense with the character fluff. I can't play a naturally developing character if I have to worry about whether my alignment is going to shift. Again, seems to come up primarily on the law/chaos axis rather than the good/evil axis.

And yes, we have gotten into long discussions on good/evil stuff as well. The latest one was whether a character that relied on deceit as an important tool in his or her job could be qualified as good.
I agree with your general point, but I think the druid you describe could still be called Neutral Good. As is often pointed out, Law on the alignment axis might have nothing to do with society's laws. If your druid believes that nature works in understandable, systematic ways, and she takes a planned, organized approach to her campaign against human governments, then there's nothing especially necessarily Chaotic about her.

Now, if she emulates the thunderstorm, striking with unpredictable fury, wildly improvising every move as she makes it, and acting on the whim of the moment rather than detailed plans...then she's chaotic. And if she seeks to use these wild rampages to liberate and benefit living things, then she's Good. And frankly, a Chaotic Good character of that sort (or her Chaotic Evil counterpart) still sounds like a great character concept for a druid. So does the Lawful Good druid who believes very strongly that melding oneself to the orderly, predictable cycles of nature will lead to the greatest happiness for all life. (Or the Lawful Evil one who believes that same approach will lead to vast personal power.)

So yes, I agree that alignment restrictions on druids should be lifted. I just don't think your character sounds like she's in great danger of slipping from Neutral Good. Any alignment can overthrow a government; what matters is why and how.

WarKitty
2010-10-26, 11:24 AM
Has every humanoid ruler been a idiot that she has met? What sample size does she have?
Deceit isn't innately evil: what he uses deceit for can be.

Same as a sword: they aren't evil, but if you use it for murder it can be.

To be fair there's only like 3 or 4 major kingdoms in the continent. And the view could be better expressed as "large cities and empires are destructive; they should be brought down for the betterment of both nature and humanoids." Which from what she knows of history is a fair conclusion. But the alignment system doesn't have a place for the character's intentions really anyway.

On the law/chaos scale: whose definition of "legitimate authority" are we using? I've played chaotic characters that are capable of respecting what they consider legitimate authority, it's just that most authority figures are not on their view legitimate. A character that doesn't listen to anyone else and can't respect any authority at all is just plain stupid and immature - which I really doubt is what the SRD is intended to say. Same with a character that fails to make plans.

Edit: yes this has been an ongoing argument with my DM. He tends to view characters as shifted one step towards chaotic than what I view.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-26, 11:24 AM
See, my second example wasn't about character creation, it was about character development. I have a currently in play NG druid. Now, the way it seems natural for her to develop would be more and more "almost all humanoid rulers are idiots and ought to be brought down." But if I develop her that way and she turns chaotic, then I lose druidic powers. Even though as far as I can see that's a perfectly consistent view with everything else in the druidic code and what druids are supposed to stand for.
...except that the Druidic Code requires Neutrality in some aspect of your life :smalltongue:

Thems the breaks for playing a character whose class has an Alignment Requirement; you have to fight against your "natural" inclinations if you want to maintain the proper outlook on life. Character development is often about this kind of struggle - look at OotS for example.

EDIT: Chaotic characters do not respect "legitimate authority;" they respect other people that agree with the Chaotic character's personal viewpoint.

Again, SRD:

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Bolded for emphasis.

The distinction here is not minor: a Neutral person is happy to work with authority figures because they are authority figures - they respect that "authority figures" are intrinsically important, even if they don't feel a deep compulsion to swear allegiance to them. Chaotic people don't give a used fig about "authority figures;" nobody has special rights to order anyone else around. However, Chaotic people are more than happy to work with individuals towards mutual ends; it doesn't matter if that individual is a king or a pauper, so long as they're agreeable to the ends the Chaotic person chooses.

WarKitty
2010-10-26, 11:28 AM
...except that the Druidic Code requires Neutrality in some aspect of your life :smalltongue:

Thems the breaks for playing a character whose class has an Alignment Requirement; you have to fight against your "natural" inclinations if you want to maintain the proper outlook on life. Character development is often about this kind of struggle - look at OotS for example.

See that's the thing - I can't make sense of the alignment requirement in this case except as an Alignment Requirement. There's nothing in-game that I can point to and say "this is what I'm trying to uphold" that would lead me to maintaining the proper alignment. I can be upholding the natural order and everything that I can find that druids are supposed to be upholding and still fail to maintain the proper alignment. The only way to keep the alignment is to be conscious as a player of the alignment and adjust my character's development to fit that alignment (specifically my DM's idea of that alignment) rather than letting the character develop naturally. Which is by definition metagaming and bad roleplaying. My character shouldn't know whether she is Neutral or not, only whether or not she is upholding the proper viewpoint.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-26, 11:35 AM
See that's the thing - I can't make sense of the alignment requirement in this case except as an Alignment Requirement. There's nothing in-game that I can point to and say "this is what I'm trying to uphold" that would lead me to maintaining the proper alignment. I can be upholding the natural order and everything that I can find that druids are supposed to be upholding and still fail to maintain the proper alignment. The only way to keep the alignment is to be conscious as a player of the alignment and adjust my character's development to fit that alignment (specifically my DM's idea of that alignment) rather than letting the character develop naturally. Which is by definition metagaming and bad roleplaying. My character shouldn't know whether she is Neutral or not, only whether or not she is upholding the proper viewpoint.
The point of the Alignment Requirement is that it is telling you the sort of ethos that a given Class is trying to uphold.


A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities.
To wit, a druid's ethos has three planks

(1) Revere Nature
(2) Maintain an Alignment with at least one Neutral component
(3) Don't teach the Druidic Language to a nondruid

This is what the rules are telling you. You can elaborate on what each of these planks mean, but you must remain consistent with them.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 11:53 AM
If you need a good description of how Alignments work, the AD&D PHB's Alignment chapter is pure gold.

Including the bit that says true Neutral characters attack whatever side has gained the upper hand, and that Chaotic Neutral characters act like lunatics?

WarKitty
2010-10-26, 11:55 AM
The point of the Alignment Requirement is that it is telling you the sort of ethos that a given Class is trying to uphold.


To wit, a druid's ethos has three planks

(1) Revere Nature
(2) Maintain an Alignment with at least one Neutral component
(3) Don't teach the Druidic Language to a nondruid

This is what the rules are telling you. You can elaborate on what each of these planks mean, but you must remain consistent with them.

To me that second plank means nothing coherent in-game. A character should never be aware of something like "I need to maintain an alignment with at least one Neutral component." If you want to give a class an ethos, define it clearly in a concept that works in-game. And neutral is so ill-defined as to be meaningless; the way it's stated in the rules it's sort of a catch-all for "not something else." Particularly when you start equating neutrality on the law-chaos axis with neutrality on the good-evil axis.

Frankly I don't like fluff restrictions on classes anyway, but that's a whole new discussion (that we have already had at length).

mucat
2010-10-26, 11:56 AM
On the law/chaos scale: whose definition of "legitimate authority" are we using? I've played chaotic characters that are capable of respecting what they consider legitimate authority, it's just that most authority figures are not on their view legitimate.

To her, the laws of nature are the ultimate legitimate authority.

Besides, Law and Chaos do not necessarily have anything to do with authority, legitimate or otherwise. Respecting legitimate authority is an example of Lawful behavior, not its definition.

Imagine a powerful wizard, perhaps the most powerful in the world. He devotes himself to meticulously planned research, using every moment of his centuries-long life to the best possible advantage in uncovering the deepest secrets of magic. He sets impossibly strict and unforgiving standards for himself, and meets them. When he collaborates with others, the standards he sets for their work are nearly as high...not because he considers himself an authority over them, but simply because otherwise they are not worth his time.

He ignores princes, nations, and governments altogether; if they try to exert authority over him he brushes them off like annoying flies. He rarely harms anyone and rarely helps anyone, except in the sense that his work helps other seekers after knowledge like himself.

