PDA

View Full Version : [3.P] Why is alignment a mechanical component?



Endarire
2010-10-25, 08:25 PM
Definition
Alignment, for our purposes, is one's positions on the Good/Evil and Law/Chaos axes.

Traditional Views on Alignment as a Mechanic
I know that various abilities (especially the famous detect evil, protection from evil, and Smite Evil) rely on alignment. From a mechanics standpoint, these could easily be changed to work on creature types or subtypes instead of alignment.

I know that many people would prefer the intentions of others be obvious. Simple examples include, "He's Evil! Kill him!" and "He's Lawful! Trust him!" Moral ambiguity can put people off, and start a large number of alignment-based arguments. (Paladins, slaves, and kobold babies are about to explode in 3, 2, 1...)

My Take
My view on alignment: Call yourself what you want, but your alignment should have no more mechanical impact than your hair color. Imagine a PrC that required you to be a blonde, and you'd lose all your abilities if your hair color changed, even against your will!

My reasoning: Alignment is meant to be an 'absolute' thing. I know that your alignment should reflect what you've done instead of defining what you "should" do. Mechanically, however, you're either Evil or not. At any time, you are only one alignment and not the 8 others.

Out of character, human philosophy cannot fully define what 'good' and 'evil' are! Each person (especially each DM) interprets what each alignment is, and what actions bring a being closer to Good, Chaos, Law, or Evil. (If you don't believe me, wait until people start arguing over morality on this post!)

Law, Chaos
Good and Evil are the focus of this post, but the Law/Chaos axis creeps into most alignment arguments as well. After 10 years of 3.x, I still don't know how Chaos and Law are meant to manifest. Is a Chaotic Evil Outsider somehow better or worse for my health than a Lawful Evil Outsider? Both sound painful and full of XP.

Is Law/Chaos more of a social aspect? Will a typical Lawful Good society prefer a Lawful Evil creature over a Chaotic Evil one? Will a Chaotic Evil creature fit in better with a Chaotic Good society than a Lawful Evil creature?

Mechanical Alignment and Game Quality
Also, I don't see how the game is better because I use magic circle against evil to bind efreeti for lawyered-up wishes instead of magic circle against outsiders or magic circle against fire subtype creatures. Likewise, my brain prefers the notion of Smite Something Objective Like Undead instead of Smite Something Subjective Like Evil.

Maybe it's my preference, but I want a world inhabited by creatures who do plausible things. I don't want Evil to be Evil because it's "Evil." Likewise for "Good." Personal relations with creatures (and spying) are usually far more important than alignment to determine trustworthiness, usefulness, and things that I'd normally want to know.

Alignment as a mechanic seems like a cop out for those who want to say, "You can safely kill this because it's there."

WarKitty
2010-10-25, 08:39 PM
My personal theory:

Alignment is indeed meant for "you can kill this without worrying about it." It comes out of the genre that produces the knight in shining armor and the evil peasant-eating dragon. Its meant for people who want to have heroic fantasy without worrying about "is this orc evil enough to kill?"

Urpriest
2010-10-25, 08:53 PM
Alignment is an interesting way to organize the multiverse. Mortal alignments are just a byproduct of outsider cultures. Since the classic fantasy multiverse involves a heaven and a hell, D&D needs at least good and evil. Law/Chaos then helps add complexity and shading. Can't have the Great Wheel without alignments anymore than you can have the Elemental Planes without the four classical elements.

Yahzi
2010-10-25, 09:02 PM
What Urpriest said.

Alignment is a mechanic for the same reason Cleave is a mechanic. In the literature heroes could chop half a dozen people in half in one swing, so we got Cleave. Well, in the literature there is often a hard and fast line between Good and Evil, so we got Alignment.

Also, the Elric novels were way cool, so they cribbed all that, just like they cribbed Vancian magic (because The Dying Earth is way cool, not because it makes a good game system).

So in other words the reason we have those mechanics is for the flavor. :smallbiggrin:

holywhippet
2010-10-25, 09:08 PM
Alignment is a mechanic mainly for magical or special powers reasons. Smite evil only works on evil creatures. Holy word is there to smack the heck out of anyone who doesn't share your basic ethics. It's there to make sure certain things only work on their intended targets.

The catch is most DMs can't/don't/won't enforce alignments - so you can CN characters who are clearly CE, paladins who attack out of the blue and other LG characters who won't hesitate to lie, cheat and steal.

WarKitty
2010-10-25, 09:14 PM
Alignment is a mechanic mainly for magical or special powers reasons. Smite evil only works on evil creatures. Holy word is there to smack the heck out of anyone who doesn't share your basic ethics. It's there to make sure certain things only work on their intended targets.

The catch is most DMs can't/don't/won't enforce alignments - so you can CN characters who are clearly CE, paladins who attack out of the blue and other LG characters who won't hesitate to lie, cheat and steal.

Cuts both ways too. Players with alignment restricted classes have to watch themselves with DM's that do enforce alignments so they don't end up losing class features. And "what a character of this type would do" and "what the alignment as written says" aren't always the same. I have a really hard time keeping my NG druid from going to CG and ceasing to be a druid - even though in my mind what a druid of her personality would do, and what respect for nature consists in, is perfectly consistent with a CG alignment.

true_shinken
2010-10-25, 09:28 PM
Alignment is there because it's very common on fantasy stories. You have evil as a tangible force, you have people to resist corruption because their heart is pure, you have artifacts tainted with evil, all that jazz.
You can remove it from game mechanics, but then you lose that feel... like happened in 4e with stablished settings. They pretend that the world works the same way when it clearly does not. It feels forced.
If you don't want a game of holy knights, evil artifacts and a known afterlife, ignoring alignment is non-issue.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-25, 09:40 PM
Since when did having a known afterlife require alignment? For that matter, when did good and evil require an alignment system either? I've had some very morally complex games of Vampire: the Requiem that involved everything from brooding anti-villains to knights in shining armor, all without anything more complex than a Humanity score. Hell, I once was in a Shadowrun game where, through some great RP and the events of the story, we all ended up 'hooders, and that game doesn't even HAVE a morality (or sanity) system.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-25, 09:42 PM
Alignment exists so LG Paladins can fall. :smallwink:

OracleofWuffing
2010-10-25, 11:24 PM
I thought (and I'm going off like, nothing, here) the story behind alignment was kind of like how there's red and black pieces in checkers, or white and black pieces in chess, or Ladders in Hungry Hungry Hippos. That is, I thought it started as a tool to identify friends and foes for combat purposes, what with it being assumed the PCs were always the good guys fighting the bad guys.

Then it kinda sprawled out from there, because there's a guy that wants to play the guy who betrays the enemy. Or the antihero who lives by nobody's rules but their own. Or the maniacal berserker fish who blarg a blargh bloo blip wharg frog kiddie smashalot rarghargargharg. So then someone thought that bending the friend and foe line could be a way to enhance the role play scenarios. From there, someone noticed there was a space on a character sheet for something to write, and decided they'd use that space for what they're writing up. I think.


My view on alignment: Call yourself what you want, but your alignment should have no more mechanical impact than your hair color. Imagine a PrC that required you to be a blonde, and you'd lose all your abilities if your hair color changed, even against your will!
Well... By RAW, Halflings only have straight black hair. So, arguably, a Luckstealer who gets a perm or hair dye could not be allowed to take further levels in that prestige class until that issue was resolved. ...I expect that to fly in about zero tables, though. :smalltongue: I have no idea if you'd lose your halfling racial features.

Rixx
2010-10-25, 11:46 PM
Alignment is there so I can have a sword that is the bane of all evil creatures.

Hell yeah!

jmbrown
2010-10-26, 12:06 AM
Alignment went from a way of determining how organized a person was in battle in OD&D to "He registers on my evildar, lets kill him" in 3e. Frankly, I prefer the OD&D 3 alignment system. You're either lawful (society above individuality), neutral (society and individuality are of equal importance; you can't have one without the other), or chaotic (individuality is above society).

Mortals cannot ever be permanently good or evil therefor it's limited only to demons and horrible things crafted from the very fabrics of the universe.

Aotrs Commander
2010-10-26, 05:46 AM
Because the 3.0 writers foolishly thought it was a good idea at the time. (That is at least one thing I think 4E improved on.) Alignment as a mechanic was an interesting idea, that was utterly destroyed by the fact it tries to put every unique individual in the universe into nine inconsisently-, contradictorally- and murkily-defined pidgeon holes.

I continue to use it myself in it's broadly operational sense, since my games are very black-and-white morality (and always will be regardless of what system I run, alignment or not) and so it matter less to me.

More grey-morality or deeper-roleplay (as perhaps one might unkindly say of me) DMs find it more of a problem though. Alignment was overall, one of thsoe ideas that seemed okay at the time when D&D was first written, but as the roleplay environment has evolved and spread out, it is now often more of a hiderance than a help, as the sheer number of alignment threads indicates.

Eldan
2010-10-26, 06:15 AM
It exists because, in the end, I think saying "this sword slays all evil outsiders" is simpler than saying "this sword slays the overwhelming majority of the Tanar'ri, Baatezu, Yugoloth, Gehreleth, Baernoloth, Shadowfiend, Rakshasa, Obyrith, Ancient Baatorian, Imp and Night Hag population".

It is a convenient shortcut, and one that works well enough.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 06:46 AM
Alignment went from a way of determining how organized a person was in battle in OD&D to "He registers on my evildar, lets kill him" in 3e. Frankly, I prefer the OD&D 3 alignment system. You're either lawful (society above individuality), neutral (society and individuality are of equal importance; you can't have one without the other), or chaotic (individuality is above society).

I got the impression that "he registers on my evildar, let's kill him" was more normal in 1st and 2nd ed than 3rd ed- since a person who pinged Detect Evil was more than just Evil-aligned- they were nearly always exceptionally evil- whereas evil-aligned characters who were low level, or only mildly evil, would not ping (though they would ping on Know Alignment).

The spell Detect Evil in OD&D was very misnamed- it did not detect evil at all, but hostility. An evil-aligned cleric could cast it, and the good heroes coming to fight the cleric in order to stop him attacking others, would detect as Evil.

In 3rd ed, Detect Evil became something that detected any evil-aligned character without magical protection- but also CN or LN clerics of evil gods, and outsiders and other beings with the Evil subtype- even if their actual alignment was not evil.

So in essence, unlike earlier editions, it was less reliable as a guide for identifying "people who you can kill without moral repercussions."

shadow_archmagi
2010-10-26, 06:49 AM
Imagine a PrC that required you to be a blonde, and you'd lose all your abilities if your hair color changed, even against your will!


imagined and homebrewing now

Duke of URL
2010-10-26, 07:09 AM
I actually wrote a blog post / article (http://victoriouspress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=511) about this a little while back. Some key bits:


Strength of Commitment

What traditional alignment descriptions overlook is the strength of commitment or devotion to specific ideals. They don't describe how evil (good, etc.) someone or something is, but lump large groups together. As a way to alleviate this problem, consider breaking down the position of the character on each axis by alignment strength.

One could simply develop a scale, say from 0-100, representing "how aligned" you are, though this makes more sense from a computer role playing game (CRPG) standpoint; games such as Neverwinter Nights, for example. For less automated uses, the following designations are likely sufficient.

Intrinsic: This is generally reserved for beings that embody an alignment ideal, typically carrying the equivalent subtype(s). They cannot act differently than the ideal, as it is simply what they are. Celestials are intrinsically good, devils are intrinsically lawful and evil, demons are intrinsically chaotic and evil. (Unless, of course, your setting alters these typical absolutes.) Denote intrinsic alignment using brackets, e.g., [Evil] or [E].

Dedicated: Creatures that consciously follow an ideal, or who, consciously or not, have established a pattern of behavior so consistent with that ideal, are considered dedicated to an ideal. Clerics and champions (paladins) typically are dedicated on at least one alignment axis that corresponds to their deity's alignment, and any alignment aura they have should be based on their dedicated alignment(s). Unlike intrinsic alignment, dedicated alignment is a matter of choice, whether by intent or as the sum of smaller choices. Denote dedicated alignment with a capital letter, e.g., Evil or E.

Nominal: The majority of intelligent creatures are only nominally aligned. They may profess belief in an ideal, but in their day-to-day life they do not strongly follow the precepts, at least not with any sort of consistency. Still, they generally lean toward acting one way over another, but are far more easily swayed by circumstance than someone with a deeper dedication. Denote nominal alignment with a lower case letter, e.g., evil or e.

Unaligned: Most intelligent creatures have tendencies that make them nominally aligned. It is possible for such a creature to be completely unaligned on one or both axes, but this is a rare case, and is likely only a transient phase. Except for those intrinsically aligned, non-intelligent creatures and those with no concept of either or both of ethics and morality are unaligned.

With the exception of intrinsic alignment, it is possible for a creature to vary in alignment strength over time. Someone who starts nominally aligned may eventually become dedicated to that alignment, or vice-versa. A series of circumstances may arise that has a character begin nominally aligned one way, passing through unaligned and eventually nominally aligned another way.


Mechanical Alignment

If using a "strength" system, it makes sense to vary the results of alignment-based effects based on the strength of alignment.

Intrinsic alignment should always be affected by alignment-based effects. That is, a dispel chaos spell should always be effective against [Chaotic]-aligned creatures.

It is a setting designer's or referee's discretion as to how dedicated alignment should be affected. The default recommendation is that dedicated alignment is affected like intrinsic alignment, but this can easily be changed based on the needs of the setting to be more like nominal alignment.

Nominal alignment should typically be free from effects that target a specific alignment, or at least offered significant circumstance bonuses to resist them or subjected to lesser effects. However, it can be treated like dedicated alignment instead. The decision here should be based on the relative importance of alignment within the setting.

Some effects (such as the unholy blight spell), exempt a particular alignment rather than affect them. In this case, run the same logic in reverse: intrinsic and dedicated alignments of the correct type are exempt from the spell, nominal alignment of that type may resist easier or be subject to a lesser effect, and others are subject to the spell's effects as normal.

Telonius
2010-10-26, 08:07 AM
Another flavor concern for alignment: the source of Divine spells. Clerics get their spells from their Deity. Heironeous is probably not going to be at all cool with his representatives on the material plane using Animate Dead or Blasphemy. He won't give it, so the Cleric doesn't have it.

