Define new axes alternative to good/evil

[King of Nowhere]

we all know alignments have serious issues, especially if you are playing a more morally gray campaign.

A post in an unrelated thread got me thinking:

The trouble with Lawful Good is that it is the alignment of self-righteous fools and dishonest tyrants who seek to impose their will upon others. They reinforce their position by protecting those too weak to support themselves in order to gather those peons into a collective whole that will keep them enthroned in power. They suppress the rights and privileges of those who actually make things happen, and get in the way of solving problems by protecting the guilty from the retribution they deserve. They slow down justice with rules about when and how you can punish wrongdoing, and they enshrine ineptitude and laziness and foolishness by insisting that those who are too incapable of protecting their own for some reason have a right to demand that others let them dictate the disposition of resources rather than the natural law that those who can, do. Worse, they sneer down their noses at you if you don't acceed to their demands that you actively help protect the selfish weaklings who won't bother to protect themselves.

This alignment is the worst because it imposes rules for no reason other than to tell people who know what they're doing not to do it, and at the same time insists that those who don't have any strength or wit to make anything of themselves have privileges over those who do.
this is a very good show of a pragmatic evil person.

on the other hand, this kind of evil is completely different from what is normally associated with the word (namely, demon-worshipping, baby-eating, murdering, or at least being fully willing to rob people if given the chance to get away with it).
in fact, what differentiates this evil so much from its other conception is that this is a kind of evil that's actually useful, in some ways. Unlike the demon-worshipping kind of evil, where the world would be better off if nobody pursued it, this kind of ruthless pragmatism is necessary in small doses. a society that does not pursue it to some extent is going to fall for being incapable of defending itself from crime and exploitation of social services. On the other hand, a society based entirely on ruthlessness would be a hellhole based on the exploitation of the weaker.
So, unlike the general good and evil axis, the rutlhless/idealistic axis is one where equilibriium is desirable.

but if you remove good and evil, you can't differentiate between a self-serving thief and a good rebel. So you still need an axis to determine how much one is willing to help others, or to hurt others for personal gain.
this axis could be called selfish/selfless.

law/chaos can easily be discarded, as everybody has a different opinion on what they mean, and they are not very useful anyway. A lawful good character can be perfectly willing to lead a rebellion if there is no feasible way to change a corrupt system from the inside, and a chaotic good rebel may be perfectly willing to oppose a rebellion and work from within the system if he believes there are more chances to do good that way.

By using those two axes, a ruthless/selfish would definitely describe conventional evil, and most opponents. An idealistic/selfish would fit better to a slightly evil or neutral individual, one who is unwilling to directly hurt others but would gladly take advantage of stuff happening. A person finding a lost wallet and keeping it for himself would be a good example of this behavior.

where this system really gets better than common alignments is at describing most pcs. neutral/selfless would describe how much the pc would go out of his way to help before asking for a reward, and ruthless/ideallistic would describe how much one would be willing to do the dirty job.
The archetypical paladin would be selfless/idealistic, the functional evil teammate would be neutral/ruthless. a well-intentioned extremist like redcloak would be selfless/ruthless.

I wonder if this system could improve on alignments.
It certainly will be a better descriptor of personality than the common law/chaos and good/evil axis. it is also a better descriptor for the world: "this government is selfish/idealistic" would mean that the country has good laws that protect the people, but that also take a substantial cut of the national wealth and give it to those in charge. and that's a far better descriptor than "lawful evil", because lawful evil is generally associated with a cruel dictatorship - which would instead be selfish-ruthless or neutral-ruthless, or even selfless-ruthless depending on how functional it is (the selfless-ruthless is the one where crime is at a minimum and the trains run on time, because they'll make disappear anyone who interferes with that state of things)
On the other hand, it may be even worse at telling how well peoople can work together. Both miko and redcloak are selfless/ruthless, and they attack each other on sight. I also can't see a "protection from ruthlessness" spell. So, no mechanical benefits to implement those descriptors.

What do you think?

[KillianHawkeye]

I think the best system of alignment axes would be one that differentiates people based on their position on the great axe versus hand axe spectrum, and their position on the war axe versus fireman's axe spectrum.


Now hear me out.

Someone who is more great axe is prone to acting decisively in big gestures, and someone who is hand axe is quicker and more subtle while also being more able to adapt to different circumstances.

On the other spectrum, people who align with war axes favor violence or military solutions, while people who are more fireman's axe are usually concerned with helping others and are more likely to focus on utilitarian concerns.


So you can have rogues and monks which tend more towards hand axe, while the fighter and barbarian obviously favor the war axe alignment. A blaster wizard will be most likely GA/WA, while an enchanter will be HA/WA and a battlefield controller type will be GA/FA. Healers, bards, and abjuration specialists would likely fall under HA/FA. Paladins would vary between alignments depending on if they are more focused on smiting the bad guys or on protecting the innocent, but tend to the extremes regardless.

[Divine Susuryu]

I've been thinking of "principles/consequences" and "altruism/egoism" as an alternate alignment system. It's a bit more complicated, but a lot of the same things can emerge from it, although good/evil don't really map 1-to-1 on it. Explanations below.

Principles/altruism: they will help others but not at the expense of violating whatever set of rules they follow - could be anything from a personal code through religious obligations to a societal honour code. Paladins wind up here, as do clerics of many good gods. Maps best to LG and NG.

Consequences/altruism: they will do what they believe is best for others, regardless of what rules it breaks. Your Robin Hood types can be thought of as being in here, but so can many villains of the "good intentions but awful actions" variety. Maps oddly, as some of what is commonly thought to be LE (i.e. good intentions villains) falls in here with CG.

Principles/egoism: they will do what's best for themselves, but as above, not at the expense of violating the rules they follow. Your classic "evil with standards" can go here. Maps most closely to some of LE, LN, NE and TN.

Consequences/egoism: best for themselves, no matter what. Could be anything from a loveable rogue to a sociopath. CN and CE fit here best.

It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than classic alignment in terms of consistency.

[RatElemental]

Great Axe/Hand Axe sounds like Pink Mohawk/Mirror Shades sometimes brought up in more cyberpunky type systems.

I'd also like to point out the axis of funkitude (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?55828-Negative-Energy-Ha!-OUR-undead-are-fuelled-by-FUNKITUDE!).

There's also bacon/necktie that was meant to be a joke but can be argued to be the axis of how somebody presents themselves to others.

[Lord Raziere]

I would use Light and Dark

Light isn't inherently good. Dark isn't inherently evil.

Light is about community, stability, idealism and safety. At its most extreme it becomes oppressively obsessed with order and collectivism to the point where it forces everyone to be happy in an effort to make everyone equal in a society thats more of a prison than good, or absorb everyone into a hivemind to eliminate all war, various high-minded ideals played out in horrible ways like that. But in day to day to life, it serves a useful moderate function of protecting people from danger, enforcing laws, and encouraging people to be considerate of others.

Dark is about individuality, freedom and pragmatism. At its most extreme its purely anarchic and individualistic, resulting in hives of scum and villainy, greed run rampant, megalomaniacs trying to achieve godlike power and so on. But also serves a useful function in keeping people free with civil rights, self-expression, economics, skepticism, and encouraging you to stand up for yourself. It encourages you to be more, to know more, to know yourself.

Light wants to eliminate suffering as much as possible, Dark wants you to be able to strong enough to deal with suffering yourself. Light is more idealistic and optimistic but can be dangerous because it focuses more on how things should be than what they are in the pursuit of achieving them, and Dark is more realistic and cynical but can cause them to discard ideals to strive for entirely and live hollow meaningless lives of selfishness and decadence.

Both can be bad, but not when the other is there to help steer the other straight- after all, the Light needs to keep the Dark from growing too out of control, and the Dark needs to keep criticizing and questioning the Light to make sure it keeps on the straight and narrow so that it doesn't become oppressive.

[Voidstar01]

What about character who do good things in the name though? where do these types fit on these scales?

Example: I had a character who was a knight of the lily, the evil Tiamat worshiping alternative the knights of the rose from dragonlance, he donated charity and even founded orphanage. Every time he donated he would do so in full lily knight regalia, thus bringing prestige and goodwill to the order, and the children in the orphanage were raised on stories of the glory and honor of the knights of the lily, an uncharacteristically high amount joined the order of the lily when they grew up. He would also happily kill all these people he help if that's what the vision told him to do. There's nothing inherently evil about any of actions, but he was still evil. The current alignment axis really doesn't have anything for characters like him.

[Aniikinis]

Obligatory mention of the Magic: the Gathering colour pie alignment system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?157001-Alignment-Replacement-The-Color-Wheel-3-5-PEACH)

I've always been more partial to the "alignment as roleplay fodder" idea, but there have been a few I've tried out over the years. Note that all but one was used in addition to the base alignment system to make a 3-axis alignment.

Sharp/Neutral/Rounded: Representing their method of delivery and preference on how interaction should work. Sharp people are typically blunt, straight to the point, and they make sure their words strike true. Rounded people are typically prone to winding their way through long and drawn out conversations, meandering their way to the point. When given a quest, sharp people are likely to beeline towards it and get it done with few distractions getting in their way while rounded will check out any and all points of even minor interest on their way there and will gladly give into temptation to enjoy every distraction. Example being a CNR rogue would check out every fiddly detail while working the job and probably get a bigger payout but lose precious time while the CNS rogue would get in and get out with the quarry and making sure to never be distracted even once.

Inner/Prime/Outer: Used during a campaign with far too much planar jumping. Showed the character's preference towards the 3 classes of plane and specifically to which side you would end up in due to some weird plot dung that caused souls to be sent to the inner and prime material plane as well as the outer planes.

Animal/Vegetable/Mineral: Kind of a joke in the campaign really, but was fun nonetheless. It showed how animate you are at a glance and how quick you were on the uptick.

Stars/Home/Void: This is the one that was used in place of the Good/Evil axis. Used in a campaign with a ton of cultist groups trying to bring in great beings of ancient terrible power to spite the other groups. They were loosely aligned to one of two sides:

Stars, the side of luminescence and scouring flame trying to summon beings entombed beyond even the plane of fire in the hearts of stars and the causes of supernovae as they tore themselves out to feast upon worlds.
Void, the side of utterdark and devouring hunger trying to summon things completely divorced from existence itself yet could be found in the abysses beyond the planes where even the far realms cannot reach.

Home is a bit different though, as that was the side of neither evil and as such was fighting both for the survival of the world itself. Morality wasn't a big deal in this campaign as you were literally stuck between a burning rock and a hungry place fighting just to keep your home intact.

[ShurikVch]

It's not, exactly, fit for OP request, but let me quote the S&S Arcana Unearthed:


No Alignments

There are no alignments in Arcana Unearthed into which you must shoehorn your character's outlook. This rulebook does not attempt to define good or evil, nor does it address law or chaos. Characters should decide for themselves what is good and what is evil, the way real people do. There are no spells that reveal whether a character is evil or good - his actions and the perspectives of those around him determine that. No (or at least very few) characters think of themselves as evil. The truth is, such concepts are relative.

