Subjective Alignment ~ Taking your character's personal views into account

[gr8artist]

So, I had this idea a while back, that how d&d/PF handle alignments didn't really make sense. I know the idea and the basics of it, but there are lots of gray areas that are hard to define.
If I'm killing a few to save a thousand, am I evil?
If I'm stealing only items bought on the black market, am I chaotic?
If I'm tending the wounds of the pious and the cruel alike, am I a good person?
Should demons and fledgling criminals respond to protection from evil the same way?

(On a side note, we'll touch on the fallacies that players often encounter because of the vague rules regarding character alignment.)

The alignment of your character is supposed to be a vague, nebulous description of their personality. A CG ranger will break laws to keep people safe, and a LE fighter believes that everyone should serve him. Oftentimes, players get this backwards, and feel like they must play along the lines of their alignment description. "I'm LG, I can't let this kid off the hook for pocketing this apple, even though he's starving".

This is mostly a small issue; though a deeper problem persists. D&D takes a stance that doesn't really fit well with me, or with the way that it feels magic should work. If magic is a powerful force which permeates every object in every realm, why does it follow strict and arbitrary little rules? Magic, and abilities which mimic magic and other supernatural effects (we're looking at you, Paladins), lump all creatures into one of three categories: Good, Evil, and Neither. (For the purpose of this discussion, we'll leave out the L/C alignment, though the problem is present along that axis as well.)
This heavy-handed objectification of people fails to account for past sins, new faith, loyalty to a corrupt cause, and making occasionally bad decisions. It also fails to account for those who take a truly pious path, or who are innately born from aligned energies (such as angels).

It seems to me that there are a few obvious fixes to this problem.
First, the grid ceases to divide people into 9 equal groups. The neutral portion of the grid swells, while the corners shrink away. 50% of the people in the world would be neutral (TN), 40% would be opinionated in one way or another (NG/NE/LN/CN), and only 10% would fit into the extreme ends of the spectrum (LG/CG/LE/CE). Most PC's and NPC's would be neutral. Petty crooks, city guards, lesser priests, and common criminals would all be neutral. Only those who devoted their life to a cause would earn a tangible alignment.
Second, we define creatures not by how they act, but by what they are. An Orc raised among elves is still an Orc, when facing an orc-bane weapon. Likewise, a commoner raised among priests is still a neutral creature, and an angel that lives among criminals is still good. There are good people, and bad people, but the fundamental nature of people - the ability and desire to act primarily for survival and comfort - is a neutral trait, and thus all people are neutral.
Either of these are simple enough house-rules, implemented around the table as the DM sees fit in the campaign he leads. What I would like to discuss is the third solution: subjective alignment.

Subjective alignment is the idea that a creature is not compared to a global standard of right and wrong, but to a personal one, to determine how that creature will be treated by effects which depend on alignment. In a subjective setting, a militant paladin who actively seeks to punish all wicked actions would see many more evil people in a crowd than a simple priest who tries to guide sinners along a better path. Both are searching for evil, but their individual standards define the parameters of their search. To establish a subjective alignment setting would require a bit of preemptive work. How does your character feel about murder? How about thievery? How about tithes? How about corrupt leaders? How about droning, ritualistic prayers? How many crimes must a person commit before your character would think of them as "evil"? How many people can be sacrificed in order to save the lives of a hundred random commoners?
Once the DM had a character's stances and viewpoints in hand, he could make note of any highlights or absolute values. This paladin thinks petty theft is every bit as much a crime as burglary, battery, and treason? This necromancer feels shunned by every holy god, and curses their priests and temples daily? These highlights would allow the DM to quickly evaluate their NPC's, without needing to write out the NPC's whole backstory, and comparing every chapter to every viewpoint of the PC in question. This paladin is ok with petty theft, but draws the line at harming another? So my street urchin is neutral, though my corrupt guard is evil.
Some DM's might choose to give each question a numeric value, and make comparisons based on the sum of a character's scores. A difference of so many points (for our example, we'll say 25 points or more) is treated as the next alignment over. Your paladin is ok with petty theft? 0 pts. He cannot abide those that harm women? +5 pts. He is ok with torture, so long as the victim is a suspect of a heinous crime? -3 pts... This necromancer has an alignment of -10, and the paladin has +30. Yeah, he stands out like a sore thumb when the pally's checkin' for evil. This drug-addict priest has a +10... he barely squeaks by unnoticed.

In either case, the end result is the same ~ spells and effects born from your character will affect their targets according to your character's standpoints and views. Spells and effects stemming from outside sources (such as a holy weapon not crafted by you) would use either a standard point of comparison (global average) or the views of its creator.

That is the idea of Subjective Alignment. What do you think?
Specifically, what pitfalls await such a system? How should the questionnaire be made? Should there be a different questionnaire for each target alignment (so those wishing to play evil characters would have a different questionnaire than those wishing to be pious)?


TL;DNR ~ What do you think about making spells and effects subjective (from your character's PoV) rather than objective (from a nebulous, global average). What could go wrong with this method? What kind of questionnaire would you use to list out a character's viewpoints? How would you remember such viewpoints in a shorthand format, for ease of reference?

[Talya]

In real life, morality is a human social-evolutionary construction. We make up good and evil, they have no inherent meaning other than what we individually assign to them. The universe doesn't recognize the concept, it's a human only thing.

In D&D, Good and Evil mean something explicitly defined. They transcend humanity and relate to the multiverse as a whole.

I'm not really in favor of changing the fantasy to be more like reality.

[AMFV]

I do think that intention needs to be taken into account with alignment choices, after all characters can't necessarily all the results good or evil of their actions. But it is important to recognize that alignment in D&D is absolute, there are certain things, such as destroying souls that are always evil for almost any reason.

Of course there are things that are grey areas, for example I've been constructing a good necromancer character. Yes he casts many [evil] spells but he's not deliberately malevolent. As he's not a cleric this is acceptable in the rules, if considerably morally questionable.

Alignments are not bound so strictly, a good character may do selfish things without spontaneously becoming evil. An evil character can spare people for whatever reason without becoming good. A good character can hate, even irrationally so, just as an evil character can love. Once we are separated from the constraints of the alignments themselves it becomes complex. At which point intention and purpose play a much larger role in alignment than other things (barring of course specific rules on issues)

As a sidenote this is how I generally rule things and play, and may not be consistent with everybody's experience or playstyle.

[gr8artist]

AMFV, I agree with what you say, that small changes in a character's behavior shouldn't affect their alignment overall, but how many mistakes can a devout man make before he falls? Because DnD forces you to take on an arbitrary alignment label, and offers no good rules on how to change that label, the system always fails when looked at with any scrutiny.

Talya, I understand that this is a fantastic world, and meant to be an escape or alternate place from our own. What I'm looking for isn't making that world more like our own, but instead making that world make more sense. The traditional DnD alignment system functions as long as the characters that live within it have no great decisions to make, or have no free will. But characters that live, grow, and make decisions as they see fit should have a more fluid and interesting nature than simply, "Chaotic Good".