Amphetryon
2010-10-26, 09:22 AM
Since when did having a known afterlife require alignment? For that matter, when did good and evil require an alignment system either? I've had some very morally complex games of Vampire: the Requiem that involved everything from brooding anti-villains to knights in shining armor, all without anything more complex than a Humanity score. Hell, I once was in a Shadowrun game where, through some great RP and the events of the story, we all ended up 'hooders, and that game doesn't even HAVE a morality (or sanity) system.
In my opinion, discussing how other systems handle alignment does not bring a whole lot to the table when working within the D&D 3.X alignment framework. D&D uses alignment partly to inform its expectations of what happens in a known afterlife, for example.

akma
2010-10-26, 09:31 AM
I don`t like the alignment system for a few reasons:
A. I simply don`t like the idea of good and evil as universal powers.
B. While I don`t mind an ethical debate, I don`t want ethical debates to complicate the rules of the game.
C. It takes away resonable motives. "I`m evil so I do evil things" is not a good motive for doing evil things.
And there can still be "pure" evil without the alignment system, it would just have to be more justified. For exemple, the god of imprisoment (and his minions) believed that freedom is something that needs to be earned, not to be recieved freely, and he wished to imprison everyone in creation. That`s much more intresting then "I want to imprison everyone becuse I am evil", but most of creation would agree to define him as pure evil. Also, he is chaotic while the creatures he created are lawfull, and if I would follow the alignment rules that would be problamatic.

Ernir
2010-10-26, 09:47 AM
My personal theory:

Alignment is indeed meant for "you can kill this without worrying about it." It comes out of the genre that produces the knight in shining armor and the evil peasant-eating dragon. Its meant for people who want to have heroic fantasy without worrying about "is this orc evil enough to kill?"

I must agree with this. Some monsters having an "ALWAYS EVIL" stamp on them is just really convenient when you want to make a kick-in-the-door adventure without the bother of thinking about how your character can live with himself.

Eldan
2010-10-26, 10:07 AM
But being evil is really no excuse for killing people.
I mean, assume a third of all people are evil. Is it fair to kill them all because they are selfish? Because they'd rather look for themselves in a crisis than the guy next to them?

Iceciro
2010-10-26, 10:17 AM
Alignment is there so DMs can kick me from their game for not towing the party line.
Or it seems that way sometimes :D

But in all honesty, it's mostly mechanical. If you want to run a shades-of-gray campaign you can defiantly do it, but it takes more work on the DM's part - does Detect Evil register only "super-evil guys" or people who your character determines is evil? In a shades of gray campaign could two LG paladins register on each others Detect Evil based on personal convictions? Possibly. That leads to a whole bunch of messy connotations and there's a reason why raw alignment is in the core rules while shades of gray isn't.

That said, my groups as of late all follow the "shades of gray" or even "#@%$ alignment rules" setup. I have a LE character with a level of Barbarian who retains Rage under the houserules - because he's not a force of chaos, he just gets REALLY MAD when people don't do what he wants/break rules he set.

Ernir
2010-10-26, 10:22 AM
But being evil is really no excuse for killing people.
I mean, assume a third of all people are evil. Is it fair to kill them all because they are selfish? Because they'd rather look for themselves in a crisis than the guy next to them?

I meant that that is how I think it was intended. It doesn't actually work.

jpreem
2010-10-26, 10:32 AM
I guess it would be better if the alignments were called skins and shirts or team blue and red.

I entertain a campaign idea where everything is neutral except outsiders, or some magical beasts or somesuch. Which can be infernal or celestial. And everyone can form their own mind what is good and bad anyway.

Ahh sorry Good and Evil ----EEEEEEEEEVVVIL

Eldonauran
2010-10-26, 11:00 AM
I entertain a campaign idea where everything is neutral except outsiders, or some magical beasts or somesuch. Which can be infernal or celestial. And everyone can form their own mind what is good and bad anyway.

Ahh sorry Good and Evil ----EEEEEEEEEVVVIL

Sounds too much like real life. I'm looking for an escape, not a simulation. :smallamused:

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 11:52 AM
But being evil is really no excuse for killing people.
I mean, assume a third of all people are evil. Is it fair to kill them all because they are selfish? Because they'd rather look for themselves in a crisis than the guy next to them?

The tricky question is- do any of the standard D&D campaign worlds fit this assumption?

In the Eberron Campaign Setting, it does say that quite a lot of ordinary people- scheming advocates, greedy landlords, etc, will be evil- and this kind of evil is not something that violence is the solution to.

Quintessenial Paladin 2 discusses various campaign styles, from "Evil Everywhere" (1/3 of the population are evil) to rarer Evil alignments, to a system where only people who are actually affiliated with fiends or evil gods (and not "ordinary murderers") detect as Evil.

Only in the last of those three, is killing everyone of Evil alignment considered to be justifiable behaviour for a paladin- even when Evil is rare, a paladin should investigate and not assume everyone Evil should be killed.

It is, however, third party- so its conclusions may not be applicable to standard D&D.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-10-26, 11:56 AM
Alignment is a mechanical component because, as a purely roleplay thing, it's horrendously inadequate for characterization. The ONLY purpose of Evil and Good is for Smite Evil, Dictum, the Book of Exalted Deeds, and their like. It fails at everything else.

Urpriest
2010-10-26, 12:11 PM
Without alignment, we wouldn't have planescape. Think of it this way: what is the purpose of the different Castes in Exalted?

akma
2010-10-26, 02:13 PM
Without alignment, we wouldn't have planescape.

I use my own setting, and never used planescape or saw anyone use planescape. Besides, that`s an argument for why it`s good that there was an alignment system, not a reason to keep it.

WinWin
2010-10-26, 02:20 PM
Modern belief systems and morality do not translate over very well to a magical fantasy world.

Killing things because they are 'evil' is perfectly acceptable in the context of the game. Attempting to moderate RPG morality with currently accepted social mores is a waste of effort IMO.

A simplistic abstract may not satisfy some people, but it is good enough for me.

Tengu_temp
2010-10-26, 02:21 PM
Alignment is a relic of old times, when RPGs were less about roleplaying and more about exploring dungeons and gathering treasure (the one who had most money and experience in the end was the winner), while the purpose of the DM was to screw you over. Its purpose was to indicate which creatures you couldn't kill without Bad Things happening. It was also a convenient way to help the party Neutral A-Hole characters ruin the fun for local paladins by causing them to fall and lose all their powers.

Cynical? Me? Why, never!


Think of it this way: what is the purpose of the different Castes in Exalted?

Exalted Castes are a clearly established in-universe concept. What do they have to do with this discussion?

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 02:26 PM
Modern belief systems and morality do not translate over very well to a magical fantasy world.

DMG2 suggests that medieval belief systems and morality do not translate over very well either- and explains that medieval views on gender roles do not make for a very fun time for female PCs- which is why it's changed. The same reasoning is applied to D&D justice systems.

Urpriest
2010-10-26, 02:31 PM
Exalted Castes are a clearly established in-universe concept. What do they have to do with this discussion?

The Great Wheel Cosmology isn't an established in-universe concept?

Urpriest
2010-10-26, 02:34 PM
I use my own setting, and never used planescape or saw anyone use planescape. Besides, that`s an argument for why it`s good that there was an alignment system, not a reason to keep it.

It's actually fairly hard to make an interesting multiverse without at least two axes of structure. You can have more, of course, but it seems like those rejecting alignment tend to go with less, which leads to a set of planes that's either boring or arbitrary. How do you structure your planes?

Tengu_temp
2010-10-26, 02:40 PM
The Great Wheel Cosmology isn't an established in-universe concept?

The alignment system isn't. A Solar saying "I'm a Zenith" is perfectly in character. A paladin saying "I'm Lawful Good" is talking in metagame terms, just like when he's saying "I have 18 charisma".

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 02:48 PM
I'm pretty sure that the terms "chaotic" and "evil" have been used to describe drow in the novels. And some other novel characters have been described as "chaotic" in other novels.

The two put together isn't so common though.

"evil in nature" is sometimes used as a shorthand for "has an evil alignment".

Tengu_temp
2010-10-26, 02:54 PM
That's different. It's people using words to describe their perceptions of the personalities of other people in the game world - completely in-character. But a system of 9 alignments, where absolutely everyone has one of those 9, and maybe even can identify which one they have? Not in-character at all.

WinWin
2010-10-26, 03:07 PM
DMG2 suggests that medieval belief systems and morality do not translate over very well either- and explains that medieval views on gender roles do not make for a very fun time for female PCs- which is why it's changed. The same reasoning is applied to D&D justice systems.

How often does a campaign world include the equivelent of a Magna Carta, let alone constitutional law?

Most games I have played in contained a bastardised version of feudal aristocracies, arcane plutocracies, theocracies and some monstrous autocracies. Not that they were defined as such, but I think you will find that this is fairly common.

The rights of the individual only applied to those individuals with enough personal power to defend their 'rights.' Try arresting a group of PC's in a game and see what happens. 9 times out of 10 you'll be looking at a bloodbath.

It may not be strictly medieval, but it is certainly not modern. In my opinion attempting to codify strict rules of behaviour for characters of a particular philospohical bent is pointless. It adds nothing to the game.

Keeping alignment as simplisic as possible is the best course. It allows for more variety than a ruleset could possiblly contain. Just my opinion.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 03:08 PM
There's also phrases used in-story when describing the gods- Torm as "A god of Law and Good" Umberlee as "a goddess of Chaos and Evil"

This might be more "alignments as forces that define the cosmos" though.

akma
2010-10-26, 03:15 PM
It's actually fairly hard to make an interesting multiverse without at least two axes of structure. You can have more, of course, but it seems like those rejecting alignment tend to go with less, which leads to a set of planes that's either boring or arbitrary. How do you structure your planes?

When you say axes you mean the good/evil axis and the chaotic/lawfull axis? I assume that yes. I haven`t defined my planes by axises.
Anyways, I decided that I won`t have many planes, so all the standard planes besides the prime meterial one are cut out. Besides it, the moon and sun are considered diffrent planes, with powerfull creatures that failed to conquer the moon imprisoned inside it and living comets that make creatures into gold in the sun plane. There is a plane that was created for the purpose of being the god of building workshop (he haven`t realy tried to block entrance to the entire plane since he expected to send some of his worshipers there, and he doesn`t mind other creatures using the machines). There is the plane of imprisoment, that after the god of imprisoment died was largly changed becuse the god of games wanted his own place, and changing a large portion of a plane is simplier then creating a new one. The last plane is the plane of war, created by the god of war to test the efficencies of diffrent stratgies. I wanted the geography of that plane to make no sense, so there will be an emphasis that the plane is artificial and was made for wars. Otherwise, I would have just added a continent.

P.S. I once mentioned the word plane infront of another D&D player and he had no idea what I was talking about.

TheGeckoKing
2010-10-26, 03:22 PM
I always thought it was a mechanical component so DM's didn't have to deal with all the morality debates if they wanted a simple game. Likewise, a player might just wanna smash things, so an "Always Evil" monster is good for players to kill and not feel bad about. Some people can't be asked with morality and subjective views.

Eldan
2010-10-26, 03:51 PM
That's different. It's people using words to describe their perceptions of the personalities of other people in the game world - completely in-character. But a system of 9 alignments, where absolutely everyone has one of those 9, and maybe even can identify which one they have? Not in-character at all.

Of course it is. A Devil knows just as much that it is evil as an aasimon knows that it's good. They have spells to find out, after all. They might not like that mortals use the term "evil" for it, or that they share it with the Tanar'ri, but it's there and they know it. It's plain as anything, written all over the wheel.

Tengu_temp
2010-10-26, 04:04 PM
This just means they can detect the personality tendencies of people. Alignment is an abstraction, a simplification of in-universe morality into nine labels. Or are you saying that HP are an in-game concept too, since there is a spell that lets you know just how much HP your allies have?

akma
2010-10-26, 04:07 PM
If the 9 alignments are universal powers that can be detected, then someone can objectevly say that someone is chaotic evil or lawfull netural.

hamishspence
2010-10-26, 04:21 PM
Or that, for example, Celestia is "mildly lawful and good aligned" and thus anyone who is chaotic or evil will suffer penalties while on that plane.

In-universe, those penalties might be "uneasy feelings" so to speak.

Urpriest
2010-10-26, 08:26 PM
When you say axes you mean the good/evil axis and the chaotic/lawfull axis? I assume that yes. I haven`t defined my planes by axises.
Anyways, I decided that I won`t have many planes, so all the standard planes besides the prime meterial one are cut out. Besides it, the moon and sun are considered diffrent planes, with powerfull creatures that failed to conquer the moon imprisoned inside it and living comets that make creatures into gold in the sun plane. There is a plane that was created for the purpose of being the god of building workshop (he haven`t realy tried to block entrance to the entire plane since he expected to send some of his worshipers there, and he doesn`t mind other creatures using the machines). There is the plane of imprisoment, that after the god of imprisoment died was largly changed becuse the god of games wanted his own place, and changing a large portion of a plane is simplier then creating a new one. The last plane is the plane of war, created by the god of war to test the efficencies of diffrent stratgies. I wanted the geography of that plane to make no sense, so there will be an emphasis that the plane is artificial and was made for wars. Otherwise, I would have just added a continent.

P.S. I once mentioned the word plane infront of another D&D player and he had no idea what I was talking about.

By axes I mean any symmetries/gradations. Law/chaos/good/evil is just the one D&D uses. Themeing the planes off of celestial bodies is interesting (it's basically Exalted's equivalent of D&D's law/chaos/good/evil in terms of organizing principles), but the others are limited. Because each plane is just delineated by essentially only one theme, it's trickier to add structure to them, and thus to make them interesting. While you've got a couple of historical tidbits, it feels like each of the gods/planes involved would come up in your campaign, and that the planes exist primarily to facilitate the story/backstory you want to tell. This is viable, but it's not the kind of thing you can base a published setting on: for one, it doesn't feel plausible. It also limits interesting plots.

As for the question of whether alignment is involved in the setting, the only reason alignment seems different from things like Castes in Exalted is because alignment is phrased awkwardly. Imagine if instead of "Twilight Caste" and "Night Caste" there were "Studious Solars" and "Stealthy Solars". Nobody in the game world would call themselves a "stealthy solar". However, it would still have the same metaphysical importance, the same obvious physical in-world manifestations. D&D alignment is like that.

Fax Celestis
2010-10-26, 08:27 PM
Alignment as a mechanic seems like a cop out for those who want to say, "You can safely kill this because it's there."

That is pretty much it, dead on.