Yet even without alignments, villains still do terrible things to further their own goals. Heroes still make great sacrifices to stop them. The classic conflicts all remain. But now there are even more. Two noble and altruistic characters might oppose each other. Their personal ideologies might even cause each of them to define the other as "evil."

Characters with a conscience still act responsibly, and those with a code of conduct still adhere to it: having no alignment is not an excuse for all characters to act wantonly. As in the real world, things are much more interesting if there are not nine alignments but, in fact, an infinite number of them - each character becomes his own alignment.

[Climowitz]

I tried with measuring the classic alignment system, by putting a score between 1 and 10 to how close they were to Good, Evil, Chaotic or Lawful, being 0;0 True Neutral. But eventually turned to color wheel, from MTG, and was the best decision i could make. None of the colors is inherently good or evil, some of them may have a tendecy towards chaos or law, but they are not necessarily aligned with one of them, and being able to use One, Two or Three colors combinations allows for many different alignments.

[Sereg]

First of all, let me clarify that I have no problems with the current alignment axes. I have always considered the complaints about them ridiculous and a sign of lack of understanding on the part of the complainers. In addition, I consider the "selfish/selfless" and "altruistic/egoist" axes to literaly be the exact same thing as "good/evil". I mean, I consider "altruism" to just be another word for "good" and "selfishness" to just be another word for "evil" even IRL.

Remember that each alignment is supposed to represent a broad range of behaviour. After all, DnD confirms that approximately a third of all humans you meet would be considered evil. That's a lot of very different people. In addition, the alignment axes are meant to not just be opinions, but things people come into conflict over. Law and Chaos each believes the other is ruining things. Good hates evil and wants to stop it while evil hates that good does so.

(Also, while I know that that the Colour Pie is meant to not map anything to good and evil, I still see the Black colour as evil. Every time people disagree, they say things like, "It's not evil! It's *list of evil things*! It has good heroes like one who *description of evil person*!" Of course, that's presumably because I am extremely Bant (Green, Blue, White) according to MtG).

That said, I do appreciate the desire to add axes to better describe characters, behaviour and conflicts, while replacing certain alignment restrictions with more fitting ones. The axis of funk is silly, but fun and descriptive. I have also been intending to add axes for the Myers-Briggs traits and he Big Five personality traits.

Extroverted-Introverted (The only one that comes from both and means you can change the Bard's alignment restriction from "non-lawful" to the more fitting "Extroverted")

Intuitive-Sensing

Thinking-Feeling

Judging-Percieving

Agreeable-Disagreeable

Neurotic-Stable

Open-Closed

Conscientious-Relaxed

[RatElemental]

(Also, while I know that that the Colour Pie is meant to not map anything to good and evil, I still see the Black colour as evil. Every time people disagree, they say things like, "It's not evil! It's *list of evil things*! It has good heroes like one who *description of evil person*!" Of course, that's presumably because I am extremely Bant (Green, Blue, White) according to MtG).


The way black is defined in mtg and the way evil is defined in dnd, black can at best achieve neutrality on the moral axis. It's kinda telling when the big color fluff revisit articles could only manage "indifferent social darwinist" or "nihilistic realist" as the noblest version of the color's philosophy.

[Necroticplague]

I think you can mostly keep the actual axis as they are, and simply rename the current ones to something else to help serve as a reminder of the distinction between cosmic alignment and morality, that would do enough. Good and Evil are very loaded terms that I believe shouldn’t have been used. I think a more accurate set of names would be something like altruism vs egoism. That way, you still have an accurate description of the philosophies of the four alignments, without as much of the loaded language associated. Things are Egoistic because they assert one’s control over their surrounding without regard for other’s control. The associated philosophy is that a society functions best when each person’s self interest drives them to produce results for the society as a whole, while an altruistic one is that society functions best when each person attempts to shoulder the furtherance of society for its own sake.

[Eldan]

I would use Light and Dark

Light isn't inherently good. Dark isn't inherently evil.

Light is about community, stability, idealism and safety. At its most extreme it becomes oppressively obsessed with order and collectivism to the point where it forces everyone to be happy in an effort to make everyone equal in a society thats more of a prison than good, or absorb everyone into a hivemind to eliminate all war, various high-minded ideals played out in horrible ways like that. But in day to day to life, it serves a useful moderate function of protecting people from danger, enforcing laws, and encouraging people to be considerate of others.

Dark is about individuality, freedom and pragmatism. At its most extreme its purely anarchic and individualistic, resulting in hives of scum and villainy, greed run rampant, megalomaniacs trying to achieve godlike power and so on. But also serves a useful function in keeping people free with civil rights, self-expression, economics, skepticism, and encouraging you to stand up for yourself. It encourages you to be more, to know more, to know yourself.

Light wants to eliminate suffering as much as possible, Dark wants you to be able to strong enough to deal with suffering yourself. Light is more idealistic and optimistic but can be dangerous because it focuses more on how things should be than what they are in the pursuit of achieving them, and Dark is more realistic and cynical but can cause them to discard ideals to strive for entirely and live hollow meaningless lives of selfishness and decadence.

Both can be bad, but not when the other is there to help steer the other straight- after all, the Light needs to keep the Dark from growing too out of control, and the Dark needs to keep criticizing and questioning the Light to make sure it keeps on the straight and narrow so that it doesn't become oppressive.

Isn't that very analogous to law and chaos?

[Lord Raziere]

Isn't that very analogous to law and chaos?

Perhaps, if you want to look at it that way. its viable, but personally I see "individualism" as more than just chaos, and "community" as more than just the rules they set down. Light unlike Law, has an actual goal and vision of a better world but is more idealistic and less about reason, Dark unlike Chaos has a direction and a sense of pragmatism to its methods. Light is likely to have more empathetic individuals while Dark is likely to have more logical ones, while I see Law as the logical one and the Chaos as the empathetic one in that conflict.

But I've got a different system I came up with recently:

The Functional Axis:
This first axis is the most important one. It is limited to the three alignments detailed here and measures how well someone balances their beliefs with reality. Most people are assumed to be Balanced, a large minority assumed to be Void and a rare few people are assumed to be Insanity.

Insanity:
Your beliefs blind yourself to reality. Whether your megalomaniacal, a complete zealot, an absolute monster, or delusional, this alignment means your completely crazy, unreasonable and stupid. You take whatever you believe too far and try to force it upon all the world without any regard for the consequences of your actions. You are completely sure that your always in the right, never reconsider or feel regret or guilt for anything you do, and never swerve from your beliefs. This alignment is not recommended for PCs and should probably not be allowed to be taken by them at all.

Balanced:
You are a healthy reasonable person who balances their beliefs with the reality of the situation as well as can be expected. You remain aware of the changing situation to see whether its good idea to really push your beliefs or not, and you cooperate well with others and their beliefs most of the time. You also acknowledge that your beliefs are not perfect and that sometimes you can be wrong and are willing to learn from your mistakes.

Void:
Reality has crushed your beliefs. You are a broken, hollow person in despair or depression who seeks to find happiness and wholeness once again. You still on some unconscious level, believe in your Outlook alignment, but only in a jaded, depressed hollow sense, seeing it as a foolish thing you still cling to despite knowing its fake and worthless. Reality looks like a bleak and desolate place to you. Despite this most people with this alignment continue to live on and function in society. It can sometimes be a bit of a fight to get back to being Balanced once again, but may not always come out of it with the same Outlook Alignment they had before. While PCs are allowed to take this alignment, be sure that everyone in the group is okay with it as some may not want to play with a depressed character like this.

The Outlook Axis:
In contrast, the Outlook Axis is pretty much infinite in what alignments you can choose. The alignments here all describe your outlook on life and what you consider ideal about yourself. Thus you can come up with pretty much almost anything and put it in as an Outlook Axis alignment as long as it can reasonably interact with the three functional axis alignments above.

Here are some examples:
Lawful Good:
A Balanced Lawful Good person is virtuous and restrained, do all that they can to help others while acknowledging that not all rules are legitimate nor can all evil be defeated within the rules. They strive for a civilized virtuous society regardless, knowing their ideals are unreachable at least in their lifetime.
Insane Lawful Good people are complete zealots and extremists,trying to kill all that they perceive as evil mindlessly without nuance or restraint.
Void Lawful Good has lost hope that their virtues and laws can truly change the world for the better, continuing to only hold to their beliefs out of defiance of the darkness around them.

Logical Independent:
A Balanced Logical Independent thinks out of their own rational self interest and plans for the long term and thus takes into account their friends emotions and the situations where being selfless benefits them as well. As well as being aware they can't plan for everything and acknowledging they can fail.
An Insane Logical Independent is utterly obsessed with themselves, coldly using everyone around them as pawns for their goals alone and denying any action they don't see any logical reason to do and unwilling to budge from their own intricate well thought out plans, and are known to be control freaks
A Void Logical Independent is convinced its that there is no rationality or independence in the universe, depressed that they can't truly be a rational independent person in a world of random meaninglessness, only continuing in their beliefs to keep themselves sane and focused on what they want to gain some sort of benefit at all.

Klepto Adventurer:
A Balanced Klepto Adventurer while taking loot from dungeons and killing monsters, can restrain themselves from attacking innocent villagers, be social in civilized lands while enjoying their thrills and the loot they gain from their jobs.
An Insane Klepto-Adventurer is your typical murderhobo, killing anyone that moves aside from shopkeeps and inns and interacting with no one outside of combat, utterly committed to nothing but slaughter without thought for consequence
A Void Klepto-Adventurer continues killing and looting, but the exercise has become repetitive and hollow to them, seeing their lifestyle as pointless and endless, but continuing on because they know nothing else.

Dank Memelord:
A Balanced Dank Memelord loves to joke and have fun, ribbing their follow companions with japes and teasing, but knows when to get serious and focus when the chips are down. They seek to bring laughs and joy to the world, but don't make jokes they know are annoying or hurtful.
An Insane Dank Memelord is utterly random and incomprehensible, trying to make jokes every second without ever being serious or useful at all and just completely annoying.
A Void Dank Memelord makes weak jokes to hide their own depression within themselves, trying to put on a mask of smiles to hide their pain and get through their own darkness.

Free Rebellious:
A Balanced Free Rebellious seeks to give freedom and equality to everyone and change the status quo for the better, but recognizes that people need stability in their lives as well and while the FR may break the rules, they do so to put something better in their place.
An Insane Free Rebellious rages against the status quo with revenge and distrust for the people in power, destroying all order and restriction and reducing all societies into anarchy in their crazy crusade, killing any noble or form or elite they see as having too much power over others.
A Void Free Rebellious while continuing walk free and independent, has come to believe that its useless to try and change the status quo and nothing they can do can change the systems or oppression that surrounds them.


