Do things in the D&D multiverse know they have an alignment?

[killem2]

Like, do they know that under the spell of Detect Alignment, that the target is Choatic Evil and that, it is a thing, or do they know that this person just is putting off a vibe?

[Slipperychicken]

Spellcasters are presumed to know how their own spells work, so yeah, they know.

[Bronk]

There's also the whole paladin 'detect evil' thing, along with various spells and class abilities like 'undetectable alignment'.

[Tommy2255]

They definitely know that they can magically determine a person's moral and ethical outlook. They might not call it an alignment, but they know that there are good people, evil people, and people who take no strong stance one way or the other.

Maybe the better question is whether people would always know their own alignment.

[Optimator]

Indeed. Morality is not relative and there are no grey areas in D&D land.

[Red Fel]

As has been mentioned in innumerable other threads in this forum, and recently, there are quite a number of explicit indicators of alignment. From Detect (Alignment) spells, to the incarnations of abstract notions of Good and Evil (Outsiders) walking the planes, to the ability to actually speak with deities and their representatives, to magic items which explicitly respond (in positive or negative ways) to a given alignment... Yes, people tend to be aware of their alignments.

Admittedly, a person could be deceived. ("Holy Avenger? No, no, this is an, uh, Unholy Avenger! You can't wield it because it's Evil, so you must be Good, see?") Or they could have a Wis of 2, and be insane enough to believe things to be otherwise. Or they could simply not think about it.

But generally? Yeah. They know. Alignment in D&D is as real as gravity, rain, or trees (and can be altered or disguised just as easily).

[Tvtyrant]

Indeed. Morality is not relative and there are no grey areas in D&D land.

I always wondered if there were arguments about acceptable splatbooks amongst the gods. "Poisons are not evil by core! What a ridiculous nerf!" says the viper-headed god of protecting babies.

[Slipperychicken]

Indeed. Morality is not relative and there are no grey areas in D&D land.

There are indeed grey areas -the BoVD and BoED have whole sections written about such ambiguities. It's just that those sections don't fall under our bizarre idea of "RAW".

[Dread_Head]

I'd say that most adventuring types / high level people know or at least suspect their alignment, with all the things dependent upon it they'd struggle to not encounter something that effects it at some point. Additionally higher level characters / adventurers / PCs also tend to have goals and such like aligned with their alignment which makes it obvious.

However most of the population ie. all the level 1 commoners etc probably won't know their alignment. They'll have their own moralities and general behaviours but they won't know what alignment that makes them, they'll just think like that. One might be a little selfish and a jerk sometimes but probably wouldn't consider themselves EVIL, whereas someone who helps out their friends and family and occasionally helps a stranger would be GOOD but wouldn't necessarily define themselves that way.

[Azoth]

Even amongst adventurer's it is entirely possible for a character to believe their alignment is different from what it says on their sheet. In a low op game I had a Paladin/greyguard/black guard who still swore until he was blue in the face that he was Lawful Good. He did lie, decieve, use ambushes, and poisons. Only against Evil beings though. He still upheld his order's core beliefs, but his methods were not their own. To him it was all for the greater good.

Granted any Detect (alignment) spell or ability would have revealed the truth of the matter, but in his own mind he was not Evil.

[killem2]

I mean, do they refer to it, as the game term, CE/LG ect?

[Jeff the Green]

There are indeed grey areas -the BoVD and BoED have whole sections written about such ambiguities. It's just that those sections don't fall under our bizarre idea of "RAW".

Also, HoH has whole sections on worlds in which alignment does not exist, is relative, more or less unknowable, or otherwise wonky. It's my favorite book for reasons other than having two of my favorite classes. :smallsmile:

Don't forget too that only a tiny fraction of people have direct evidence of objective alignment. The rest have to take the word of scholars and priests, and that never ends with consensus. Also that it's possible to be aware that you're Evil and disagree that you're evil (or, less commonly, be Good and not think you're good). You just have to think language and/or the universe is wrong. In D&D Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are objective forces just like the four elements. Do you make ethical decisions based on whether it brings more Fire to the world?

[Slipperychicken]

However most of the population ie. all the level 1 commoners etc probably won't know their alignment. They'll have their own moralities and general behaviours but they won't know what alignment that makes them, they'll just think like that. One might be a little selfish and a jerk sometimes but probably wouldn't consider themselves EVIL, whereas someone who helps out their friends and family and occasionally helps a stranger would be GOOD but wouldn't necessarily define themselves that way.