Could you possibly call this guy anything other than Lawful Neutral? Yet there's no authority in the world, or even in the Outer Planes, that he considers to have a legitimate say over his actions (or over anyone else's, for that matter.) The only laws that interest him are the Laws of Magic, and the strict standards he imposes on himself.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-26, 11:57 AM
Including the bit that says true Neutral characters attack whatever side has gained the upper hand, and that Chaotic Neutral characters act like lunatics?
Sure - for AD&D definitions of True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, those two have changed for the better - but everything else has remained the same.

All I can say is it's better than a source which says "Good people don't torture - except for Chaotic Good people, who only torture a teensy bit for reasons I won't explain" :smalltongue:

EDIT:
@Warkitty - then I don't know what to tell you; Alignment is as much an in-game concept as a Paladin's Detect Evil or a Rogue's Evasion. Might as well say "I don't understand why Druids can't wear metal armor" or "why can't Fighters cast spells."

mucat
2010-10-26, 12:03 PM
The point of the Alignment Requirement is that it is telling you the sort of ethos that a given Class is trying to uphold.


To wit, a druid's ethos has three planks

(1) Revere Nature
(2) Maintain an Alignment with at least one Neutral component
(3) Don't teach the Druidic Language to a nondruid

Everyone understands that. The question isn't what the rules say, but whether Plank #2 is actually good for the game or not.


This is what the rules are telling you. You can elaborate on what each of these planks mean, but you must remain consistent with them.Or you can change them.

So suppose someone presents a character who sounds like a flavorful druid who would be a great addition to the game, and can make a strong case for the character's general "druidiness" (by external understanding of the term, not by checking point-by-point against the SRD), but the character cannot exist under the game rues. That is an excellent moment to consider rewriting the rules.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 12:04 PM
So, what about a source which says nothing about whether using torture is something typical Good people are willing to do- and leaves it entirely up to the DM and player's interpretation of:

"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings"

which can be interpreted in many different ways? The SRD, to be precise.

Easydamus's:

Chaotic Good people are willing to "rough up" but will never use torture

is admittedly not very well phrased.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-26, 12:10 PM
Everyone understands that. The question isn't what the rules say, but whether Plank #2 is actually good for the game or not.
That's not what I'm hearing from Warkitty.

Anyhoo, I explained why Alignment Restrictions originally existed - in TSR D&D classes were lifestyles, not power-chunks; to be a Druid meant entering a vast Druidic conspiracy for life, not just gaining an Animal Companion and some spells. Part of the Druid Ethos was to seek balance in the world and in yourself -- you could not allow yourself to move fully to any one extreme (e.g. LG, CE).

In WotC D&D they make less sense due to the restructuring of the "class" concept, although (IMHO) tying Divine characters' alignments to their deities' still seems like a good idea. The point of my postings is to show that a Alignment Restrictions aren't arbitrary; they say something about what it means to be a particular class. You can't just wave your hands at it and say "but that's not what the class is about" without acknowledging that you are imposing your own private definition on a RAW concept.

EDIT:
@Hamishspense
My quip was to indicate that Easydamus baldly asserts positions that are untenable from a RAW perspective.
There is no principled way to argue that the L/C axis determinative in regards to the rightful application of torture. The G/E axis deals almost exclusively in terms of life & pain; if anything is going to determine whether a character is willing to torture it must hinge on this axis!

One might as well say "Lawful creatures respect authority - except for Lawful Evil ones, who occasionally 'bend the rules.'" Any Lawful Alignment may be willing to 'bend the rules" from time to time -- Evil people do it for personal gain, Neutral people do it for their friends, and Good people do it to protect Innocents.

dsmiles
2010-10-26, 12:11 PM
EDIT:
@Warkitty - then I don't know what to tell you; Alignment is as much an in-game concept as a Paladin's Detect Evil or a Rogue's Evasion. Might as well say "I don't understand why Druids can't wear metal armor" or "why can't Fighters cast spells."

I kind of side with Warkitty on this one. Alignment is a pretty meta- type of concept. In game people would be thought of as "a good person" or "a bad person" or "a downright evil bastich." Not as Lawful Good, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 12:15 PM
Is your Extremist destroying or debasing Innocent life? Then Evil.
Does your Extremist have compunctions about killing the Innocent, but won't make personal sacrifices to save them? Then Neutral.
Does your Extremist protect Innocent life? Then Good.

The phrasing was "debases or destroys innocent life, whether for fun or profit" in the PHB.

Which raises the question of whether destroying innocent life for reasons other than fun or profit qualifies as an evil act/symptom of evil alignment.

This was brought up a lot in the Conflicts of Rights thread- if you kill goblin parents who are attacking you, and as a result their children die of starvation, does this qualify as "destroying innocent life"? And if so, is it the sort of thing a paladin would be expected to punish, since paladins "punish those who harm or threaten the innocent"?

A more direct example would be if a bad guy casts Dominate Person, or one of its higher-level counterparts from Spell Compendium, on a bunch of innocent people, and sends them at you. To survive (and protect other innocents) you must kill these morally innocent attackers.

WarKitty
2010-10-26, 12:16 PM
EDIT:
@Warkitty - then I don't know what to tell you; Alignment is as much an in-game concept as a Paladin's Detect Evil or a Rogue's Evasion. Might as well say "I don't understand why Druids can't wear metal armor" or "why can't Fighters cast spells."

It is part of the game, yes. My issue is it's so ill-defined, at least with respect to neutrality, as to be meaningless. A CN and a NG character really don't have anything in common, even though there's an "N" in both of them. Further, neutrality can be either someone who is both extremes at once or someone who studiously avoids extremes.

Plus, the SRD descriptions are clear as mud to me. Respect for sentient life? I've found what that means varies wildly depending on who you talk to.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-26, 12:18 PM
I kind of side with Warkitty on this one. Alignment is a pretty meta- type of concept. In game people would be thought of as "a good person" or "a bad person" or "a downright evil bastich." Not as Lawful Good, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil.
If it's a meta-game concept, why do we have Planes of Alignment? Detect Evil? Or any of the dozens of in-game powers that key off of Alignment?

When you can cast Detect Law and Detect Good it is perfectly reasonable to say that Clerics know what the devil those terms mean! :smallsigh:

EDIT:

@Warkitty
Like I said before, I've never had an experience with someone IRL for whom Alignment was anything but crystal clear. Of course, I've never actually met someone who was confused about the alignments of the OotS characters either :smalltongue:

In part, I think it's because I insist on using the language of the SRD before having any Alignment discussion; mostly, I think it's because I never try to use Alignment as a straightjacket. There are precious few situations where "Alignment means you must do X" is true; Alignment is about broad strokes, not narrow stitching.

If you don't like or understand Alignment, don't use it; either get rid of it or replace it with something you like or understand. I think the Nine Alignment Systen is a valuable tool for character & world design and essential to the Heroic Fantasy genre, so I use it.

@Hamishspense
As I said, we don't see eye to eye on Alignment and never will. I think the SRD provides a complete and intelligible system of Alignment; you don't. I don't have the time to endlessly argue in circles anymore.

Also: as a theoretical exercise for a thread that asked the very question of "what is Necessary & Sufficient to be Evil" I distilled it down to that element. I showed my work there, and I refuse to show it again -- we argued it to death. The short answer is that the descriptions of Good, Neutral and Evil all have a single element in common - the treatment of Innocents - and therefore that element must be considered the Necessary condition for being Evil. This is a simple exercise in formal logic, which is the only sensible way to address the question posed.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 12:23 PM
There is no principled way to argue that the L/C axis determinative in regards to the rightful application of torture. The G/E axis deals almost exclusively in terms of life & pain; if anything is going to determine whether a character is willing to torture it must hinge on this axis!

And in a sense, it does- none of the Good alignments are willing to use actual torture, all of the Neutral alignments are willing to use torture for information, none of the Neutral alignments are willing to use torture for pleasure.


There are precious few situations where "Alignment means you must do X" is true; Alignment is about broad strokes, not narrow stitching.