.....And so on. Be creative, come up with whatever works. Why design it so that one axis is limited, and the other is unlimited? Simple. the Functional Axis measures whether how healthy and reasonable you are as a person, but its not a linear scale: the Balanced and Void alignments are both functional in a way, the Void one is just less healthy and going through a rough phase of their life. Insane however represents someone is who is broken, someone who taken whatever they belief way too far and now does nothing but try to fulfill it, and its possible for both Void and Balanced people to become Insane but Void is a little more likely due to their mental state.
This makes sure that there can be disagreements between a Void and Balanced person even if they have the same philosophy, because the Void will doubt whether its actually true and be more jaded or depressed about it. While both will oppose a Insane person even if that insane person has the same basic Outlook alignment, giving a lot of potential for someone to meet their villainous foil who embodies a dark version of their own philosophy.

While the Outlook Axis, is unlimited, because what people believe and hold themselves to is similarly unlimited. The Outlook Axis is important because it provides the potential for both conflict and cooperation between people of different outlooks, by making sure people are reasonable in their Balanced state, while also acknowledging that reasonable people can have disagreements over this or that, while still opposing someone completely crazy or threatening.

Basically? Insane alignment is there to catch all the "Stupid X" alignment stuff right from the start, so that the GM can say "no you've gone Insane" and stop that right in its tracks without needing a big morality debate. why? because the Outlook Axis has to be defined and agreed upon by player and GM as to whats reasonable and balanced for it and if the players breaks their own Outlook's rules well....that tells you all you need to know, doesn't it?

While Void is there to be a roleplaying opportunity. it represents the low points in peoples lives and them having to struggle with their own beliefs against the reality of the world, and can also be used as a transitional alignment, where instead of a paladin falling, they just go into Void about their own beliefs and code they uphold, struggling to find meaning and happiness in it now they have failed it, or it has failed them, and can either represent a low point where they return back to being Balanced and sure, or a transition into some completely new belief that they think is better.

while Balanced is just there to be an alignment where you don't have to worry about Void stuff and still have reason so you don't fall into stupid Insane stuff.

In general this alignment supposed to provide order to peoples viewpoints and how interact with them, while also providing a lot of flexibility for what stories you can tell with it so that people with subjective opinion can debate with each other without coming to a clear answer because some issues are grey and muddled, yet still find people that are clearly wrong that they can fight.

[Katie Boundary]

For the record, the MTG color wheel got seriously butchered and scrambled circa 2003. Anyone who cites the post-2003 color wheel for anything is automatically wrong. According to the original color wheel, Black was very explicitly the color of evil.

https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=2103&type=cardhttps://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=1436&type=cardhttps://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=1449&type=cardhttps://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=2487&type=card
https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=2489&type=cardhttps://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=4456&type=cardhttps://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=9779&type=cardhttps://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=8817&type=card

[Crake]

There's nothing wrong with alignment as long as it's used to categorize a character that's already been established, rather than it itself being used to establish the character. The issue with the quote in your original post was that it stated "Lawful good is this". Yes, but lawful good is also that, and that too, and that other thing as well. Change the alignment system all you like, but the characters that you're categorizing shouldn't change at all. Think of the alignment system as a sorting system in a library, changing the sorting system shouldn't change what books are in the library, just the way in which the books are sorted, but no matter what categorization you use, there's always going to be some caricature of "XYZ alignment" that people will be able to point to and say "this is a problem" if that's what they want to do, just like there are people who complain about certain books being available, no matter what way they're categorized in a library, really the issue they have isn't the alignment of the character, it's the caricature that they've cooked up in their mind of with the archetypal member of that alignment is that they have the issue with, while completely ignoring the fact that there's vastly more than nine character archetypes.

[RatElemental]

For the record, the MTG color wheel got seriously butchered and scrambled circa 2003. Anyone who cites the post-2003 color wheel for anything is automatically wrong. According to the original color wheel, Black was very explicitly the color of evil.



When people say "Black is not evil" they usually mean "Black is not only evil"

That said, the color fluff articles painted the most noble take on black's philosophy as something between callous social darwinism and nihilism. So the best black can manage on the moral axis is neutral.

[Sereg]

I have had the mind-numbing experience of having multiple people claim that there is nothing evil about black and that it can be as good as any other colour.

What I will agree with though is that black does not have exclusive access to evil. I will deny that it has access to good though.

(There is also the ridiculous claim about ammorallity Vs immorality. Ie. The claim that someone is incapable of evil if they don't believe in evil)

[False God]

we all know alignments have serious issues, especially if you are playing a more morally gray campaign.

...

What do you think?

Ultimately, if you're playing in a more "morally grey" campaign my best advice is to avoid "cosmic alignment" entirely and to minimize the activity of gods on the material plane (think more laissez faire divinity). Leave morality up to each individual society and religion.

[Katie Boundary]

cold/neutral/hot axis versus dry/neutral/wet axis

Hot & dry = desert
hot & wet = jungle
cold & dry = tundra
cold & wet = Britain

[Aniikinis]

I have had the mind-numbing experience of having multiple people claim that there is nothing evil about black and that it can be as good as any other colour.
Please tell me you're joking. Black is, along with the other colours, amoral and as such neither good nor evil, however, that being said, the vast majority of things possible with black mana are in no possible way good at all and the colour itself gives very little ability for its' practitioners to care for the well being of other creatures.


What I will agree with though is that black does not have exclusive access to evil. I will deny that it has access to good though.
I have a bit of a problem with this statement. Not all of the creatures that use black mana or are black-aligned are evil, some could be considered good in the right contexts, but I will give you that it is the majority. Black-aligned creatures can do good if it were to benefit them in some way or bring them closer to the power that they seek though the likelihood of both that happening and the creature knowing that it was happening are slim to none. Black can do good, but it typically has a heftier price to pay than using any other colour for it and the times when you could even use it for good are rare, given that, as said above, it's absolute best could be considered nihilism or "sink or swim".

I'm assuming you're not counting animals or similar creatures.


(There is also the ridiculous claim about ammorallity Vs immorality. Ie. The claim that someone is incapable of evil if they don't believe in evil)

That's just ridiculous.

[Katie Boundary]

There HAVE been characters in MtG lore who were both black and "good" (Xantcha, Crovax, and Belbe come to mind), but they're the exceptions. Black is mostly full of necromancers, demon-worshippers, and opportunistic megalomaniacs: Yawgmoth, Davvol, Lietbur, Lim-Dul, Leshrac, Tevesh Szat, Kaervek, Purraj, the whole Sengir family, Greven il-Vec, Volrath...

[Sereg]

Please tell me you're joking. Black is, along with the other colours, amoral and as such neither good nor evil, however, that being said, the vast majority of things possible with black mana are in no possible way good at all and the colour itself gives very little ability for its' practitioners to care for the well being of other creatures.


I have a bit of a problem with this statement. Not all of the creatures that use black mana or are black-aligned are evil, some could be considered good in the right contexts, but I will give you that it is the majority. Black-aligned creatures can do good if it were to benefit them in some way or bring them closer to the power that they seek though the likelihood of both that happening and the creature knowing that it was happening are slim to none. Black can do good, but it typically has a heftier price to pay than using any other colour for it and the times when you could even use it for good are rare, given that, as said above, it's absolute best could be considered nihilism or "sink or swim".

I'm assuming you're not counting animals or similar creatures.



That's just ridiculous.

I am unfortunately not joking, and yes, it's ridiculous.

For your middle point, the thing is I struggle to find something that is both good and black. Previous examples given to me were always things I see as evil myself.

[Aniikinis]

I am unfortunately not joking, and yes, it's ridiculous.
I have no words that can express how dumbfounded I am to hear that.


For your middle point, the thing is I struggle to find something that is both good and black. Previous examples given to me were always things I see as evil myself.
Ah, then it's a clash of moral systems. That I can't really help with, since black deals in shades of grey with major weight on the darker end of the spectrum and even some of the "good guys" being merciless or frankly cruel people.

[RatElemental]

I am unfortunately not joking, and yes, it's ridiculous.

For your middle point, the thing is I struggle to find something that is both good and black. Previous examples given to me were always things I see as evil myself.

I can think of a few black cards that are at least not outright evil, but I'll take a shot at trying to find a few 'good' ones.

Here (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=386464&type=card) is a card that bolsters all your creatures and allows them to continue reinforcing your army as spirits upon death (a solidly black/white effect).

Here's (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=380374&type=card) a god who handles passage into the afterlife. Maybe not good, but I'd argue not evil.

This (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=109718&type=card) is... technically a black card.

I'm interested in which things people have claimed were good before, honestly.

[Sereg]

I have no words that can express how dumbfounded I am to hear that.


Ah, then it's a clash of moral systems. That I can't really help with, since black deals in shades of grey with major weight on the darker end of the spectrum and even some of the "good guys" being merciless or frankly cruel people.
As I said, I am a very Bant individual. Selfishness is literally how I define evil and I am an almost Kantian deontologist.

I can think of a few black cards that are at least not outright evil, but I'll take a shot at trying to find a few 'good' ones.

Here (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=386464&type=card) is a card that bolsters all your creatures and allows them to continue reinforcing your army as spirits upon death (a solidly black/white effect).

Here's (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=380374&type=card) a god who handles passage into the afterlife. Maybe not good, but I'd argue not evil.

This (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=109718&type=card) is... technically a black card.

I'm interested in which things people have claimed were good before, honestly.

I am not talking about individual cards, but concepts.

But yeah, people sometimes argue that you can only be evil if you believe you are, so black can't be evil as it doesn't believe in evil.


Otherwise people call Black good for having self-interest, pride, capitalism and ambition, for example.

(Also, incidentally, people have attempted to make alternative colour pies before. I have recently started studying these attempts to come up with my own idea for one. It is relatively complete)

[hamishspence]

But yeah, people sometimes argue that you can only be evil if you believe you are, so black can't be evil as it doesn't believe in evil.

A distinction should be made between evil characters who say "There's no such thing as evil" and ones who say "There is such a thing - and I am good."

[Sereg]

A distinction should be made between evil characters who say "There's no such thing as evil" and ones who say "There is such a thing - and I am good."

I agree there's t distinction. But as you said, sub a distinction is not in whether or not they are evil.

[hamishspence]

In D&D a character who does not believe in evil has an erroneous belief about the entire universe.

Whereas an evil character who believes in evil, but not in their own evil, has a much smaller scale erroneous belief - about themselves and their own actions/nature, rather than about the universe as a whole.

[Luckmann]

we all know alignments have serious issues, especially if you are playing a more morally gray campaign.I reject this premise. Alignment doesn't really have any serious issues at all, and unless you're playing a Paladin or similar, definitely shouldn't be causing you problems in a morally grey campaign at all. If you fret over alignment, you're not really morally grey to begin with.

[hamishspence]

If you fret over alignment, you're not really morally grey to begin with.