Yes, you have some wiggle room within your alignment, and are allowed to occasionally make decisions uncommon to your alignment without suffering consequences. But, it doesn't make sense to me that spells designed to rebuke angels and slay demons will function equally well against fledgling heroes and petty criminals.

[Talya]

Talya, I understand that this is a fantastic world, and meant to be an escape or alternate place from our own. What I'm looking for isn't making that world more like our own, but instead making that world make more sense. The traditional DnD alignment system functions as long as the characters that live within it have no great decisions to make, or have no free will. But characters that live, grow, and make decisions as they see fit should have a more fluid and interesting nature than simply, "Chaotic Good".

Yes, you have some wiggle room within your alignment, and are allowed to occasionally make decisions uncommon to your alignment without suffering consequences. But, it doesn't make sense to me that spells designed to rebuke angels and slay demons will function equally well against fledgling heroes and petty criminals.

I disagree. People in D&D have the same free will and choices we do. it's just that their morality is defined by an absolute standard instead of a subjective opinion.

Here's the real kicker...In the real world, we have defined "Good" to be desireable and right, while "Evil" is to be avoided and "wrong." The only subjective elements are the definitions of good and evil. This isn't the case in D&D; in this fantsy world there's nothing "wrong" with being "[Evil]" - there is no moral authority that outweighs another, good and evil vie constantly for supremacy, both on the prime material and in the planes outside of it. This fantasy world has reversed reality - good and evil may be absolutes, but you're equally justified in being either.

(The same ultimately can be said about chaos and law.)

You seem to be assuming the system uses alignment to define what your character chooses. This is not true. It is character choices that define their alignment, which is an ever changing, fluid thing of infinite degrees.

[Alefiend]

This is going to be very tough, because just about nobody thinks of themselves as evil. Whether in literature or real life, we justify our actions to ourselves until we are convinced we're doing good, or at worst a necessary evil to prevent a greater one.

Yes, in RPGs you're going to find some characters (mostly NPCs, but a disturbing number of PCs as well) who gleefully strangle kittens and bake premature babies into cupcakes for teh eevulz, but they aren't necessarily the rule.

[Talya]

Yes, in RPGs you're going to find some characters (mostly NPCs, but a disturbing number of PCs as well) who gleefully strangle kittens and bake premature babies into cupcakes for teh eevulz, but they aren't necessarily the rule.


Actually, in D&D, i think they are. People worship evil gods and embrace the concept of evil as a desirable thing. Many evil people not only know they are evil, they believe they are superior for being evil, and that it is the proper way to behave.

[Lord_Gareth]

Actually, in D&D, i think they are. People worship evil gods and embrace the concept of evil as a desirable thing. Many evil people not only know they are evil, they believe they are superior for being evil, and that it is the proper way to behave.

It's less about the 'proper' way to behave than most people might think. The core of the argument between Good and Evil is, "Which side is better for individuals and societies?" Good holds up its principles and says that it makes societies that are strong and peaceful, in turn leading to happier, stronger people. Evil holds up its principles and says that it creates stronger, more cunning individuals who in turn create societies that promote strength.

[hamishspence]

Many - but not necessarily most.

In Champions of Ruin, those who embrace evilness, are referred to under the Better to Rule in Hell than Serve in Heaven, archetype:


This character is actively opposed to good, finds goodness to be repellent in every form, and thinks being good is a sign of weakness of character. He is driven by hate and lust and revels in the thwarting of goodness at every turn.

The most active and radical evil religions and organisations attract this type of character.

[Talya]

It's less about the 'proper' way to behave than most people might thing. The core of the argument between Good and Evil is, "Which side is better for individuals and societies?" Good holds up its principles and says that it makes societies that are strong and peaceful, in turn leading to happier, stronger people. Evil holds up its principles and says that it creates stronger, more cunning individuals who in turn create societies that promote strength.

Well, there are evils devoted to the utter destruction of society, life, or even all of existence as we know it. (The Goddess Shar in the Forgotten Realms has a goal of oblivion for all things, including herself and the other gods.)

[Lord_Gareth]

Well, there are evils devoted to the utter destruction of society, life, or even all of existence as we know it. (The Goddess Shar in the Forgotten Realms has a goal of oblivion for all things, including herself and the other gods.)

Evil's seflish principles seeing their ultimate expression, really.

[Talderas]

Talya, I understand that this is a fantastic world, and meant to be an escape or alternate place from our own. What I'm looking for isn't making that world more like our own, but instead making that world make more sense. The traditional DnD alignment system functions as long as the characters that live within it have no great decisions to make, or have no free will. But characters that live, grow, and make decisions as they see fit should have a more fluid and interesting nature than simply, "Chaotic Good".

Cosmology of D&D is based upon the great wheel of planes and the eternal struggles of law vs chaos and good vs evil. The entities of these outer planes gain power not only from worship but also the actions of the individuals located on the prime material plane. The prime material plane functions as a balance of all of the planes by virtue of being made up of all the aspects that make up all the planes. In a prime material world that has no worship of deities or other beings of power the individual actions of the individuals on the prime material plane will still help sway the balance of power in the planes.

Consequently, this is why D&D has objective good, evil, law, and chaos. The actions of the individuals do have an impact on the struggles in other planes.

[gr8artist]

This is going to be very tough, because just about nobody thinks of themselves as evil. Whether in literature or real life, we justify our actions to ourselves until we are convinced we're doing good, or at worst a necessary evil to prevent a greater one.
I understand that certain actions are obviously good or evil. But, a character's opinion of such actions defines that character as good or evil. If your character thinks murdering babies to conjure demons is an ok hobby, then he's a bad guy, regardless of his personal opinion.

You seem to be assuming the system uses alignment to define what your character chooses. This is not true. It is character choices that define their alignment, which is an ever changing, fluid thing of infinite degrees.
Not in DnD. There are only 3 degrees, which means that anyone moderately good is considered totally good; anyone moderately evil is considered totally evil; and the middle ground is everyone else. What if my character is a repentant murderer, worshiping the goddess Sarenrae (healing) to make up for my crimes. Am I considered evil because of my past, or good because of my faith?
And I'm not trying to use the system to determine my actions; I'm wholly against that. But I am trying to modify the system so that it determines how some of my actions play out. Detect evil shouldn't affect every criminal equally, and certainly not as well as well as it affects demons. The subjective aspect is kinda' a secondary point. Primarily, I want there to be some kind of differentiation between the alignments, other than "good/neutral/evil". And other than making our 3x3 grid a 7x7 or 9x9, I'm trying to come up with a method.

Subjective Alignment -
Consider this a house rule, then. My group doesn't really bother with other planes or higher cosmology. In such a setting, it makes sense that different characters casting the same spell get different results. It works for abjuration durations and evocation damage, why not for alignment?
I mean, what would an evil character see when casting detect evil? He doesn't think of himself as evil, he's just acting in his own best interests, with no concern for others.
I understand that, on the one hand, if he's learning this spell through rigorous training, like at a chapel, that the spell would behave more like it would if cast by his teacher. But, if he's self-taught, or an oracle/sorcerer, then why would a magic that comes from himself treat himself as something other than what he sees himself as?