Ormur
2010-10-26, 10:58 PM
There is the dungeon crawl reason of colour coding for the PC's convenience but if that's the game they like then they can just as well establish some other excuse. Other media have all sorts of cheap and easy ways to designate the enemy.

The more respectable roleplaying reason is if you want to play in a heroic or high fantasy setting where evil is a palpable thing with a corrupting presence, something like LotR. That should still allow for moral ambiguity so I'd consider something like corruption a more appropriate mechanical effect than the twin axes of subjectivity.

Personally I really don't like the alignment system as a mechanical effect. I've been trying to run a more politically and morally complex game than the typical heroic fantasy so the only thing it has added to my campaign is the hassle of explaining how the evil guys with a cause can justify their supposedly good intentions versus their clearly evil alignment.

The end result is a world where it's not okay to kill evil people on sight (thus defeating the original purpose) and where evil doesn't actually mean what it does in the real world, a subjective thing that's always negative, but simply an objective methodology that results in a lot of pain and suffering and pings on certain divination spells.

Next D&D campaign I run will absolutely get rid of any mechanical effects. People can write an alignment on their sheet but the local cleric will have no way of finding it out except by getting to know that person.


How often does a campaign world include the equivelent of a Magna Carta, let alone constitutional law?

Most games I have played in contained a bastardised version of feudal aristocracies, arcane plutocracies, theocracies and some monstrous autocracies. Not that they were defined as such, but I think you will find that this is fairly common.

I've tried to make a sort of transition from pre-modern to modern political systems a subtle backdrop of my campaign. Of course there is a good and bad option but there are things like parliaments and bureaucracies.

One side quest involved convincing a noble to influence the regional parliament to do the prince's bidding (he's a sovereign duke, I use prince in the princeps or fürst meaning).

JonestheSpy
2010-10-27, 12:09 AM
Once again I'd like to point out that if you look at the Outer Planes, there's really 17 alignments in terms of what afterlife you end up at, not 9. Pandemonium is for those whose behavior is between chaotic neutral and chaotic evil, while Ysgard is for those who trend chaotic good but aren't good enough to reach Arborea, etc, etc. Really, there aught to be 4 more, for neutrals leaning toward good, or law, etc, though I suppose the later descriptions of the Neutral Outlands having all these border areas for neutrals who lean this way or that addresses that issue.

So really, there's a lot more possibilities than just shoehorning folks into 9 different categories.

Eldan
2010-10-27, 01:28 AM
Well, the Outlands are huge, and there are so many realms in them, a soul going there can end up in some pretty different places. The dwarven mountain doesn't share many similarities with Semuyana's Bog or the realm of Illsensine. So there's plenty of space to trend towards anything.

Avilan the Grey
2010-10-27, 01:58 AM
Killing things because they are 'evil' is perfectly acceptable in the context of the game.

"Things" might be perfectly acceptable to kill on sight, but people are not. That's where the RPGing comes in.



There's also phrases used in-story when describing the gods- Torm as "A god of Law and Good" Umberlee as "a goddess of Chaos and Evil"

This might be more "alignments as forces that define the cosmos" though.

Yes, a god IS an alignment, unlike a mortal creature. That said, it always irks me when you have the "Evil cult of Evilness". I would think that Umberlee is much better described as "Goddess of the unruly sea, of Chaos, unpredictability and Destruction". Works much better, and gives much more flavor to the world than "She's Chaotic. And Evil".

Eldan
2010-10-27, 02:09 AM
At least when I'm DMing, chaos and evil are measureable forces of the universe, and pretty basic ones at that. Doesn't mean you can kill evil people on sight.

Of course, this plays into the old problem: how much evil is Evil? Is the merchant who charges more money for his food during a famine evil? Is a 5-year-old kid evil if it repeatedly steals another kid's sweets and punches them? Is it evil simply not to care about the things happening in your neighborhood, like slavery and people starving in the streets? Do you have to be a murdering savage to be evil, or is living a convenient life at the cost of others enough?

Depending on where you draw the line between neutral with evil tendencies and outright evil, sentences like "they are evil, so it's okay to kill them"/"they are evil because that is a label to define who you are allowed to kill" become pretty damn difficult to defend.

WinWin
2010-10-27, 02:38 AM
Killing evil things and people is a pretty easy line to defend. Especially if you see the campaign world in black and white terms.

Humans kill each other all of the time in the real world, though different rules apply to different people in different circumstances.

In a world with monsters and magic, killing things because of a differing ethical or supernatural viewpoint is a pretty easy position to defend. Some creatures, by their very existance, threaten humanity and it's ilk. It makes survival easier just to end them when the opportunity presents itself. That is pure pragmatism. The greater good if you will. To take this stance with purely inhuman creatures would be bigotry. In reality, people like to think life is precious, while blissfully ignoring the majority of the world. In a fantasy game, with rampaging monsters, complicated afterlives and resurrection for sale, life has far less value.

If a player wants to roleplay making difficult choices, it is their game. To try and enforce their philosophies on another player is just rude. When I play a Paladin, I do not ask questions or show any mercy. 'The Gods' have told him that a particular being is evil. He smites them. He likes smiting bad creatures.

Would I act this way in real life? No. I do not play games to indulge in reality though.

Mastikator
2010-10-27, 02:39 AM
My personal theory:

Alignment is indeed meant for "you can kill this without worrying about it." It comes out of the genre that produces the knight in shining armor and the evil peasant-eating dragon. Its meant for people who want to have heroic fantasy without worrying about "is this orc evil enough to kill?"

Basically it's a way of justifying racist hate crimes? Sweet. Makes sense too.
By declaring an entire race or species "usually evil" you dehumanize an entire group of people, depriving them of their dignity. By declaring an individual "evil", you dehumanize him and make it OK to kill him regardless of whether he's even done anyone harm.
It lets us turn people into faceless animals and kill them, allowing us to tap into our psychopathic tendencies (kill people without being affected), and in my opinion reveals a very dark truth about our society.

Eldan
2010-10-27, 02:41 AM
However, and this is another aspect, killing evil things does not work for the greater good, because it doesn't solve the problems.
Killing fifty evil goblins removes the goblin threat, but it is a short term solution. These fifty goblin souls now go to an evil afterlife, and end up powering the entire supernatural machinery of evil.
The greater good is not killing evil things, it's converting them to good. Killing evil doesn't solve a problem, it merely delays it, while potentially making it bigger. But every soul saved is a victory.

WinWin
2010-10-27, 02:50 AM
The sword represents coercive force. I would rather play a swordsman than an evangelist. The game is more fun that way.

Eldan
2010-10-27, 02:51 AM
For you, not for everyone. Can't people please abstain from such absolute statements about what is fun or not? It annoys me.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 02:54 AM
There's also the issue of using force in defense rather than offense.

A good hero can certainly use force against those who are harming the innocent (who will more often than not be evil) but once the force has done it's job, they can seek to win over those enemies who have surrendered.

The way I see it, a Good hero doesn't seek out evil beings for killing- they seek out innocent beings for defending. This leads them to frequently run into evil beings who they defend the innocents from.

Not every threat to the innocent is an evil being though- it might be a group of Neutral but predatory monsters, it might be a natural disaster, it might be some other problem- it's all grist to the Good character's mill.

Mastikator
2010-10-27, 02:56 AM
I agree with you there. But the game doesn't. The paladin is held to the highest "goodness" level, besides angels. But paladins can't convert evil to good, they don't have atonement as a class ability to paladin spell, but they do have smite evil.
The mentality of pretty much every paladin player I've ever met is "it's ok to detect evil and kill on sight" (completely ignoring that it's chaotic and unlawful behavior, besides evil).

Eldan
2010-10-27, 02:58 AM
And that's why those paladins wouldn't make it long in my games, honestly.

Of course, I wouldn't actually tell them that they fell, or make them lose their power. It's much funnier to have a devil in disguise show up five levels later and congratulating them on a job well done. :smallamused:

Tvtyrant
2010-10-27, 02:58 AM
Basically it's a way of justifying racist hate crimes? Sweet. Makes sense too.
By declaring an entire race or species "usually evil" you dehumanize an entire group of people, depriving them of their dignity. By declaring an individual "evil", you dehumanize him and make it OK to kill him regardless of whether he's even done anyone harm.
It lets us turn people into faceless animals and kill them, allowing us to tap into our psychopathic tendencies (kill people without being affected), and in my opinion reveals a very dark truth about our society.

...That we want to kill things? I'm not sure how dark that truth is mate, we are omnivorous.

Eldan
2010-10-27, 03:18 AM
Actually, racism and warfare seem to be pretty common amongst most intelligent species. We have chimpanzees at war, racist monkeys, rapist dolphins. Crows are huge bastards to each other.

Which is all the more reason why we should try and be better than that.

Baalthazaq
2010-10-27, 03:28 AM
Pigeonholing people is acceptable.

The Good/Evil Axis and Law/Chaos axis give enough variety to encompass most things. There are exceptions (Look in my characters in my signature at Lomax Constantine, click link for bigger description), but expanding the axis makes things too complex, and shrinking it makes it too restrictive.

Comparing to WoD rules is acceptable, but acting like WoD doesn't have an alignment system is silly, it just has a different one. Morality. With 10 pigeon holes. 1 to 10. In a line.

Instead of D&D's 9, on a grid. I'm fine with both. WoD is actually my favourite system, but D&D has some very nice features.

You have many other personality tests that exist on a grid. Look at something like Belbin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belbin_Team_Inventory)'s 9 personality types, or Myers-Briggs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator) 16. You can say "Oh but this doesn't encompass the full scope of humanity!", but it's silly to say, because all it's doing is trying to make sure a team gets put together which works well together. Does it serve that purpose? Yes. Does it do it well? Yes.

Also NOTHING DOES encompass all of humanity. Not the attribute system, not the skill system, not the feat system, not the size system, nothing, in any game system. You could just as easily have this argument about the Charisma stat, it's effect on spells, how it only affects certain people, how Eagle's Splendour works, etc.

In this case, alignment solidifies and simplifies a real world concept, that can apply mechanically in game.

It's not perfect, and unlike other components, there is some contradiction that comes from "Evil" and "Good" not being exact opposites in their descriptions. Same with law and chaos. All 3.5 needs to do is simplify the wording for it to make them mutually exclusive, and I'd have no problem with alignment.

Currently, in worlds I run:
Good = Care for others > Care for self.
Evil = Care for self > Care for others.
Law = Society knows better than me > I know better than society.
Chaos = Society knows better than me < I know better than society.

(In before complaints. I am aware this is not necessarily how you view the alignments. If my DM says Law is proficiency in the Elvish languages, and Evil means have you eaten a green vegetable today, then he can do that, and you can too. I don't, I like this one, it works fine.)

For society, it is possible to align with a specific society or group (Paladin's code of conduct), or to simply align with all places you visit (When in Rome...).

For self loathing characters, the above does still work in my worlds.

Ok, I'll shut up now. Too much talking.

Eldan
2010-10-27, 03:33 AM
Can I just say that I think Eagle's Splendour is a scary, scary spell, to me?

You wave your hands and in an instant, change a person fundamentally. You can just, with a second level spell slot, give someone charisma and a strong personality. Somehow, it manages to scare me more than Dominate Person or Mindrape, even though they do similar things, basically.

Mastikator
2010-10-27, 03:40 AM
...That we want to kill things? I'm not sure how dark that truth is mate, we are omnivorous.

Wanting to eat meat is at best an absurd justification for killing people. Unless you're a cannibal, which is not in our nature btw.

WinWin
2010-10-27, 03:47 AM
Talking at the enemy rarely resolves anthing. Forcing them to accept your worldview is a soft form of conquest, but no less a violation than any other form of war.

You are basically saying, "I can not accept you as you are. You must change because you displease me." Promoting change or ending their existance amounts to the same thing. They simply cease to be as they were.

No doubt you could argue the differing spiritual consequences of either action. That it has an effect on realms beyond the scope of a player character. Most PC's only care about one realm and leave metaphysics to the metaphysical beings of their campaign world. Usually PC's can only influence one realm. Often, only a very small part of it.

I would rather play a character that removes evil in an expedient and sure manner. Nothing chaotic or evil about that.

Eldan
2010-10-27, 03:54 AM
So?

In the end, pretty much everything boils down to violence of some sort. It's a fact of life, and has to be accepted.

It's a question of the lesser evil, and giving your enemy a choice. Instead of invading his home, burning it down and killing him, you give him the choice of a) trying to change his world view to one matching your own, b) moving away so that you are no longer in conflict c) death, imprisonment or other physical violence. Basically, you let him choose the kind of violence done to him, instead of just doing it. Which, I guess, is what goodness boils down to in a situation like this. Or that may just be my personal, chaotic and cynical worldview.

Furthermore, as I said, life boils down to convenience. People always do what's convenient and beneficial to themselves in the first place, they are just more or less smart and long-term oriented about it. Killing the enemy solves the problem in the short term with possible long-term consequences, making him accept your world-view solves it in the long term, with possible short-term consequences. It's your choice.

WinWin
2010-10-27, 04:07 AM
Why must there be shades of grey? Greater and lesser evil? Certainly, the strength of an evil being is supported by the mechanics of the game, as are their connections to the outer planes, but Evil is Evil.

Not slightly evil. Not evil on wenesdays. Just Evil. Alignment is a simple mechanic. It makes simple assumptions about the behaviour of an individual. Regardless of the scope of the actions a creature may have perpetrated, the fact that they have Evil on their character sheet says a great deal about the individual.

To my Paladin, it says "Smite me! I deserve it!"

He is not interested in saving their soul. They have already made their choice. By killing them, he is either an agent of divine justice or divine prophylaxis; preventing them from causing further evil.

Eldan
2010-10-27, 04:14 AM
That I don't agree with in the slightest.

There are different interpretations on what does and does not constitute evil. A little selfishness can be evil, or it can be neutral. As I said, kids stealing sweets and being violent to other kids. Read the description of evil alignments in the players handbook. Not every evil creature runs around murdering, raping and pillaging all the time. If a businessman is merely calculating and ruthless, that can make him evil, according to some interpretations. And yet, I don't know of any legal system that would justify the death penalty for that.

Depending on how you read the alignment chapter, a full third of all humans are evil. Go out on the street, and think about what kind of person you would have to be to kill one third of all the people you see. Are you still a Paladin?