A morally grey person can still believe strongly in good and evil - they just believe some evil is necessary or justified.

They can still fret over whether this particular act of evil qualifies as necessary, or not.

Heroes of Horror is about running "morally grey" campaigns with "flexible Neutral" antiheroes who do Evil acts with Good intentions.

But there's plenty of room for fretting over those Intentions, for asking oneself "Are they really Good or not?"

[Aniikinis]

As I said, I am a very Bant individual. Selfishness is literally how I define evil and I am an almost Kantian deontologist.
Sultai here, as my sig says, and, while I'm not necessarily selfish myself, I am definitely of the opinion that I need to be my first priority when making decisions on which actions to take and what risks are worth it. After all, I can't transcend death or take advantage of the opportunities provided if I'm dead or otherwise incapacitated.

In a previous thread on IRL alignment I've flat out said I was NE and gave reasons to back it up, so I'm not a very good case study against black being the colour of evil but still.


Otherwise people call Black good for having self-interest, pride, capitalism and ambition, for example.
I can agree with this, though too much of any of them can lead to ruin.


(Also, incidentally, people have attempted to make alternative colour pies before. I have recently started studying these attempts to come up with my own idea for one. It is relatively complete)
I'd like to see that.


A distinction should be made between evil characters who say "There's no such thing as evil" and ones who say "There is such a thing - and I am good."


In D&D a character who does not believe in evil has an erroneous belief about the entire universe.

Whereas an evil character who believes in evil, but not in their own evil, has a much smaller scale erroneous belief - about themselves and their own actions/nature, rather than about the universe as a whole.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. There's a major difference between "evil doesn't exist, it's all relative" and "evil exists, but I'm a shining light against it". One is likely to tend towards neutrality while seeing the shades of grey and sympathizing with the reasoning behind an act. The other either creates cults, political parties, tyrannies, and other such entities/forces or goes mad.

[Mr Adventurer]

I liked how d20 Modern did it. Basically, choose two to three things that your character believes in and aligns themselves to (literal alignment). This can be practically anything - concepts, philosophy, organisations, people. So, you could have a loyal priest of the church with "the Church" as one of their alignments. You could still have a character who had a "Good" alignment. Or you might have someone extremely loyal who has, like "the President" or "my family".

(IIRC. it's been several years since I played.)

EDIT: if this online SRD is correct, it was called "Allegiances": http://www.d20resources.com/modern.d20.srd/basics/allegiances.php

[Lord Raziere]

I can agree with this, though too much of any of them can lead to ruin.


Eh, there is a lot of things about White that too much of that can lead to ruin as well: conformity, order, faith, dogma, idealism, martyrdom, and so on, and there is a quote about this:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

― C. S. Lewis
Especially since while the robber baron doesn't care what other people do, a moral tyrant cares very much about what their subordinates do, and seek to make others oppress people the same way as them to perpetuate their oppression.

But then again, I interpret the Mt:G colors in a different way, and don't see Black as being incompatible with Chaotic Good, and I see myself as Red/Black/Blue (but not Grixis- a color about individuality is best for individuals, not worlds), while White is completely capable of being Lawful Evil all on its own, as to me its the Lawful color, not the Good color. the idea that any one force or viewpoint has special claim on being a better person, is something I find antithetical to actually being one.

[Duff]

Ultimately, if you're playing in a more "morally grey" campaign my best advice is to avoid "cosmic alignment" entirely and to minimize the activity of gods on the material plane (think more laissez faire divinity). Leave morality up to each individual society and religion.

This is pretty much my first answer. Make sure characters have personality which notes some ideas around their morality. Loyal to friends, protective of children. Believes tax is theft. People who know this character will have a reasonable idea of how your character will respond in lots of situations and will get a better idea of it as they see you make more choices.
The other description of a character which will cover some of the alignment ground is your collection of alliances and enemies. Pro thieves' guild, anti assassins guild might be the most important "Alignment" if the story running is a turf war between the two.

Unless you want an alignment system for some mechanical reason?
(Having your paladin "Smite Assassin" in the above example may work poorly...)

[Aniikinis]

Eh, there is a lot of things about White that too much of that can lead to ruin as well: conformity, order, faith, dogma, idealism, martyrdom, and so on, and there is a quote about this:

But then again, I interpret the Mt:G colors in a different way, and don't see Black as being incompatible with Chaotic Good, and I see myself as Red/Black/Blue (but not Grixis- a color about individuality is best for individuals, not worlds), while White is completely capable of being Lawful Evil all on its own, as to me its the Lawful color, not the Good color. the idea that any one force or viewpoint has special claim on being a better person, is something I find antithetical to actually being one.

You and me interpret them in very similar ways I think. I fully agree with white being the colour of pure law as that's what a good number of "pure white" creatures have shown such as angels and Elesh Norn with them easily being seen as LG/LN and LE respectively. It's kind of a pointless endeavour to map the colours onto the 3x3 alignment grid imo.

[Sereg]

Sultai here, as my sig says, and, while I'm not necessarily selfish myself, I am definitely of the opinion that I need to be my first priority when making decisions on which actions to take and what risks are worth it. After all, I can't transcend death or take advantage of the opportunities provided if I'm dead or otherwise incapacitated.

In a previous thread on IRL alignment I've flat out said I was NE and gave reasons to back it up, so I'm not a very good case study against black being the colour of evil but still.


I can agree with this, though too much of any of them can lead to ruin.


I'd like to see that.





I wholeheartedly agree with this. There's a major difference between "evil doesn't exist, it's all relative" and "evil exists, but I'm a shining light against it". One is likely to tend towards neutrality while seeing the shades of grey and sympathizing with the reasoning behind an act. The other either creates cults, political parties, tyrannies, and other such entities/forces or goes mad.
We'll, as I said, my own version is heavily based on others, though I decided to base the colours on the idea of "What if the guilds between enemy colours mixed their colours in the opposite way from canon?"

So, the result is a variation on he common idea of a Pink, Brown, Orange, Purple, Yellow pie (My order. Most order this pie differently).

Pink (Almost everyone who uses pink has a similar idea): Community through compassion. Pink is the colour that wants to look after and help everyone. Even their enemies. Pink likes Brown as they are both colours that want to care and protect. Pink likes Yellow as both colours want to fulfill wants and needs. Pink dislikes (hates is a bit strong for Pink) Purple as they consider themselves nurturing and Purple neglectful. Pink devotes itself to those around them while Purple stays mostly in its own mind, thinking about other possibilities. Pink dislikes Orange as they consider themselves parental and Orange as tyranical. Pink looks after those it has power over while Orange enforces a hierarchy they take advantage of. Pink's symbol is a heart made of a pair of hands shaking. It's land is the meadow. It has lots of alt win cons, effects that benefit all players, ability to recruit enemy creatures, higher toughness than power, healing effects and ways of blocking attacks and damage. It struggles to do damage and get opposing cards into the graveyard.

Brown: Preservation through understanding. (A lot of variation exists in what people want to do with Brown. I also incorporated some people's ideas for Orange) Brown believes that everything that has thus far is a piece of the puzzle of existence and it feels a sense of loss at each one's passing. It wants to protect what exists and maintain the memory of that which came before. It believes in preserving as much as possible. It also wants to learn as much as it can about things before they are gone, both to learn better preservation techniques and to keep a piece of it around after it has gone. Brown likes Pink as both are caring and protective. Brown likes Orange as both try to preserve the current system. Brown hates Purple as it sees itself as the responsible realist and Purple as the irresponsible lunatic. Brown cares about what was and is and wants to keep it that way. Purple doesn't care about what is, but instead cares about what could be. It is about he creation and maintenance of what is not. Brown hates Yellow as it sees itself as the preserver and Yellow as the displacer. Brown wants to protect the world, while Yellow thinks the world isn't good enough and wants to replace it with something better. Brown's symbol is the hourglass and its land is the tundra. Like Pink, it prises toughness over power, but it is good at stopping the opponent's actions in general. It is good at bouncing cards, counterspelling, blocking, checking and arranging other cards, repeating effects and using the graveyard as a resource. It struggles with similar things that Pink struggles with, as well as with enchanting or otherwise altering creatures.

Orange: Domination through Heirarchy. (Basically my own idea) Orange believes everything should know it's place, enjoy the benefits of it's position and slowly claw it's way higher. It likes having others below it and feels they should obey. It also wants to climb higher. Orange likes Brown as they both preserve social structures. Orange likes Purple as Purple is too busy thinking to upset the system and Orange can use Purple's ideas to get ahead. Both colours are looking to improve their present situation. They are both ambitious, self-centred dreamers. Orange hates Pink as it sees itself as structured and Pink as unstable. How can anyone know their place when the strong are supporting the weak? It's a mess. Orange hates Yellow as it sees itself as ordered and Yellow as messy. Orange wants resources properly channelled so they get more than those under them, but Yellow says everyone should grab what they want. That might lead to others considering themselves Orange's equal. That is unacceptable. Orange's symbol is a ladder and its land is the jungle. It can easily buff its creatures and call weaker tokens for support. It easily gains synergy bonuses for having multiple creatures and it can gain bonuses from opponent's actions. It can also easily prevent opponents from buffing their creatures. It also has good access to worsening effects when an opponent tries and fails to block. It is also designed to snowball, meaning it ramps up faster over time. It struggles to block and counter though and has low access to healing. It can benefit from having cards in the graveyard, but struggles to take them out of the graveyard.

Purple: Exploration through Imagination (Ideas for Purple tend to be similar, but I think I kept things as merely similar instead of identical and incorporated one group's Yellow). Purple is about dreaming and wondering. About losing oneself in fantasy and imagination instead of reality. Of wondering what is possible and how the novel can be achieved or discovered. Purple likes Orange as Orange gives it a role to fulfill that allows its mind to wonder unhindered. It also appreciates Orange's ambition and future focus. Purple likes Yellow because both colours are unsatisfied with reality and want to change it and supply it with something more satisfying. Purple hates Pink as it sees itself as the insightful visionary and Pink as short-sighted and mundane. Pink is only focused on what is around it instead of all the possibilities one can come up with if one stepped back and thought further than the nearest sad person. Purple hates Brown as it sees itself as a progressive, open to new ideas and experiences while it sees Brown as stubborn, closed to new experiences and clingy to be past. Purple's symbol is a thought bubble and its land is the oasis. It tends to exile more than send to the graveyard and can bring cards back from exile. It is good at ignoring opposing effects, enchanting, duplicating effects and grabbing cards from outside their own hands, though they struggle to look for anything specific. They are good with illusions, but their creatures are expensive for their stats and they struggle with direct damage.