In Pathfinder, the Detect [Alignment] spells won't even work on a creature unless it either has 4+ hit dice, is a Cleric (of an aligned god), an aligned undead, or is an aligned outsider.

[Hurnn]

Indeed. Morality is not relative and there are no grey areas in D&D land.

ture neutral would like a word with you ;)

[Dread_Head]

I mean, do they refer to it, as the game term, CE/LG ect?

There's probably scholars (I'd take a guess at Wizards, Clerics, Archivists and Bards most often) who use those terms to describe the alignments. This stems from the idea of lawful aligned spells and planes and suchlike so they probably use that categorization in libraries and stuff. In common parlance I'd guess that they use good and evil much as we would when discussing people and events. However whether they'd use lawful and chaotic is a bit more open to interpretation. I can see using lawful and chaotic in reference to philosophies but probably not so often to refer to people unless they were famed for their adherence to the philosophy.

This is all campaign dependent really, in some settings people might talk about things in respect to the cosmic ideals of good, evil, law and chaos whereas in other settings / campaigns things are a little more muddied. it kind of depends how your playing alignments really, if they're very strict and well defined then people probably refer to them as such, if things are a little more ambiguous then people probably won't refer to things as such.

[Red Fel]

I mean, do they refer to it, as the game term, CE/LG ect?

They could. I mean, the name of the spell is Detect Good, so if it pings, they know they have detected Good. If the name of the spell was Detect Unobtanium, when it pings they know they've detected Unobtanium.

That said, I imagine most people wouldn't use those one-word labels. They would use concepts. "Good" would be described with words like compassion, mercy, virtue, generosity. "Evil" would be known for severity, cruelty, heartlessness, brutality. "Chaos" would be freedom, passion, expression. "Law" would be honor, respect, obedience, rigidity. "Neutrality" would be bland, like oatmeal.

For instance, an LG Cleric would not describe Goodness as Good. He would say, "The path of the generous eye, the outstretched hand, and the giving soul; these are the things that make one's life virtuous." The CE Barbarian, assuming he actually gave thought to his alignment, would say, simply, "I kill because I like it. But I like it more when they scream."

"Good" and "Evil" and "Chaos" and "Law," as descriptors, technically exist in the world, but I doubt characters would refer to them explicitly; they're more metagame, mechanical terms, like spell slots or hit points. There are words for these in the in-game world, but they don't use the ones we, as players, might use.

[mucat]

The answers to both questions -- do people see alignment as an objective, provable thing, and if so, do they use words like "Chaotic Good" -- are setting and campaign-specific.

RAW is more compatible with a "yes" answer to that first question. But it doesn't take much fiddling to play a D&D campaign where alignment is more subjective. Even some published campaign settings (Eberron springs to mind) lean that way.

[OldTrees1]

A significant minority of people in my worlds believe that (Evil), Evil and evil are not identical. Having the (Evil) subtype does not mean you are evil athough Detect spells will register you as Evil. Likewise if there is a character like Miko, they would believe that Detect spells are flawed (they register divine approval rather than actual alignment or some other such belief)

[Flavel]

The average denizen has no understanding of the alignments. Higher level folk, people with ranks in religion and/or the planes...oh yeah.

[Icewraith]

IIRC as written, the detect spells only give you a faint indication one way or the other WRT alignment unless the target is using a divine power source (Paladin, Cleric etc.) or is a manifestation of one (Outsider or Undead).

[Gemini476]

IIRC as written, the detect spells only give you a faint indication one way or the other WRT alignment unless the target is using a divine power source (Paladin, Cleric etc.) or is a manifestation of one (Outsider or Undead).

Some other non-divine classes also give you Auras, like the Incarnate. I want to say that there's even a mundane PrC out there, but I can't think of one. (There's a Paladin ACF that loses spellcasting, though.)

As for knowing someones alignment, that takes between two and four castings of the various spells. If someone is Neutral on one axis, they'll simply not ping on any of them.
They're just Cleric 1, though, so it's not too hard to get them cast on you. (It'll take a first-level Cleric two days, though.) It'll cost at least 20gp, although I could argue for the minimum being 30gp since they need to prepare three of them for maximum speed. 10gp would be enough for one casting of Detect Evil, though, which would be enough to prove that you aren't Evil (at least).