And even then, killing evil creatures does not prevent them from doing more evil in D&D. Quite the opposite. It sends their soul to an evil lower plane, fueling the machineries of fiends. It makes evil stronger.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 04:50 AM
Agreed with this.

The paladin's code says a paladin must "punish those who harm or threaten innocents"

But it does not say that the only appropriate punishment is death.

Evil people "debase or destroy the innocent, whether for profit or pleasure"- is a generalization- not an exact, always true statement. Sometimes evil characters haven't done it yet, but are only "willing" to do it given the opportunity.

And some characters are only willing to "debase or destroy the non-innocent for profit and pleasure".

Sometimes (a school bully might be a good example) an evil character is willing to debase the innocent, but not destroy them in the most literal sense.

In the Stephen King novel (and movie) Carrie- the bullies are willing to "debase" the title character by spilling pig blood all over them and encouraging everybody present to laugh at them. This might be enough to qualify them for an evil alignment.

But it does not make them "would-be murderers"

A paladin only gets Smite Evil a few times a day. Detect Evil is not for "identifying people that must be punished by smiting them to death"- it is for ensuring that a paladin does not waste their few Smite Evil attempts during fights with a mixed group of Neutral and Evil opponents.

Eldan
2010-10-27, 04:57 AM
Detect Evil is also for singling out people that might be worthy of closer inspection, or of a heart-to-heart talk. Not for "Aaargh! School bully! Smite! Smite! SMIIIITE!!!"

WitchSlayer
2010-10-27, 05:09 AM
Detect Evil is also for singling out people that might be worthy of closer inspection, or of a heart-to-heart talk. Not for "Aaargh! School bully! Smite! Smite! SMIIIITE!!!"

In 4th edition, that's what Avengers are for!

The second one. Not the first one.

It would kind of kill the reputation of the word "Avenger" if they just went around giving heart to heart talks to the necromancer cultists.

FelixG
2010-10-27, 05:15 AM
the fact that they have Evil on their character sheet says a great deal about the individual.

To my Paladin, it says "Smite me! I deserve it!"

He is not interested in saving their soul. They have already made their choice. By killing them, he is either an agent of divine justice or divine prophylaxis; preventing them from causing further evil.

You see a man on the street, he is wearing a black robe and looking suspicious, you detect evil, he pings as evil! RWAR SMITE! -dead black robed individual-

Congratulations you just committed...MURDER!!!

Had he done anything? Notthat you know of, did you just randomly attack a person on the street for no good reason? sure did!

You are shoe in for black guard though! what you described is at BEST lawful evil, willing to kill anyone who seems to be outside of your personal view of how the world should be.

akma
2010-10-27, 06:18 AM
By axes I mean any symmetries/gradations. Law/chaos/good/evil is just the one D&D uses. Themeing the planes off of celestial bodies is interesting (it's basically Exalted's equivalent of D&D's law/chaos/good/evil in terms of organizing principles), but the others are limited. Because each plane is just delineated by essentially only one theme, it's trickier to add structure to them, and thus to make them interesting. While you've got a couple of historical tidbits, it feels like each of the gods/planes involved would come up in your campaign, and that the planes exist primarily to facilitate the story/backstory you want to tell. This is viable, but it's not the kind of thing you can base a published setting on: for one, it doesn't feel plausible. It also limits interesting plots.

Themes are a good tool for making consistent things, and I don`t think I need to base the entire multiverse on themes - just the planes themselves, and I admit I haven`t put as nearly as much effort in them as I should (but I feel no rush). Personelly, I think the moon plane is more limited for adventuring then the plane of war. In the plane of war I can base an adventure based on defeating each warlord (that represents a stratgy), or by warlords sending the heroes on missions. But the moon is ruled by a god, and he won`t let random adventurers do any harm. I can only base an adventure in the moon if someone that was imprisoned would escape, but still, the adventure wouldn`t be on the moon itself.
And if I`ll feel that a plane is not a good place for adventuring, I`ll eithar alter it or delete it.



As for the question of whether alignment is involved in the setting, the only reason alignment seems different from things like Castes in Exalted is because alignment is phrased awkwardly. Imagine if instead of "Twilight Caste" and "Night Caste" there were "Studious Solars" and "Stealthy Solars". Nobody in the game world would call themselves a "stealthy solar". However, it would still have the same metaphysical importance, the same obvious physical in-world manifestations. D&D alignment is like that.

But studious and stealthy describes skills, not personelity.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 06:18 AM
You see a man on the street, he is wearing a black robe and looking suspicious, you detect evil, he pings as evil! RWAR SMITE! -dead black robed individual-

Congratulations you just committed...MURDER!!!

Had he done anything? Notthat you know of, did you just randomly attack a person on the street for no good reason? sure did!

Heroes of Horror pretty much says this- pointing out that those who just go around killing everyone who detects as evil can expect to be jailed for murder.

The Eberron Campaign Setting book also goes out of it's way to point out that not everyone of evil alignment deserves to be attacked by a paladin.

Even in earlier editions, not everyone who was evil deserved to die- but Detect Evil took this into account, and did not detect everyone of evil alignment- it only detected the very strongly evil.

In 3rd ed, Detect Evil was upgraded to detect everyone of evil alignment- but they didn't get around to pointing out that alignment had not changed- so people who've played 2nd or 1st ed treat 3rd ed Detect Evil as if it was the earlier version- and then get upset when they discover it's not.

Urpriest
2010-10-27, 07:41 AM
Themes are a good tool for making consistent things, and I don`t think I need to base the entire multiverse on themes - just the planes themselves, and I admit I haven`t put as nearly as much effort in them as I should (but I feel no rush). Personelly, I think the moon plane is more limited for adventuring then the plane of war. In the plane of war I can base an adventure based on defeating each warlord (that represents a stratgy), or by warlords sending the heroes on missions. But the moon is ruled by a god, and he won`t let random adventurers do any harm. I can only base an adventure in the moon if someone that was imprisoned would escape, but still, the adventure wouldn`t be on the moon itself.
And if I`ll feel that a plane is not a good place for adventuring, I`ll eithar alter it or delete it.

You see, this last is the difference between a homebrew setting and a published setting. It's unrealistic for a setting to have every plane be one that is a good place for adventuring. You have the liberty to make your planes around where the PCs might want to adventure, but WotC does not. They need a source of structure beyond a group of players, and they do this (partly) through the alignment system.


But studious and stealthy describes skills, not personelity.

And yet in Exalted they also represent fundamental, unchangeable metaphysical parts of who certain Exalted are.

akma
2010-10-27, 08:08 AM
You see, this last is the difference between a homebrew setting and a published setting. It's unrealistic for a setting to have every plane be one that is a good place for adventuring. You have the liberty to make your planes around where the PCs might want to adventure, but WotC does not. They need a source of structure beyond a group of players, and they do this (partly) through the alignment system.

If certain planes will be boring and unplayable, what`s the point in publishing them?
I don`t plan my planes around the possibility of adventuring, but I think it`s an important aspect. I make the planes for a game, not a story.
I would write more, but currently I am short on time, I will be back again in 2-3 hours.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-27, 08:28 AM
You see a man on the street, he is wearing a black robe and looking suspicious, you detect evil, he pings as evil! RWAR SMITE! -dead black robed individual-

Congratulations you just committed...MURDER!!!

Had he done anything? Notthat you know of, did you just randomly attack a person on the street for no good reason? sure did!

You are shoe in for black guard though! what you described is at BEST lawful evil, willing to kill anyone who seems to be outside of your personal view of how the world should be.

Nope, you won't become a Blackguard. You might go to jail. Killing evil isn't evil (more neutral unless protecting innocents than good).

Eldan
2010-10-27, 08:29 AM
Name any planes that are boring boring and unplayable? I don't like Bytopia or Arcadia, much, but I've seen excellent adventures based off them.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 08:41 AM
Nope, you won't become a Blackguard. You might go to jail. Killing evil isn't evil (more neutral unless protecting innocents than good).

Actually the PHB doesn't state that. It says nothing about "killing evil isn't evil".

And the BoVD only states that "killing creatures of consummate, iredeemable evil, even if primarily for profit, is not evil"

It defines Murder as an exceptionally evil act. And it is possible for killing an evil being, to be Murder.

FC2 takes the same approach to Murder- defining it as one of the most serious Corrupt acts.

BoED provides examples of when killing evil beings is not evil- but most involve direct defense of others, or execution for serious crimes. Being evil on it's own is not a serious crime.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-27, 09:54 AM
You folks are aware that being evil-aligned does not automatically mean you've done something deserving of death, right? An inveterate thief might be evil. A shopkeeper extorting the poor might be evil. For that matter, D&D might classify someone insane and in need of help as "evil", but they wouldn't remain so if cured.

FelixG
2010-10-27, 10:02 AM
Nope, you won't become a Blackguard. You might go to jail. Killing evil isn't evil (more neutral unless protecting innocents than good).

I really hope this was a sarcastic post, it is so hard to tell online.

Murder is evil, no matter the alignment of the person.

The guy can be evil, chaotic stupid evil even, but if you just walk up without provocation and kill em thats still murder and evil.

For all you know the guy could have been a lower functionary in a church and been taking a gold peice from donations each shift he works without anyone knowing. Is he evil? Yes, does he deserve death? no

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 10:48 AM
For all you know the guy could have been a lower functionary in a church and been taking a gold peice from donations each shift he works without anyone knowing. Is he evil? Yes, does he deserve death? no

Given that in FC2 this would qualify as "robbing the needy" a mid-range corrupt act- the "he is evil" certainly fits.

The "he does not deserve death" is harder to justify, but traditionally, very small scale theft is not a serious enough crime to warrent death. So "Execution for serious crimes does not qualify as evil" may not apply in this case.

Urpriest
2010-10-27, 11:56 AM
If certain planes will be boring and unplayable, what`s the point in publishing them?
I don`t plan my planes around the possibility of adventuring, but I think it`s an important aspect. I make the planes for a game, not a story.
I would write more, but currently I am short on time, I will be back again in 2-3 hours.


Name any planes that are boring boring and unplayable? I don't like Bytopia or Arcadia, much, but I've seen excellent adventures based off them.

Well the Far Realm and the Elemental Plane of Time are both a little tricky to write decent adventures in.

It's more fair to say that certain planes won't be appropriate for certain campaigns, and that while the criterion "places the players might go" is something you can build a world off of, the criterion "places where anyone might go" isn't. You need more structure.

akma
2010-10-27, 01:06 PM
Well the Far Realm and the Elemental Plane of Time are both a little tricky to write decent adventures in.


The far realm and the elemental plane of time don`t fit the alignment theme at all! Which kind of helps your original point. From what I have heard, the far realm is for cthulian style horrors, and I`m sure many D&D DMs don`t want cthulu in their D&D, and I never heard about the elemental plane of time before, and I personelly like time as something stable.



It's more fair to say that certain planes won't be appropriate for certain campaigns, and that while the criterion "places the players might go" is something you can build a world off of, the criterion "places where anyone might go" isn't. You need more structure.

It`s not how I build my planes. I generally use themes as a tool. Besides, I don`t know who I might DM to one day, and I want a world I could always use, not one tailored around certain players.

Eldan
2010-10-27, 01:08 PM
The plane of time is a little like the ordial plane. One of those planes that have been mentioned here and there, but never really used. It's for those who want Time Travel plots, or have to somehow explain chronomancy.

Urpriest
2010-10-27, 01:30 PM
It is indeed possible to make viable adventures over the entire Great Wheel (unless there's an example I'm not thinking of). Really, though, this is because each plane has been shaped to be that way, after its true nature was assumed. Example: Hades and Elysium have entrapping traits as a result of their being symmetrical exemplars of their respective alignments. The mechanics for these entrapping traits were then designed such that you could still have interesting adventures on those planes. Basically, they start with a structure that doesn't perfectly fit gameplay, then fill in details until it does. That is the power of structure: not just inspiration, but constraint.

Even if you aren't fitting your planes to a specific group, you're fitting them to the general sort of story you want the setting to tell. A couple gods are important, so they get realms characteristic of them. That kind of realm is tougher to create stuff for because it already has everything you need. Having some sort of artificial axis imposed on your cosmology (whether alignment, elements, planets, etc.) forces you to make things playable and interesting when they otherwise wouldn't be, which in turn lends a more authentic feel to what you create.

Chauncymancer
2010-10-27, 01:40 PM
It was my understanding that mechanics are designed to allow for meaningful player choices without resorting to DM fiat. In which case alignment should have been designed in an attempt to allow meaningful player choices in the realm of morals without resorting to DM fiat.
How "meaningful" you personally view mechanics will probably have a lot to do with how you feel about DM fiat.

WinWin
2010-10-27, 02:39 PM
Killing people is evil? Murder may be against the law, but the Paladin I play does not answer to a mortal authority. He answers to a divine authority. My Paladin does not care about the specific details of an evil creatures actions, the consequences of his actions result in less evil. If the DM wants to arrest my character for acting the way the class is supposed to, that is cool. My Paladin can smite people in prison.

D&D is about killing things. Focussing on killing evil things is not antisocial. Quite the opposite.

I reject the assumption that a third of any given pupulation is evil. I doubt that even a third of the population would be good. The may like to think they are, but extremes of a moral or ethical stance are rare. It takes a dedicated effort beyond a few simple acts of charity or malice.

As you say, the person who has done only a few evil acts would not be evil. They would be neutral. A******s, but neutral. As such, they would not register on my Paladins detect evil. Those that do register are Bad Creatures that do Bad Things.

This is not an issue of moral relativism. It is a function of game mechanics and my roleplaying style.

Avilan the Grey
2010-10-27, 02:46 PM
Killing people is evil? Murder may be against the law, but the Paladin I play does not answer to a mortal authority. He answers to a divine authority. My Paladin does not care about the specific details of an evil creatures actions, the consequences of his actions result in less evil. If the DM wants to arrest my character for acting the way the class is supposed to, that is cool. My Paladin can smite people in prison.

So... you are one of those that enjoy playing Stupid Good? If you play with a DM that is anyway near competent, your character will being executed quite fast for being an evil murderous bastard.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-27, 02:52 PM
Killing people is evil? Murder may be against the law, but the Paladin I play does not answer to a mortal authority. He answers to a divine authority. My Paladin does not care about the specific details of an evil creatures actions, the consequences of his actions result in less evil. If the DM wants to arrest my character for acting the way the class is supposed to, that is cool. My Paladin can smite people in prison.