Yellow: Satisfaction through Production (Again, people have very different ideas about what Yellow should be). Yellow thinks that it sucks that people can't have whatever they want, so it aims to correct that. Yellow tries to produce and otherwise acquire as many goods and rescorces as possible so they can get what they want and so can anyone else. Yellow likes Pink as they both want enough provisions for everyone and are willing to pursue that goal. Yellow likes Purple as both are ambitious and want to change the status quo, while not being interested in oppression or suppression. Yellow likes Pink as both think it would be nice if everyone got what they need. Yellow hates Brown as it sees itself as the stimulator of growth and Brown as the bringer of stagnation. Yellow wants more stuff that does not yet exist while Brown wants to protect what is already there. Yellow hates Orange as it sees itself as the provider of the new while it sees Orange as the hoarder of what's already there. Yellow doesn't care much about current systems. It wants to achieve new things. Yellow thinks Orange is wasteful in maintaining a flawed system instead of upping production. Yellow wants to end scarcity, not take advantage of it. Yellow's symbol is a sack and its land is the cavern. It is a big user of artifacts and its effects tend to be cheap. It also has easy access to searching. It can quickly get out swarms of creatures but is less good at buffing them. It can use the cards in the graveyard as a resource, but struggles to get cards back from the graveyard. It creates many tokens and grabs cards straight from the library, but struggles to directly destroy cards. It is okay at healing and can increase its draw speed, but has little protection against being milled.

If you want add these to the old pie, each new colour goes on top of an old colour. It has a neutral relationship with the colour it is on top of, but they share enemies and allies. Pink is on top of Green, Brown is on top of White, Orange is on top of Blue, Purple is on top of Black and Yellow is on top of Red.


Edit: On the colour pie Vs the alignment grid: Check out this: https://web.archive.org/web/20170921091351/http://sarpadianempiresvol-viii.tumblr.com/tagged/alignment

[Katie Boundary]

Believes tax is theft.

Taxes are only theft when spent on things that the taxing government is not constitutionally authorized to spend money on, or if the government is autocratic.

[Ashtagon]

Elemental Alignments:

• Fire: The best way to solve a problem is to destroy it.
• Earth: The best way to solve a problem is to be strong enough to ignore it when it comes.
• Air: The best way to solve a problem is to work with it to come to a mutual beneficial solution.
• Water: The best way to solve a problem involves moving around it and leaving the problem behind.

Alternate Law-Chaos Alignment:

Chaos is based on the idea of strong emotions that cater to a person's primal; emotional wants: the urge for revenge, the urge to possess, the urge to be loved, and the urge for ambition. In contrast, Law is based on primal fears. In this regard, Law as an alignment represents a primal urge to ensure that everything stays the same, perfectly lit, free of sensation, and immobile. Both Chaos and Law in this paradigm are "Squid" alignments, outside of conventional human concerns.

[King of Nowhere]

I reject this premise. Alignment doesn't really have any serious issues at all, and unless you're playing a Paladin or similar, definitely shouldn't be causing you problems in a morally grey campaign at all. If you fret over alignment, you're not really morally grey to begin with.

Fallacy!
Just because you can walk around the hole in the floor, it doesn't mean there is no hole in the first place.

I never had much use for alignment in my campaign, but if applied by raw, it is very disfunctional. Especially the exhalted parts

[Lapak]

I think alignment systems ought to be set with a specific game type in mind and that there's no universal fit. The standard D&D 9 work for a particular style of game and fit badly into others, and that's going to be true of most alignment systems. And it doesn't always have to be about morality.

For an example, I was fiddling with a Hyborean setting where the axes were Civilization/Wilderness and Rule/Exception. The C/W axis was about what you thought was the better state of affairs for people at large, while R/E was about whether you thought that applied to you personally.

So Arnold-movie Conan would be WR : he saw civilization as inherently corruptive and decadent, believing that both he and everyone else would be better off on balance without it. Thulsa Doom in the same film would be CR.

Book Conan would be CE: that Conan knows that poetry and history and society have value, but he himself feels lessened and hemmed in by the responsibilities and obligations that come with being part of it. He likes civilization for what it does for others but doesn't care for it himself. Notably for the morality issue, your typical wicked bandit is also CE: he wants society to exist so that wealth exists to plunder but doesn't want to be part of it. Alignment on these axes isn't about who you want to benefit, just what you think is best for the world and how you fit into it.

But that would be a terrible for for an Early Modern game set in psuedo-France; there your axes might be Republican/Monarchist and Idealist/Pragmatic. You should decide what the big conflicts in a given game are and set the axes accordingly.

[Sereg]

Fallacy!
Just because you can walk around the hole in the floor, it doesn't mean there is no hole in the first place.

I never had much use for alignment in my campaign, but if applied by raw, it is very disfunctional. Especially the exhalted parts

Again, I have yet to be convinced by this. What exactly are these things that are objectively dysfunctional?

[Evil DM Mark3]

Again, I have yet to be convinced by this. What exactly are these things that are objectively dysfunctional?As much as I defend alginment, if you include the Vile and Exalted parts it gets, bad.

1 example and hopefully we can avoid an actual flame war.

Sanctify the Wicked takes the target and forcibly changed their alignment to Good. It rewrites their minds and souls, bypasses their free will and forces them to become someone who if they met their old self would have no qualms about killing them. Not only is this Good, it is Exalted. You can see, I hope, why others may disagree.

To address your axis question. I am tinkering with the Pendragon system at the moment that gives each character a set of traits that define how they behave when exposed to situations (and also magical threats in some cases). In Pendragon it works by giving each pair of traits values that total 20 (unless you are dealing with a rare person who has trait above 20 such as Galahad's chaste score) and if you have 16 or higher it is considered "famous" and can actually prevent your character from taking certain actions (for instance a Deceitful 18 character is so used to deception, it is so ingrained into them, that they have difficulty telling the clear, unadultarated, truth, almost always having to put their own little poisonous spin on things).

At the moment it looks like this: If you take out the scores and instead leave the traits at 2 levels ("principle" I stick to this whenever I can and "virtue" I stick to this no matter what) you could create a situation where people can have your standard DnD style alignments (which saves a lot of work reworking spells) by having at least 3 "points" in corresponding traits (1 for the lower level and 3 for the higher). So that man isn't Evil, he is Cruel as a Virtue (Evil 3, always hurts and demeans those who he has power over) and that one isn't either but he is Lazy, Deceitful and Arbitary as a Principle (Also Evil 3, but this time a person who won't do what he can't make others do for him, will lie or at least unless he had a really convincing reason not to and will twist whatever situation he is in to his advantage, regardless of what is "just" so long as he doesn't expect to caught).

It also works for Oaths, Paladins are required to be Temperate, Honest, Just and Merciful and one of those at least must be at Virtue level.

It also allows for characters who intereact with DnD magic as Lawful Chaotic (if they hold both Temperance (refraining from indulgent behaviour) and Deceitful as Virtues.) or Evil Good (if they hold Generosity and Vengeful to that level too say "I always, always, help those in need but I never, ever, forgive an enemy and will see them all dead"). Although I expect such characters are going to be rare...

[Sereg]

I can see why some may disagree. I don't see how EVERYONE would disagree. A source of evil is gone and a source of good is created. There is no death, destruction, pain or suffering involved. If you consider changing someone's mind evil, well then all interaction is evil. There is the argument it disrespects agency, but so does all law and punishment in general. (And I have always leaned towards security in the argument between it and freedom) Personally, I see it as the individual being subject to auto-diplomacy for a whole year. Diplomacy is capable of creating the same effect after all. Is it also Evil? Is the world not a better place afterwards? Was any cruelty involved? Is the victim not better off afterwards? Is killing them, trapping them forever or allowing them to continue to harm others really better? Remember that it is a very inconvenient spell that requires the caster to go out of there way as they want to avoid harm.

[Jowgen]

My 2 cents:

I think the alignment system has value purely based on how it ties into the lore, and that any changes to it should be kept consistent with that lore. I think it needs to be a natural progression.

Chaos was first, so Law arose in opposition to it. The great wheel got structure. Then Law divided itself in recognition of Good/Evil (courtesy of Mr "Read the Fine Print"), to which Chaos followed suit. We got our current system, wherein Law/Chaos remains the primary conflict on the lower planes, but Good/Evil is the main concern on the upper planes.

Any other dimension added needs to be applicable to both existing axis to give us a cube.

One simple addition would be an endo/exothermic axis, simply describing as to whether an individual feels like it needs to impose its outlook upon others. Do you feel like crusading to make others follow your outlook on either axis, or are you content to live and let live? For example, a LG and LE nation might both decide that the other is perfectly justified in perpetuating whatever doctrine it chooses to within its borders, or they might go to war over this.

Similarly, some CG or CE people might be looking to actively tear down the establishment, while others are okay with an establishment existing so long as it does not infringe on their personal rights.

In the microcosm of a party, I'd see this as what decides whether a mixed moral party can work. An LG character on the endothermic end of their spectrum would be fine with working with a CE character so long as that character doesn't actively offend their sensibilities.

The advantage of this kind of approach would be that the described inclinations already exist, they just haven't been codified into factor of alignment yet.

[Aniikinis]

We'll, as I said, my own version is heavily based on others, though I decided to base the colours on the idea of "What if the guilds between enemy colours mixed their colours in the opposite way from canon?"

So, the result is a variation on he common idea of a Pink, Brown, Orange, Purple, Yellow pie (My order. Most order this pie differently).


Huh, neat. I find myself drawn to purple and (weirdly enough) pink more than the others in this pie.


If you want add these to the old pie, each new colour goes on top of an old colour. It has a neutral relationship with the colour it is on top of, but they share enemies and allies. Pink is on top of Green, Brown is on top of White, Orange is on top of Blue, Purple is on top of Black and Yellow is on top of Red.
Cool, I never really entertained the thought of layering colour pies but I guess it could make for some interesting colour combinations.


Edit: On the colour pie Vs the alignment grid: Check out this: https://web.archive.org/web/20170921091351/http://sarpadianempiresvol-viii.tumblr.com/tagged/alignment
Nice find, I'm definitely saving this.


I can see why some may disagree. I don't see how EVERYONE would disagree. A source of evil is gone and a source of good is created. There is no death, destruction, pain or suffering involved. If you consider changing someone's mind evil, well then all interaction is evil. There is the argument it disrespects agency, but so does all law and punishment in general. (And I have always leaned towards security in the argument between it and freedom) Personally, I see it as the individual being subject to auto-diplomacy for a whole year. Diplomacy is capable of creating the same effect after all. Is it also Evil? Is the world not a better place afterwards? Was any cruelty involved? Is the victim not better off afterwards? Is killing them, trapping them forever or allowing them to continue to harm others really better? Remember that it is a very inconvenient spell that requires the caster to go out of there way as they want to avoid harm.

There's a lot to unpack here, but instead of falling into a pit of replying to it all I'm going to simply state a few things.