In which case, how come you've said several times that the PHB gives a necessary condition for an Evil alignment?

(An Evil character must be willing to debase or destroy the innocent, whether for fun or profit)

WarKitty
2010-10-26, 12:27 PM
If it's a meta-game concept, why do we have Planes of Alignment? Detect Evil? Or any of the dozens of in-game powers that key off of Alignment?

When you can cast Detect Law and Detect Good it is perfectly reasonable to say that Clerics know what the devil those terms mean! :smallsigh:

@Warkitty - like I said before, I've never had an experience with someone IRL for whom Alignment was anything but crystal clear. Of course, I've never actually met someone who was confused about the alignments of the OotS characters either :smalltongue:

In part, I think it's because I insist on using the language of the SRD before having any Alignment discussion; mostly, I think it's because I never try to use Alignment as a straightjacket. There are precious few situations where "Alignment means you must do X" is true; Alignment is about broad strokes, not narrow stitching.

And I've never met someone IRL who thought they were anything but really muddy and confusing, so we're even there. :smalltongue: Especially when it comes to characters that can fall.

Jayabalard
2010-10-26, 12:38 PM
There's always the option to treat alignment as strictly being bound to those forces, and not anything to do with behaviors of the individual.

So, for example, being aligned with law and good may have nothing to do with your behaviors; you might be a sadistic serial killer, but you've gone through the rituals that bind you to the powers of good, and law, so you ping as lawful and as good for detect spells, and you'll be helped/harmed by spells that affect those alignments in specific ways.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 12:45 PM
There's already magical rituals that can allow you to gain alignment subtypes without actually changing alignment, in Savage Species.

However, the Monster Manual does seem to suggest that both apply- a Lawful Good succubus, for example, would ping as all four alignments, take full damage from all four Word spells, be unable to enter any aligned circle of protection, and so on.


The short answer is that the descriptions of Good, Neutral and Evil all have a single element in common - the treatment of Innocents - and therefore that element must be considered the Necessary condition for being Evil. This is a simple exercise in formal logic, which is the only sensible way to address the question posed.

Or, it's an assumption- during "logical" conclusions from statements that are not in fact 100% valid.

"Evil characters debase or destroy the innocent, whether for fun or profit" was converted to "Evil characters are willing to debase or destroy the innocent" in order to account for newborn chromatic dragons and people who had just had their alignment changed via something like a Helm of Opposite alignment, and then the assumption made, that both statements were intended to be absolute, and exclusive, rather than general.

Callista
2010-10-26, 12:48 PM
Yes, like the one-in-a-million (is that the ratio for "Always"? I forget) creatures who defy the odds--the Good red dragon, the Evil archon, etc. They're often the result of mind spells or conversion by exemplars of their alignments (there's rules for converting enemies in the BoED, and it's entirely possible for a mid-level Good character to convert something on the level of an imp with good reliability; I assume extremely evil characters can corrupt Good outsiders in much the same way). Plus, what if you were to raise that red dragon from an egg? Draconomicon apparently allows you to influence the way the dragon develops, though the checks are high (I don't have the book; can someone who does check for me?)

In any case, it's plain that alignment is not just a force like negative energy or fire; it's more like a force that is associated with certain ethical/moral beliefs. Maybe it's something like the difference between magical fire associated with the Plane of Fire and a mundane campfire.

The existence of magic does give me the impression that minds in the D&D universe are very powerful; so the alignment of a creature may associate him with the appropriate good/evil/lawful/chaotic energy simply because he's a sentient creature and thoughts have power. When something has an initial association with one of those energies, like a chromatic dragon or a celestial, the power of the mind may not be enough to yank the individual's association away from the original alignment-related plane and to the new one.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 12:52 PM
Yes, like the one-in-a-million (is that the ratio for "Always"? I forget) creatures who defy the odds--the Good red dragon, the Evil archon, etc. They're often the result of mind spells or conversion by exemplars of their alignments (there's rules for converting enemies in the BoED, and it's entirely possible for a mid-level Good character to convert something on the level of an imp with good reliability;

The BoED rules explicitly state that they don't work on outsiders with the Evil subtype.

The succubus paladin on the WoTC site was converted- but not by use of these rules, or by mind spells.

She herself made the decision to try and become good- although she did have a lot of help along the way by an exemplar of Good alignment.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-26, 12:53 PM
The BoED rules explicitly state that they don't work on outsiders with the Evil subtype.

The succubus paladin on the WoTC site was converted- but not by use of these rules, or by mind spells.

She herself made the decision to try and become good- although she did have a lot of help along the way by an exemplar of Good alignment.

She was converted by love. Making it a TV trope.

Mordaenor
2010-10-26, 12:54 PM
Did you ever notice that D&D is pretty much the only RPG game system to USE an alignment system? I don't think I've seen any other system that uses it. I'm planning on setting up a D&D game in the near future, which doesn't use a defined alignment system. Good and Evil are more a case of "I know it when I see it." and spells are redefined as "Detect Ally" and "Detect Adversary" DM's discretion as to what does and doesn't ping.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 12:57 PM
Palladium uses a sort of alignment system.


She was converted by love. Making it a TV trope.

Love didn't actually change her alignment though- it merely gave her the willingness to put the effort in to change it.

Hat-Trick
2010-10-26, 01:06 PM
I had a thought about a setting where the alignments were more of a description of energies. Good was beneficial, healing, helping, protecting. Evil was malicious, hurting, hindering, exposing. Chaos was movement, surprise, and emotion. Law was stalwart, planning, and reason. The basic ideas, but you didn't have to be Evil to use Evil, you just had to be willing to hurt someone enough. That kind of thing. But, yeah, people would still stick to their energy's predisposition for the most part.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-26, 01:10 PM
Or, it's an assumption- during "logical" conclusions from statements that are not in fact 100% valid.
What part of the following is not 100% valid?


Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
These are simple, declarative statements. When I say "the car is red" I am not saying "the car may be red" or "the car is usually red;" I am telling you about the current state of the car.

Likewise, when I am writing a game mechanic and say make a declarative statement about a game concept, I am providing you with a description of that concept. When a game provides you with declarative statements about the nature of a game concept, you can't just pretend it doesn't exist; either you accept the statement as RAW or you say you are declining to follow the RAW.

This is exactly why I (try to :smallfrown:) avoid Alignment discussions with you: I have never seen you try to wrestle directly with these simple, declarative statements. You are by no means alone; many people are happy to say "oh, but Splatbook X says Evil is something different."

At worst, wrestling with the RAW requires you to define Innocent. The RAW does not define Innocent, but in the past I have provided a simple rubric for this definition; but rarely does any Alignment discussion revolve around this legitimate ambiguity.
I replied mostly because I am displeased by the scare quotes you placed around "logical." I am speaking of Logic as the sort taught for simple mathematical proofs and in law schools around the world.

A "good enough" definition of this sort of reasoning can be found on Wikipedia as Deductive Reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning). Yes, arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_(logic)) can have fallacies but, so far, I have yet to find anyone who can submit a reason why the statement "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit" does not mean "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."

Jayabalard
2010-10-26, 01:11 PM
There's always the option to treat alignment as strictly being bound to those forces, and not anything to do with behaviors of the individual.

So, for example, being aligned with law and good may have nothing to do with your behaviors; you might be a sadistic serial killer, but you've gone through the rituals that bind you to the powers of good, and law, so you ping as lawful and as good for detect spells, and you'll be helped/harmed by spells that affect those alignments in specific ways.

As a slightly longer example: one of the first RPG's I wound up playing was a game called Powers & Perils. In this game had an alignment system, you could be aligned with Law, Balance, Chaos, or one of the Elder forces (Elder, Sidh, Shamanistic or Kotothi). Spiritual/Magical entities were pretty much always aligned with one of those, and most non-humans were aligned as well. Alignment applied mostly to magic users, since how you used magic depended on how you were aligned: a law aligned wizard couldn't cast chaos aligned spells, and wasn't as good at casting balance aligned spells as a balance wizard was (although, iirc: a law wizard was better at casting balance spells than a balance wizard was at casting law spells).