[Red Fel]

I understand that certain actions are obviously good or evil. But, a character's opinion of such actions defines that character as good or evil. If your character thinks murdering babies to conjure demons is an ok hobby, then he's a bad guy, regardless of his personal opinion.

Beg to differ. A character's opinion of those actions isn't what defines that character as good or evil. A Detect Evil spell, or any other of a number of spells designed specifically to trigger when exposed to a given alignment, is what defines him as good or evil.

The character's opinion is not relevant to the objective perspective of an indifferent multiverse.


Not in DnD. There are only 3 degrees, which means that anyone moderately good is considered totally good; anyone moderately evil is considered totally evil; and the middle ground is everyone else. What if my character is a repentant murderer, worshiping the goddess Sarenrae (healing) to make up for my crimes. Am I considered evil because of my past, or good because of my faith?

Have to disagree with several premises here.

1: There are "shades" of good and of evil. Some people are outrageously good, like a shining knight who protects the countryside and is a friend to all children and helps the elderly across the street. Some are only slightly good, like the bartender who helps a drunken customer back to his house at night. The fact that they're all Good doesn't mean there aren't varying degrees.

2: Repentance and redemption exist in D&D. Heck, there is an Atonement spell specifically for those willing to change their ways and have their wickedness wiped clean. There is an entire race (Hellborn) dedicated to evil beings who find repentance at the moment of their death. It is possible, although it's usually hard, to change alignments.


And I'm not trying to use the system to determine my actions; I'm wholly against that. But I am trying to modify the system so that it determines how some of my actions play out. Detect evil shouldn't affect every criminal equally, and certainly not as well as well as it affects demons. The subjective aspect is kinda' a secondary point. Primarily, I want there to be some kind of differentiation between the alignments, other than "good/neutral/evil". And other than making our 3x3 grid a 7x7 or 9x9, I'm trying to come up with a method.

Some variants of Detect Evil function precisely that way - they detect "cosmic-level" evil, like truly monstrous serial murderers, or demons in disguise, or those things tied to the greater concept of Evil in the cosmos. These variants neglect mundane evil, like a greedy banker or a neighborhood bully or people who use naughty words in front of innocent women and children.


Subjective Alignment -
Consider this a house rule, then. My group doesn't really bother with other planes or higher cosmology. In such a setting, it makes sense that different characters casting the same spell get different results. It works for abjuration durations and evocation damage, why not for alignment?
I mean, what would an evil character see when casting detect evil? He doesn't think of himself as evil, he's just acting in his own best interests, with no concern for others.
I understand that, on the one hand, if he's learning this spell through rigorous training, like at a chapel, that the spell would behave more like it would if cast by his teacher. But, if he's self-taught, or an oracle/sorcerer, then why would a magic that comes from himself treat himself as something other than what he sees himself as?

Because the indifferent multiverse sees him as Evil. It's as simple as that. He may be crazy or self-deluded, but there is an in-universe arbitrary mechanic that says, "Nope, you're Evil. Sorry. Have a nice day."

Now, a sufficiently insane character may delude himself, argue that the universe is wrong, or that he misunderstands the signals, but when there are mechanics specifically designed to trigger off of alignments, it becomes a lot harder to ignore their presence or argue that they are subjective.

[hamishspence]

Some variants of Detect Evil function precisely that way - they detect "cosmic-level" evil, like truly monstrous serial murderers, or demons in disguise, or those things tied to the greater concept of Evil in the cosmos. These variants neglect mundane evil, like a greedy banker or a neighborhood bully or people who use naughty words in front of innocent women and children.

Yup- pre-3rd ed ones.

[NichG]

For those that are saying 'that's not how D&D is!' might I point out that this thread is explicitly talking about a house rule to change 'how D&D is' to be more palatable with regards to certain things.

FWIW, I basically use this kind of system when running Planescape. A deity's Detect X spells will detect enemies of that deity's domains and causes specifically. Someone who burns books shows up as 'anathema' to a cleric of Boccob and is subject to the smites of Boccob's paladins-or-nearest-equivalent. If you want to play a Cleric of Cosmic Good, I'd say 'pick your plane and I'll go by that' - so you can be a cleric of Arcadia, and good and evil are judged relative to Arcadia's particular nature.

The idea is, yes there are cosmic standards of Good and Evil. The various upper and lower planes are basically magnetic north for each particular shade of Good and Evil, and you can navigate morality that way. But gods are free to vary from the alignment of their home plane (and very often do in the source material) and provide their own compasses, which may well be biased.

Without the context of some cosmic judge such as a god or a particular plane, a person's alignment is basically irrelevant, so one need never ask 'what is his alignment really?'

[Keneth]

If you're gonna to such lengths, you might as well remove the standard alignments entirely and go with real alignments (http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html), and ignore all alignment-based effects forever. Smite evil becomes simply smite, or maybe smite heretic if you don't like your paladins smiting everything, protection from evil becomes protection from [type/race], chaos hammer damages everything, etc.

[Red Fel]

If you're gonna to such lengths, you might as well remove the standard alignments entirely and go with real alignments (http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html), and ignore all alignment-based effects forever. Smite evil becomes simply smite, or maybe smite heretic if you don't like your paladins smiting everything, protection from evil becomes protection from [type/race], chaos hammer damages everything, etc.

See, that works.

If you're going by the idea that alignment should be subjective, instead of cosmically objective and arbitrary, then simply do away with any spell or ability that targets alignment, or else make it alignment-neutral. As long as you have spells and abilities that designate alignment arbitrarily, alignment is arbitrary.

[gr8artist]

But see, the point is to make spells more personal, more caster-centric. It's not a necessary change; you are correct that the easiest course of action is to simply do away with alignment dependent effects entirely. But then you lose some flavor. What I want is a way to use that flavor better, where the difference in people is more fluid and personal than pigeon-holing people into categories.

Currently, in Pathfinder, there is really only 1 ability that concerns itself with the degree of good/evil the subject possesses. Smite evil deals double damage against evil dragons, undead, and evil outsiders. Creatures whose natures are evil. Everything else uses a pass/fail method of checking.
It just seems weird to me that a person barely evil and a person barely not-evil (say, twins who lived identical lives until one robbed a candy store, or something equally straightforward) are more different than the barely evil guy is when compared to satan. Imagine the G/E alignment as a progression. By DnD terms, this falls into 3 categories, each roughly 1/3 the population.
<Evil % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 -0- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % Good>
It seems like a strange system, that rates 30 and 40 as different, but 40 and 100 the same.

So, if we were to continue using cosmic standards and values, then it seems like alignment should be based on more than choice and whim, and spells should react to creatures by their nature, not their accomplishments. The cosmos would realize a difference between an angel and a preacher before they'd realize a difference between a preacher and a crooked preacher.
One good action won't make you good. Probably not even 2 or 5 or 20... but at a certain point, the switch is flipped and you suddenly react to magic entirely differently than you had just a moment before? Nah, that's crazy. But that's the DnD system, unless you choose to have magic react to the target's intention more than their history. But then you get weird interactions where the necromancer happens to be doing his daily good deed right as the paladin is passing by.