You do you, but my preferences lie closer to the one found within the famous Ben Franklin quote about this.
Diplomacy is a [I]completely different strategy than this spell, as the diplomacied creature can cut ties with the diplomancer whereas this literally rips the soul out of the person, places it into a diamond, then forces the soul to change alignment by subjecting it to a burning flame of "good" within it under the threat of being trapped in there forever by not shattering the gem.
How would you feel if someone locked you in a room, bound you, and slowly turned up the heat over the course of a year, while the entire time they're giving you propaganda and basically brainwashing you into believing your old ways were wicked and that's why it's happening, leading to you eventually embracing it wholeheartedly? Would that be evil? The caster is effectively imposing a stockholme syndrome along the lines of what happened to Patty Hearst onto the victim"corrupted soul." Because that's what it seems like to me, alignment be trapped in Baator.

[hamishspence]

this literally rips the soul out of the person, places it into a diamond, then forces the soul to change alignment by subjecting it to a burning flame of "good" within it under the threat of being trapped in there forever by not shattering the gem.

It says that it finds "a spark of good within the soul itself" and fans that "to a roaring flame".

The theory is that every being, no matter how evil, has some good in them - and that this good can be enhanced massively.

My biggest objection to the spell is that, regardless of the fluff, mechanically it doesn't just change the character on the Good/Evil axis, but on the Law/Chaos one as well, to whatever the caster's alignment was.

So if a CG caster casts it on a LE villain, that villain will end up as a CG character.

If a caster casts it on a LN, TN, or CN character (many of whom can be extremely vicious - look at the way Cloakers are described for example) it will not work at all. It only works on the Evil.

[Duff]

Taxes are only theft when spent on things that the taxing government is not constitutionally authorized to spend money on, or if the government is autocratic.
Also a perfectly valid description of a character's morality

[Necroticplague]

When people say "Black is not evil" they usually mean "Black is not only evil"

That said, the color fluff articles painted the most noble take on black's philosophy as something between callous social darwinism and nihilism. So the best black can manage on the moral axis is neutral.

Which I always thought was really short-selling it. I always saw Black as the color of self-determination. That’s why ‘power at a price’, grave shenanigans, and the best tutors, are in black.The Aetherborn like Yahenni, and Liliana’s recent arc, are always what I thought was the best example of this. The Aetherborn, to a card mono-Black, ultimately have their whole lives centered around the fact that their mortality is entirely under their own control, and are naturally incredibly short.

Meanwhile, Liliani’s more recent arc is about finally being genuinely free of the various swords over her head: the Chain Veil is gone, all other parties to her pact have been dealt with, and she was willing to act of her own accord even when it meant her own destruction (which she had no reason to believe would be averted). To quote her Triumph: “ Her triumph came not from escaping her death, but in claiming her independence.“

[RatElemental]

Which I always thought was really short-selling it. I always saw Black as the color of self-determination. That’s why ‘power at a price’, grave shenanigans, and the best tutors, are in black.The Aetherborn like Yahenni, and Liliana’s recent arc, are always what I thought was the best example of this. The Aetherborn, to a card mono-Black, ultimately have their whole lives centered around the fact that their mortality is entirely under their own control, and are naturally incredibly short.

Meanwhile, Liliani’s more recent arc is about finally being genuinely free of the various swords over her head: the Chain Veil is gone, all other parties to her pact have been dealt with, and she was willing to act of her own accord even when it meant her own destruction (which she had no reason to believe would be averted). To quote her Triumph: “ Her triumph came not from escaping her death, but in claiming her independence.“

The problem there is that red and blue both have claim to the less 'evil' forms of self determination. Red follows its heart, blue wants to make everything better. Black wants to be strong.

[Lord Raziere]

The problem there is that red and blue both have claim to the less 'evil' forms of self determination. Red follows its heart, blue wants to make everything better. Black wants to be strong.

Then perhaps red/black/blue is actually a better version of black, having logic and emotions to balance out the selfishness so that the person cares about others and thinks things through.

[Sereg]

Huh, neat. I find myself drawn to purple and (weirdly enough) pink more than the others in this pie.


Cool, I never really entertained the thought of layering colour pies but I guess it could make for some interesting colour combinations.


Nice find, I'm definitely saving this.



There's a lot to unpack here, but instead of falling into a pit of replying to it all I'm going to simply state a few things.

You do you, but my preferences lie closer to the one found within the famous Ben Franklin quote about this.
Diplomacy is a completely different strategy than this spell, as the diplomacied creature can cut ties with the diplomancer whereas this literally rips the soul out of the person, places it into a diamond, then forces the soul to change alignment by subjecting it to a burning flame of "good" within it under the threat of being trapped in there forever by not shattering the gem.
How would you feel if someone locked you in a room, bound you, and slowly turned up the heat over the course of a year, while the entire time they're giving you propaganda and basically brainwashing you into believing your old ways were wicked and that's why it's happening, leading to you eventually embracing it wholeheartedly? Would that be evil? The caster is effectively imposing a stockholme syndrome along the lines of what happened to Patty Hearst onto the victim"corrupted soul." Because that's what it seems like to me, alignment be trapped in Baator.


Thanks.

However, there is no heating up involved, the fact that the individual can't escape to do more evil is a positive and if I am being evil, I totally want to be convinced of that.

[Aniikinis]

It says that it finds "a spark of good within the soul itself" and fans that "to a roaring flame".

The theory is that every being, no matter how evil, has some good in them - and that this good can be enhanced massively.
I have some problems with that theory, but that's fair.


However, there is no heating up involved, the fact that the individual can't escape to do more evil is a positive and if I am being evil, I totally want to be convinced of that.

Fair point, I've just always read it as an actual flame of good that grows from the spark within the person not a metaphorical one. My major problem is the unwilling bondage of a soul that has just been stolen from its' body against its' will and placed within a crystal for what is effectively time out until it's forcibly changed to the very core. If it didn't have the trappings of holiness and being distinctly labeled a good spell, it'd be considered a horrible thing to do. My problem has nothing to do with the "can't do more evil" bit and everything to do with the "unwilling bondage and forced brainwashing" bit. Again, I bring up Patty Hearst as an example for this.

I don't want or need to convince you to agree with me. I'm simply stating my point of view as someone who has been through a lot of stuff involving gaslighting, attempted brainwashing by a close family member, and a few other related topics that occurred during that time. After going through what I have, I can't see this spell as anything other than stockholm syndrome on steroids with the added threat of far longer imprisonment if the caster doesn't think you've really changed.

[Sereg]

I have some problems with that theory, but that's fair.



Fair point, I've just always read it as an actual flame of good that grows from the spark within the person not a metaphorical one. My major problem is the unwilling bondage of a soul that has just been stolen from its' body against its' will and placed within a crystal for what is effectively time out until it's forcibly changed to the very core. If it didn't have the trappings of holiness and being distinctly labeled a good spell, it'd be considered a horrible thing to do. My problem has nothing to do with the "can't do more evil" bit and everything to do with the "unwilling bondage and forced brainwashing" bit. Again, I bring up Patty Hearst as an example for this.

I don't want or need to convince you to agree with me. I'm simply stating my point of view as someone who has been through a lot of stuff involving gaslighting, attempted brainwashing by a close family member, and a few other related topics that occurred during that time. After going through what I have, I can't see this spell as anything other than stockholm syndrome on steroids with the added threat of far longer imprisonment if the caster doesn't think you've really changed.

And I get that. I am just saying that people can have valid reasons for seeing it as good.

[Katie Boundary]

Which I always thought was really short-selling it. I always saw Black as the color of self-determination.

Black is the color of "self-determination for me, and screw everyone else"

Red is the color of "self-determination for everyone"

[Aniikinis]

And I get that. I am just saying that people can have valid reasons for seeing it as good.

Understood, it's just hard for me to see many of those reasons.

[RatElemental]

Understood, it's just hard for me to see many of those reasons.

The spell is essentially magical prison with a rehabilitation program thrown in. It always takes at most one year and the caster can't choose to keep you in there. The fluff is left up to the DM a bit, but I don't think it forces you to agree with everything the caster believes either. This would be more explicit if it didn't shift your ethical axis, but even people with the same alignment can disagree.

As for the unwilling bondage, well, trap the soul, soul bind, imprisonment, and binding all exist, and none of them are inherently evil either. It's maybe arguable that they should be, but then what about blasting spells? Charms and Domination? Just whacking people real good with a sword? Putting someone in a mundane prison? Are any of those evil because they prevent someone from exercising agency over the location and disposition of their body/soul?

[King of Nowhere]

I can see why some may disagree. I don't see how EVERYONE would disagree. A source of evil is gone and a source of good is created. There is no death, destruction, pain or suffering involved.

If you consider changing someone's mind evil, well then all interaction is evil. There is the argument it disrespects agency, but so does all law and punishment in general. (And I have always leaned towards security in the argument between it and freedom) Personally, I see it as the individual being subject to auto-diplomacy for a whole year. Diplomacy is capable of creating the same effect after all.

there is destruction, the destruction of the personality. you are basically destroying the soul of the person and replacing it with something different that just happens to have the same memories.

now, if the spell had some line like "if the target is truly and utterly irredeemable, then the spell automatically fails", then i would actualy be fine with it, because i could see it as actually reaching inside the target and using diplomacy rather than rewriting his mind altogether.


Is it also Evil? Is the world not a better place afterwards?
not a good argument. you could commit genocide and claim the world is a better place afterwards, as you took steps towards fixing overpopulation and removed a source of ethnic tension. and it may actually even be true:smalleek:, at least for those that are still alive.



Was any cruelty involved?
depend
Is the victim not better off afterwards? Is killing them, trapping them forever or allowing them to continue to harm others really better?
depends on your point of view. you are forced to become a mockery of everything you are. you are brainwashed into becoming something you despise.
it may well be more respectful and merciful to just execute you.

Remember that it is a very inconvenient spell that requires the caster to go out of there way as they want to avoid harm.
which is why it is a joke. the caster goes out of his way to avoid harm, and does more harm that way - just a different kind of harm.

Now, I can totally see doing it over a willing subject as an exalted act. Someone who actually would have a shoot at redemption. Someone who could take another path. I can see casting it on someone who was pushed to evil by circumstances, and allow them to turn a page and start back from scratch.
but the way it is written? saving throw or you change completely? that's mind rape with a different name.
which brings us to (the joke goes on) the fact that mind rape is a vile spell, and yet you could use it exactly in the same way as sanctify the wicked, to make an evil person good by rewriting their brian.
Same spell, same effect, same result, less collateral damage for mind rape, but one is exhalted, one is vile.

But wait, let us not forget that while you are allowed to rewriting someone's brain, you are not allowed to poison them. unless you are using ravages, which are the same thing but somehow ok. and you are not allowed to lie, not even if the fate of the world hangs on it; your precious sanctity comes first. you are also not allowed to torture a prisoner, but intimidating them is ok - so you make them think you will hurt them, so you basically lie to them, but since it is an intimidate check and not a bluff check it is fine. And you can also brainwash them just fine once you have the magic.
and the line of deformity feats suggests that the evil overlords ask for rituals of obedience by mortifying one's body. which the good gods don't do, they merely ask for rituals of penance.

really, those are just the most egregious examples of contradictory alignment rules that started from a flow of consciousness.