Paladins are required to respect and honor the local laws unless doing so would cause them to commit an evil act. For better or for worse, a paladin is lawful good, not merely good-aligned. Furthermore, cold-blooded murder - of an evil creature or otherwise - degrades both the killer and the victim. Mercy is one of the central tenants of good, and violence should almost never be its first resort.

Oh, and since this keeps coming up - PALADINS ANSWER TO NO POWER HIGHER THAN THEIR OWN ETHICS. Gods? COMPLETELY OPTIONAL. Geez folks. The power of a paladin flows directly from the Code, and if they choose to worship a god, that god should count themselves lucky.


D&D is about killing things. Focussing on killing evil things is not antisocial. Quite the opposite.

D&D is about many things, and killing is only one of them. What about heroism? Ancient mysteries? Exploration? Puzzle-solving? Games of wit and chance? There's a lot more than just killing.


I reject the assumption that a third of any given pupulation is evil. I doubt that even a third of the population would be good. The may like to think they are, but extremes of a moral or ethical stance are rare. It takes a dedicated effort beyond a few simple acts of charity or malice.

I'd argue otherwise. Most folks are basically decent. They might commit your occasional act of petty theft or get into the odd undeserved fistfight, but almost all people will help others with or without a reason to do so. If someone's getting attacked or starving on the streets, almost anyone would help, at least a little. They're just not prepared to lay their life on the line to do so.


As you say, the person who has done only a few evil acts would not be evil. They would be neutral. A******s, but neutral. As such, they would not register on my Paladins detect evil. Those that do register are Bad Creatures that do Bad Things.

This is not an issue of moral relativism. It is a function of game mechanics and my roleplaying style.

Emphasis mine. If that works for your games, great, but the default assumption is that things that ping as evil might not actually be deserving of death. Imprisonment, perhaps. Punishment, almost certainly. But death? There's a reason for the Knight Templar trope's existence.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 02:53 PM
So... you are one of those that enjoy playing Stupid Good? If you play with a DM that is anyway near competent, your character will being executed quite fast for being an evil murderous bastard.

Actually Stupid Good is the "redeem rather than kill the evil" concept- but taken way beyond the point of practicality:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidGood

WinWin's sounds more like "Pay Evil Unto Evil", or "Knight Templar"- the idea that if someone's evil-aligned, that's normally all the justification needed to kill them.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-27, 03:01 PM
WinWin's sounds more like "Pay Evil Unto Evil", or "Knight Templar"- the idea that if someone's evil-aligned, that's normally all the justification needed to kill them.

BoED's statement that this kind of behavior is evil was one of the few things I liked out of that book.

Well, that and Anoited Knight, 'cause I love the concept (the execution needs to be fixed, of course, and there's no real reason for them to be an exalted PrC at the moment).

Eldan
2010-10-27, 03:03 PM
I'd argue otherwise. Most folks are basically decent. They might commit your occasional act of petty theft or get into the odd undeserved fistfight, but almost all people will help others with or without a reason to do so. If someone's getting attacked or starving on the streets, almost anyone would help, at least a little. They're just not prepared to lay their life on the line to do so.

That's sadly not quite true. Look up the bystander effect some time. And it works without bystanders, even, most people have the scary tendency to look the other way when crime happens.

As for killing evil: I've mentioned it before, but: the line between evil and neutral is one of definition. The Players hand book does not clearly define how much evil you need to do to stop being neutral. Are only irredeemable monsters evil? In that case you could justify such an approach. Are even those committing rather minor acts of selfishness evil? In that case, you can't just "detect and smite".

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 03:06 PM
BoED's statement that this kind of behavior is evil was one of the few things I liked out of that book.

I liked a lot of the themes- the theme of mercy, forgiveness and redemption, the theme of treating others in relationships with respect, and so on.

It had its bad moments, but on the whole I thought it did Good as more than simply "those who battle Evil" quite well.



As for killing evil: I've mentioned it before, but: the line between evil and neutral is one of definition. The Players hand book does not clearly define how much evil you need to do to stop being neutral.

I've seen some people argue that the only way you can stop being Neutral is to start committing (or at least, start being willing to commit) evil acts against "the innocent"-

no amount of evil acts against "the not-innocent" will change a being's alignment, without this change of attitude.

I strongly disagree with this theory though.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-27, 03:09 PM
I liked a lot of the themes- the theme of mercy, forgiveness and redemption, the theme of treating others in relationships with respect, and so on.

It had its bad moments, but on the whole I thought it did Good as more than simply "those who battle Evil" quite well.

Oh, the THEMES are great. But then it has to go off and deal in retarded absolutes and, frankly, ruin said themes in many cases. I see BoED as inspiration for your own re-definition of Good, not anything worth following to the letter.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 03:11 PM
Oh, the THEMES are great. But then it has to go off and deal in retarded absolutes and, frankly, ruin said themes in many cases.

Absolutes like "torture is always an evil act"? I'm not so sure that was a bad one.

And subsequent books (FC2) have tended to continue this assumption.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-27, 03:14 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of things like, "Ability damage is always evil" or "committing an evil act for any reason, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever is EVUL and you should NEVAH do it EVAH."

Y'know, even to save the world.

Those kinds of absolutes.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 03:19 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of things like, "Ability damage is always evil"

That was more "ability damage inflicted by poisons is always evil"- it doesn't specify that it applies to all forms of ability damage like, for example, strength-damaging spells.

The basic principle it was derived from was "causing excessive suffering to people is evil"- which isn't so bad a principle- even if the derivation was a poor one.


or "committing an evil act for any reason, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever is EVUL and you should NEVAH do it EVAH."

Y'know, even to save the world.

That's not so good- but the idea that an act can cease to be evil (no matter how evil it would normally be) if the intention is to save the world, might also be problematic in the context of D&D.

akma
2010-10-27, 03:39 PM
*snip*
Basically, they start with a structure that doesn't perfectly fit gameplay, then fill in details until it does. That is the power of structure: not just inspiration, but constraint.


I have no problam with using themes, I just rather not use them for the multiverse completly. But technically you can define my planes as planets and gods realms.



Even if you aren't fitting your planes to a specific group, you're fitting them to the general sort of story you want the setting to tell.


I see nothing wrong with that. If I`ll want a completly diffrent story, I`ll use a diffrent campaign setting or even a diffrent rule system.



A couple gods are important, so they get realms characteristic of them.


I haven`t decided where most of the gods are, but not every one of them is going to have a private plane.



That kind of realm is tougher to create stuff for because it already has everything you need. Having some sort of artificial axis imposed on your cosmology (whether alignment, elements, planets, etc.) forces you to make things playable and interesting when they otherwise wouldn't be, which in turn lends a more authentic feel to what you create.

No, it leads to more consistency. I don`t think it adds to playabality and intrest in the world. For exemple, I find the idea of elementanel planes boring - a world composed completly of 1 element sounds very repetitive, and something that could completly be folded into another plane (instead of the earth plane, it could be just the underground areas of a diffrent plane). And an adventure in the water plane doesn`t sound more intresting then an aquatic adventure.

WinWin
2010-10-27, 04:00 PM
I'll put my stance another way. I realise that people have different views on alignment, so I'm trying to put accross my views from the perspective of a recent character.

My paladin would be suited to an organisation such as the Harmonium. I had a great time playing a Dustman Necrophill...uh, mancer in another game, though planehopping antics and Alignment Metas were treated far differently in that campaign.

Some creatures can not be reasoned with. Dragons, Demons, Undead and their ilk. Some people can't be reasoned with. Serial rapists, diabolists and those that are just plain mean. It would be nice to think that these creatures could be made to see the errors of their ways, but it is rarely practical to engage them in a debate. Showing them compassion would most likely provoke a lethal response. An intelligent creature such as a Pit Fiend or Mind Flayer may be willing to talk...But any attempt at a moral conversion could well backfire horribly. Even if they do 'see the light,' what then? It the evil they have done suddenly washed away? Are they innured against a relapse into their former behaviour? It is a nice thought and a redeemed villian can be a powerful force. Redeemed villians are not very common though. About as common as fallen heroes, i'd say...

As for not obeying laws...Well my Paladin respects laws. He works with legal authorities. He does not answer to them though. Where they are unable or unwilling to bring a creature to justice, he will be there with a BFS. He does not concern himself with trivial issues of criminality, he seeks out real, palpable evil to destroy.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 04:06 PM
Some creatures can not be reasoned with. Dragons, Demons, Undead and their ilk.

Chromatic dragons are quite commonly "reasoned with" in the novels.

And intelligent undead are sometimes "reasoned with" as well- liches and the like.

Ormur
2010-10-27, 04:39 PM
I like, at least theoretically, evil guys that are eminently reasonable, they just do evil things. Sure something like a mindflayer or a devil might as well have a "smite at will" sign on their foreheads because of their habits but sometimes I want the players to be forced to deal with, or even be willing to deal with evil. As it happens my PC's currently span the entire alignment chart although the token evil team mate hasn't really done anything particularly heinous.

You might even take the stance that killing evil people is quite all right but if there is no way of finding out except by observing their actions it becomes more subjective, more interesting. Hey, if your players need something to kill you just have them attacked, they'll be killing things in self-defence.

Urpriest
2010-10-27, 05:03 PM
I have no problam with using themes, I just rather not use them for the multiverse completly. But technically you can define my planes as planets and gods realms.



I see nothing wrong with that. If I`ll want a completly diffrent story, I`ll use a diffrent campaign setting or even a diffrent rule system.



I haven`t decided where most of the gods are, but not every one of them is going to have a private plane.



No, it leads to more consistency. I don`t think it adds to playabality and intrest in the world. For exemple, I find the idea of elementanel planes boring - a world composed completly of 1 element sounds very repetitive, and something that could completly be folded into another plane (instead of the earth plane, it could be just the underground areas of a diffrent plane). And an adventure in the water plane doesn`t sound more intresting then an aquatic adventure.

Note that the elemental planes (discounting the paraelemental regions, arguably the coolest part) are just single-theme entities: you don't have the same sort of two-axis thing you have with the alignments. The elemental planes suffer the exact same problem that, for example, a plane of war has. One theme of any sort leads to a boring entity. At least two axes are needed to give the field depth.

lightningcat
2010-10-27, 11:36 PM
I've noticed that most of the people who engage in alignment debates are not the people for whom the alignment system was ment to help out the most. Those people use D&D for its most basic version of escapism: being the hero in a black & white world. While the debaters see the world in shades of grey, and want the alignment system to match. Which it will NOT do.

Alignment is one of the most hotly debated topics because each and every person has their own opinions on what counts as "Good", "Evil", "Lawful", and "Chaotic". And getting someone to change their opinion on such a basic position is next to impossible.

My own issues with D&D's alignment system is that it ignores the fact that almost everyone considers themselves to be good. which is one of the reasons that I prefer an alternate alignment system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157001).

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-28, 01:23 AM
My own issues with D&D's alignment system is that it ignores the fact that almost everyone considers themselves to be good. which is one of the reasons that I prefer an alternate alignment system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157001).

...You linked my color wheel.

I love you.

akma
2010-10-28, 02:01 AM
Note that the elemental planes (discounting the paraelemental regions, arguably the coolest part) are just single-theme entities: you don't have the same sort of two-axis thing you have with the alignments. The elemental planes suffer the exact same problem that, for example, a plane of war has. One theme of any sort leads to a boring entity. At least two axes are needed to give the field depth.

The prime meterial world is basically a world resembelling earth. That`s a single theme, yet nobody called that plane boring.
It`s not just the themes of the world, becuse diffrent parts of the world may have their own themes.

Eldan
2010-10-28, 02:44 AM
Note that the elemental planes (discounting the paraelemental regions, arguably the coolest part) are just single-theme entities: you don't have the same sort of two-axis thing you have with the alignments. The elemental planes suffer the exact same problem that, for example, a plane of war has. One theme of any sort leads to a boring entity. At least two axes are needed to give the field depth.

Actually, I happen to quite like adventures involving the inner planes. Dao slavers, the wars between elemental good and elemental evil, the City of Brass, that nasty bugger of an ooze Archomental, prospecting for frozen words of creation on the paraelemental plane of ice, powering machinery on the quasielemental plane of lightning, gem-hunting on the quasielemental plane of minerals while fighting Angles or psionic crystal creatures, or just scattering interesting cities over the inner planes (e.g. I quite like the Great Salt Tree of Yssh I put in my Diseases of the Planes article). I had a nice adventure once where the party was supposed to keep a Sensate safe while he went to the plane of radiance to find a particular shade of the colour blue he had never seen before.



My own issues with D&D's alignment system is that it ignores the fact that almost everyone considers themselves to be good. which is one of the reasons that I prefer an alternate alignment system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157001).

This problem I solve in the same fashion as I solve that of the word "Demon": A Tanar'ri, as they call themselves, considers the word "Demon" a nasty racist slur, and will probably bite your head of for using it. In the same fashion, they don't call themselves "evil". They just know it's a philosophical flavour that can be detected on themselves and a few other creatures with magical spells. They dont' consider themselves to be "wrong" in any fashion.

jmbrown
2010-10-28, 02:57 AM
Another problem with the alignment system is our "enlightened" way of thinking. In Medieval Europe, which is what D&D is modeled after, you were very much expected to execute captured outlaws and criminals. Even the word "outlaw" literally implies outside the [protection of the] law. While evil people in D&D are not necessarily branded outside the law, you are well within your right to slay them without proof within the thinking of such times.

Our opinions and morality adapt with the times. Not even 60 years ago it was okay to segregate people based on skin color and this was deemed lawful. Trying to imply the "old world" style of thinking in a new world society leads to problems because there's simply no way we can connect on that level.

Eldan
2010-10-28, 03:24 AM
It is indeed the case that the inherent harmony of the multiverse seems to be basically founded on such enlightened ideals. It does not mean, however, that societies will be.

If you consistently segregate people on their skin colour, according to a strong conviction and consistent rules? That is lawful in D&D. It's just not good.

hamishspence
2010-10-28, 03:52 AM
Another problem with the alignment system is our "enlightened" way of thinking. In Medieval Europe, which is what D&D is modeled after, you were very much expected to execute captured outlaws and criminals. Even the word "outlaw" literally implies outside the [protection of the] law. While evil people in D&D are not necessarily branded outside the law, you are well within your right to slay them without proof within the thinking of such times.

