PDA

View Full Version : alignment questions (Deamon's Seal)



Virdish
2012-04-28, 03:43 PM
While crafting my campaign setting for 3.5 I ran into a couple problems when it came to alignment. Firt off that good and evil are in flux in my world being much more subjective then in core. This is something I could overlook but for instance I have two major factions, both can encompass good evil law and chaos but as written a paladin for instance would lose his class feature's for killing one of the daemon worshipers however this would be in following with his church's decrees. I thought about allaying this by adding a third alignment axis Daemon vs Pantheon and while this would be the simplest solution and has a fair bit of elegance it brings up huge questions. For instance do I need to include typed weapons for the two sides, as well as spells. Also in general dnd's take on alignment is already fairly inelegant without putting a third alignment spectrum in there. My question is. How would you deal with this problem that feels less arbitrary and potentially clunky?

Debihuman
2012-04-28, 06:06 PM
While crafting my campaign setting for 3.5 I ran into a couple problems when it came to alignment. First off that good and evil are in flux in my world being much more subjective then in core. This is something I could overlook but for instance I have two major factions, both can encompass good evil law and chaos but as written a paladin for instance would lose his class feature's for killing one of the daemon worshipers however this would be in following with his church's decrees. I thought about allaying this by adding a third alignment axis Daemon vs Pantheon and while this would be the simplest solution and has a fair bit of elegance it brings up huge questions. For instance do I need to include typed weapons for the two sides, as well as spells. Also in general dnd's take on alignment is already fairly inelegant without putting a third alignment spectrum in there. My question is. How would you deal with this problem that feels less arbitrary and potentially clunky?

What do you mean when you say good and evil are in flux in your campaign? Do you mean that creatures with Good or Evil Subtype or Alignment can switch descriptors? That's hardly sporting unless you give the PCs the same opportunities. That may mean you change how Paladins work in your world and how Anti-Paladins would work as well. If creatures are not held accountable for alignment changes, then you shouldn't hold the PCs accountable either.

If you are going to add a 4th category among the good/neutral/evil spectrum, then you need to make sure it can work with everything that is already there or you will find that you are favoring one side over another. That will eventually unbalance the game, making it less fun for the people who aren't benefiting from the changes. Sometimes small changes can have huge (and unforeseen) consequences. If you aren't going to punish the bad guys for good behavior, then don't punish the good guys for bad behavior.

Debby

Virdish
2012-04-28, 06:21 PM
What I mean is that daemons are daemons are not neccesarily evil wnd neither are their followers. As well as not all gods are good and neither are their followers. I know the gods part is already present in d&d but in d&d two characters with good alignments.usually won't kill each other because to do so would be considered evil. However in Eridia (the world Daemon's Seal is set in) a good follower of the Pantheon won't think twice about killing a good daemon worshiper because they're gods tell them that the daemons are eviland therefore killing one of them is a good and righteous act. However with purely objective morality it is still an evil act because the other being was also good. Also as the Pantheon both good and evil god's are worshiped under one roof and supported by one central body, therefore two opposite aligned characters could be expected to work together to further the goals of the Pantheon as a whole.

Debihuman
2012-04-28, 07:23 PM
However in Eridia (the world Daemon's Seal is set in) a good follower of the Pantheon won't think twice about killing a good daemon worshiper because they're gods tell them that the daemons are evil and therefore killing one of them is a good and righteous act.

Then if deamons are considered "evil" by the Paladin's god, then killing one ISN'T an evil act no matter what the creature's actual alignment might be. That would be part of the Paladin's code.


However with purely objective morality it is still an evil act because the other being was also good. D&D has no objective morality. You should just throw that idea away as a DM. Objective morality is always skewed by DM/player perception.


Also as the Pantheon both good and evil god's are worshiped under one roof and supported by one central body, therefore two opposite aligned characters could be expected to work together to further the goals of the Pantheon as a whole.

If that is expected, then the paladin should know this and act accordingly. However, if he's expected to work with someone he's supposed to kill, then that's just stupid and you as a DM have set up a situation where the Paladin is forced to fail and that's totally unfair.