A character's opinion of those actions isn't what defines that character as good or evil. A Detect Evil spell, or any other of a number of spells designed specifically to trigger when exposed to a given alignment, is what defines him as good or evil.
You are correct, though your statement is misleading. The spell reacts to alignment; we do not determine our alignment based on what spells we would be affected by. My statement is flawed, though not entirely incorrect. A character who thinks killing babies to conjure demons is ok is still evil, even if he's never had the opportunity to do so. A character who would do everything in his power to protect the weak is still good if he's never found a weak person.
What I meant, was that there are universally right and wrong actions, regardless of a character's personal opinion. But his opinion about those actions tells you his alignment. A character who enjoys good actions and abhors evil ones is good. Likewise, if you perform evil actions to accomplish your goals instead of the good actions, then you are evil. But in both cases, the character thinks himself to be neutral or good, or at least not evil. So, it's not his opinion of himself that's important, it's his opinion of his actions.

There are "shades" of good and of evil. Some people are outrageously good, like a shining knight who protects the countryside and is a friend to all children and helps the elderly across the street. Some are only slightly good, like the bartender who helps a drunken customer back to his house at night. The fact that they're all Good doesn't mean there aren't varying degrees.
Yes, these exist in RP. But the mechanics do not recognize these shades. That's what we're exploring here.

Repentance and redemption exist in D&D. Heck, there is an Atonement spell specifically for those willing to change their ways and have their wickedness wiped clean. There is an entire race (Hellborn) dedicated to evil beings who find repentance at the moment of their death. It is possible, although it's usually hard, to change alignments.
Ok, so DnD recognizes a transition from light to dark, but treats that transition as a lightswitch, not a gradual waxing and waning.

DnD draws a line in the sand, and everyone on one side is lumped together, while everyone on the other side is lumped together, and that doesn't feel like a good design choice.
But to fix it, we need a better way of categorizing people. Now, an alignment chart could work, and would function better with a wider range of options than just 3, though you'd need a range of resulting effects too. Drawing the line between 33 and 34 doesn't make more sense than drawing the line between neutral and evil. The more evil you get, the more you are affected.
But, drastic changes to magic are hard to pull off, so we instead propose another method of comparing alignments to alignment-centric effects: using the caster's opinions as a point of comparison.

[zlefin]

That sounds like too much work. Having to deal with dozens of modifiers is hard enough; having the modifiers vary for each pair of people is just going to be a pain to deal with.

a lot of the strict and arbitrary magic rules are just to help make it all work as a game in a reasonable amount of time.

[Devronq]

Are you familiar with the game never winter nights? Its a 3.x based computer game. Its alignment system used the same 9 alignments but you also have a sort of point system for axis of good evil and lawful chaotic. You choose your alignment and begin play with so many points. (Its been a while so I'm just guessing on these numbers) Leta say you chose lawful good as your alignment you would start with 75 good points and 50 lawful points. These points could be from 0-100 and you can gain or lose points. When you got to less than zero you would flip you axis. So if you had 10 good points and you lose 10 your at zero if you lose ten more your now at 10 evil points. Now each alignment had a range like to maintain good you had to have 20 good points or greater. Between 20 good points and 20 evil points you were neutral. Each time you did something significant you would gain or lose points usually 1-10 at a time. You steal something you go one point towards evil or maybe chaotic, you murder a innocent person you go ten points towards evil. Your a turn someone in for a crime without hurting them maybe go a few points towards good or lawful. It wasn't a perfect system but it seemed to make sense and allowed you to vere from your alignment when you needed to. So your lawful good but you need to do some not lawful good things that's totally OK you have alot of points to loose before your alignment shifts so its fine. And even I'd you do you can always make up for them but doing some lawful or good deeds later on. One huge flaw it did have was the worst that could happen in one step as lose ten points so a lawful good person could still slaughter quite a few innocent people and still be in everyone's good books. But with some adjustments this could fulfill your needs. Maybe you could even home brew that effects hurt evil/good/lawful/chaotic people more the more points they have of that alignment.

[DoomyDoom]

@OP:
Rather than calling it "subjective", I'd say what you want is alignment "differentiation". Roughly, it goes like this:
You introduce some sort of numerical values to G/E axis (as Devronq mentioned, NWN is an example of differentiated system, good or bad as this is).
Now let character A have alignment value a, and character B have value b. Then, to determine a result of a spell cast by character A which, by original rules, takes alignment of character B into account (e.g. Detect Evil, Magic Circle Against Alignment), check |a-b| against E (an arbitrary number you define as "enough to be different"). If |a-b| < E, spell has no effect (or a diminished effect, if appropriate), otherwise it works as usual. It's not too much extra bookkeeping, easy to shift characters' alignments via small steps (+-1,2,3 or so). This does introduce more numbers, which isn't what everyone likes, also not exactly the most creative way, but that's pretty much the simplest one I can think of to accomplish the goal of "a barely good cleric shouldn't detect a barely evil street thief with a spell". A very good cleric is still going to be able to see the same thief's "evilness" just fine.

[Dr. Cliché]

Everything else uses a pass/fail method of checking.
It just seems weird to me that a person barely evil and a person barely not-evil (say, twins who lived identical lives until one robbed a candy store, or something equally straightforward) are more different than the barely evil guy is when compared to satan.

Here's the thing - alignment is a simple measure of whether a character tends towards good or evil, and chaos or law. It's not meant to be (and shouldn't be used at) a tool to measure the *degree* of evil or chaos or whatever.


So, if we were to continue using cosmic standards and values, then it seems like alignment should be based on more than choice and whim, and spells should react to creatures by their nature, not their accomplishments. The cosmos would realize a difference between an angel and a preacher before they'd realize a difference between a preacher and a crooked preacher.

That doesn't make sense to me. You say that the cosmos would recognise the difference between an angel and a preacher, before it realised the difference between a preacher and a crooked preacher. However, that just seems entirely subjective. I mean, surely it depends on what the cosmos was looking for? Was it looking for the strongest source of good (in which case, we're talking about auras - not just the alignment axis)? Was it looking for the biggest difference? (In which case, if the crooked preacher is evil, you could equally argue that it would differentiate him from a good preacher more than it would differentiate an angel from a good preacher).



But to fix it, we need a better way of categorizing people. Now, an alignment chart could work, and would function better with a wider range of options than just 3, though you'd need a range of resulting effects too. Drawing the line between 33 and 34 doesn't make more sense than drawing the line between neutral and evil. The more evil you get, the more you are affected.
But, drastic changes to magic are hard to pull off, so we instead propose another method of comparing alignments to alignment-centric effects: using the caster's opinions as a point of comparison.

Well, for a start, D&D isn't exactly short on rules. Having a ton of extra rules to try and define alignment, which then affects certain spells in some way feels like something of an unnecessary change. The D&D system of alignment might not be perfect, but I just don't see it as enough of a problem to require a change - especially when the change is to just make things more convoluted.