Actually, DMG2 states that D&D morality does not follow Medieval Europe exactly- bounty hunters who go after outlaws are required by the law to accept their surrender if they do surrender, and not punish them themselves, but take them before the law, which will mete out whatever punishment is appropriate for the crime the person was outlawed for.

Same sort of principles can apply to evil people in D&D.

Eldan
2010-10-28, 04:09 AM
I'd assume that, between the dozens of states and provinces Europe had and the 600 or so years we call middle ages, you'd find just about any law somewhere, actually.

Mastikator
2010-10-28, 04:28 AM
Killing people is evil? Murder may be against the law, but the Paladin I play does not answer to a mortal authority. He answers to a divine authority. My Paladin does not care about the specific details of an evil creatures actions, the consequences of his actions result in less evil. If the DM wants to arrest my character for acting the way the class is supposed to, that is cool. My Paladin can smite people in prison. Say what you want about good and evil, maybe your paladin always donates as much as he can for charity, stands in the path of arrows to protect innocents from harm, maybe even shows mercy to evil people he genuinely believe wants to be converted and help the good cause, maybe your paladin really is good.
He should still fall for being chaotic. Your paladin is not a good outsider, he's a member of the mortal society, he's not above anyone just because he strides for a greater good.

grimbold
2010-10-28, 04:31 AM
true. alignment can not really be defined but it varies.
for me if the character is behaving in a way that they believe is in accord with their alignment they are.
For example Miko, she technically was LG because she truly believed she was LG and she acted it, but to an extreme.

hamishspence
2010-10-28, 04:51 AM
I'd assume that, between the dozens of states and provinces Europe had and the 600 or so years we call middle ages, you'd find just about any law somewhere, actually.

It's also possible that a person might, after being outlawed, captured, and tried, not be sentenced to death- because the crime they were outlawed for does not always carry the death penalty- and they were outlawed only because law enforcement couldn't find them to arrest them.

jmbrown
2010-10-29, 06:39 AM
Actually, DMG2 states that D&D morality does not follow Medieval Europe exactly- bounty hunters who go after outlaws are required by the law to accept their surrender if they do surrender, and not punish them themselves, but take them before the law, which will mete out whatever punishment is appropriate for the crime the person was outlawed for.

Same sort of principles can apply to evil people in D&D.

3e doesn't represent D&D as a whole which is evident in how they changed the writeup to alignment especially with the addition of words like "always" and "usually."

While laws varied from country to country, many deemed outlawry to be death in itself because you were beyond the laws help. To quote The Laws of Alfred (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/560-975dooms.html)


"...As if he fight and wound any one, let him be liable in his wer. If he fell a man to death, let him then be an outlaw, and let every one of those seize him with hearm who desire right. And if he so do that any one kill him, for that he resisted God's law or the kings, if that be proved true, let him lie uncompensated. "

3e's alignment system is a definite shift towards the "if it's evil, slay it." In AD&D, alignment couldn't be determined, even by spell, unless the person was so set in their ways they practically radiated their alignment (9th level clerics and extraplanar creatures made up the majority). Mindless creatures and intelligence 1 automatically put you at unaligned. Know alignment allowed a saving throw and you had to stand still for 2 rounds meaning someone was going to know you were probing them plus the reverse, obscure alignment, protected you for 24 hours.

3e definitely shifted toward the "enlightened" thinking I'm talking about. D&D, by the original authors, was very gray. The druid who kidnaps the forest clearing baron's son to raise him as a druid wouldn't fly as neutral in 3e.

hamishspence
2010-10-29, 06:48 AM
3e's alignment system is a definite shift towards the "if it's evil, slay it." In AD&D, alignment couldn't be determined, even by spell, unless the person was so set in their ways they practically radiated their alignment (9th level clerics and extraplanar creatures made up the majority).

Logically, isn't it the other way round for the statement

"If it pings on Detect Evil, slay it"?

It fits AD&D more than 3e.

Since, in AD&D, only beings so set in their ways as to practically radiate Evil, detected as Evil- making slaying them much more justifiable.

Whereas in 3e, even Neutral beings will ping on Detect Evil- if they are undead, or are Neutral clerics of Evil deities.

Also- in AD&D- alignment could be determined by spell- the spell Know Alignment, unlike the spell Detect Evil, revealed the alignment of any creature not shielded by a spell like Undetectable Alignment/Obscure Alignment. Which exist in 3.5, too.


3e doesn't represent D&D as a whole which is evident in how they changed the writeup to alignment especially with the addition of words like "always" and "usually."

The thread is a 3.5 thread- so 3.5 sources are more relavent than AD&D sources for how it works.

Eldan
2010-10-29, 06:51 AM
However, in 3e, IIRC, you can get a strength on your reading by concentrating, no?

hamishspence
2010-10-29, 06:52 AM
The strength is irrelevant for how evil the being is- a 20th level fighter who has only just crossed the border into evil, detects more strongly than a 1st level serial killer.

jmbrown
2010-10-29, 07:04 AM
Logically, isn't it the other way round for the statement

"If it pings on Detect Evil, slay it"?

It fits AD&D more than 3e.

Since, in AD&D, only beings so set in their ways as to practically radiate Evil, detected as Evil- making slaying them much more justifiable.

Whereas in 3e, even Neutral beings will ping on Detect Evil- if they are undead, or are Neutral clerics of Evil deities.

Also- in AD&D- alignment could be determined by spell- the spell Know Alignment, unlike the spell Detect Evil, revealed the alignment of any creature not shielded by a spell like Undetectable Alignment/Obscure Alignment. Which exist in 3.5, too.



The thread is a 3.5 thread- so 3.5 sources are more relavent than AD&D sources for how it works.

Know alignment grants a saving throw and requires 2 rounds to detect their actual good/evilness plus they're granted a saving throw. It's also a socially rude thing to do and will probably have someone calling the guard when you're standing their gesticulating for 2 minutes. Besides, if someone detects as evil, it means they're practically a supernatural force (as a 9th level cleric or demon/angel is) that more than likely poses a higher threat to you than you do to it. In the time it actually takes you to tell if someone is evil, they've already killed you or ran off.

It does not make slaying them justifiable because of the way 2e words evil.


Only a few people of evil nature actively seek to cause harm or destruction. Most simply do not recognize that what they do is destructive or disruptive.

Unlike 3e, you could be evil in AD&D simply through ignorance of your actions but it had to be intentional. The guard who accepts bribes from known criminals to feed his family may very well end up as evil even if he uses the money to feed his family. Being evil wasn't something punishable unless you encountered items that neared artifact levels in power.


People and things that obstruct the evil character's plans are mere hindrances that must be overcome. If someone is harmed in the process . . . well, that's too bad.

Since alignment, as a mechanic, was only important for the advanced classes and a handful of powerful items or spells, this was never a problem.

While I did just notice the [3.P] tag on the topic title, but I think discussing the game's history is important as well to see where everything has come from. Alignment as a mechanic has existed since day one so why the sudden change in what defines alignment?

horngeek
2010-10-29, 07:32 AM
Some creatures can not be reasoned with. Dragons, Demons, Undead and their ilk.


Chromatic dragons are quite commonly "reasoned with" in the novels.

And intelligent undead are sometimes "reasoned with" as well- liches and the like.

In addition, let me (once again- yes, I link to this whenever someone says 'Demons are irredeemably evil' or anything even resembling that) link to Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a), from the Wizards website.

Urpriest
2010-10-29, 07:33 AM
The prime meterial world is basically a world resembelling earth. That`s a single theme, yet nobody called that plane boring.
It`s not just the themes of the world, becuse diffrent parts of the world may have their own themes.

The prime material generally has axes galore. West vs. East, South vs. North, Evil vs. Good...pretty much any axis you want is already there.

Eldan
2010-10-29, 07:37 AM
Never mind various climate axes. Tropical -> Arctic, Wet -> Dry...

hamishspence
2010-10-29, 07:55 AM
For evidence that, in AD&D, "Kill everything of evil alignment" was sometimes practiced by the "good guys", A quote from the 1st ed book Dungeoneer's Survival Guide:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7566139&postcount=155

And for the argument that "Anything that pinged the Detect Evil spell in 1st or 2nd ed, was deserving of instead death- this post:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7436539&postcount=214

Which is why I've been saying that 3rd ed, by making Detect Evil able to detect any being with an Evil alignment, and some Neutral beings as well, makes killing a being that pings Detect Evil (in the absence of other evidence) much less justifiable.


In addition, let me (once again- yes, I link to this whenever someone says 'Demons are irredeemably evil' or anything even resembling that) link to Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a), from the Wizards website.

I've linked to that one a few times before. I also like to mention the LN succubus Fall-From-Grace, from Planescape Torment- who has also been mentioned in a Dragon Magazine article published by a 3.5 author.

Hence, I figure BoVD's stuff on "allowing a fiend to exist is clearly evil" is outdated and invalid.

Lord Raziere
2010-10-29, 08:32 AM
However, and this is another aspect, killing evil things does not work for the greater good, because it doesn't solve the problems.
Killing fifty evil goblins removes the goblin threat, but it is a short term solution. These fifty goblin souls now go to an evil afterlife, and end up powering the entire supernatural machinery of evil.
The greater good is not killing evil things, it's converting them to good. Killing evil doesn't solve a problem, it merely delays it, while potentially making it bigger. But every soul saved is a victory.

that and those 50 goblin sons now will grow up seeking revenge for their father and 50 goblin mothers will now be seeking revenge for their husband.

jmbrown
2010-10-29, 08:38 AM
For evidence that, in AD&D, "Kill everything of evil alignment" was sometimes practiced by the "good guys", A quote from the 1st ed book Dungeoneer's Survival Guide:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7566139&postcount=155

The good races, consumed by their hatred, slaughtered the evil races. When it was clear their hatred was meaningless and the evil races were pushed back into the darkest recesses of the earth, the good races stopped.

If the roles were reversed, the evil races would have slaughtered all the good races or the war would have started again the moment the good races returned to the surface.

Gygax mentioned several times that alignment should be tracked on a graph. In this case, the good races came so close to evil that they stopped before crossing the line. 2e gives us this clause




People are not perfect, however, so few are good all the time. There are always occasional failings and weaknesses. A good person, however, worries about his errors and normally tries to correct any damage done.

Remember, however, that goodness has no absolute values.

That actually sounds like a cool idea for a campaign setting, though. Good gets pushed into dungeons and evil rules the surface.


And for the argument that "Anything that pinged the Detect Evil spell in 1st or 2nd ed, was deserving of instead death- this post:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7436539&postcount=214

Which is why I've been saying that 3rd ed, by making Detect Evil able to detect any being with an Evil alignment, and some Neutral beings as well, makes killing a being that pings Detect Evil (in the absence of other evidence) much less justifiable.

If something pings as evil in AD&D, it's the real deal. Look in 1e's Monster Manual and tell me how many non-planar, non-undead creatures are evil (hint, very very very few compared to 3e). In AD&D, evil was something reserved for the lowest of the low. A bandit was Neutral with evil tendencies. He kills and steals but maybe he uses that money to feed his own family?

Whatever his justification, a human bandit would not pick up on detect evil or know alignment. He's neutral and drifting towards evil but not enough to make him Neutral Evil.

Detect evil was originally meant to oust intelligent weapons (in OD&D, all swords have an alignment) and evil magic. If you seriously take the time to cast detect evil or know alignment on someone, you're either A) already dead before the round is over (assuming the target is evil and doesn't want to be revealed) or B) wrong and you wasted your time and precious spell slot.

EDIT: Detect evil is also a misnomer because its original incarnation (detect chaos) was designed to pick up hostile thoughts. If the lawful good person across the street felt like throttling you, you'd pick up that intention. It morphed into detect "evil" because "detect hostile thought" is too narrow and would lead to even more alignment debates plus weird things like Tippyverse in 1974.

hamishspence
2010-10-29, 08:48 AM
In AD&D, evil was something reserved for the lowest of the low. A bandit was Neutral with evil tendencies. He kills and steals but maybe he uses that money to feed his own family?

Whatever his justification, a human bandit would not pick up on detect evil or know alignment. He's neutral and drifting towards evil but not enough to make him Neutral Evil .

Don't know about 1st ed, but in the 2nd ed AD&D collection of adventures Book Of Lairs, it was quite common for human bandits to be evil-aligned.

One example was a Neutral group of bandits, led by an Neutral evil aligned leader, which have given up banditry for fur-hunting (unfortunately the fur-bearing creatures are sentient- but the bandits don't know that)

The heroes have to try and convince the bandits to take up something else.


EDIT: Detect evil is also a misnomer because its original incarnation was designed to pick up hostile thoughts. If the lawful good person across the street felt like throttling you, you'd pick up that intention.

That was way back when there were 3 alignments- Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. Though in the Eric Holmes Basic edition with 5 alignments (two Good, two Evil, and Neutral), it also worked that way.

In 1st ed though, it became one that didn't detect hostile thoughts per se- though it could detect beings intent on evil acts in circumstances where without that intent, they wouldn't ping.

jmbrown
2010-10-29, 08:52 AM
Don't know about 1st ed, but in the 2nd ed AD&D collection of adventures Book Of Lairs, it was quite common for human bandits to be evil-aligned.

One example was a Neutral group of bandits, led by an Neutral evil aligned leader, which have given up banditry for fur-hunting (unfortunately the fur-bearing creatures are sentient- but the bandits don't know that)

The heroes have to try and convince the bandits to take up something else.

2e did away with neutral humanoids/mortals because they wanted a cleaner look (remember all the controversy from the mid-80s). They added in that little clause about good characters having their failings and evil being unintentional but ultimately alignment was absolute among monsters. As you mentioned with Book of Lairs, the bandits gave up banditry but unknowingly hunted sentient creatures hence their alignment.

I guess you can say 2e was the final step to what we have now. Detect evil and know alignment still functioned as they did in 1e, you still wouldn't pick someone up unless they were super powerful, but if the DM said "This guy is a bandit" then that probably meant he was an irredeemable Silver Age comic book villain who needed a good beating.

hamishspence
2010-10-29, 08:53 AM
These two statements are a bit incompatible:


Unlike 3e, you could be evil in AD&D simply through ignorance of your actions but it had to be intentional. The guard who accepts bribes from known criminals to feed his family may very well end up as evil even if he uses the money to feed his family. Being evil wasn't something punishable unless you encountered items that neared artifact levels in power.