Given that the presence of Clerics capable of casting Detect Evil is nigh-omnipresent, and even an Adept can cast one of them per day? If you have 10gp to cough up, I'm sure you'll be able to find out if you count as one of the alignments (useful if you want to go to a specific afterlife). Most people might find that a rather high expense, however, although I could certainly see older people paying to find out if they're going to Hell when they die, or if they should pull an Ebenezer Scrooge.

[Jeff the Green]

IIRC as written, the detect spells only give you a faint indication one way or the other WRT alignment unless the target is using a divine power source (Paladin, Cleric etc.) or is a manifestation of one (Outsider or Undead).

Faint, but not ambiguous. You basically know that they're Evil, just not devoted to the concept or made of elemental Evil.

[Slipperychicken]

Faint, but not ambiguous. You basically know that they're Evil, just not devoted to the concept or made of elemental Evil.

Aura strength helps a lot with this.

[Gemini476]

Faint, but not ambiguous. You basically know that they're Evil, just not devoted to the concept or made of elemental Evil.
Or rather, they are Evil (but not [Evil], Evil Clerics of Evil or Neutral Deities (or some others, like Mystra and LE Clerics), and not Undead) characters with 10 or less HD.

Do you know how many Evil things have 10 or less HD? Your base Mindflayer is running around with 8HD, Young White Dragons have 9HD, and Beholders just narrowly manage to avoid being "faint" on the Evil-o-Meter by virtue of having 11HD.

Those are probably not the best examples, but whatever. Here's what you know if you cast a Detect Evil spell and it pings:
Dim:There used to be something Evil here, but it's gone now.
Faint:It's an Evil outsider with 1HD, an Evil cleric with 1 class level, an Undead creature with 2HD or less, or an Evil creature with 10 or less HD.
Moderate:It's an Evil outsider with 2-4HD, a Cleric with 2-4 levels, an Undead creature with 3-8HD, or a creature with 11-25HD.
Strong:Outsiders 5-10HD, Clerics 5-10 levels, Undead 9-20, Others 26-50HD.
Overwhelming:Outsider 11HD+, Clerics 11+ levels, Undead 21HD+, Others 51HD+.

This gets into some weird scenarios when a level 20 Wizard just pings as "Moderately Evil" put his CL21+ casting of Protection Against Good or Death Watch or Planar Binding is "Overwhelmingly Evil, get a debuff".

[Jeff the Green]

Aura strength helps a lot with this.

Yeah, that's what I was talking about. If your aura is Faint you eat babies because it's fun, not because it's evil. I.e., you're not an evil cleric/incarnate/paladin/fiend/undead of any note.

[Gemini476]

Yeah, that's what I was talking about. If your aura is Faint you eat babies because it's fun, not because it's evil. I.e., you're not an evil cleric/incarnate/paladin/fiend/undead of any note.

Let's be fair, here. Necropolitan can be as good as anyone, not everyone who worships a god does it because he's Evil (Zarus comes to mind immediately), aaand that's pretty much it, I think.
Evil Incarnates tend to be Evil Incarnate, appropriately, but they can't be Chaotic Evil (the most evil of evil alignments!)
Paladin's of Tyranny are evil, but they're boot-in-the-face,-forever evil, not babyeating-dingo evil.
There's at least one Lawful Good Succubus Paladin out there, although I'm not entirely sure how that works. Do they ping for both Good and Evil?

...I think that's all my objections to that, yeah. Paladins of Slaughter totally eat babies while listening to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, most Fiends are literally [Evil], there's plenty of gods that are Evil for Evil's sake, and Undead have a certain tendency to eat people in general.

[Duke of Urrel]

If a creature doesn't have the power to examine its own alignment aura, I believe it may not know exactly what its alignment is. However, it probably can make an estimate that's no more than one step off the mark. Suppose you have never looked in a mirror. You don't know exactly what you look like, but you know by interacting with others whether you are handsome or ugly. It is similar with your alignment. You know how you are judged by others, and you know how you are moved to respond to them.

Next to your knowledge of your own alignment, there is your own judgement of your own alignment. These are two separate things. If you are Good, you believe that Goodness is good. If you're Lawful, Evil, or Chaotic, you believe that Law, Evil, or Chaos is "good." So it's possible that many creatures, without the aid of magical alignment detection, may mistake their judgement of their own alignment for the alignment itself.