In addition, I'm getting really confused about what it is you actually want. You keep referring to the fact that certain actions are unquestionably evil or good, but then saying that a character's opinion of them is what's important. Isn't that a contradiction, or have I missed something? :s

[DoomyDoom]

In addition, I'm getting really confused about what it is you actually want. You keep referring to the fact that certain actions are unquestionably evil or good, but then saying that a character's opinion of them is what's important. Isn't that a contradiction, or have I missed something? :s
I agree that i is not quite apparent what the goal here is. As far as I've gathered reading this thread, OP's opinion goes as follows (please correct me if I'm wrong):
1) Absolute cosmic G and E do exist. That's why we even have alignments.
2) There are shades of alignments (meaning "Really Good", "Average Good", "Not really that Good, but still" etc) which are not represented by crunch of alignment-related spells like Detect X.
3) It makes sense for these spells to distinguish these shades, so we will make it so. Basically, a really evil guy (as in eat the babies evil) shouldn't consider a random purse-snatcher evil, thus not being able to see him with Detect Evil spell. Same as a Good cleric with a capital G shouldn't see a guy who is "common sense good" (generally nice, friendly and all that, but not heroic, not caring about greater good and such) on his Detect Good radar (or use Magic Circle Against Good against him effectively).

Would that be an accurate sum-up of this system's goal?

[Captnq]

D&D has no shades of alignment. Here. Allow me to explain.

"Bart Gets Hit By A Car"

Mr. Burns hits Bart with a car, prompting Bart to hallucinate that he's going to Heaven. On his way up he spits off the escalator, and is sent to Hell, but the Devil tells him he is not due there until the Yankees win the pennant (which turns out to be 1996).

You see, Bart was good, right up until he spit off the escalator. That last loogie put him into the red and he got sent to hell.

That's D&D. You are good. You push it, you push it, you push it. Snap. You are neutral. You push it, you push it, you push it. Snap. You are evil.

See? Simple. Easy to understand. No complications. Does it make sense? Perfect sense. That's the problem.

Your problem is that you think you know what's good and what's evil. That YOU can judge. (The DM has to fill in, but I digress.) The universe is absolute. It knows what's good and evil. You worry about "gray areas." Well, they have something for gray areas. It's called, Neutral.

Most of what we do in the game is neutral. It isn't all good and bad. It's maybe 5% good. 5% evil. 90% neutral. Most people are neutral, it isn't 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 perfect distribution.

Remember, anything neutral is both good and bad, so if you are trying to maintain a balance, you can have more neutral then the other two and everything is still balanced.

So You kill some guy (evil) but he was evil (good). Is is good or evil? Neither. It's neutral. It's a push, the universe doesn't care. Move on.

You are trying to split hairs, the universe wants clarity,

If you are 2/3rds good, you go to heaven. If you are 2/3rds evil, you go to hell. If you are in the middle, you go to... middle place.

I really don't see why this is so complicated. Most actions have no alignment to them at all. Even those that do (evil spells) can be rendered neutral if you use them for good purposes.

What exactly is the problem you are trying to fix? Because I can't see it.

[hamishspence]

Most people are neutral, it isn't 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 perfect distribution.

Depends what setting. In Eberron, for example, it may be close to this:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a


In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer.

[Captnq]

If I'm killing a few to save a thousand, am I evil?
If I'm stealing only items bought on the black market, am I chaotic?
If I'm tending the wounds of the pious and the cruel alike, am I a good person?
Should demons and fledgling criminals respond to protection from evil the same way?


No. Your actions are neutral
No. Your actions are neutral
No. Your actions are neutral
No. Demons are outsiders.

As a side note, please don't make something look like a book quote when it isn't. I find that annoying.



This is mostly a small issue; though a deeper problem persists. D&D takes a stance that doesn't really fit well with me, or with the way that it feels magic should work. If magic is a powerful force which permeates every object in every realm, why does it follow strict and arbitrary little rules?

Because it's a game. The arbitrary rules are there for the purpose of game balance. And rules can be arbitrary. Why is Pi=3.14? Why is the the speed of light 186,000 miles/second? Its the universe. It is. Deal with it.




Magic, and abilities which mimic magic and other supernatural effects (we're looking at you, Paladins), lump all creatures into one of three categories: Good, Evil, and Neither. (For the purpose of this discussion, we'll leave out the L/C alignment, though the problem is present along that axis as well.)
This heavy-handed objectification of people fails to account for past sins, new faith, loyalty to a corrupt cause, and making occasionally bad decisions. It also fails to account for those who take a truly pious path, or who are innately born from aligned energies (such as angels).

No. The universe lumps them into those catagories. Like electrons orbiting in different shells around a nucleus. You are in one orbit, or another orbit, but you don't make up your own orbit.

And it is past sins, new faith, loyalties and choices that determine your alingment. If you make consistantly evil choices, you are evil. If you make constant good choices, you are good. If you are muddled, you are neutral. Simple. When in doubt, it's most likely neutral.



It seems to me that there are a few obvious fixes to this problem.
First, the grid ceases to divide people into 9 equal groups. The neutral portion of the grid swells, while the corners shrink away. 50% of the people in the world would be neutral (TN), 40% would be opinionated in one way or another (NG/NE/LN/CN), and only 10% would fit into the extreme ends of the spectrum (LG/CG/LE/CE). Most PC's and NPC's would be neutral. Petty crooks, city guards, lesser priests, and common criminals would all be neutral. Only those who devoted their life to a cause would earn a tangible alignment.

I don't understand.

Neutrality is the default alignment.

There are more neutrals then any other alignment. Most people are Something Neutral. NG, CN, Blah Blah, but most would be true neutral, not because they don't get involved, but because they are wishy washy.



Second, we define creatures not by how they act, but by what they are. An Orc raised among elves is still an Orc, when facing an orc-bane weapon. Likewise, a commoner raised among priests is still a neutral creature, and an angel that lives among criminals is still good. There are good people, and bad people, but the fundamental nature of people - the ability and desire to act primarily for survival and comfort - is a neutral trait, and thus all people are neutral.

No.

Some creatures have no choice. The alignment is set in stone. Most, however, do have free will. So alignment for those creatures is determined by action. Always was.



Subjective alignment is the idea that a creature is not compared to a global standard of right and wrong, but to a personal one, to determine how that creature will be treated by effects which depend on alignment.


Now, I'm just going to stop right here. Nothing you said before has anything to do with this. All that lead up was a distraction and I'm ticked off you made me read it in the first place.

You want my opinion? You need to take it back to formula. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcTzMM0fwZo)

[hamishspence]

There are more neutrals then any other alignment.
Yes.


Most people are Something Neutral. NG, CN, Blah Blah, but most would be true neutral, not because they don't get involved, but because they are wishy washy.
Not necessarily. You could have 20% be TN, 10% be each other alignment- total is 100%, yet it's not true that most people are TN.

[erikun]

The first thing I note is that this sounds like a lot more work, especially for the DM. Rather than saying "this action is evil" and thus your Good-aligned characters avoid it, you must systematically go through and decide individually if each character decides if "this action" is evil for them. Well, unless we go with the shortcut below.