[hamishspence]

you are not allowed to lie, not even if the fate of the world hangs on it; your precious sanctity comes first.

BoVD specifically states that Lying is not always An Evil Act - even if there is a strong association. If you take BOVD's views on lying as trumping BoED's use of it as an example of "evil acts done with Good Intentions are still evil"

- then you can say that it's officially Not Always Evil, and allow it "to avert a catastrophe".



Same spell, same effect, same result, less collateral damage for mind rape, but one is exhalted, one is vile.

Mindrape turns the victim insane unless the caster specifies otherwise. It does vastly more (for example, giving the caster access to all the victim's knowledge) - which may be why it's an [evil] spell- it's invasive on a very fundemental level.

By contrast, the caster of StW gets no information out of the victim's mind.

I don't know what's meant by "collateral damage" here. Though the caster of StW suffers penalties (the loss of one level) whereas the caster of Mindrape doesn't.

[Mr Adventurer]

Also a perfectly valid description of a character's morality

The idea that the principle of taxes is a moral principle is absurd.

[Luckmann]

A morally grey person can still believe strongly in good and evil - they just believe some evil is necessary or justified.

They can still fret over whether this particular act of evil qualifies as necessary, or not.

Heroes of Horror is about running "morally grey" campaigns with "flexible Neutral" antiheroes who do Evil acts with Good intentions.

But there's plenty of room for fretting over those Intentions, for asking oneself "Are they really Good or not?"If you're Good and still believe in necessary evils, you're not really "morally grey", especially if you're actively trying to be good and apparently working quite hard on it, even fretting over what evils could be necessary. You may not be a Paladin™, but you're nowhere near anything I'd call "morally grey".
Taxes are only theft when spent on things that the taxing government is not constitutionally authorized to spend money on, or if the government is autocratic.I didn't agree to fund a constitutional government or whatever they authorize themselves to spend my money on. :smallamused:

[Katie Boundary]

The idea that the principle of taxes is a moral principle is absurd.

What's absurd is the idea that taking someone's property by force is morally okay as long as you wear a badge and call it "taxes" instead of "theft". It is at best a necessary evil, except for land value taxes, because the idea of private ownership of land is also absurd but that's way off topic.


.I didn't agree to fund a constitutional government or whatever they authorize themselves to spend my money on. :smallamused:

You agree to it every day that you stay in your home country instead of moving to some uninhabited island near Antarctica and starting your own. And if you want to do that, PLEASE send me a PM. I'll totally help you with it and I know some other people who would love to join as well.

[Luckmann]

Fallacy!Not at all.

Just because you can walk around the hole in the floor, it doesn't mean there is no hole in the first place.I never had to walk around any hole. :smallconfused:

I never had much use for alignment in my campaign, but if applied by raw, it is very disfunctional. Especially the exhalted partsI've never found it dysfunctional at all, but I also don't consider it an issue of "RAW". That being said, if by "the exhalted parts" you mean the Book of Exalted Deeds, it's widely considered absurd and probably one of the worst works when it comes to alignments, for a host of reasons, whether we're discussing the good-as-pacifism or the poisons-but-lmao-not-poisons. Generally speaking, if you want to make sense of alignments, you're better off not considering BoED.

You agree to it every day that you stay in your home country instead of moving to some uninhabited island near Antarctica and starting your own. And if you want to do that, PLEASE send me a PM. I'll totally help you with it and I know some other people who would love to join as well.Untrue. The would-be "theft" of taxation is not agreed upon merely by merit of the one being subjected to it being unable to oppose it. In a nutshell, I never agreed to it to begin with, and for the sake of argument would argue that it is not I who should be forced into retreat, but the would-be racketeers. :smalltongue: This is where I make it clear that I'm not actually a libertarian nor an ancap, but I've discussed the topic enough to know that the "taxation isn't theft if the tax is spend legally" and "you totally agreed to it" lines of reasoning doesn't fly.

Instead of attempting a debate of logic concerning the nature of theft and taxation, an argument concerning "taxation is theft" should rather revolve around the necessity of taxation regardless of whether it is theft or not, and the enlightened self-interest concerning it, as well as the potential benefits of a well-regulated state apparatus - which will lead to the far more interesting discussion as to what that is.

That said, Svalbard is pretty nice.

[hamishspence]

Generally speaking, if you want to make sense of alignments, you're better off not considering BoED.

Personally I think there's good ideas in it - but there's a lot of dubious mechanics in it.


If you're Good and still believe in necessary evils, you're not really "morally grey", especially if you're actively trying to be good and apparently working quite hard on it, even fretting over what evils could be necessary. You may not be a Paladin™, but you're nowhere near anything I'd call "morally grey".

If you're Neutral, believe in "necessary evils", do them regularly - towards Good ends - but fretting a bit each time - you're a textbook example of a "flexible Neutral antihero" as Heroes of Horror describes it.

[Mr Adventurer]

What's absurd is the idea that taking someone's property by force is morally okay as long as you wear a badge and call it "taxes" instead of "theft". It is at best a necessary evil, except for land value taxes, because the idea of private ownership of land is also absurd but that's way off topic.

Regardless of whether I agree with your general position, theft also isn't a moral issue, so there's no transitive property of evil to apply likewise to taxation.

[Duff]

The idea that the principle of taxes is a moral principle is absurd. Why do you say that?

[RatElemental]

Regardless of whether I agree with your general position, theft also isn't a moral issue, so there's no transitive property of evil to apply likewise to taxation.

Whoever said that was probably thinking about lawful/chaotic or, as the title of the thread suggests, pointing out one's position on taxes as a possible alignment axis.

[Aniikinis]

The spell is essentially magical prison with a rehabilitation program thrown in. It always takes at most one year and the caster can't choose to keep you in there. The fluff is left up to the DM a bit, but I don't think it forces you to agree with everything the caster believes either. This would be more explicit if it didn't shift your ethical axis, but even people with the same alignment can disagree.

Actually, they're not forced to let you out at all.

After one year, the trapped creature's soul adopts the alignment of the spell's caster (lawful good, chaotic good, or neutral good). Once the soul's penitence is complete, shattering the diamond reforms the creature's original body, returns the creature's soul to it, and transforms the whole into a sanctified creature (see Chapter 8: Monsters).
Since there's no actual line of text saying that they have to let you out or that you're automatically released after a year,that means that your imprisonment could possibly be indefinite if you can't convince the caster of your change(if they don't used detect evil or whatever) or if they die and no one shatters the diamond.


As for the unwilling bondage, well, trap the soul, soul bind, imprisonment, and binding all exist, and none of them are inherently evil either. It's maybe arguable that they should be, but then what about blasting spells? Charms and Domination? Just whacking people real good with a sword? Putting someone in a mundane prison? Are any of those evil because they prevent someone from exercising agency over the location and disposition of their body/soul?

Fair point, however this really appears to me to be more of a vigilante justice type scenario. One person with little oversight believes you're a menace and has the ability to remove said menace by restraining you and rewriting your soul. There is the possibility of it being used as part of a judicial punishment, but it can be abused and used on any evil creature the caster deems worth it while still being considered a good act.

[RatElemental]

Actually, they're not forced to let you out at all.

Since there's no actual line of text saying that they have to let you out or that you're automatically released after a year,that means that your imprisonment could possibly be indefinite if you can't convince the caster of your change(if they don't used detect evil or whatever) or if they die and no one shatters the diamond.


Alright you got me there. This is a case of me missing the fact that something wasn't there.



Fair point, however this really appears to me to be more of a vigilante justice type scenario. One person with little oversight believes you're a menace and has the ability to remove said menace by restraining you and rewriting your soul. There is the possibility of it being used as part of a judicial punishment, but it can be abused and used on any evil creature the caster deems worth it while still being considered a good act.

Like, 90% of good adventurers are engaging in vigilante justice if they're doing anything besides kicking in the doors of ancient tombs. That's just the nature of the genre and the threats present in it, you need heroes to deal with the ancient lich who's trying to hijack magic itself and ascend to godhood and status as ruler of the world, not the local constable.

You also keep framing what actually happens to the soul in the most negative way possible. All we know for sure about the process is it takes a year, the soul is forced to reflect on its past evils, and it finds the goodness within itself. That doesn't sound like a forced rewriting of a soul to me, that sounds like someone getting time out and told to think about what they've done.

[Sereg]

there is destruction, the destruction of the personality. you are basically destroying the soul of the person and replacing it with something different that just happens to have the same memories.

now, if the spell had some line like "if the target is truly and utterly irredeemable, then the spell automatically fails", then i would actualy be fine with it, because i could see it as actually reaching inside the target and using diplomacy rather than rewriting his mind altogether.

People's personalities change all the time automatically, just by interacting with others. By this argument all interaction is destroying personalities and thus evil. Remember that it takes a whole year and if the spell fails beforehand, the personality fails to have changed at all.



not a good argument. you could commit genocide and claim the world is a better place afterwards, as you took steps towards fixing overpopulation and removed a source of ethnic tension. and it may actually even be true:smalleek:, at least for those that are still alive.

Not by itself, but it's a consideration. Especially with the next point.



depend
depends on your point of view. you are forced to become a mockery of everything you are. you are brainwashed into becoming something you despise.
it may well be more respectful and merciful to just execute you.

Maybe. They're also getting into a much better afterlife.




which is why it is a joke. the caster goes out of his way to avoid harm, and does more harm that way - just a different kind of harm.

Again, how is making someone good "harming" them? Is convincing someone of something inherently harming them?


Now, I can totally see doing it over a willing subject as an exalted act. Someone who actually would have a shoot at redemption. Someone who could take another path. I can see casting it on someone who was pushed to evil by circumstances, and allow them to turn a page and start back from scratch.
but the way it is written? saving throw or you change completely? that's mind rape with a different name.
which brings us to (the joke goes on) the fact that mind rape is a vile spell, and yet you could use it exactly in the same way as sanctify the wicked, to make an evil person good by rewriting their brian.
Same spell, same effect, same result, less collateral damage for mind rape, but one is exhalted, one is vile.

The differences are important. It takes a year, implying convincing instead of rewriting. Also, mind rape can alter a person according to the caster's whim. StW can ONLY alter alignment.


But wait, let us not forget that while you are allowed to rewriting someone's brain, you are not allowed to poison them. unless you are using ravages, which are the same thing but somehow ok.


Poisons harm everyone who accidentally comes in contact with them, making them dangerous to innocent bystanders. Ravages are incapable of harming non-evils, so you could flood the environment with them and do not harm to good or neutral individuals.


and you are not allowed to lie, not even if the fate of the world hangs on it; your precious sanctity comes first.