You can get the whole text over at http://www.powersandperils.org/book2.htm ...


14.1.1.1 Balance
Balance is devoted to preserving itself. They cunningly, and violently, insure that no other alignment can overpower its enemies by opposing the strong and aiding the weak. They are primarily concerned, at this time, with maintaining balance between Law and Chaos.

14.1.1.2 Chaos
Chaos is devoted, first, to the destruction of Law and, second, to the return of all existence to a state of primeval nothingness. It will choose to serve those that serve these goals through their actions. It will battle those that oppose them. It preys on those that do neither.

14.1.1.3 Law
Law is devoted to the total end of Chaos and Disorder. They seek to maintain that which maintains or strengthens Law. It strives to end things that maintain or strengthen the forces of Chaos. From a follower, Law will tend to demand and reward good actions, devotion to the goals above and practicing of the gentle emotions, i.e. love, mercy, generosity, etc.

14.1.1.4 Elder Forces
The Elder alignment is fragmented into four, more or less conflicting, groups. They are:

A) The Sidh — The eldest of the elder, the Sidh are dedicated to preserving that which remains of their domains. Where possible, they may seek to expand their hold at the expense of their enemies. They will not do so if the effort is a major risk to what they already have.
B) The Kotothi — The Kotothi are the children, and major creations of the God Kototh. They have a jealous hatred of most other races and are noted for their greed, cruelty and ferocity. Some of the Kotothi, i.e. the Daoine Sidhe, Baobhan Sith, etc. are forces that were seduced into the service of Kototh by a fatal hatred that drives them. This hatred, when applicable, will color the actions of these creatures. In general, the Kotothi seek to prove their own superiority through the destruction or humiliation of others, especially their enemies.
C) The Elder — These races are capricious in their actions. They can be friendly, extremely deadly or deliberately mischievous. They have a definite opinion of what belongs to them and how they should be treated. The way that they treat those that they encounter depends on the actions of that person or party in relation to these perceptions. They tolerate nothing that assaults their rights or land. They can befriend those that show them honor and respect. They trick and mislead those who do neither or who show fear.
D) Shamanic Elder — These forces are concerned with the preservation of wild, animate life. They are the patrons, friends and guardians of wild animals. They are the deadly enemies of people who assault that which they protect. Except for this protective function, and Shaman contacts, these forces avoid contact with other races.


This talks about what each alignment (as a group/entity) is devoted to; it doesn't (for example) say that people aligned with law act in a particular way, but that law tends to demand and reward particular types of actions. To me that seems a very different sort of alignment system than what you have in D&D (at least, by default). It talks about the alignments more as entities (gods or groups of gods) and organizations devoted to those entities.

Callista
2010-10-26, 01:11 PM
The BoED rules explicitly state that they don't work on outsiders with the Evil subtype.

The succubus paladin on the WoTC site was converted- but not by use of these rules, or by mind spells.

She herself made the decision to try and become good- although she did have a lot of help along the way by an exemplar of Good alignment.
I checked that, actually; what it said was that there was hardly any chance that they would--once again, one in a million. So, I guess, a big negative modifier to the check; I might've been wrong in saying that a mid-level character could manage an evil outsider like an imp, but an epic character could. It uses words like "almost entirely hopeless" and "only the barest glimmer of hope" and says you'd be stupid to try--which isn't the same as "utterly impossible", but pretty darn close. I guess whether your mid-level character can do it depends on whether you're abusing Diplomacy.

(If anyone's interested, the part I'm looking at is on page 8 and then again on page 28.)

WarKitty
2010-10-26, 01:16 PM
What part of the following is not 100% valid?


These are simple, declarative statements. When I say "the car is red" I am not saying "the car may be red" or "the car is usually red;" I am telling you about the current state of the car.

Likewise, when I am writing a game mechanic and say make a declarative statement about a game concept, I am providing you with a description of that concept. When a game provides you with declarative statements about the nature of a game concept, you can't just pretend it doesn't exist; either you accept the statement as RAW or you say you are declining to follow the RAW.

This is exactly why I (try to :smallfrown:) avoid Alignment discussions with you: I have never seen you try to wrestle directly with these simple, declarative statements. You are by no means alone; many people are happy to say "oh, but Splatbook X says Evil is something different."

At worst, wrestling with the RAW requires you to define Innocent. The RAW does not define Innocent, but in the past I have provided a simple rubric for this definition; but rarely does any Alignment discussion revolve around this legitimate ambiguity.
I replied mostly because I am displeased by the scare quotes you placed around "logical." I am speaking of Logic as the sort taught for simple mathematical proofs and in law schools around the world.

A "good enough" definition of this sort of reasoning can be found on Wikipedia as Deductive Reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning). Yes, arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_(logic)) can have fallacies but, so far, I have yet to find anyone who can submit a reason why the statement "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit" does not mean "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."

It also requires you to define what "respect" and "debase" mean. I have found different people have wildly different concepts of those.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 01:20 PM
I checked that, actually; what it said was that there was hardly any chance that they would--once again, one in a million. So, I guess, a big negative modifier to the check; I might've been wrong in saying that a mid-level character could manage an evil outsider like an imp, but an epic character could. It uses words like "almost entirely hopeless" and "only the barest glimmer of hope" and says you'd be stupid to try--which isn't the same as "utterly impossible", but pretty darn close. I guess whether your mid-level character can do it depends on whether you're abusing Diplomacy.

(If anyone's interested, the part I'm looking at is on page 8 and then again on page 28.)

The "only the barest glimmer of hope" bit was for chromatic dragons:

"Certainly demons and devils are best slain, or at least banished, and only a naive fool would try and convert them. Evil dragons might not be entirely beyond salvation, but there is truly only the barest glimmer of hope"

On page 29, in the "conversion by diplomacy" rules, it states

"Creatures whose alignments are listed as "always" a specific alignment, and characters who would lose class abilities if they changed alignment (including evil clerics and blackguards) gain a +4 bonus on their Will saves. Outsiders with the Evil subtype are immune to redemption in this manner."

Jayabalard
2010-10-26, 01:20 PM
I checked that, actually; what it said was that there was hardly any chance that they would--once again, one in a million. but... one in a million chances crop up 9 times out of 10 :smallconfused:

mucat
2010-10-26, 01:22 PM
[QUOTE=Oracle_Hunter;9635279]If it's a meta-game concept, why do we have Planes of Alignment? Detect Evil? Or any of the dozens of in-game powers that key off of Alignment?

When you can cast Detect Law and Detect Good it is perfectly reasonable to say that Clerics know what the devil those terms mean!
So in your game, a character might approach the queen and say, in-character, "Your Majesty, we have cast the spell you requested. The prisoner is Chaotic Neutral."? If so, we simply have very different philosophies of gaming. To me, that would be just as jarring as telling her the prisoner's hitpoint total.

And yes, I do sometimes run campaigns where spells like Detect Chaos and Know Alignment exist, but the information they give should still be filtered through the character's perceptions. A Lawful Neutral cleric might describe that Chaotic Neutral prisoner as "evil", using the word in its everyday sense, not in its game-mechanical sense. The cleric would not be lying about what the Know Alignment spell told him: the prisoner is a dangerously self-willed rebel, which the cleric considers a bad thing to be. If the character had actually pinged as Chaotic Evil to the spell, then the cleric might have even more harsh things to say about him. But the cleric does not cast the spell and see, even in his own mind, "Chaotic Neutral". He sees the things that this alignment means to him.

Now, before you try to explain to me how the Detect spells work...I know what the rules say. I'm as literate as you are. It's just that I would have no interest in running or playing in a game where the alignments were cut-and-dried in-game concept, and the question of whether you were a good person could be determined by a spell. And if the rules as written do not make the game better for a given group of players, they should rewrite them.