The second thing of note is that, with the subjective alignment you describe, everybody is basically whatever alignment they want to be and this never changes. The character who thinks they are LG are always LG and everything they do is LG, because that's what they think their actions are. The monk who cares for and protects an orphanage and only harms people in defense is NE, because they think that harming anyone, even in self defense, is Evil. The necromancer who raises ghouls which ravage the countryside and wipe out entire villages in CG because living people are jerks, and undead are the anti-living, so undead must therefore be nice. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0700.html)

Of course, this doesn't quite fall into the trap that similar scenarios do. Paladins can still smite "Good" people, because it's effectiveness depends on what the Paladin views as Good, not the target. However, this just means that every side has Paladins who are free to smite anyone they wish. In fact, it's rather questionable why anyone would view themselves as "Evil", especially when even a deity of tyrany and slaughter could have a "Lawful Good Paladin" who can smite anyone else.

The outer planes would be exceptionally confusing as well, since mass-murderers can casually stroll through the golden gates of Mt. Celestia as long as they don't think they ever did anything wrong.


Overall, I'm not quite sure why you wouldn't just toss out alignments entirely at this point and turn magical abilities into "Smite Enemy" or "Circle of Protection Against Opponents". That's basically what things would look like with the change anyways. You wouldn't have to deal with the "Do you mean my Good or your Good?" questions. Plus, this avoids all the questions about the outer planes that arise from this.

[Talya]

Not in DnD. There are only 3 degrees, which means that anyone moderately good is considered totally good; anyone moderately evil is considered totally evil; and the middle ground is everyone else. What if my character is a repentant murderer, worshiping the goddess Sarenrae (healing) to make up for my crimes. Am I considered evil because of my past, or good because of my faith?

That's not true at all. In D&D there are infinite degrees of good and evil and everything in between. However, if the sum total of the good and evil things that make up Character1 add up to somewhere in the "good" category, they're good. If they mostly even out, they're in the "neutral" category, whereas if evil outweighs the good, they're considered "evil." It's not that the various degrees in between don't exist. It's that for certain magically related effects, they don't matter-- what matters is the sum total. The fact that you're a good and loyal husband and father is completely outweighed by the fact that you secretly sacrifice orphans to your dread god. You are Evil. Conversely, the fact that you murdered the man constantly bullying your wife might be completely outweighed by the fact that your motives were good and you are kind and generous to the innocent and a brave champion against the darkness blah blah blah.

While D&D doesn't officially enumerate alignments (although video games based on it often do - see Neverwinter Nights series) it does support this, as it is stated repeated actions slowly can change your alignment. If it bothers you, just draw up a 90x90 square graph with 9 equal squares of 30x30, and plot each character's changing alignment. D&D supports this, it just doesn't provide hard mechanics for it.

[AMFV]

I understand that certain actions are obviously good or evil. But, a character's opinion of such actions defines that character as good or evil. If your character thinks murdering babies to conjure demons is an ok hobby, then he's a bad guy, regardless of his personal opinion.

Not in DnD. There are only 3 degrees, which means that anyone moderately good is considered totally good; anyone moderately evil is considered totally evil; and the middle ground is everyone else. What if my character is a repentant murderer, worshiping the goddess Sarenrae (healing) to make up for my crimes. Am I considered evil because of my past, or good because of my faith?

And I'm not trying to use the system to determine my actions; I'm wholly against that. But I am trying to modify the system so that it determines how some of my actions play out. Detect evil shouldn't affect every criminal equally, and certainly not as well as well as it affects demons. The subjective aspect is kinda' a secondary point. Primarily, I want there to be some kind of differentiation between the alignments, other than "good/neutral/evil". And other than making our 3x3 grid a 7x7 or 9x9, I'm trying to come up with a method.

It's also important to remember that there are different aspects to each alignment. Good is merciful, but not all good characters are equally merciful. Good is altruistic, but not all good characters are equally altruistic. Good is compassionate but not all good characters are equally compassionate. Good is forgiving, but not all good people are equally so. In fact you could be very nearly lacking in one of these categories and still be good as long as it is made up for by the others. (The reason I picked good for this exercise is that it is substantiated by the descriptions of good in the BoED, but it should be functionally the same for all alignments)

The point is that being good does not equal representing all good is, it just means that the good parts of you are more significant than the evil parts of you, you behave more goodly than you might not, as there are so many different avenues for alignments, as demonstrated above, this can mean many many many different things.

[Maginomicon]

If you're gonna to such lengths, you might as well remove the standard alignments entirely and go with real alignments (http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html), and ignore all alignment-based effects forever. Smite evil becomes simply smite, or maybe smite heretic if you don't like your paladins smiting everything, protection from evil becomes protection from [type/race], chaos hammer damages everything, etc.
I implemented the full context of real alignments here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283341) (the original article doesn't account for the mechanical trappings).

[Slipperychicken]

I would much rather scrap alignment entirely.

[Talya]

I would much rather scrap alignment entirely.

Yeah, if one is not going to use an absolute alignment, then there is effectively no such thing as alignment. Either good and evil exist and are absolute, or they are subjective and therefore don't exist at all except as constructs of our mind.

As I tend to believe the latter in real life, I'm good with the former in fantasy.

[HylianKnight]

I really like the idea of subjective alignment when creating personalities for characters. Contrasting them with their objective, in game alignment. For example, right now I'm in two very different campaigns, where I ended up playing a Pathfinder Inquisitor in one, and a Paladin in the other (where there is no Detect Evil).

The characters a LN and LG respectively, but since I realized how similar they could be, a made the conscience effort to contrast their personality. So for the Paladin, he honestly doesn't think of himself as a particularly Good person. He's from a pretty ruthless nobel house, and is too self conscience of his faults - especially in conflict (to steal a quote from Game of Thrones - "there's a beast in every man and it stirs when you put a sword in his hand"). He's just following the rules of the Code, but that doesn't make him good as compared to just the inherently Good people he knows that just are great people.

By contrast, the LN Inquisitor is a real bastard. Completely devoted to rooting out evil, he's a weapon that the law can point at people to whom he shows no mercy. He Batman without the rules when it comes to those who break the laws. However he thinks he's much more righteous than he actually is, doing the gods' work by punishing evil doers, even as he shows no compassion or mercy to them.

[gr8artist]

I apologize for my lack of clarification. I know it seems like we've been having two (or oftentimes more) conversations in this thread. And to be fair, I have gotten quite sidetracked from time to time. I've had a lot of useful responses, and a lot of criticism, and both are always handy when debating new houserules.

I'll try and straighten out the confusion here, and we'll see if we can't resume an orderly, objective discussion without all of the unnecessary confusion.