Indeed, if you're Lawful-Neutral, you probably regard Law as something much better than Good. Goodness may be nice, and it is certainly preferable to Evil, but Law is preferable to both, in your opinion. It bothers you that some other creatures who call themselves Good, but who favor Goodness over Law, often make exceptions to the Law, which to your mind is the best thing there is.

So I think we have to keep in mind that next to the absolutes, which we write with capital letters: Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, there are the subjective feelings that people have about those absolutes. Everybody feels "good" about his or her own alignment and "bad" about opposed alignments, and everybody may claim that his or her own alignment is the "best." Morally Evil creatures deeply resent the stigma that alignment-detection imposes upon them, because in their opinion, only Evil is "good" and Good is wrongly named. And as others have already mentioned, partisans of Law, pure Neutrality, or Chaos will claim that order, balance, or individual freedom, respectively, constitutes a "greater good" than so-called Goodness itself.

[Jeff the Green]

Let's be fair, here. Necropolitan can be as good as anyone, not everyone who worships a god does it because he's Evil (Zarus comes to mind immediately), aaand that's pretty much it, I think.
Evil Incarnates tend to be Evil Incarnate, appropriately, but they can't be Chaotic Evil (the most evil of evil alignments!)
Paladin's of Tyranny are evil, but they're boot-in-the-face,-forever evil, not babyeating-dingo evil.
There's at least one Lawful Good Succubus Paladin out there, although I'm not entirely sure how that works. Do they ping for both Good and Evil?

...I think that's all my objections to that, yeah. Paladins of Slaughter totally eat babies while listening to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, most Fiends are literally [Evil], there's plenty of gods that are Evil for Evil's sake, and Undead have a certain tendency to eat people in general.

Ah, fallacy of the converse. I did not say that if your aura is stronger than faint you do things for evil's sake. A cleric of Zarus eats (elf, dwarf, and gnome) babies because he thinks they don't have souls. Undead often eat babies merely because they're tender and flavorful. And a Paladin of Slaughter eats babies because it's evil and because it's fun. It's just that if you're doing evil for evil's sake, you almost certainly fit into that category of aligned caster/outsider/undead that has a strong aura.

And yes, a

[Red Fel]

Next to your knowledge of your own alignment, there is your own judgement of your own alignment. These are two separate things. If you are Good, you believe that Goodness is good. If you're Lawful, Evil, or Chaotic, you believe that Law, Evil, or Chaos is "good." So it's possible that many creatures, without the aid of magical alignment detection, may mistake their judgement of their own alignment for the alignment itself.

One issue I have with this, and that's your terminology. When you say "you believe that Law, Evil, or Chaos is 'good[,]'" you should more accurately be saying "desirable." In the real world, psychologically speaking, a sound mind cannot consider its actions to be truly evil; we rationalize. But in D&D, a character can look at its actions with a keen eye, and after some navel-gazing, determine, "Yup, that was pretty freaking evil of me." And be okay with it.

In most cases (not all - see those poor, deluded fools like Miko) a character is quite comfortable with his alignment, be it Good, Evil, Law or Chaos. He doesn't try to justify it. He doesn't try to rationalize it. It is desirable, not "good." A Tyrant doesn't always act LE because "It's good." He does it because, in his mind, it is the most desirable methodology.


Indeed, if you're Lawful-Neutral, you probably regard Law as something much better than Good. Goodness may be nice, and it is certainly preferable to Evil, but Law is preferable to both, in your opinion. It bothers you that some other creatures who call themselves Good, but who favor Goodness over Law, often make exceptions to the Law, which to your mind is the best thing there is.

Again, you're assuming that Good is preferable to Evil in D&D cosmology. That's clearly not the case. If Good were preferable, many more beings would try to become Good.

Evil is just as preferable as Good in D&D. It's not a question of Good being better, it's a question of which speaks to the individual.

I agree that a LN character prioritizes Lawfulness over Good or Evil - that's in the definition. (Although what Lawfulness means may vary.) However, that doesn't mean that they choose a balance between Good and Evil. For example, an Inevitable barely even recognizes them. They exist, much like Mount Everest exists in reality, but much like many D&D players feel about Mount Everest, an Inevitable sees no need to confront Good or Evil. They are extraneous and unnecessary.