I would change the Paladin's code to fit the campaign and make it so not killing an "evil" daemon is fine because the "evil" creature has not yet committed an "evil" act. In this case, having an Evil descriptor makes no difference unless an actual evil act is committed. Thus, killing defenseless baby bugbears would be wrong unless the baby bugbear had committed an evil act, relying on "just cause" has to be agreed upon between player and DM ahead of time. Furthermore, all the players should know these rules as well. It's not just going to affect the paladin, it's going to affect everyone around the paladin as well.

It's not fair to tell a player he's violated the code unless the PLAYER knows beforehand that his CHARACTER about to violate the code.

You'll probably have a lot of out of game conversions when you implement this change because no player is a mind reader. Expect disagreements with your views and decisions because in effect, you are limiting what the player can do (not just his character). Are you sure you can be completely objective in this? Are you sure you won't play favorites? Traditionally, I would caution against this sort of thing entirely. It means that the Paladin would have to know what the god is expecting of him, not guess. Otherwise, you are being unfair as a DM. Is it fair to be spending that much time on Paladin? Does it take away time from the other players. I'd recommend that you advise all the players in group about how the game is going to change if you allow these changes.

Debby

Virdish
2012-04-28, 07:55 PM
Then if deamons are considered "evil" by the Paladin's god, then killing one ISN'T an evil act no matter what the creature's actual alignment might be. That would be part of the Paladin's code.

D&D has no objective morality. You should just throw that idea away as a DM. Objective morality is always skewed by DM/player perception.



If that is expected, then the paladin should know this and act accordingly. However, if he's expected to work with someone he's supposed to kill, then that's just stupid and you as a DM have set up a situation where the Paladin is forced to fail and that's totally unfair.

I would change the Paladin's code to fit the campaign and make it so not killing an "evil" daemon is fine because the "evil" creature has not yet committed an "evil" act. In this case, having an Evil descriptor makes no difference unless an actual evil act is committed. Thus, killing defenseless baby bugbears would be wrong unless the baby bugbear had committed an evil act, relying on "just cause" has to be agreed upon between player and DM ahead of time. Furthermore, all the players should know these rules as well. It's not just going to affect the paladin, it's going to affect everyone around the paladin as well.

It's not fair to tell a player he's violated the code unless the PLAYER knows beforehand that his CHARACTER about to violate the code.

You'll probably have a lot of out of game conversions when you implement this change because no player is a mind reader. Expect disagreements with your views and decisions because in effect, you are limiting what the player can do (not just his character). Are you sure you can be completely objective in this? Are you sure you won't play favorites? Traditionally, I would caution against this sort of thing entirely. It means that the Paladin would have to know what the god is expecting of him, not guess. Otherwise, you are being unfair as a DM. Is it fair to be spending that much time on Paladin? Does it take away time from the other players. I'd recommend that you advise all the players in group about how the game is going to change if you allow these changes.

Debby

You seem to misunderstanding a few points which is probably my fault. I will endeavor to explain better so that it makes more sense though first I need to explain that the use of Paladin's was simply as an example. Of course any change I make will effect the entire party and I by no means intend to make any decisions based on pc's choices when they did not expect these choices to be detrimental. I prescribe to the idea that only a willing act of betrayal in any form is truly a betrayal (or sin or however you want to view it)

I see your point about killing a baby bugbear being an evil act even though the bugbear is evil the baby has not had the opportunity to commit any evil and if one of my characters made a habit of killing baby bugbears as a good player I would at minimum end up shifting his alignment to neutral if not evil.

As far as the whole main point the reason I was thinking about adding the third alignment type would be to mechanically justify the concept instead of just leaving it as flavor because I have a couple rules lawyers who would challenge that (for example) the paladin wasn't sticking to her alignment because she killed the CG Daemon Mage. I was also curious since under the justification that good evil law and chaos are active forces in the D&D world should I add such spells as protection from Daemon into my setting since Daemon and Pantheon are such active forces as well. I hope that explained my question and concerns better.