My objectives ~
First: To create some method of judging a character's alignment other than simple yes/no, black/white, all-or-nothing checks. I know that there is a middle ground, but nearly all spells and checks against alignment function on an "is it evil (yes or no)" basis, with full effect for every shade of evil, and zero effect for every shade of non-evil. There is a meta-magic from d&d's BoED that makes a spell deal no damage to good, half to neutral, and full damage to evil, but other than that the neutral alignment is usually reacted to as "not-whatever".
Ideally, some kind of intensive alignment grading, ranging from 0 to 100, with spell effectiveness ranging from 0 to 100 as well. But, when using dice and doing math in your head (as opposed to a computer tracking integers) finding 43% effectiveness of a Smite Evil effect against a 43% evil enemy will really bog the game down. Perhaps a percentage failure rate would work, but I've never cared much for them personally.
Second: To explore the pros, cons, and opinions of the idea of subjective alignment, the idea that spells and effects check against the acting character's opinions instead of universal values.
I've described this in the past as saying that a character's opinion of actions is more important than the actual value of those actions, but that was poorly worded. Instead, we'll opt for "The caster's opinions of the victim's actions are more important than the universal rightness or wrongness of those actions." This eliminates the problem of evil people passing undetected in front of paladins because they think of themselves as neutral people.
The universal objectiveness of certain actions (killing babies, rescuing innocent people, etc.) will come into play when an effect from an objective source interacts with a character. For example, a local culture might view child sacrifice as a holy ritual, and the priests of that culture wouldn't detect evil from a person who'd killed babies. But if a magical item, artifact, deity, or outsider were to inspect that same person, they would see him in an objective light, weighing the total values of his good and evil actions.
Third: Assuming that the first two objectives can be met, I'd like some way to implement them together.

My current ideas ~
1. Dividing the alignment grid into more pieces, and assigning an effectiveness stepdown for the smaller steps. For example, imagine that there are 2 spaces between TN and NE, these being TN(E) and NE(N) representing a trend toward the adjacent alignment. (thanks for the link to the "Actual Alignments" discussion). Smite evil would deal full damage to NE victims, 2/3 to NE(N) victims, and 1/3 to TN(E) victims. Detect evil might take extra rounds to pinpoint TN(E) or NE(N) targets.
If this works, then the half-steps - the ones with the (N) and (E) tags - would likely need a better description or notation. Perhaps a numeric system might work better, though something not as complicated as 0-100. Perhaps a 7x7 grid ranging from +3,+3 (lawful good) to 0,0 (true neutral), and to -3,-3 (chaotic evil).

2. Giving each new character a multiple choice survey. This survey would include dozens of activities, and ask them if they thought those actions were "Good", "Neutral", "Evil", or "Undetermined". (similar idea with C/L). Undetermined would be used for situations in which the player may respond in multiple ways depending on the scenario, though I would try to make the situations as clearly defined as possible to eliminate the number of Undetermined responses.
It is possible that a different survey would be needed for each alignment, or rather that the vast majority of answers from characters with a similar alignment will be identical. I mean, every LG, NG, CG character is going to think that slaying demons is "Good" and that hurting innocent people for personal gain is "Evil".
Then, when checking a creature's alignment, the casting character only considers the creature's actions which he feels strongly about. For example, if the Inquisitor marked down that he thought "helping out people you know to be crooks and criminals" was evil, then people who had done so would be considered partially evil to him. If they'd done a lot of good things, then this low level of evilness might go unnoticed. For simplicity sake, we would assume that all unspecified actions are relatively balanced, or perhaps inclining toward that creature's alignment. So, if the DM hasn't specified whether an NPC has aided criminals, we assume that he has only aided roughly as many as he's turned in (balanced) or that he has aided more than most (if chaotic) or turned in more than most (if lawful). You tally up the creature's score to determine if it is evil or not in the Inquisitor's eyes.
I suppose that multiple instances of an infraction should accumulate, but only to a certain point. So, killing 2 people is worse than killing 1, but killing 20 isn't worse than killing 10.

[Dr. Cliché]

2. Giving each new character a multiple choice survey. This survey would include dozens of activities, and ask them if they thought those actions were "Good", "Neutral", "Evil", or "Undetermined". (similar idea with C/L). Undetermined would be used for situations in which the player may respond in multiple ways depending on the scenario, though I would try to make the situations as clearly defined as possible to eliminate the number of Undetermined responses.
It is possible that a different survey would be needed for each alignment, or rather that the vast majority of answers from characters with a similar alignment will be identical. I mean, every LG, NG, CG character is going to think that slaying demons is "Good" and that hurting innocent people for personal gain is "Evil".
Then, when checking a creature's alignment, the casting character only considers the creature's actions which he feels strongly about. For example, if the Inquisitor marked down that he thought "helping out people you know to be crooks and criminals" was evil, then people who had done so would be considered partially evil to him. If they'd done a lot of good things, then this low level of evilness might go unnoticed. For simplicity sake, we would assume that all unspecified actions are relatively balanced, or perhaps inclining toward that creature's alignment. So, if the DM hasn't specified whether an NPC has aided criminals, we assume that he has only aided roughly as many as he's turned in (balanced) or that he has aided more than most (if chaotic) or turned in more than most (if lawful). You tally up the creature's score to determine if it is evil or not in the Inquisitor's eyes.
I suppose that multiple instances of an infraction should accumulate, but only to a certain point. So, killing 2 people is worse than killing 1, but killing 20 isn't worse than killing 10.

If you tried this, I can't help but think you'd spend more time faffing around with alignments than actually playing the game.

[JimboG]

Just my two cents to the whole thing: that's way too complicated for a system that, on the grand scheme of things, doesn't make THAT big of a difference in the overall game. If you're trying to expand the alignment system in order to affect alignment-based spells more specifically, why not do away with alignments completely and change spells like "Detect Evil" into something like "Detect Crime"? For example, you can use Detect Crime to detect thievery, causing anyone who has intentionally and willingly stole something within a predetermined time frame glow just as the Detect Evil spell would have. This way evil or not evil becomes mostly a moot concept, and allows you to still detect the appropriate people by revealing what they're guilty of instead of what side of the nice/naughty line they fall into.

Good can work the same way, but instead of detecting crimes you can detect helpful actions, revealing anybody who has preformed a helpful service within a period of time.

[Maginomicon]

...change spells like "Detect Evil" into something like "Detect Crime"? For example, you can use Detect Crime to detect thievery, causing anyone who has intentionally and willingly stole something within a predetermined time frame glow just as the Detect Evil spell would have. This way evil or not evil becomes mostly a moot concept, and allows you to still detect the appropriate people by revealing what they're guilty of instead of what side of the nice/naughty line they fall into.
Because such spells already exist. They're called "Detect Attitude", "Detect Violence" and "Detect Guilt", and, notably, Detect Guilt contains sensical caveats that address psychopathy/murderhobo behavior.

[JimboG]

Because such spells already exist. They're called "Detect Attitude", "Detect Violence" and "Detect Guilt", and, notably, Detect Guilt contains sensical caveats that address psychopathy/murderhobo behavior.

What book are you pulling those from? I've never seen them anywhere, and the Pathfinder SRD has no entry for them.

[Angelalex242]

There's one game I'm in where the god granting you the power determines what's evil for you. Thus, a Paladin of Elhonna's going to be a lot more angry at deforestation then a Paladin of Cuthbert, but boy howdy that Paladin of Cuthbert will smite you into next week if you break the law, where as the Paladin of Pelor finds spreading disease especially heinous, etc. Heironeus tends to the 'archetype' in such a game, where his people act as default PHB Paladins.