I actually agree with your point on druids: druidism is a lifestyle, an allegience, and a code of conduct, not just a collection of powers. However, I still think that "Must maintain a Neutral Alignment component" is a terribly clunky way to implement the "inner balance" part of their code.

It's more work for the DM, but infinitely more rewarding in my view, to actually flesh out the teachings of a given sect of druids, and require the character to be loyal to those teachings rather than to an (as I see it) purely metagame concept like alignment. A given set of druidic teachings might correspond fairly closely to a given alignment -- a Lawful Evil druid would be a poor fit for Eilistraee's sect -- but a Chaotic Good druid might be perfectly at home in a mostly Neutral Good sect, if the things that made her Chaotic did not involve violating druidic teachings.


If you don't like or understand Alignment, don't use it; either get rid of it or replace it with something you like or understand. I think the Nine Alignment Systen is a valuable tool for character & world design and essential to the Heroic Fantasy genre, so I use it.
Most of the people who you keep explaining rules to are saying exactly that. It's not that they don't understand the rules, they just don't necessarily like them, and trying to discuss whether and how to rewrite them.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 01:24 PM
Savage Species is the main source for the one-in-a-million figure for "Always X alignment"- phrased as "Either unique or one-in-a-million".

Interestingly, there are fiends (outsiders with the Evil subtype) that are only "Usually Evil" in the adventure book Expedition to the Demonweb Pits- cambions.

So- they are immune to the diplomacy method, and yet, 10% (the figure given in the book) are of Neutral or Good alignment.

Jayabalard
2010-10-26, 01:28 PM
Did you ever notice that D&D is pretty much the only RPG game system to USE an alignment system? I don't think I've seen any other system that uses it. Palladium, and the Powers and Perils off the top of my head. Hmmm....

Older versions of Warhammer had a 5 alignment system. Star wars has dark/light side, right?

I know one of the old superhero RPG's had sort of an alignment system... I think it was DC, so maybe the old Batman RPG.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-26, 01:30 PM
It also requires you to define what "respect" and "debase" mean. I have found different people have wildly different concepts of those.
"Respect" and "Debase" may be variable, but I think we can all agree that killing Innocent life is not "protecting" it in most scenarios. Likewise, Neutral is defined as having "qualms" about killing Innocent life.

If someone that regularly kills Innocents is neither Good nor Neutral, then he must be Evil. Q.E.D.

"Debase" requires us to turn to the dictionary in case of serious disagreement.


1. to reduce in quality or value; adulterate
2. to lower in rank, dignity, or significance
If life is taken regularly, then the taking of it can be said to be of less significance. If the taking of life is less significant, than the life itself can be said to be of lesser significance. Thus, regularly killing Innocents lessens the significance of Innocent life which means it debases it.

If regularly killing Innocents debases Innocent life then someone who regularly kills Innocent life is Evil.
Obviously, you can have honest disagreements about what "debase" and "respect" entails, but a decent DM should be able to apply the Golden Rule here -- if the character does an action that he knows (or should knows) is disrespectful to an entity, then he is not respecting it; if the character is doing an action that he would consider respectful then he is respecting it. Likewise, if the character is treating something as being of little import, he is debasing it; if the character is treating something as being of significant import, he is not debasing it.

@Mucat - excellent. You recognize the RAW and have decided to dispense with it. That's fine. My main concern is when people act as though the RAW does not exist.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 01:30 PM
Yes, arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_(logic)) can have fallacies but, so far, I have yet to find anyone who can submit a reason why the statement "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit" does not mean "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."

The problem, is in the assumption that the statement is intended to be absolute rather than general.

The DMG states that alignment changes depending on acts- with the implication that if a character commits evil acts enough, they will eventually become evil alignment. But it does not state that their other compunctions, must change as well.

Nor are "evil acts" defined solely by the nature of the victim. Rebuking undead is given as an evil act in the PHB- but there is nothing to suggest that in the process of rebuking undead, innocents are debased or destroyed.

WarKitty
2010-10-26, 01:33 PM
Obviously, you can have honest disagreements about what "debase" and "respect" entails, but a decent DM should be able to apply the Golden Rule here -- if the character does an action that he knows (or should knows) is disrespectful to an entity, then he is not respecting it; if the character is doing an action that he would consider respectful then he is respecting it. Likewise, if the character is treating something as being of little import, he is debasing it; if the character is treating something as being of significant import, he is not debasing it.

And that is where my well intentioned extremist argument comes in. Which I do not have time to type out right now.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-26, 01:35 PM
The DMG states that alignment changes depending on acts- with the implication that if a character commits evil acts enough, they will eventually become evil alignment. But it does not state that their other compunctions, must change as well.
Where does it say that?

This is what the SRD says:

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment....

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
I see nothing here indicating that an Alignment is the result of actions; it represents the "general moral and personal attitudes" of a creature. The only reason we refer to "actions" as having Alignments is because we cannot (yet!) read the minds of our Players to see what those "general moral and personal attitudes" might be. A creature's Alignment is not the sum of its actions -- its actions can only, at best, hint at the sort of mindset you would need to have in order to perform a given action.

EDIT:
@Warkitty
The WIE question I addressed before.

Under the Golden Rule, consider this -- the WIE believes that his Goal is the most important thing in the world. If he believes that Innocent lives are of little significance before this Goal, he has debased them; therefore Evil. If he believes those lives are significant enough to not be destroyed casually, regardless of his Plan, he is Neutral. If he believes that his Plan is great, but Innocents cannot be sacrificed for the Plan, he is Good.

LibraryOgre
2010-10-26, 01:37 PM
Since your issue is moral relativism, rather than an inherent problem with an alignment system, you might look at Palladium Books' alignment system. They have 7 alignments, and each indicates behaviors that characters will and will not do, according to the alignments. You can either run them as guidelines ("My character is Principled, but he has a tendency to lie" or "My character is Miscreant, but he's always nice to children"), or you can go with some Palladium Alignment determining frames that ask you a series of questions, and give you a score. This one (http://www.editors-wastebasket.org/Games/Mechanics/Palladium/House/alignment.shtm) was done by a friend of mine from college. It works somewhat like the "20 questions" character generation, but deals more with generalities of behavior, and gives you a numeric score that can be compared to others.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 01:41 PM
Where does it say that?

Page 134 of the DMG:

Player characters have free will, and their actions often dictate a change of alignment.

You're in Control: You control alignment changes, not the players. If a player says "My neutral good character becomes chaotic good," the appropriate response from you is: "Prove it." Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players.




Since your issue is moral relativism, rather than an inherent problem with an alignment system, you might look at Palladium Books' alignment system. They have 7 alignments, and each indicates behaviors that characters will and will not do, according to the alignments. You can either run them as guidelines ("My character is Principled, but he has a tendency to lie" or "My character is Miscreant, but he's always nice to children"), or you can go with some Palladium Alignment determining frames that ask you a series of questions, and give you a score.

Many of the "A neutral character will never" "A lawful good character will never" on the Easydamus Character Alignment site, come direct from Palladium. I think the book cited was Ninjas & Superspies. It also lists what Palladium alignments correspond to the D&D ones.

ffone
2010-10-26, 01:52 PM
I find that in general our groups Moral Relativism doesn't sit so well with the traditional idea of alignments. Whether this be D&D's dual axis system, or a mono axis karma system. They just don't feel right.
And they become problematic when classes have alignment restrictions.

While I agree that a paladin should be held to a higher standard than the rogue, the alignment system doesn't feel right.

I'm running an Ad Hoc homebrew so I can ignore any cannon that I don't like.

Does anyone have any ideas for replacements? I don't really mind them too much as an RPing aid.

Wouldn't Moral Relativism by definition be incompatible with any objective (i.e. crunchy) system?

At which point the question becomes how to balance things like Detect/Smite Evil if you throw out alignment.



If the PCs all tend to be moral relativists- they could still be aligned- it's just that their moral relativism manifests in different ways.