Yitzi
2012-04-28, 08:47 PM
So basically it's that there's an overall war that ends up taking precedence over alignment considerations? I'd say in that case you should have the following rule changes:

1. Paladins do not exist (or if they do exist, they cannot follow either of the major factions without running into problems very often). There do, however, exist paladin-like classes for both the gods and the daemons; there is no alignment requirement, but you have to be on the right side (and similarly Smite Evil is replaced with Smite god-follower or Smite demon-follower.) (If you prefer, you can make a paladin equivalent for only one side.)
2. Clerics (or their daemon-following equivalent) need not match the alignment of their deity, as long as they're on the right side. (Clerics of gods who are not involved in the larger conflict follow normal alignment rules.)
3. Any effect that has versions for all 4 alignments (good/evil/law/chaos) has versions for Pantheon-aligned and daemon-aligned as well. These are usually identical for all alignments, so adding two more is really just a question of coming up with names, as well as effects for a few cases such as Cloak of Chaos/etc. Likewise, anything that detects alignment can detect side-alignment as well.
Effects which apply to only two sides, such as hallow/unhallow, are either moved to Pantheon-aligned/daemon-aligned, or left as they are.
This does not mean that Pantheon-aligned and daemon-aligned are true alignments, merely that they are descriptors that are targetable with spells in the same way that alignments are.

Virdish
2012-04-28, 10:02 PM
1. I've got a Paladin Esque class usable by both sides which for flavor of the overall conflict will probably be called Paladin (Pantheon) and Sentinel (Daemon). They are really the same class (A Paladin fix by Grod the giant) but they will swap out their alignment based abilities based on their allegiance.
2. Sounds good.
3. Should be simple enough

Another question instead of starting a new thread.

For my setting there officially is no such thing as arcane magic as ultimately all power comes from the Pantheon or Daemons. I plan to show this in the fluff of my retooled sorcerer but should there be any other effects other then fluff in a world where arcane magic is inaccessibly? For instance should I retain ASF in the retooled versions of Sorcerer or should I do away with it since it doesn't normally apply to Divine casters?

toapat
2012-04-28, 10:25 PM
1. I've got a Paladin Esque class usable by both sides which for flavor of the overall conflict will probably be called Paladin (Pantheon) and Sentinel (Daemon). They are really the same class (A Paladin fix by Grod the giant) but they will swap out their alignment based abilities based on their allegiance.
2. Sounds good.
3. Should be simple enough

Another question instead of starting a new thread.

For my setting there officially is no such thing as arcane magic as ultimately all power comes from the Pantheon or Daemons. I plan to show this in the fluff of my retooled sorcerer but should there be any other effects other then fluff in a world where arcane magic is inaccessibly? For instance should I retain ASF in the retooled versions of Sorcerer or should I do away with it since it doesn't normally apply to Divine casters?

1: Unless whoever wants to play paladin wants that reroll, Paladin shouldnt be railroaded to a single retool, as everyone will have different opinions of what they want. If you want NPC paladins, well, use the PHB until it is decided what retool these paladins use.

New Question: well, considering how the entire Cosmology of DnD works, and where magic comes from, if there is no Arcane, then the entire Plane of Shadow doesnt exist (The manual of Planes is not accurate asto how the multiverse is set up, it also excludes 12 major planes entirely). Asto Arcane Spell Failure, its original explanation is more accurate asto why it exists, which is that Arcane magic burns something (Life force most often) in order to work

Yitzi
2012-04-29, 09:58 AM
For my setting there officially is no such thing as arcane magic as ultimately all power comes from the Pantheon or Daemons. I plan to show this in the fluff of my retooled sorcerer but should there be any other effects other then fluff in a world where arcane magic is inaccessibly? For instance should I retain ASF in the retooled versions of Sorcerer or should I do away with it since it doesn't normally apply to Divine casters?