If something pings as evil in AD&D, it's the real deal. Look in 1e's Monster Manual and tell me how many non-planar, non-undead creatures are evil (hint, very very very few compared to 3e). In AD&D, evil was something reserved for the lowest of the low.

is that because they refer to different AD&D editions?

jmbrown
2010-10-29, 09:07 AM
These two statements are a bit incompatible:




is that because they refer to different AD&D editions?

Sorry, I'm bouncing around different editions. Too long; didn't read versions of my point:

AD&D 1e
-Evil is the lowest of the low. If you're evil, you're born from the very essence of evil. Note that not all mortals have souls (seriously, some creatures like elves and orcs do not have souls)

-The majority of mortals (at least those mentioned in MM) are Neutral (Something). That intention doesn't pick up on detection.

-Detection is better used on traps and items than people. If you actually sit there for 1-2 minutes casting a spell at someone, they're going to think you're attacking them or they'll simply leave. You could argue "This proves their alignment by proxy" but all it really proves is that forced prodding is rude and any society that enforced this would have no citizens.

AD&D 2e
-To manage their new, clean image all gray morality was attempted to be removed. No half-orcs, no demons, no intentional alignment.

-While good and evil aren't absolutes, you can be good or evil by "accident." It's not as simple as saying "Butterfly effect, your fart killed 1,000 people halfway around the world" it has to be extreme. Making shoddy equipment and selling it to an army with the intention of cutting your funds will shift you slightly towards evil especially if you know the army is off to war.

-Detect evil and know alignment work the same way, however, someone who comes up as evil under know alignment could be unintentionally evil. If you slay an evil person without reason, especially if simply pointing out their faults could save them, you're probably going to shift slightly over.

-2e added in the clause that good and evil, like law and chaos, can be defined by society. Back to my example, if the King says "All outlaws are evil and you must slay them as per my orders." then your character, if he's a citizen of the kingdom, would be lawful to kill that person. While it being good is questionable, it most certainly would not be evil.

That last point was more trouble than what it was worth. I mentioned it in the first page but I still prefer the three alignment system.

Lawful: Society > Individual. Laws can be corrupt, oppressive, and draconic.

Neutral: Whatever works, works.

Chaotic: Individual > Society. Chaos can be impartial, unfair, and unjust.

Neither side is the right side and you can't tell someone's intentions just because they pick up on detect law/chaos. It might tell you they're thinking about whupping your ass but even lawful good people can wage war against other good people (it's been mentioned before that lawful good often fights chaotic good).

hamishspence
2010-10-29, 09:24 AM
If you actually sit there for 1-2 minutes casting a spell at someone, they're going to think you're attacking them or they'll simply leave. You could argue "This proves their alignment by proxy" but all it really proves is that forced prodding is rude and any society that enforced this would have no citizens.

Or- they might be a prisoner- if you've fought an enemy group- one has surrendered, been tied up, and Know Alignment cast by the paladin's cleric ally (and Detect Evil used by the paladin) - and they ping on Know Alignment but not Detect Evil- what happens?

In 1st and in 2nd ed?

In 3rd ed, casting Detect Evil is roughly equivalent to casting Know Alignment (evil only) with the aforementioned tendency to also detect as evil certain sets of nonevil beings.

So a similar dilemma applies.

Especially in later 3E splatbooks, an evil alignment became something that wasn't necessarily a sign that the being deserved to be attacked. Eberron Campaign Setting and Heroes of Horror spring to mind. And BoED.

3E also dumped the "good and evil can be defined by society"- mostly- with some books (BoED in particular) pointing out that while some behaviours might be considered moral by a society, they're still evil by the alignment system.

akma
2010-10-29, 09:38 AM
The prime material generally has axes galore. West vs. East, South vs. North, Evil vs. Good...pretty much any axis you want is already there.

West, east, south and north are geographic terms. If you count them, and up and down, then every plane got another 3 axes!
Alignment axes are not realy there, becuse the creatures in the prime meterial plane are not personification of alignments.


Never mind various climate axes. Tropical -> Arctic, Wet -> Dry...

While it is true, it is part of the fact that the theme of the prime meterial plane is basically a world resembeling earth.

jmbrown
2010-10-29, 10:05 AM
Or- they might be a prisoner- if you've fought an enemy group- one has surrendered, been tied up, and Know Alignment cast by the paladin's cleric ally (and Detect Evil used by the paladin) - and they ping on Know Alignment but not Detect Evil- what happens?

In 1st and in 2nd ed?

In 3rd ed, casting Detect Evil is roughly equivalent to casting Know Alignment (evil only) with the aforementioned tendency to also detect as evil certain sets of nonevil beings.

So a similar dilemma applies.

Especially in later 3E splatbooks, an evil alignment became something that wasn't necessarily a sign that the being deserved to be attacked. Eberron Campaign Setting and Heroes of Horror spring to mind. And BoED.

3E also dumped the "good and evil can be defined by society"- mostly- with some books (BoED in particular) pointing out that while some behaviours might be considered moral by a society, they're still evil by the alignment system.

To me, Eberron handles it the best in 3e. When Eberron came out the first thing my friend said when he bought it "Dude, read what it says about alignment! Dibs on the paladin!" He ended up playing a Silver Flame paladin hell bent on eradicating lycanthropy until his wife, a member of the party, was inflicted. It was a great moment in role play when both PCs, who were played by real life players, agreed IN CHARACTER that the best thing to do for the order was sacrifice her life.

To answer your question:

1e: He wouldn't pick up on detect evil unless he "emanates evil" IE he's a cleric devoted in mind and spirit to evil or he's a creature whose very essence is evil (extraplanar, intelligent undead, and so on). Know alignment would tell you his alignment. It would not tell you his intentions. Casting know alignment on a bandit/brigand/pirate would reveal him as Neutral. Period.

If he picks up as Whatever Evil, then see the first sentence.

2e: Detect evil picks him up if he is "strongly aligned, [did] not stray from [his] faith, and [is] at least 9th level" but only if "[he is] intent upon appropriate actions." Meaning that not only would he have to literally be evil, but he would have to be thinking evil thoughts right at that moment. In effect, 2e's detect evil is like a polygraph machine. If you're smart, you can fool it. It also means that, because evil isn't absolute, detect evil will only pick up the same things it does in AD&D IE clerics and evil-bred beings.

Know alignment will tell you his straight up alignment. Because evil/good isn't absolute in 2e, you have no way of knowing what actions he did that made him evil. Because 2e says society can deem what is good/evil, you have no idea if he's evil because he opposes you or he's evil because he opposes life in general.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

hamishspence
2010-10-29, 10:14 AM
To me, Eberron handles it the best in 3e. When Eberron came out the first thing my friend said when he bought it "Dude, read what it says about alignment! Dibs on the paladin!"

Yup- I saw the Eberron statement as putting an end to the "radardin" once and for all, which is a vast improvement.


2e: Detect evil picks him up if he is "strongly aligned, [did] not stray from [his] faith, and [is] at least 9th level" but only if "[he is] intent upon appropriate actions." Meaning that not only would he have to literally be evil, but he would have to be thinking evil thoughts right at that moment.


DMG (2nd ed) page 41 :
Some characters- the paladin in particular, possess a limited ability to detect alignments, particularly good and evil. Even this power has more limitations than the player is likely to consider. The ability to detect evil is really only useful to spot characters or creatures with evil intentions or those who are so thoroughly corrupted that they are rotten to the core, not the evil aspect of an alignment.

so- "sufficiently evil characters" will ping regardless of intent.

jmbrown
2010-10-29, 10:22 AM
Yup- I saw the Eberron statement as putting an end to the "radardin" once and for all, which is a vast improvement.





so- "sufficiently evil characters" will ping regardless of intent.

As with alignment as a mechanic in general, and I agree with you that it has caused nothing but problems but its also caused no end to interesting (at least for me) debates, your mileage will vary.

To me, "sufficiently evil" is being on part with demons. You're so incorruptibly evil that nothing short of life changing events will help you. You're not a misunderstood man who steals bread and sometimes knifes someone in the back, you're a near soulless monster who rapes kittens.

Problem is, you can never tell when it comes to know alignment because in 2e alignment is intentions + actions with one possibly canceling out the other (evil actions with good intentions, such as slaughtering all goblins, or good intentions with evil actions like burning down a plagued village). If it picks up on detect evil in 2e, it's evil incarnate. If it picks up on know alignment but not detect evil, you're dealing with Joe Blow average everyday mortal.

EDIT: On the subject of 3e, it can never make up its mind. The "Books" say evil is one thing, the PHB says it's another, the DMG2 changes its mind, etc. I always used Eberron's view once it came out.

hamishspence
2010-10-29, 10:26 AM
Problem is, you can never tell when it comes to know alignment because in 2e alignment is intentions + actions with one possibly canceling out the other (evil actions with good intentions, such as slaughtering all goblins, or good intentions with evil actions like burning down a plagued village). If it picks up on detect evil in 2e, it's evil incarnate. If it picks up on know alignment but not detect evil, you're dealing with Joe Blow average everyday mortal.

Yup. That's one of the reason's I'm not too fond of people saying that in 3rd ed, evil characters (who might actually approximate to 2nd ed's "Joe Blow average everyday mortal) should be slain where possible.

3e is far more like 2e than 1e.

jmbrown
2010-10-29, 10:30 AM
In a way, you're right. If it picks up on detect evil it should be probably be killed quickly because it's probably going to kill you.

Ironically, I don't really like 4e's handling of alignment. I'm not fond of it, but (bear with me here) as much problems as alignment causes it feels like it belongs in the game. Maybe it's because its been there since day one but juggling alignment and leering over at the guy playing the paladin feel like they're subsystems of the game.

Seeing 4e do away with alignment as a mechanic makes it feel empty. You don't have to deal with catching on fire because you put on the wrong archmagi robes but now it feels like enemies are only defined by their pool of stats and whether or not they've got their weapons drawn.

hamishspence
2010-10-29, 11:10 AM
In a way, you're right. If it picks up on detect evil it should be probably be killed quickly because it's probably going to kill you.

Except in Eberron, where it may be the lord of the neighbouring nation that is on diplomatic terms with yours.

There's quite a lot of cases where the evil being might be just "going about their business" when you scan them (possibly while their back's turned)

It's also not clear if the paladin version is visible to others when the paladin uses it- it's an SLA so the paladin might use it without anyone noticing.


Seeing 4e do away with alignment as a mechanic makes it feel empty. You don't have to deal with catching on fire because you put on the wrong archmagi robes but now it feels like enemies are only defined by their pool of stats and whether or not they've got their weapons drawn.

4E dropping "falling mechanics" goes well with the flavor of an Eberron campaign. In 3E Eberron clerics (but not paladins) couldnt Fall for changing alignment to one their deity does not support.

In 4E, no divine class loses powers for changing alignment to one their deity does not support.

This allows "corrupt member of the church" plots to work well even when the corrupt member is a paladin, avenger, and so on.

And for evil church, it would be "redeemed member that is secretly trying to undermine the evil of the others"

By removing mechanical penalties, the rules make it possible to roleplay more, and to play archetypes you couldn't play before.

You can play LG or CE druids, (or CG-style Good ones, or LE-style evil ones)
You can play Lawful bards
You can play Lawful barbarians
You can play non-Lawful monks
You can play Good divine characters who spectacularly fall from grace, or Evil ones that are spectacularly redeemed- without having mechanical rules stand in your way.

I like the 3E system a bit more- but the idea of pinching some of 4E's ideas for it, does appeal to me.

jmbrown
2010-10-29, 11:37 AM
I'm still stealing the idea of evil winning and good being forced underground. From a naturalist perspective I'd like to see how the world would actually work if the monstrous humanoids created sprawling empires and your garden variety necromancers summoned demons and the undead. The world might actually be super efficient if skeletons did all the menial labor and you had to keep your forces content or they'd defect to the enemy and beat your ass.

It would be interesting to play around the logic that evil creatures in D&D tend to be only as loyal as the guy with the biggest stick. Would the world actually be a Utopian paradise because everyone would be trying to one-up each other but with no real conflict because that would spell suicide?

hamishspence
2010-10-29, 11:41 AM
I'm still stealing the idea of evil winning and good being forced underground. From a naturalist perspective I'd like to see how the world would actually work if the monstrous humanoids created sprawling empires and your garden variety necromancers summoned demons and the undead. The world might actually be super efficient if skeletons did all the menial labor and you had to keep your forces content or they'd defect to the enemy and beat your ass.

Savage Species does have this as one of its archetypes "Lawful-Accepting" where the monsters are in charge.

I liked "Chaotic-Accepting" where the general viewpoint among Good characters is that evil creatures all the way up to demons are redeemable- and that it's upbringing and environment more than "inherent nature" that's responsible for their evilness.

it goes well with the previously mentioned Succubus Paladin.

Urpriest
2010-10-29, 11:54 AM
West, east, south and north are geographic terms. If you count them, and up and down, then every plane got another 3 axes!
Alignment axes are not realy there, becuse the creatures in the prime meterial plane are not personification of alignments.



While it is true, it is part of the fact that the theme of the prime meterial plane is basically a world resembeling earth.

Geographic terms with cultural and climate overtones, which are the relevant point here. Most planes don't have "east has more kung fu" as one of their guiding principles. And alignment axes are occasionally used to define geography on prime material planes: look at Mordor in Middle Earth, or to use a D&D example, the Empire of Iuz, or the Hathrans and Thay. Good-evil is often used as a design axis for prime material nations.

"World resembling earth" is a theme, sure, but it's a very very rich theme because earth is a very large real-life object with lots of detail. "Plane of war" on the other hand lacks complexity unless you add in some clause like "that contains a facsimile of every possible battlefield" or something.

Eldan
2010-10-29, 03:46 PM
While it is true, it is part of the fact that the theme of the prime meterial plane is basically a world resembeling earth.

Not all of them. There are at least hundreds out there, and some are quite different from Earth. Or Hollow world, which was an earth-like planet, but hollow, with another world inside. Or Dark sun. The various planes with flying landmasses. There's Ghostwalk. Spelljammer. And many that are even weirder.

And there's already two planes of war, at the very least, Acheron and Ysgard, one glorious war, the other meaningless war.

kyoryu
2010-10-29, 03:52 PM
For evidence that, in AD&D, "Kill everything of evil alignment" was sometimes practiced by the "good guys", A quote from the 1st ed book Dungeoneer's Survival Guide:


To be fair, there's a difference between an evil race (which is usually a matter of that race literally needing to perform evil acts to survive), and an evil member of a "neutral" race.