A Neutral Good PC might use moral relativism as a reason to be merciful toward their enemies on a "these evil deeds are not so evil when done by people who believe the deeds to be Good by their own cultural standards"

In this case it would be "how evil a deed is depends, at least in some part, on how the people doing them feel about such deeds"- partial moral relativism combined with cultural relativism- rather than total moral relativism.

Love this suggestion. Fit the PCs into the system rather than upturning the system to suit the particular PC.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-26, 01:55 PM
@Hamishspensce
Thank you for providing citations :smallsmile:

I think that the quotes to lend support to my point. Alignment is treated as a matter of Revealed Preference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revealed_preference) to give it meaning in-game and to encourage RP. This is also why the DM is used to "police" Alignment -- if characters aren't acting in line with their stated Alignment then the DM is permitted to alter their character sheet to reflect their true Alignment and to ensure the proper application of relevant mechanics.

Your deduction that Alignment must therefore be based on actions is erroneous, unfortunately. As my SRD quote indicates, the definition of Alignment is not one of action, but of attitude. The most reasonable reading of the DMG passages and the SRD is one where they don't contradict each other, and such a reading is possible if you treat actions as examples of Revealed Preference rather than as having their own Alignment.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 01:58 PM
A creature's Alignment is not the sum of its actions -- its actions can only, at best, hint at the sort of mindset you would need to have in order to perform a given action.

A possible example might work something like this:

DM: "Ok, you've captured the BBEG- what will you do now"
Player of CG character: "I torture them to death, very slowly, over a period of several hours, as punishment for their crimes."
DM: "OK- your alignment is now CE"
Player "But my character is still unwilling to harm the innocent! He should be CN."

What happens next? Some typical possibilities:

DM: "Oh- I didn't expect that- OK, he's CN."
DM: "No- he's not unwilling to harm the innocent- otherwise he wouldn't be capable of torturing someone to death"
DM: "Doesn't matter- a sufficiently Evil act can cause an immediate alignment change all the way to Evil"

Which makes more sense? And which seems like dictating the character's personality to the player?


The most reasonable reading of the DMG passages and the SRD is one where they don't contradict each other, and such a reading is possible if you treat actions as examples of Revealed Preference rather than as having their own Alignment.

What "revealed preference" happens when a LN cleric of the LN deity Wee Jas casts Rebuke Undead? Which, by the rules, is what they must take instead of turn undead? The PHB explicitly says "channelling negative energy is evil"- without explaining why, and allows for non-evil characters to do it.

Callista
2010-10-26, 02:03 PM
Attitudes dictate your actions, though. Both things go together. If they don't, you're not playing a realistic character. (And yes, "It's OK to do evil things if good things will happen in the end" counts as an attitude that's probably somewhere on the neutral side of evil.)

You can think you're doing good all you like; you can say you intend to do good all you like; but if you're torturing people, then you're just fooling yourself.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-26, 02:03 PM
A possible example might work something like this:

DM: "Ok, you've captured the BBEG- what will you do now"
Player of CG character: "I torture them to death, very slowly, over a period of several hours, as punishment for their crimes."
DM: "OK- your alignment is now CE"
Player "But my character is still unwilling to harm the innocent! He should be CN."

What happens next? Some typical possibilities:

DM: "Oh- I didn't expect that- OK, he's CN."
DM: "No- he's not unwilling to harm the innocent- otherwise he wouldn't be capable of torturing someone to death"
DM: "Doesn't matter- a sufficiently Evil act can cause an immediate alignment change all the way to Evil"

Which makes more sense? And which seems like dictating the character's personality to the player?
The correct response is "show me" :smallamused:

If such a situation came up, I'd ask the PC to explain his actions first and foremost. Then I would examine it in respect to the actions he has taken in the past -- with this new datum, what Alignment is most consistent with the Revealed Preference data I have before me.

This is why it is important to not treat actions as having Alignment. Always keep the focus on the character and you won't have these kinds of problems (except with Paladins, of course :smalltongue:)

EDIT: Where does it say that channeling negative energy is Evil? Don't Inflict spells channel negative energy?

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 02:06 PM
The attitude "will not harm the innocent" does sometimes crop up in characters willing to torture others though.

The Mord-Sith after being "redeemed" by Richard Rahl, in Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series.
Depending on your interpretation of how torturous his kills are, Dexter in the novel Darkly Dreaming Dexter.
The Punisher in the comic series.
Possibly Jack Bauer in some seasons of 24?


EDIT: Where does it say that channeling negative energy is Evil? Don't Inflict spells channel negative energy?

Page 160 of PHB, in the Turn or Rebuke Undead section:


Neutral Clerics and Undead
A cleric of neutral alignment can either turn undead but not rebuke them, or rebuke undead but not turn them. See Turn or Rebuke Undead, on page 33, for more information.
Even if a cleric is neutral, channelling positive energy is a good act and channelling negative energy is evil.

And on page 33, it states all LN clerics of Wee Jas rebuke undead.

I think the distinction here is between "channelling" which is making rebuke/turn attempts (which can sometimes do other things if you have the right feats) and spells, which only use the energy, they do not "channel" it in the rules sense.


I have yet to find anyone who can submit a reason why the statement "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit" does not mean "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."

Can you submit a reason why "Actions dictate alignment" in the DMG does not mean "Actions dictate alignment" and the statement as written should be ignored and replaced with "Actions show Revealed Preference"?

Jolly
2010-10-26, 02:18 PM
Oracle_ Hunter, I'm confused by your position.

I am unable to locate the referrence, but aren't certain actions considered evil regardless of whether or not they impact innocent life? For example, using poison or raising undead. So a child stuck in an Evil orphanage who poisoned the headmaster in order to escape before being sold into slavery would be committing an evil act?

Also, since "Evil" is often an in-born trait, one could easily picture a large number of scenarios where an adventurer of a Good alignment encounters baby creatures who Detect as Evil, even tho they may be incapable of actually hurting anyone yet. Would slaughtering a group of helpless baby Evil Race be an evil act?

Both directly point to the SRD definitions, both are legitimate situations a character might find themselves in. Your thoughts?

Edit: sword saged. It is inconsistent to insist on an SRD-based understanding of alignment and to insist certain actions do not have an alignment when the SRD explicitly states that they do.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 02:21 PM
"Casting a spell with the [Evil] tag is always an evil/corrupt act" comes from BoVD, FC2, and Eberron Campaign Setting.

Baby natural lycanthropes of some types (werewolf, wererat) are the classic example of "helpless but born evil-aligned"


The correct response is "show me" :smallamused:

This would be a bit difficult seeing as there's no way to prove one's unwillingness to harm the innocent at the time the act was committed- only by repeatedly turning down opportunities to harm the innocent for fun or profit after the act was committed, can it be proven.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-26, 02:44 PM
Can you submit a reason why "Actions dictate alignment" in the DMG does not mean "Actions dictate alignment" and the statement as written should be ignored and replaced with "Actions show Revealed Preference"?
Of course :smallamused:


Player characters have free will, and their actions often dictate a change of alignment.
Emphasis mine. "Often" is not "always."


You're in Control: You control alignment changes, not the players. If a player says "My neutral good character becomes chaotic good," the appropriate response from you is: "Prove it." Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players.
Emphasis mine. Here, the context is "Alignment is not the result of declared intent, but demonstrated intent" rather than "this is the definition of Alignment."

Also: Actions do not have Alignment as defined in the SRD. One might as well ask the politics of an apple. Go on, tell me about the "general moral and personal attitudes" of Negative Energy, or Poison. Obviously, the intent of "evil action" cannot be to suggest that actions have attitudes. So what can it be?

As I've stated before, the statement "[Alignment] action" can be read instead as "actions that, if performed by a creature, are indicative of said creature's [Alignment] morals and personal attitudes." This is a useful shorthand and one that remains consistent with the definition of Alignment as defined in the RAW. The use of poison and "channeling" negative energy can be considered special cases of the Alignment System -- activities that are not obviously linked to a given Alignment. Note that each of these activities provides a "always" clause; there is no question as to whether using poison is an action that a Good character would regularly use.