I'd say it depends how a sorcerer (or wizard) differs from a cleric (or Daemonic equivalent). If it's just another set of powers actively granted by the same source, then I'd say you should not only remove ASF, but also make it WIS-based and apply an allegiance condition (such as clerics will have instead of the alignment condition) and give them Atonement; essentially they're clerics with a different spell list.

If, on the other hand, you want it to be a system more like Egyptian magic, where incantations and rituals are used to automatically draw power from the source, then you still should probably have the allegiance condition, but make it have the usual ASF and be INT-based.

If, on the third hand (pretend I'm a Xorn for the moment), it is the result of being descended or otherwise innately empowered by the power source, then you should have no allegiance condition, and not only have no ASF but have the abilities be SLAs (CHA-based) rather than true spells, with all that that implies.


1: Unless whoever wants to play paladin wants that reroll, Paladin shouldnt be railroaded to a single retool

Why is that any different than being "railroaded" to the PHB version of the paladin?


New Question: well, considering how the entire Cosmology of DnD works, and where magic comes from, if there is no Arcane, then the entire Plane of Shadow doesnt exist

I don't see how that follows. The plane of shadow might be harder to reach, but why would it be nonexistent?
Also, a homebrew world can easily have a nonstandard cosmology.


Asto Arcane Spell Failure, its original explanation is more accurate asto why it exists, which is that Arcane magic burns something (Life force most often) in order to work

That doesn't explain why armor should have an effect, and definitely doesn't explain why spells with no somatic components are unaffected.

Virdish
2012-04-29, 11:02 AM
The Daemon Mage (Sorcerer retool) gains his power by finding the name of a Daemon and using that to summon an avatar of the Daemon to the mortal world. They then offer the Daemon their allegiance and ultimately make some bargain with the Daemon for power. The Daemon then essentially gives the Mage a small portion of it's power which the Mage uses to fuel it's magic. So by that logic since after the point of gaining the power they innately have the power it should be SLA's? That is gonna be a lot of work. lol.

toapat
2012-04-29, 11:34 AM
Why is that any different than being "railroaded" to the PHB version of the paladin?

I don't see how that follows. The plane of shadow might be harder to reach, but why would it be nonexistent?
Also, a homebrew world can easily have a nonstandard cosmology.

That doesn't explain why armor should have an effect, and definitely doesn't explain why spells with no somatic components are unaffected.

He is railroading himself, until the players change that railroad with whatever homebrew of paladin they want.

The plane of shadow is a constant plane even in non-standard cosmology because it is a realm that can only be described as an Arcane shadow of the Prime Material Planes, which is where it gets its name.

ASF has changed over time, its original explaination was that it burns something, not that armor specifically impedes hand movement, which is rediculous for some armors, such as exquisite full plate or a breast plate.

what you describe Virdish is a Warlock, and a worse version then even the Warlock Class

Yitzi
2012-04-29, 11:43 AM
The Daemon Mage (Sorcerer retool) gains his power by finding the name of a Daemon and using that to summon an avatar of the Daemon to the mortal world. They then offer the Daemon their allegiance and ultimately make some bargain with the Daemon for power. The Daemon then essentially gives the Mage a small portion of it's power which the Mage uses to fuel it's magic. So by that logic since after the point of gaining the power they innately have the power it should be SLA's? That is gonna be a lot of work. lol.

That sounds like it might be better as a prestige class, since clearly he needs a subtstantial amount of power to even get started.

But leaving that aside, I'd say that it depends how he uses the power he was given. If he was given the ability to use the power as a Daemon would, then make it SLAs (which shouldn't be that much work; you can still use the usual sorcerer casting rules, just there's no somatic/verbal/material components and it follows SLA rules for dispelling, countering, etc.) If the Daemon can take it back, you'll still want a Daemonic-aligned requirement, though.
If, on the other hand, he has to call on the Daemon every time he's using the power, then you should probably have what amounts to a cleric with a different spell list.


He is railroading himself, until the players change that railroad with whatever homebrew of paladin they want.