So I think we have to keep in mind that next to the absolutes, which we write with capital letters: Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, there are the subjective feelings that people have about those absolutes. Everybody feels "good" about his or her own alignment and "bad" about opposed alignments, and everybody may claim that his or her own alignment is the "best." Morally Evil creatures deeply resent the stigma that alignment-detection imposes upon them, because in their opinion, only Evil is "good" and Good is wrongly named. And as others have already mentioned, partisans of Law, pure Neutrality, or Chaos will claim that order, balance, or individual freedom, respectively, constitutes a "greater good" than so-called Goodness itself.

Again, I disagree with your assumptions. Why should Evil creatures resent the stigma? Some revel in it. Others see it as a way to weed out the population. And in some cases, such as a predominantly Evil society, Evil carries no stigma at all.

In the case of primarily Law or Chaos characters, I don't think they choose L or C because it's a greater "good" (that terminology again), but because it is more optimal, more desirable.

D&D's objective alignment system confounds the moral sense of the typical player, to a certain extent, because we presume that Good is good and Evil is bad, that the former is desirable and the latter is not; but that's simply untrue in D&D. Similarly, Law and Chaos exist in a vacuum, with no regard for Good or Evil (unless the axes intersect, e.g. LG, CE, etc.). I think it unfair to assume a bias of D&D reality in favor of any given alignment.

I realize that this post may come across as nitpicking. But the nature of D&D terminology creates these ambiguities. (We've seen what that can lead to. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html)) So I think, in these dialogues, more precise language is necessary.

[Duke of Urrel]

One issue I have with this, and that's your terminology. When you say "you believe that Law, Evil, or Chaos is 'good[,]'" you should more accurately be saying "desirable."

When I wrote "good" in quotation marks, or in other places with lower-case letters, I don't believe I meant anything other than what you meant when you wrote "desirable." We're both referring to subjective attitudes, not absolutes. Something that's "good" to me, subjectively, isn't really different from what's "desirable" to me. Let's be sure that we make clear what our words mean before we assume we're in disagreement. We may not be!


Again, you're assuming that Good is preferable to Evil in D&D cosmology. That's clearly not the case.

I agree with you that the cosmos of D&D has no preferences of its own, if that's what you mean. Absolute Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are like the opposite poles of magnets, and the cosmos doesn't make any pole stronger or more attractive than any other.

However, from this it does not follow that Evil beings do not envy Good beings. There is one clear advantage that Good has over Evil, even in D&D: If you're Good, you're more popular. Even if we assume that each of the nine alignments attracts an equal number of creatures, Goodness still wins the popularity contest over Evil. This happens because morally Neutral creatures, for pragmatic reasons and purely out of rational self-interest, usually ally themselves with Good rather than with Evil. I believe Evil creatures resent this, very deeply, even if they don't admit it to themselves. And they enjoy nothing better than to corrupt morally Neutral creatures, tricking them to ally themselves with Evil, or in other words, to act against their own self-interest.

I think we rightly regard envy as a trait of Evil. Evil creatures envy Good creatures because of their popularity. Evil creatures could of course be more popular if they were more willing to share with others, but they hate sharing. Indeed, the most Lawful Evil creatures can hardly stand to pay their minions a decent wage. So they resent Good creatures for enjoying an advantage that is unavailable to them. They compensate as much as they can with treachery, deceit, coercion, and wanton violence, but I imagine Evil creatures subconsciously believe the universe is unfair to them – even though it actually isn't, and their disadvantages are actually entirely of their own making. This subconscious belief only adds to their cruelty, as well as to the delight they take in it. You can't envy Good creatures when you're having too much fun being cruel.

The rest of the cosmos can be heartily glad that Evil handicaps itself in this way. If it were not so, Evil would probably have destroyed the cosmos long ago, in a fit of anger against the perceived injustice of the cosmos itself. Since Evil does handicap itself, the cosmos of D&D can persist as we know and love it: in a perpetual struggle between all alignment extremes.


If Good were preferable, many more beings would try to become Good.

I don't think so. I agree with Yoda, who argued, quite in line with D&D cosmology, I think, that the dark side of the Force is not more powerful than the light side (and not less powerful, either) but easier, that is, easier to master. I believe moral Neutrality is easier than Good, and in some ways, Evil is even easier than moral Neutrality. Having to care for others, even a little, is a major handicap when your primary aim is to maximize your own personal power. So the reason why more creatures aren't Good isn't because being Good isn't desirable; it's because being Good is hard. After all, if all you care about is personal power (or gaining experience points), why not be Evil and make it easier to kill things indiscriminately?