Before it is mentioned, the other "special cases" brought up in Splatbooks are not "always" situations but rather attempts to define actions as "usually" one way or another. Unfortunately, the Splatbooks (and Easydamus) never explain how an action can "usually" be one way or another; they are poorly written guidebooks, not RAW in the above sense.

EDIT: Note that Good characters "respect life." If you randomly slaughter creatures -- even Evil ones -- you are not showing respect for life. The "it's Evil, KILL IT" attitude is neither well reasoned nor supported by RAW.

Jolly
2010-10-26, 02:49 PM
Actions do not have Alignment as defined in the SRD.

This is incorrect. SRD states that certain actions are always evil, no exceptions. Trying to somehow squirm around this is just ignoring the very RAW you keep attempting to cite.


As I've stated before, the statement "[Alignment] action" can be read instead as "actions that, if performed by a creature, are indicative of said creature's [Alignment] morals and personal attitudes." This is a useful shorthand and one that remains consistent with the definition of Alignment as defined in the RAW. The use of poison and "channeling" negative energy can be considered special cases of the Alignment System -- activities that are not obviously linked to a given Alignment. Note that each of these activities provides a "always" clause; there is no question as to whether using poison is an action that a Good character would regularly use.


Note the bold portion. SRD states they are, in fact, inextricably tied to a given alignment. Saying otherwise is merely claiming the SRD states something it does not.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 02:52 PM
Something does not have to have "general moral and personal attitudes" to be evil.

Even nonsentient objects can have an alignment.

DMG page 227: Sword- Nine Lives Stealer.

This sword is evil, and any good character attempting to wield it gains two negative levels.



Note the bold portion. SRD states they are, in fact, inextricably tied to a given alignment. Saying otherwise is merely claiming the SRD states something it does not.

The SRD doesn't actually specify poison-use as evil- it's forbidden to paladins because of the code. The only source that calls out poison-use as evil is BoED- and even then, only ability-damaging poisons count, because they "cause excessive suffering"- this however does not mean that everything that inflicts ability damage does this.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-26, 02:55 PM
This is incorrect. SRD states that certain actions are always evil, no exceptions. Trying to somehow squirm around this is just ignoring the very RAW you keep attempting to cite.
Ahem.

When the SRD defines Alignment it says this:

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
This is, in fact, the definition you get if you look up "Alignment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment)" on the SRD. Can you explain how this definition of Alignment can apply to actions? Do actions have "general moral and personal attitudes?" Are they creatures?

This is not an attempt at evasion. I have provided an explanation of "action alignments" that is consistent with the above definition. If you have a problem with my explanation, please show the error in my logic.

Or, in the alternative, please explain to me what an "Evil action" is supposed to mean, and how it interacts with the definition of Alignment above.

EDIT:
@Jolly - you misunderstand. When something is a Special Case, it is an exception to the general rule. So when Evil is "debasing and destroying Innocent life" it is not obvious that creating Undead or using Poison falls under that definition. Putting together what we have, the definition now becomes "Evil is debasing and destroying Innocent life. Using Poison and creating Undead is also Evil."

@Susano-wo - many people agree with you. Personally, I have no problem separating D&D "Good" and "Evil" from my personal conceptions of what Good and Evil are; some people are less comfortable doing that, for whatever reason. For them I recommend doing what you do, rather than doing something they dislike.

Susano-wo
2010-10-26, 02:55 PM
forgot how long I had this window open, and god massively SS'ged, but oh well :smallredface:


Really, I've found that restricting said argument to the SRD text is a fine way to resolve these issues.

RANT
snip

Next time someone argues that a given Alignment means a certain thing, have them cite language in the SRD that supports their position. If you disagree, you can at least talk around mutually agreed terms (i.e. the RAW) instead of having airy discussions on the true nature of Good and Evil :smallsigh:
If the above is helpful, I'm glad I said it. If not - or if you like having these lengthy arguments - just ignore it and assume I'm a crazy old man or something. People on the Internat are no reason to change behavior you otherwise enjoy :smallsmile:


My only issue with that, Oracle, is that though the game has defined good and evil in certain ways according to the SRD(though you would naturally have to include other 1st party sources, would you not? later revisions of older mechanics supercede them traditionally, no?), good and evil are concepts that transcend a fiction/reality barrier.

In other words, if action X in circumstance Y is evil, then it is so regardless of if the event is fictional or not. So it chafes me when someone says action X is evil, when I say, no not necessarily (or, more often I find I chafe when someone says action Y is good.) I find it much easier to handwave alignments, use common sense morality, or simply make most things neutral, and only really strongly evil/good things ping on algnment related stuff

BUt I htink I am in the minority. There are certainly plenty who feel differently :smallamused:

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 03:01 PM
A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment.

This does not automatically mean that only creatures can have an alignment, or that alignment is solely defined as "general moral and personal attitudes".

In DMG, most of the Outer Planes are aligned. Celestia, for example, is "mildly Good aligned and mildly Law aligned". Yet can a plane have "general moral and personal attitudes"?

And what about the tags on spells? Holy Word has the [Good] tag- but what are the attitudes of a spell?

Jolly
2010-10-26, 03:04 PM
Oracle_Hunter: SRD defines raising undead and channeling negative energy as evil actions. Going long on my lunch as is so I won't bother googling srd, but it does say that. I suppose one could interpret that to mean no one but an evil character would ever do that. However, SRD also says non-evil character commit "evil" actions. How do you reconcile this? I do it the same way I Rule 0 commoner rail guns: SRD is poorly written and edited, and all sorts of stupid things are in there so ignore that which is obviously stupid. Since you're defending SRD as a logically consistent and usable system tho...

Also, as to actions having an alignment... You state that "killing innocents" is an evil action, that disregard for life and the treatment of innocents is the basis of the good-evil axis of alignment. Then you say that actions cannot have an alignment? This seems contradictory.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-26, 03:08 PM
Also, as to actions having an alignment... You state that "killing innocents" is an evil action, that disregard for life and the treatment of innocents is the basis of the good-evil axis of alignment. Then you say that actions cannot have an alignment? This seems contradictory.
Again, please see my descripion of "evil actions;" killing Innocents is an action which is only done on a regular basis by Evil people. Being willing to kill Innocents is therefore my "lower bound" for Evil.

I am afraid I must withdraw from the argument, however. I will accept that you can have "Evil actions" for the time being, though I am most amused as to what sort of definition you can provide for "action Alignments" that makes any sense whatsoever with the larger Nine Alignment System :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 03:14 PM
Again, please see my descripion of "evil actions;" killing Innocents is an action which is only done on a regular basis by Evil people. Being willing to kill Innocents is therefore my "lower bound" for Evil.

That's the bit that's problematic- why should it be a lower bound on Evil?

I see it as more a lower bound on the Neutral+Good alignments- any self-professed Neutral or Good person that kills innocents on a regular basis is evil.

But it doesn't necessarily follow that "anyone not willing to kill Innocents is not evil"- there are plenty of acts that might qualify as evil even when done to "non-Innocent" victims- and if a character commits them regularly, and gain a lot of pleasure from those acts,

they might reasonably be described as "sadistic" and "cruel" and so on- traits more appropriate for an Evil alignment than a Neutral one.

People have a great deal of potential for both sadism and compassion- and they are not mutually exclusive. An anti-hero might be compassionate toward the innocent, but sadistic toward the "non-innocent".

Jolly
2010-10-26, 03:22 PM
Oracle: my point is that, by RAW, the 9 alignment system doesn't make sense. So saying "well your examples don't make sense" is kind of the point. By RAW SRD, the alignment system is broken, in the "self-contradictory" way, not "wizards are broken" way.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 03:29 PM
A possible solution is to identify which statements are supposed to be absolutes and which are supposed to be generalizations.