That doesn't really make sense. Why is the DM specifying a homebrew variant of paladin any worse than specifying the PHB one?


because it is a realm that can only be described as an Arcane shadow of the Prime Material Planes

Not true at all. The DMG discusses it without ever mentioning it being an arcane shadow of anything.


not that armor specifically impedes hand movement

Why must somatic components be purely hand-based?


what you describe Virdish is a Warlock

The fluff does seem similar, but if he wants to assign that fluff to a sorcerer-like mechanic, it's not necessarily going to be problematic. (Naturally, he shouldn't have warlocks as well, unless there's some fluff difference.)

Virdish
2012-04-29, 12:47 PM
That sounds like it might be better as a prestige class, since clearly he needs a subtstantial amount of power to even get started.

But leaving that aside, I'd say that it depends how he uses the power he was given. If he was given the ability to use the power as a Daemon would, then make it SLAs (which shouldn't be that much work; you can still use the usual sorcerer casting rules, just there's no somatic/verbal/material components and it follows SLA rules for dispelling, countering, etc.) If the Daemon can take it back, you'll still want a Daemonic-aligned requirement, though.
If, on the other hand, he has to call on the Daemon every time he's using the power, then you should probably have what amounts to a cleric with a different spell list.



That doesn't really make sense. Why is the DM specifying a homebrew variant of paladin any worse than specifying the PHB one?



Not true at all. The DMG discusses it without ever mentioning it being an arcane shadow of anything.



Why must somatic components be purely hand-based?



The fluff does seem similar, but if he wants to assign that fluff to a sorcerer-like mechanic, it's not necessarily going to be problematic. (Naturally, he shouldn't have warlocks as well, unless there's some fluff difference.)

He uses the power as the daemon would so I'll change it to sla's and use the sorcerer rules for spellcasting. As far as the idea of making it a prestige class I thought about that but it doesn't really fit because without the power from his daemon he is nothing. As far as the summoning goes it is nothing he is doing under his own power. Once he finds the name he finds an older daemon mage who acts as his sponsor and sets up the ritual. The only parts of the ritual that he performs is speaking the daemon's name and then the insuing negotiations.

my question is this why do you say with only fluff that my character concept is worse then the warlock when I have yet to do anything but put out the most basic of the fluff for him? Not to sound rude but you seem to jump to conclusions far too quickly and to be honest it is aggravating. If you're personal opinion is that you do not appreciate the fluff then that is fine but saying that the class itself is bad because you don't particularly like the fluff is shortsightedness in it's worst possible form. Yes it is thematically similar to the warlock but mechanically it will be closer to the sorcerer though I plan to include some actual class features other then simply just spellcasting.

Yitzi
2012-04-29, 09:05 PM
As far as the idea of making it a prestige class I thought about that but it doesn't really fit because without the power from his daemon he is nothing.

That works just as well for a prestige class as a regular class.


As far as the summoning goes it is nothing he is doing under his own power. Once he finds the name he finds an older daemon mage who acts as his sponsor and sets up the ritual. The only parts of the ritual that he performs is speaking the daemon's name and then the insuing negotiations.

And will the older daemon mage do this for someone who's accomplished nothing yet? (And is it even feasible for a newbie to find a name?)

Virdish
2012-04-29, 10:11 PM
You know that actually makes sense. Now that I am thinking about it a prestige class makes much more sense for the class especially because with the pantheon church is in control of most of the continent finding a name would mean hard work. The only thing is that it is hard with the established world setting it's hard to come up with another justification for a class with magic that is not directly tied to the daemon or pantheon unless I use the standard idea that a sorcerer is descended from power. Perhaps a sorcerer in Eridia is descended from one of the people who had once sealed the daemons to this world and that had left a taint on the sorcerers blood giving him a small amount off power though then how could I put something to the daemon mage that would make it worth taking levels in because there is a disadvantage of becoming a daemon mage. Due to their direct tie to a daemon they are physically marked which makes it hard for them to disguise themselves in church territory