Good creatures may not be entirely free of jealousy in regard to Evil creatures. There may be moments when Good creatures resent the fact that Evil creatures are unburdened by moral scruples. However, if Good creatures envy Evil creatures too much, I believe they slip toward moral Neutrality and cease to be Good. On the other hand, Evil creatures that envy Good creatures do not thereby become less Evil. On the contrary, this only stokes the fire of their hatred.

[TuggyNE]

When I wrote "good" in quotation marks, or in other places with lower-case letters, I don't believe I meant anything other than what you meant when you wrote "desirable." We're both referring to subjective attitudes, not absolutes. Something that's "good" to me, subjectively, isn't really different from what's "desirable" to me. Let's be sure that we make clear what our words mean before we assume we're in disagreement. We may not be!



I agree with you that the cosmos of D&D has no preferences of its own, if that's what you mean. Absolute Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are like the opposite poles of magnets, and the cosmos doesn't make any pole stronger or more attractive than any other.

However, from this it does not follow that Evil beings do not envy Good beings. There is one clear advantage that Good has over Evil, even in D&D: If you're Good, you're more popular. Even if we assume that each of the nine alignments attracts an equal number of creatures, Goodness still wins the popularity contest over Evil. This happens because morally Neutral creatures, for pragmatic reasons and purely out of rational self-interest, usually ally themselves with Good rather than with Evil. I believe Evil creatures resent this, very deeply, even if they don't admit it to themselves. And they enjoy nothing better than to corrupt morally Neutral creatures, tricking them to ally themselves with Evil, or in other words, to act against their own self-interest.

I think we rightly regard envy as a trait of Evil. Evil creatures envy Good creatures because of their popularity. Evil creatures could of course be more popular if they were more willing to share with others, but they hate sharing. Indeed, the most Lawful Evil creatures can hardly stand to pay their minions a decent wage. So they resent Good creatures for enjoying an advantage that is unavailable to them. They compensate as much as they can with treachery, deceit, coercion, and wanton violence, but I imagine Evil creatures subconsciously believe the universe is unfair to them – even though it actually isn't, and their disadvantages are actually entirely of their own making. This subconscious belief only adds to their cruelty, as well as to the delight they take in it. You can't envy Good creatures when you're having too much fun being cruel.

The rest of the cosmos can be heartily glad that Evil handicaps itself in this way. If it were not so, Evil would probably have destroyed the cosmos long ago, in a fit of anger against the perceived injustice of the cosmos itself. Since Evil does handicap itself, the cosmos of D&D can persist as we know and love it: in a perpetual struggle between all alignment extremes.



I don't think so. I agree with Yoda, who argued, quite in line with D&D cosmology, I think, that the dark side of the Force is not more powerful than the light side (and not less powerful, either) but easier, that is, easier to master. I believe moral Neutrality is easier than Good, and in some ways, Evil is even easier than moral Neutrality. Having to care for others, even a little, is a major handicap when your primary aim is to maximize your own personal power. So the reason why more creatures aren't Good isn't because being Good isn't desirable; it's because being Good is hard. After all, if all you care about is personal power (or gaining experience points), why not be Evil and make it easier to kill things indiscriminately?

Good creatures may not be entirely free of jealousy in regard to Evil creatures. There may be moments when Good creatures resent the fact that Evil creatures are unburdened by moral scruples. However, if Good creatures envy Evil creatures too much, I believe they slip toward moral Neutrality and cease to be Good. On the other hand, Evil creatures that envy Good creatures do not thereby become less Evil. On the contrary, this only stokes the fire of their hatred.

Ah, man, Duke, you need to stop thinking up such awesome stuff, you're making the rest of us look bad! :smallamused:

[Kelb_Panthera]

This very same question came up in the general roleplaying forum not so long ago. It's on page two if you're using the default view settings.

Here's what I had to say in that thread:


Most people's discussions of morality in a D&D setting would look very much indistinguishable from the same discussions IRL.

The idea that there are immortal outsiders, afterlives that mortals can visit, that the gods exist, and that the existence of a soul can not only be proved but measured are true and provable things in those worlds but there's one -enormous- impediment to them becoming widely known; only spell casters can interact with these things directly and they make up only a tiny and factionalist percent of the population.