If the kingdoms of evil races are systematically trying to wipe out every other race in existence, then pushing them back to the Underdark, or wiping them out makes sense - they are a threat to the very existence of every other sentient being. That's a HUGE way away from killing the guard that happens to ping evil because of accepting bribes.

hamishspence
2010-10-29, 03:52 PM
And there's already two planes of war, at the very least, Acheron and Ysgard, one glorious war, the other meaningless war.

Those aren't just planes of war though- they have areas where other things happen.

The parts of Acheron under the control of Wee Jas, or the parts of Ysgard under the control of the drow.

Faerun has its own planes, similar to those two but not identical.

Blood Rift (more like Gehenna than Acheron)
Clangor & Nishrek (equivalent to those parts of Acheron named that in core mythology)
Warrior's Rest (a bit like a hybrid of Ysgard and Limbo)

And then there's Shavarath in Eberron- possibly heavily based on Acheron.


To be fair, there's a difference between an evil race (which is usually a matter of that race literally needing to perform evil acts to survive), and an evil member of a "neutral" race.

The "evil races" included kuo-toa and drow, which don't need to perform evil acts to survive.

Still, it's true that under most circumstances, Good characters won't be behaving in such an extreme fashion. Still, when "good guys" are behaving genocidally (the word was used in the book) it's a little disturbing.

What were the main alignment statements in the 1st ed PHB or DMG? I've seen it said that in 1st ed (but not 2nd ed) all beings with an evil alignment were exceptionally evil- anything to confirm that?

akma
2010-10-29, 03:55 PM
Geographic terms with cultural and climate overtones, which are the relevant point here. Most planes don't have "east has more kung fu" as one of their guiding principles. And alignment axes are occasionally used to define geography on prime material planes: look at Mordor in Middle Earth, or to use a D&D example, the Empire of Iuz, or the Hathrans and Thay. Good-evil is often used as a design axis for prime material nations.

I can`t realy comment on that, becuse I don`t know any settings very well. I know Mordor and know that there is a prestige class with thay in it`s name (knight of thay maybe), but besides that the names are completly unfamilier to me.



"World resembling earth" is a theme, sure, but it's a very very rich theme because earth is a very large real-life object with lots of detail. "Plane of war" on the other hand lacks complexity unless you add in some clause like "that contains a facsimile of every possible battlefield" or something.

I agree that the basic idea I had for the plane of war is very simplistic, and if I won`t do the warlords and their armies well that plane would be boring.

hamishspence
2010-10-29, 04:02 PM
To be fair, there's a difference between an evil race (which is usually a matter of that race literally needing to perform evil acts to survive), and an evil member of a "neutral" race.

If the kingdoms of evil races are systematically trying to wipe out every other race in existence, then pushing them back to the Underdark, or wiping them out makes sense - they are a threat to the very existence of every other sentient being.

After a quick check:


The Alignment Wars were characterized by great interracial cooperation and intraracial combat The sides were not determined by race, but by alignment. Thus, elves, dwarves, and man of good alignment united to fight elves, dwarves, and men of evil alignment. The wars extended to the seas, where the flourishing race of kuo-toa chose to align with the forces of evil and fight against the marine creatures of good.

Over the centuries, the forces of good slowly drove back their evil foes. Hatred and slaughter prevailed as evil creatures were slain solely on the basis of their alignment. Great battles were fought, and eventually the remanants of the forces of evil had to acknowledge complete defeat. Bitterly, these survivors sought shelter underground and prepared for a final battle. The drow elves and gray dwarves (or duergar) moved underground in great numbers. The skills they had developed through centuries of warfare helped them overcome the prior inhabitants of the underground.

Likewise, the kuo-toa moved under the surfaces of the seas and into subterranean waterways to escape the genocide of the Alignment Wars. Tired of the unceasing conflict, the victors abandoned their pursuit of the vanquished.

there's a strong theme that "evil creatures" simply meant "creatures with an evil alignment".

Tulio d Bard
2010-10-29, 07:29 PM
I don't like to discuss on the Good/Evil axis because it belongs to what I like to call a Vertical Alignment. You can be Evil incarnated, a thief, a warrior that only kills who he knows is an evildoer or an well-intentioned extremist. Deciding where Good becomes Evil, what is the exact order, and if there is anything between, is determined by a line (or a conjunct of) that may vary from group to group AND from game to game. Last week I played three different Paladins, each one with one kind of Good as guide (diplomacy first; SMITE!; enemy of my friends is my enemy).

Law/Chaos discussions are very interesting, on the other hand. Mostly because I consider them more Horizontal than Vertical. In other words there are many different types of what people consider chaotic or lawful. For law, you have those who follow the rules/laws of wherever he is in (let's say a soldier), the ones who follow the laws of his homeland (a typical dwarf), people who are loyal to an ideal or personal belief (any idealist), those that are loyal to a group of friends/people (most D&D adventurers, I think), people with a ordered and organized way of thinking (strategists). Chaos, on the other hand, can have those who don't care at all about rules/laws (most criminals), people who abandon his culture and the way his homeland uses to be (adolescents? lol), people who may change ideals or act incoherently a lot (crazy/undecided people), those who don't care about his friends or the group he is in (sociopaths), and those who act without much organized thinking (the only way I can see Barbarians as obligatorily Chaotic). And those are only a few examples.
Problem comes when an individual has traits from different sides of it. For example, consider Robin Hood: Loyal to his friends, Idealist but doesn't agree with the local laws. Would you say he is chaotic as most people tend to? I wouldn't. Could Robin become a Paladin then? He seems damn Good to me, but would you consider him lawful enough? How are alignment weapons gonna see him?
That's why I try to let alignment to the will of the players. Except when it becomes ridiculous. This also brings the REAL question of this thread (people always take it to the same 'good or evil' debate :smallsigh:): Should Alignments be used as a mechanical component or not? Is it too limited/confuse to make it properly?

You already know what I think (not as a rule). :smallsmile:


I'm still stealing the idea of evil winning and good being forced underground. From a naturalist perspective I'd like to see how the world would actually work if the monstrous humanoids created sprawling empires and your garden variety necromancers summoned demons and the undead. The world might actually be super efficient if skeletons did all the menial labor and you had to keep your forces content or they'd defect to the enemy and beat your ass.

It would be interesting to play around the logic that evil creatures in D&D tend to be only as loyal as the guy with the biggest stick. Would the world actually be a Utopian paradise because everyone would be trying to one-up each other but with no real conflict because that would spell suicide?

It seems that you are considering all the evil creatures to be also chaotic. Depending on how much lawful and on the type of lawful a creature is, it wouldn't change sides because your former lord offers a worse salary and health insurance. Not to mention the hidden evil. If nobody knows that you killed that guy, that's no problem for you.

EDIT:


A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

You had a discussion over Paladins killing Evil only because they're Evil. Why should it be considered wrong if he can't even work with an Evil individual, even if he is doing something that has good ends AND means. Why should it be right if the guy is not threatening or harming innocents? This Paladin code contradicts itself and its own ideal. The only way to solve the 'Paladin problem' is either letting it to individual interpretation (it follows the code as long as you believe it does) or house ruling it ("paladins in this game can kill Evil freely!"). Period.

hamishspence
2010-10-30, 03:41 AM
"Paladins does not knowingly associate with evil characters"

is actually outside of the Code of Conduct:

it's a separate rule, not part of the Code of Conduct, that paladins still have to abide by.

Defenders of the Faith modifies it slightly- clarifying that paladins do not knowingly associate on a continuing basis with Evil characters- and that circumstances may demand temporary cooperation- and that doing so, while risky, does not automatically make a paladin Fall.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-10-30, 11:03 AM
I once gave a paladin character a little test, to see if he was really worthy, he learned of band of hobgoblins had set up a camp in the woods to the north,
his first, second, third and on questions where.
"Have they attacked anyone?"
"Threatened anyone?"
"Been aggressive to locals in anyway?"

The character passed my test as he refused to go harass a group of people who hadn't done anything yet.
To be a paladin you must fight evil without doing evil


Here's how I view law/chaos, lawful people when faced with a decision look to there code, be it one of good or evil for guidance, chaotic characters do whatever feels right at the time in regards to the other half of their alignment.
Its really more about one ideal believes in structure and a well ordered government while the other makes decisions based on the now and not on court history.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-30, 11:12 AM
I once gave a paladin character a little test, to see if he was really worthy, he learned of band of hobgoblins had set up a camp in the woods to the north,
his first, second, third and on questions where.
"Have they attacked anyone?"
"Threatened anyone?"
"Been aggressive to locals in anyway?"

The character passed my test as he refused to go harass a group of people who hadn't done anything yet.
To be a paladin you must fight evil without doing evil


Those questions seem to be asking the same thing.
I find #1 the right thing to ask. 2 and 3 are extensions to 1.

hamishspence
2010-10-30, 11:24 AM
They're not quite the same thing.

"Attacking someone" is not the same as "threatening someone"

Neither "attacking someone" nor "threatening someone" are the same as "being aggressive"

So- the paladin is being extra-cautious- checking that the beings have not just "not attacked anybody" but "not threatened anybody" -

before deciding that going after them is not (at the moment) justified.

To give an example, if the paladin were to say "have they attacked anybody" and got a "no" answer, and didn't continue asking further, if it turned out they had threatened people, then the paladin's superiors might be asking "Why didn't you continue to investigate?"

After all, the paladin's code says "A paladin punishes those who harm or threaten innocents"

Tulio d Bard
2010-10-30, 06:25 PM
"Paladins does not knowingly associate with evil characters"

is actually outside of the Code of Conduct:

it's a separate rule, not part of the Code of Conduct, that paladins still have to abide by.

Defenders of the Faith modifies it slightly- clarifying that paladins do not knowingly associate on a continuing basis with Evil characters- and that circumstances may demand temporary cooperation- and that doing so, while risky, does not automatically make a paladin Fall.

The way you put it seems to work better, but I took that from the d20 SRD site. I thought that was exactly as the book. :smallconfused:
I don't have my books here to check, though.


Here's how I view law/chaos, lawful people when faced with a decision look to there code, be it one of good or evil for guidance, chaotic characters do whatever feels right at the time in regards to the other half of their alignment.
Its really more about one ideal believes in structure and a well ordered government while the other makes decisions based on the now and not on court history.

That could be a way to see it. But chaotic characters are also described as supporters of freedom, be it theirs or everybody's, savages (read the part about alignments in Barbarians), or anarchy defenders. And these traits seem pretty ideological to me.

According to the PHB, I would say your definition of chaotic is more Neutral than that. If I were to make Order/Chaos alignment system, I would use your definition (which is Vertical), instead of that mentioned in the D&D rules (which is Horizontal and makes me confuse. A lot.).

What I'm trying to say is that, following the books' descriptions, a character can have traits both from the chaotic and the lawful alignment at the same time. That's also why I think it's much worthier to discuss law/chaos than good/evil (which is just a matter of putting limits). And also one reason I don't like alignment systems as a mechanic.

There's one thing about Good/Evil that I believe to be Horizontal, though (and which I forgot to mention). The aspect of intention. Sam killed a powerful demon (and, in this case, destroyed her soul completely), which is a Good thing. But he also, unintentionally, released a powerful fallen angel with that. Does it make said action Evil? That's one thing that, again, brings problems to paladins. I like to work only with Intended acts, since including Unintended ones makes me think that your alignment stability is based on Intelligence, Wisdom and/or Knowledge. Miko didn't fall because she killed her master who is a good guy. She fell because she killed her master who is a good guy. She would fall of Chaotic act instead of Evil (in her case, Lawful is related to following orders from her superiors). The problem is: people could do things as precaution. Killing an orc just for precaution, for example. If he is Evil, you did the right thing. If he is Good, you didn't know. I believe there are cases and cases, then.


They're not quite the same thing.

"Attacking someone" is not the same as "threatening someone"

Neither "attacking someone" nor "threatening someone" are the same as "being aggressive"

So- the paladin is being extra-cautious- checking that the beings have not just "not attacked anybody" but "not threatened anybody" -

before deciding that going after them is not (at the moment) justified.

To give an example, if the paladin were to say "have they attacked anybody" and got a "no" answer, and didn't continue asking further, if it turned out they had threatened people, then the paladin's superiors might be asking "Why didn't you continue to investigate?"

After all, the paladin's code says "A paladin punishes those who harm or threaten innocents"

"Been aggressive to locals" is rather ambiguous, though. It could lead you to attack a village of goblins who are just being verbally aggressive to them. And I don't think it's something that should lead to attacks.
That would be more of the DM's fault, though. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-11-01, 03:51 AM
Maybe it's just me- but I like the notion that the alignment system is so flexible that this can happen:


The characters are a LG paladin (Hero), a LN cleric of an LG deity (Villain), who has launched an inquisition to destroy evil- but also (very regretfully) destroyed innocents along the way- and an LE blackguard of an evil deity (Antihero) who commits evil with great delight and has only one major redeeming feature- a moral compunction against harming or threatening the innocent. The villain has the antihero cornered, and the hero has come on the scene:

Villain: "Ah, brave paladin. Help me punish this vile evildoer."

Antihero: "Yes, I'm a vile evildoer- I do evil and I love it. If you must punish me, get it over with."

Hero: (points at Antihero) "I'm not here for his punishment."

Antihero and Villain: "WHAT?!"

Hero: (points at Villain) "I'm here for yours."

Antihero and Villain: "Why??"

Hero: "Because he may be a vile evildoer..."

Antihero: "Kind of you to say so."

Hero: "Not helping."

Antihero: "Sorry."

Hero: "He may be sadistic and psychopathic..."

Antihero: "Hey, those are my best points!"

Hero: "Not. Helping!"

Antihero: "I'll shut up."

Hero: "Yet in all his sick and twisted career of evildoing, he has never once harmed or threatened the innocent. You. Have."

Hero: (draws weapon, points it at Villain): "Surrender now, and your punishment will be left to the authorities. Otherwise, we fight."

Tulio d Bard
2010-11-02, 08:31 PM
Maybe it's just me- but I like the notion that the alignment system is so flexible that this can happen:

Yeah... I think so.

I'm OK with the use of alignments to describe your character, as flexible or rigid said system may be. But making it a mechanic always brings problems. Your Paladin would have little to no help from his abilities to stop the Villain (in comparison to an hypothetical fight with the Antihero). Many actions you perform may keep your alignment as it is, but even so be completely against your morals/ideals.