Yitzi
2012-04-30, 06:38 AM
You know that actually makes sense. Now that I am thinking about it a prestige class makes much more sense for the class especially because with the pantheon church is in control of most of the continent finding a name would mean hard work. The only thing is that it is hard with the established world setting it's hard to come up with another justification for a class with magic that is not directly tied to the daemon or pantheon unless I use the standard idea that a sorcerer is descended from power. Perhaps a sorcerer in Eridia is descended from one of the people who had once sealed the daemons to this world and that had left a taint on the sorcerers blood giving him a small amount off power

Or maybe some daemons had mortal descendants, if that works in your mythos.


though then how could I put something to the daemon mage that would make it worth taking levels in

Either more spells known or more spells per day or higher CL. Or some unique mechanic (such as Red Wizards have with Circle Magic.)

Virdish
2012-05-01, 04:49 PM
So I may have found a solution through your ideas and questioning because for the feel of the campaign I really want this to be a base class so here is my idea. To begin with this class is simply marked by a higher power some deity or daemon found him interesting as a child and gave him a blessing which allows him to access magic in a similar way as they themselves would (sla's) later on in their life (10th level for instance) the character discovers his patrons identity and may then instigate the ritual to unlock his true power. (more flavor then anything) this gives the player more options and more justification as to why a godly powerful being would find him worthy of great power.

Devils_Advocate
2012-05-01, 08:15 PM
Regarding your original question: Just replace the Good/Evil and Law/Chaos axes with a single Pantheon/Daemon axis. ("Holy" and "Unholy" might work better as adjectives, if this is about a war between the gods and their foes.) The alignment system is sort of built on the idea that Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are cosmic forces in the setting.

Also, the rules generally seem to treat alignment as a weird sort of spiritual affiliation, even though it's described as representing outlook. Unsurprisingly, this frequently does not make sense. We wind up with ideas like weaponizing benevolence and individualistic leaders needing individualistic followers.

Introducing your own custom cosmic dichotomy based around actual affiliation strikes me as an excellent opportunity to replace alignment entirely with something that actually fits the way that alignment is used in the rules.

Virdish
2012-05-01, 09:19 PM
Holy/Unholy usually elicits the notion of good verse evil so it wont work in this context but I do like the idea of stripping down the alignment system in favor of a more useful one in the context of this world.

Yitzi
2012-05-01, 10:32 PM
So I may have found a solution through your ideas and questioning because for the feel of the campaign I really want this to be a base class so here is my idea. To begin with this class is simply marked by a higher power some deity or daemon found him interesting as a child and gave him a blessing which allows him to access magic in a similar way as they themselves would (sla's) later on in their life (10th level for instance) the character discovers his patrons identity and may then instigate the ritual to unlock his true power. (more flavor then anything) this gives the player more options and more justification as to why a godly powerful being would find him worthy of great power.

That could work.


Regarding your original question: Just replace the Good/Evil and Law/Chaos axes with a single Pantheon/Daemon axis. ("Holy" and "Unholy" might work better as adjectives, if this is about a war between the gods and their foes.) The alignment system is sort of built on the idea that Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are cosmic forces in the setting.

Also, the rules generally seem to treat alignment as a weird sort of spiritual affiliation, even though it's described as representing outlook. Unsurprisingly, this frequently does not make sense. We wind up with ideas like weaponizing benevolence and individualistic leaders needing individualistic followers.

Introducing your own custom cosmic dichotomy based around actual affiliation strikes me as an excellent opportunity to replace alignment entirely with something that actually fits the way that alignment is used in the rules.

Yeah, having the pantheon/daemon axis be instead of alignment could work too. I'd still suggest keeping alignment around as a descriptor, even if its mechanical effects are removed, as it really does give a good rough sense of what a person is like.

Virdish
2012-05-01, 11:25 PM
Alrighty well now that I have everything decided I'm going to get to the real work of brewing it. Ugh it's gonna be so much looking things up. lol. I think to compensate for the versatility to cast without any form of components I'll probably only give them access to 7th level spells max.