For every good cleric that tells you that the evil clerics are lying and every lawful cleric that says the same about clerics of chaos there is his opposite number making the same accusations about him and for every 10 of each there are 8 each of sorcerers and wizards that don't care what the masses think but only want them to stay ignorant of their own arcane secrets. Combine this unending war of information and disinformation with the fact that -all- of these people make up less than 5 percent of the total population (-if- you include -all- of the full casters WotC printed at the same rate as the four in the PHB) and the common man has no idea what to think.

As for the existence of celestials and fiends, sure, they can be shown to exist by being conjured up but the common folk only have the word of those same, constantly arguing people that these creatures are any different from the masses of perfectly mortal monstrous humanoids and generally human-shaped magical beasts.

You can visit the outer planes..... if you are a powerful caster (at least 9th level*) or have one as a buddy unless of course you're willing to brave one of the extraordinarily dangerous locations in which a natural planar rift exists. Even then the odds of you finding any of the souls of those of your deceased loved ones is utterly tiny and there's a -very- good chance they'll have no idea who you are if you do manage to find one.

It's just not reasonable to assume that any of the common folk, who have third hand knowledge at absolute best and usually only hear accounts much further removed from the source, have any reliable or accurate knowledge of what's really going on.

Alignment is just one more of these things. Between having no first-hand knowledge and hearing conflicting information, if any at all, from different sources it basically becomes a guessing game as to who is aligned which way.

As for whether the game terms are actually used or not; probably in some circles but not necessarily by everyone. In fact I'd hazard that a lot of evil and chaotic characters intentionally avoid them if they do know that objective alignment is a thing.

[XionUnborn01]

I just thought of something that really makes me want to dig into it more.

Maybe the reason that PCs can attain such high levels of power compared to commoners and adepts and so on is that they're born with an 'intuition' regarding the existence of alignments.

To a commoner, a person might just look like a mean jerk but to rogue or a fighter, they might look more like evil jerk.

Those subtle differences might be what allows the PCs to get so strong, the fact that they are 'aware' of how the universe works on a more fundamental level than other people.

[JusticeZero]

Alignments are relevant to the system, and as such they are as real as magnetism or radiation. The people involved might disagree with the criteria set by the universe in that regard, and might even have good reason to, but some universal standard of morality is burned into the physics of the universe.

Indeed, one can imagine a few situations where people continue to slip toward Evil because they are following their conscience and doing something that would be classically considered a good thing. For instance, imagine a crew of people who rescue and free slaves, in a universe that was not created to consider slavery inherently evil - treating a slave poorly might be evil, so many slave owners become Evil, but the act itself wasn't really counted, probably because they didn't intend chattel slavery. Those tireless moral protectors who go around freeing slaves are now committing little evil acts.

Working with the dead is often considered evil, also - the people who need to work with the dead for the good of the community, such as embalmers and the like, may then be knowingly accepting the added burden of needing to hide from paladins without reason.

[Gemini476]

One thing to remember in every alignment discussion is that there are three alignments on each action. Even if slavery is not Evil in a specific setting, that does not mean that it is Good - it's more likely a neutral act on the moral axis.
And if slavery is legal, then freeing slave is Chaotic - Chaotic Neutral, perhaps, with it being Good or Evil depending on your reason for freeing them.

The same goes for everything else: Lying isn't a Good act, but it isn't necessarily Evil. There's a whole lot of Neutral things between those two extremes.

[Dalebert]

And if slavery is legal, then freeing slave is Chaotic - Chaotic Neutral, perhaps, with it being Good or Evil depending on your reason for freeing them.

That's an overly specific interpretation IMHO. A character can have a very strict code of behavior that would reflect a lawful alignment which may or may not be in line with what the local laws are. A very lawful character might even pointedly reject the local authorities if he thought their code had been corrupted, for instance. He might say that for any law to be valid it has to be applied consistently to noble and peasant alike. If he saw the law being abused, he may very well feel compelled to rebel against that perversion of the law. This kind of variability even within a specific alignment is why the alignment system seems so silly. Whether a lawful character opposed slavery (on the basis of law) would depend on the laws he believed in. They might come from a monk order or his deity or just from parents who successfully conveyed their own strict morality to him.

[Isamu Dyson]

"Your honor, my client is Lawful Good: he clearly could not have committed that crime."

[georgie_leech]

Do you make ethical decisions based on whether it brings more Fire to the world?

I think for most adventurers, the answer is "yes."