[Vanitas]

In real life, morality is a human social-evolutionary construction. We make up good and evil, they have no inherent meaning other than what we individually assign to them. The universe doesn't recognize the concept, it's a human only thing.

In D&D, Good and Evil mean something explicitly defined. They transcend humanity and relate to the multiverse as a whole.

I'm not really in favor of changing the fantasy to be more like reality.

This, so much this.

[Maginomicon]

What book are you pulling those from? I've never seen them anywhere, and the Pathfinder SRD has no entry for them.
They're in Dragon Magazine #323 page ~70 (and although not originally written for PF, they're likely written by Paizo in some form). Besides, the topic as far as I can tell is agnostic to whether the scope is 3.5 or PF, so those spells are completely valid (besides, the issue has a big "100% official content" logo emblazoned on the cover).

Detect Attitude tells you what someone's NPC attitude is regarding you.
Detect Guilt tells you how guilty they feel (interestingly, it says you must have at least 3 CHA, 1 INT, and 1 WIS to "feel guilt").
Detect Violence tells you roughly how much nonlethal damage, lethal damage, and the kinds of non-damaging violent effects that have happened in the area recently (and in what order they happened).

[gr8artist]

Hmm... the idea to change the mechanics of Detect Evil to focus on particular aspects is an interesting one. Similar to my original plan in some ways... I shall have to keep that in mind if this subjective alignment thing doesn't work out.
What if certain actions were always evil (murder, rape, torture), and some actions were possibly evil (thievery, blasphemy, etc.). I could list the actions in order of evilness (murder at the bottom, then moving up to lesser stuff like thievery). Players could draw the line at the actions that their character viewed as evil. Their personal detect evil spells would detect anyone who'd crossed their line. So, if you mark thievery as ok, but blasphemy (just below it) as evil, then you would see all blasphemers as evil, but not thieves. Creatures would be judged by the most severe action they'd performed, with multiple infractions moving it down one step (so regular thievery is as bad as occasional blasphemy). In essence, we'd get an alignment ranging from 0 to X, where X was the number of actions on our list. Your character's personal views determine his tolerance limit, Y, somewhere between 0 and X. Anyone with an alignment greater than Y shows up as evil.
If we wanted a half-step, then we could say that everything from X-1 to X+1 (three levels of evilness) were moderately evil in your character's eyes, and got half effect from alignment based magic. Anything with an alignment greater than X+1 would be fully evil.
Obviously certain deities and faiths would require that certain actions be considered evil.

[Maginomicon]

Hmm... the idea to change the mechanics of Detect Evil to focus on particular aspects is an interesting one. Similar to my original plan in some ways... I shall have to keep that in mind if this subjective alignment thing doesn't work out.
What if certain actions were always evil (murder, rape, torture), and some actions were possibly evil (thievery, blasphemy, etc.). I could list the actions in order of evilness (murder at the bottom, then moving up to lesser stuff like thievery). Players could draw the line at the actions that their character viewed as evil. Their personal detect evil spells would detect anyone who'd crossed their line. So, if you mark thievery as ok, but blasphemy (just below it) as evil, then you would see all blasphemers as evil, but not thieves. Creatures would be judged by the most severe action they'd performed, with multiple infractions moving it down one step (so regular thievery is as bad as occasional blasphemy). In essence, we'd get an alignment ranging from 0 to X, where X was the number of actions on our list. Your character's personal views determine his tolerance limit, Y, somewhere between 0 and X. Anyone with an alignment greater than Y shows up as evil.
If we wanted a half-step, then we could say that everything from X-1 to X+1 (three levels of evilness) were moderately evil in your character's eyes, and got half effect from alignment based magic. Anything with an alignment greater than X+1 would be fully evil.
Obviously certain deities and faiths would require that certain actions be considered evil.In order to try to head off a derailing subtopic immediately, I would suggest against trying to rate crimes on a scale by how evil they are. Judgements and categorization of crimes are a complex subject and I can think of a number of reasons, for example, how a rape could easily become far worse than any murder and vice versa.

D&D's default absolutist caricaturized perspective on good and evil is a significant part of why I implemented Real Alignments the way I did: not as a list of how "evil" something is, but by the priorities of the person. Sure, the aspects have a stigma of being rooted in good/evil/law/chaos, but it's unnecessary baggage most of the time. The sentiment that the party cleric or paladin won't heal you because of two letters on your character sheet even though you've otherwise been a decent person in their experience is silly on its face.

[JusticeZero]

The way it ends up working in practice for me is allso the easiest way to do it. That is:
At one specific point in time, the Great Creator God ____ had certain ideas about morality.
Those ideas are now written fundamentally into the very laws of physics. The other gods might not agree on those ideas of alignment. People certainly don't agree. Heck, the Great God ____ might have changed his or her mind on a few things since then. However, the fact remains that certain things are Good, and certain things are Evil, and some of the Evil things are no longer considered to be very evil save for the fact that they make paladins eyes itch, and some of the Good things are pretty skeezy out of context. Everyone accepts the fact that some (g)ood people are (E)vil by definition, and vice versa, but debating the matter is exactly as effective as arguing about whether you "should" be electrocuted if you stick a fork in a live electrical outlet, or if you "should" fall down if you jump off of a roof.
I can imagine a bit of celestial bureaucracy where Paladins immediately fall for freeing slaves, only to be automatically redeemed with substantial added rewards upon atonement simply because their god disagreed heavily with the original outmoded ruling.

[Duke of Urrel]

The alignment system in D&D creates challenge and conflict, and I favor it for this mechanical reason alone. I agree that there needs to be some tweaking to make the absolute categories of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos into playable character traits, but I keep this tweaking to a minimum. My favorite solution is to allow alignment wavering. I offer my rules for everybody's consideration.

The alignment of any creature whose Intelligence score is three or higher may waver under some circumstances. For example:

1. When you feel hate or rage, your Good nature may become temporarily morally Neutral, or your moral Neutrality may become temporarily Evil. (I give it a one-third chance.)

2. When you feel gratitude or infatuation, your Evil nature may become temporarily morally Neutral, or your moral Neutrality may become temporarily Good.

3. When you are calm or in a trance, your Chaotic nature may become temporarily ethically Neutral, or your ethical Neutrality may become temporarily Lawful.

4. When you are confused or dreaming, your Lawful nature may become temporarily ethically Neutral, or your ethical Neutrality may become temporarily Chaotic.

When your alignment wavers, your alignment aura changes, so that anyone who uses magic to examine your aura while it is wavering misses your customary alignment by one step. A paladin who understands that alignments occasionally waver will hesitate to attack someone merely because he or she seems to be Evil at the moment. This is a good thing for everybody concerned, I think.

Alignment wavering by one step is common, but wavering by two steps is rare. This occurs only when a creature willfully chooses to behave in a manner contrary to its own alignment. Such behavior may incur divine disfavor, of course.

Permanent alignment change is rare. If you are willing, you can permanently change your alignment with the Atonement spell. Nothing short of this is sure to work.