PHB page 103 "Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the cosmos"

When looking at it from this perspective- non-sentient things having alignments can make sense- they contain part of these cosmic forces.

"Always evil" acts can be ones that strengthen those forces- and draw some of the forces into the characters. So, (going by FC2 and BoED) an act of torture, for whatever reason, always strengthens the cosmic force that is Evil-

and this is why a paladin would fall for torturing even a "non-innocent" person- and why a person who does this a great deal could eventually ping on Detect Evil despite many of their "general moral and personal attitudes" not changing.

Because, by committing "evil acts" they have become aligned with the relevant cosmic force.


By RAW SRD, the alignment system is broken, in the "self-contradictory" way, not "wizards are broken" way.

Hmm- what happens when a nonevil member of an evil clergy (such as, say, a CN cleric of Umberlee) starts committing "evil acts" in order to ingratiate himself with the clergy and rise high in its ranks, yet still retains the Neutral trait of "qualms against hurting the innocent"?

Do they remain CN forever? Or do they eventually change alignment? My view is that the acts matter just that bit more than the "general moral and personal attitudes" so they will eventually change.

Susano-wo
2010-10-26, 03:49 PM
quibble: just want to throw this out there because its bugged me over the course of the thread: you mean by SRD, Oracle, not by RAW. RAW is not core, or SRD. BoED is RAW, for example. (in fact most, if not all, of the sources Hamish likes to cite on thesethreads are RAW)
/quibble

Oracle_Hunter
2010-10-26, 03:59 PM
quibble: just want to throw this out there because its bugged me over the course of the thread: you mean by SRD, Oracle, not by RAW. RAW is not core, or SRD. BoED is RAW, for example. (in fact most, if not all, of the sources Hamish likes to cite on thesethreads are RAW)
/quibble
The SRD contains RAW - importantly Core RAW. Unless there is an Unearthed Arcana Rules Variant for Alignment, I think you'll have to treat the SRD Alignment descriptions as fairly definitive.

But like I said, I'm not going to participate further. Alignment threads are bad for my blood pressure and probably hazardous to my account :smallsmile:

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 04:16 PM
The SRD tends to miss out quite a bit of text from the PHB- sometimes descriptive text and examples.

For example:


Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.


In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has, even if that's not lawful or good behaviour. A good character can lose his temper, a neutral character can be inspired to perform a noble act.

And for neutral alignment:


People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.


Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.

So, in a sense, SRD is not RAW- because it is incomplete. It only uses part of the text from the written PHB.

The "Few people are completely consistant" examples demonstrate that the statements for Neutral alignments are not absolute-

they are generalizations, and sometimes a Neutral character will do something that the PHB states "A Neutral character would not do"

The splatbook Heroes of Horror ignores the generalization that "Neutral people do not make sacrifices to protect or help strangers" completely- and IMO is the better for it.

Susano-wo
2010-10-26, 04:44 PM
The SRD contains RAW - importantly Core RAW. Unless there is an Unearthed Arcana Rules Variant for Alignment, I think you'll have to treat the SRD Alignment descriptions as fairly definitive.

But like I said, I'm not going to participate further. Alignment threads are bad for my blood pressure and probably hazardous to my account :smallsmile:

Not necessarily expecting you to respond, but...
The SRD contains raw. correct
so do all the "splatbooks." (the ones in question, at least)
So they are just as RAW as the SRD. in fact, using standards of newer rules counteracting older rules, they might be considered MORE RAW :smallwink:

I understand that your issue is basically that you want to use the SRD definitions, since you feel they are comprehensible, etc. That's fine. You just started using RAW instead of SRD, which makes your claim incoherent when you try to contrast RAW with, say, BoED, of FC2, which are both RAW.
That's all I'm saying

(@Hamishspence:
So, in a sense, SRD is not RAW- because it is incomplete. It only uses part of the text from the written PHB.
wow, I never realized that! its been so long since I've owned/looked at a PHB for 3.5, (the PHB I did have was a mongoose pocket version. nice and portable, but I beleive it was based on SRD), that I hadn't really noticed that. Well I'm sure it doesn't help that I'm in the "I'll decide whether I think its good or evil, thank you very much, Dnd" camp)

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 04:53 PM
The SRD is a good place to start, but when characters do things consistant with multiple alignments

(repeatingly committing evil acts- consistant with an evil alignment, repeatedly making sacrifices to help innocent strangers- consistant with a good alignment) the splatbooks can help to resolve the dilemma, without simply saying "The character is acting unrealistically".

They tend to lean toward evil overriding Good though- in Heroes of Horror, a character which commits evil acts toward Good ends can be "a flexible Neutral" and in Champions of Ruin, a character who commits evil acts repeatedly (regardless of the reasons, or the lack of innocence of the victims of his acts) can be Evil.

The Evil character's evil acts toward Good ends, are probably a bit more major than the "flexible Neutral" character's- if they share the same qualms about harming the innocent.


Well I'm sure it doesn't help that I'm in the "I'll decide whether I think its good or evil, thank you very much, Dnd" camp)

Aside from the aforementioned Rebuking Undead example, the SRD/PHB is probably a bit more compatible with this, than the splatbooks which expand the "always an evil act" list.

For PHB, one can deduce that "killing/debasing the innocent for profit or for fun is evil" but nearly everything else is up for grabs.

On the minus side, different people may have very different views on what count as "respect for life" and "respect for dignity" if an act that is indicative of a severe lack of this, is defined as "an evil act" for Falling purposes.

For example, some people will say that:

"Just as execution for serious crimes is not evil (since people can forfeit their "right to life") so, torture for serious crimes is not evil, because people can forfeit their right to dignity"

John Campbell
2010-10-26, 05:56 PM
So, a while back, I was playing a dwarven fighter/mage, true Neutral, of the "indifferent" type... he cared more about the Craft than about any temporal concerns.

In the final battle of the campaign, in which the fate of the world hung in the balance, our paladin got dominated by the BBEG and commanded to kill our sorceress - who was in single-digit HP. I was too far away and had used up too many of my prepared spells to target either of them directly with anything that would help, or even for my familiar to deliver anything... but I figured I could cast magic circle directly on my familiar, and then have my familiar run across the intervening distance to bring the paladin into its mind-control-suppressing radius and free him from the dominate.

Except I didn't have magic circle against evil. We'd been pressed for time and/or without access to spell purchasing for much of the latter part of the game, so I hadn't had a chance to acquire it. I did, however, have magic circle against good, which I'd copied from a slain enemy wizard's spellbook, and had prepared against just such eventualities. So I cast that on my familiar, and he ran over and suppressed the evil enchantress's domination over the paladin, and the paladin came back over to the side of Good and didn't kill our sorceress, and so instead of all being killed, we won the fight, cast down the BBEG, and saved the world and the lives of every being in it.

Magic circle against good has the [Evil] descriptor, so by the rules (I think it's FC2 that delineates it), casting it was an Evil act, and my character is quite possibly damned to Hell because of it. For casting a spell that didn't hurt anyone, prevented a paladin from doing evil, directly saved the life of an innocent, and indirectly saved the entire world.

The alignment system can die in a fire.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 02:47 AM
FC2 also clarifies that it takes quite a high corruption rating to be damned to the Nine Hells, and casting 1 [Evil] spell is one of the lowest- least serious- of corrupt acts.

And BoVD points out "a character can get away with casting a few [Evil] spells- as long as they do not do so for an evil cause.

The idea that some spells can be "inherently evil" is not a new one in fantasy.

Callista
2010-10-27, 03:46 AM
They may be "inherently evil" because they mean you have to use energy that comes from an evil plane, or structure your thoughts while spellcasting in an evil way--kind of the way that in Star Wars, some Sith abilities require you to channel the Force through a negative emotion like hatred, and if you do it for long enough, it'll start to affect you whether you're using those abilities for a good purpose or not. So maybe it's more like you're risking a very small chance of corruption if you're using spells of that sort--small enough that if it really matters, you can cast them; but if you do it as a matter of course, you're putting yourself at risk.