I agree. I am a deontologist. But it isn't your sanctity. It's the sanctity of truth itself.


you are also not allowed to torture a prisoner, but intimidating them is ok - so you make them think you will hurt them, so you basically lie to them, but since it is an intimidate check and not a bluff check it is fine.

There are ways of intimidating without threatening torture.


And you can also brainwash them just fine once you have the magic.

By his definition, saying "Hello" is brainwashing someone as you have altered their mental state.



and the line of deformity feats suggests that the evil overlords ask for rituals of obedience by mortifying one's body. which the good gods don't do, they merely ask for rituals of penance.

So?


really, those are just the most egregious examples of contradictory alignment rules that started from a flow of consciousness.

I agree with the books in these 100%. If these are the "most egregious" problems, IMO, the alignment system has ZERO problems.

[Aniikinis]

Like, 90% of good adventurers are engaging in vigilante justice if they're doing anything besides kicking in the doors of ancient tombs. That's just the nature of the genre and the threats present in it, you need heroes to deal with the ancient lich who's trying to hijack magic itself and ascend to godhood and status as ruler of the world, not the local constable.

Fair point, though what I was trying to get at was more the fact that, even if abused to baator and back, it's still a good action no matter what while the others can quickly see you painted as a charlatan, slaver, etc. and if abused even more could have good guys on your trail.


You also keep framing what actually happens to the soul in the most negative way possible. All we know for sure about the process is it takes a year, the soul is forced to reflect on its past evils, and it finds the goodness within itself. That doesn't sound like a forced rewriting of a soul to me, that sounds like someone getting time out and told to think about what they've done.

Except for the fact that it by RAW cannot fail unless someone breaks the diamond before the year is up. I can probably count on my fingers the number of times being put in time out and told to think about what I've done has actually changed anything other than making me sit in a spot and count the passing of time. If it were just being put in time out then the irredeemable would have some way of coming out unscathed since they would either have no spark of good in them or completely and totally believe they were in the right. This works on creatures that are, by their very fundamental existence, are effectively formed from alignment and forces them to betray their nature by the caster, no matter how radically different that change is. Additionally, this bit is actually upheld by the sanctified creature template that the spell gives:


"Sanctified creature" is an acquired template that can be added to any evil creature except for outsiders with the evil subtype (referred to hereafter as "base creature"). The sanctified creature retains ins creature type. Outsiders gain the good subtype and lose any of the following subtypes: baatezu (devil), tanar'ri (demon), and yugoloth. If the base creature had the fiendish creature template, it loses the template and all special attacks and special qualities granted by the template.

[RatElemental]

Fair point, though what I was trying to get at was more the fact that, even if abused to baator and back, it's still a good action no matter what while the others can quickly see you painted as a charlatan, slaver, etc. and if abused even more could have good guys on your trail.


I'm just not seeing the capacity for abuse you're saying it has, I guess. It only works on evil things, only turns them into good things, and costs the person doing it dearly. Where's the catch?



Except for the fact that it by RAW cannot fail unless someone breaks the diamond before the year is up. I can probably count on my fingers the number of times being put in time out and told to think about what I've done has actually changed anything other than making me sit in a spot and count the passing of time. If it were just being put in time out then the irredeemable would have some way of coming out unscathed since they would either have no spark of good in them or completely and totally believe they were in the right. This works on creatures that are, by their very fundamental existence, are effectively formed from alignment and forces them to betray their nature by the caster, no matter how radically different that change is. Additionally, this bit is actually upheld by the sanctified creature template that the spell gives:

The thing is, this is magical time out. It could be doing things like showing you that time you knocked a loaf of bread out of little Billy's hands and stomped on it but then following Billy as he went back home and had to go to bed hungry because that was all the food his family could afford, or showing you that scene but with you in little Billy's place, or any number of ways to force you to consider the consequences of your actions on others. It can also give you glimpses of the hells you're destined for, and visions of just what kinds of suffering your evil is currently inflicting upon the world. I hear there was a fellow named Scrooge who stands as an excellent example of this kind of therapy working.

Furthermore, I'm not convinced there actually is anyone so completely irredeemably evil that they really could not ever be shown the error of their ways and become good. There are fiends who have turned good, and it's baked into the rules exactly what it means when that happens. I will admit that the spell having a 100% success rate is lazy, and perhaps instead of a hard time limit of a year it should have given periodic will saves that eventually shift you towards good, similar to the mundane way of using diplomacy checks.

[Katie Boundary]

That said, Svalbard is pretty nice.

You're 100% correct. Morality is, at its core, a set of guidelines for trying to achieve utilitarian outcomes based on incomplete information by deferring decisions to whoever has the biggest stake in the outcomes of those decisions. Knowable outcomes are more important than guidelines, so the question "is taxation theft?" will never matter as much as "will spending X amount of taxes on project Y do more good than harm, or more harm than good?", even if, 90% of the time, the two questions will have equivalent answers. There's also the question of "can this be delegated to a lower level of government, so that, if it turns out to be a bad idea, the damage is contained?", which, 90% of the time, will have the same answer as the previous two questions.

Svalbard is currently part of Norway, and inhabited. We can't set up our own country there. I'd recommend the South Shetland Islands.


theft also isn't a moral issue

LOLWUT?

[Aniikinis]

I'm just not seeing the capacity for abuse you're saying it has, I guess. It only works on evil things, only turns them into good things, and costs the person doing it dearly. Where's the catch?

The ability for abuse comes from the rulings for sanctified spells:


A sanctified spell usually has no material components (exceptions are noted). Instead, it draws power from the sacrifice of the spellcaster in the form of ability damage, ability drain, or occasionally greater sacrifices (a level or even the caster’s life). The sacrifice occurs when the spell’s duration expires. (No sanctified spell has a permanent duration.)

The spell itself doesn't count as expired until the diamond is shattered and the soul of the person is released. This allows for the caster to, with little money at that point, use the spell as often as they can and if they can get the XP flowing well enough through wizard shenanigans or do basic adventuring this would allow them to keep up with the level loss or possibly even factor it in earlier to beat it outright.


The thing is, this is magical time out. It could be doing things like showing you that time you knocked a loaf of bread out of little Billy's hands and stomped on it but then following Billy as he went back home and had to go to bed hungry because that was all the food his family could afford, or showing you that scene but with you in little Billy's place, or any number of ways to force you to consider the consequences of your actions on others. It can also give you glimpses of the hells you're destined for, and visions of just what kinds of suffering your evil is currently inflicting upon the world. I hear there was a fellow named Scrooge who stands as an excellent example of this kind of therapy working.

Again, fair point. I just can't help but see it in a more malicious light to be something more akin to a Cosmically Approved case of stockholm syndrome. Honestly, a good amount of interpretation is possible due to the lack of description or explanation given.


Furthermore, I'm not convinced there actually is anyone so completely irredeemably evil that they really could not ever be shown the error of their ways and become good. There are fiends who have turned good, and it's baked into the rules exactly what it means when that happens.

I could give you a few in dnd at least, mostly high ranking in various infernal offices, but they are still there. Additionally there have been people like {Pre-Scrubbed Just In Case, Originally Gave 3 Examples} who showed no remorse for their actions whatsoever and a few of those flaunted it. I know about the Good Fiends, but this still should have handled them differently than your run of the mill evil creature.


I will admit that the spell having a 100% success rate is lazy, and perhaps instead of a hard time limit of a year it should have given periodic will saves that eventually shift you towards good, similar to the mundane way of using diplomacy checks.

Yeah, seriously, if it were more like that then I wouldn't have anywhere near as much of a problem with it.

[Sereg]

What's absurd is the idea that taking someone's property by force is morally okay as long as you wear a badge and call it "taxes" instead of "theft". It is at best a necessary evil, except for land value taxes, because the idea of private ownership of land is also absurd but that's way off topic.

Um... At first I thought this wasn't serious, but .... Taxes are payment for a service. Theft doesn't provide a service.


The ability for abuse comes from the rulings for sanctified spells:



The spell itself doesn't count as expired until the diamond is shattered and the soul of the person is released. This allows for the caster to, with little money at that point, use the spell as often as they can and if they can get the XP flowing well enough through wizard shenanigans or do basic adventuring this would allow them to keep up with the level loss or possibly even factor it in earlier to beat it outright.


So? How does the number of times people cast it affects how evil it is?



Again, fair point. I just can't help but see it in a more malicious light to be something more akin to a Cosmically Approved case of stockholm syndrome. Honestly, a good amount of interpretation is possible due to the lack of description or explanation given.


That means you are complaining that it does something that it is unconfirmed. Why assume it is definitely doing something wrong?



I could give you a few in dnd at least, mostly high ranking in various infernal offices, but they are still there. Additionally there have been people like {Pre-Scrubbed Just In Case, Originally Gave 3 Examples} who showed no remorse for their actions whatsoever and a few of those flaunted it. I know about the Good Fiends, but this still should have handled them differently than your run of the mill evil creature.



Yeah, seriously, if it were more like that then I wouldn't have anywhere near as much of a problem with it.

I don't believe in the concept of irredeemability regardless of setting.(That said, I do agree that it would be mechanically better that way)

[hamishspence]

The differences are important. It takes a year, implying convincing instead of rewriting. Also, mind rape can alter a person according to the caster's whim. StW can ONLY alter alignment.


Mindrape is different enough that IMO a better candidate for "the evil version of StW" is Mind Seed - which is a psionic power rather than a spell.

Like StW it "changes their alignment to match yours"

Unlike StW it changes everything else in their brain too, to match yours (only, 8 levels lower):


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/mindSeed.htm

[Katie Boundary]

Um... At first I thought this wasn't serious, but .... Taxes are payment for a service.

Oh yes. Protection services. Just like the protection services that my friends Tony and Luigi provide in exchange for the money that they take from people by force. That definitely makes it not theft.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Taxes are payment for roads and (in functional modern countries) medical bills, funding for education, etc. Whether the modern military and police force are necessary expenses or tools of self-serving authoritarians is a separate issue imo

And if you're upset by the idea of anyone contributing a bit of coin to the common good, feel free to go live in the woods and not use the electricity or internet other people make for you any more

[Aniikinis]

So? How does the number of times people cast it affect how evil it is?

The ability for possible abuse. If an exalted wizard decides to go on a spree he can theoretically keep as many evil creatures as he'd want imprisoned within diamonds inside of his sanctum, only popping them out after a year if he deems them worthy and/or has an xp loop set up. If he really wanted to, over time he could possibly cleanse an entire kingdom against their will and wishes with something far more effective than propaganda could ever be.


That means you are complaining that it does something that it is unconfirmed. Why assume it is definitely doing something wrong?

Because it has no ability to fail whatsoever. Sure, it might not do anything wrong within the confinement, but the fact that there's a hard date for it to work on feels very off to me. With no way for the effect to fail and the possibility of eternal confinement even after conversion, it really does make me think of it as a good-aligned stockholm syndrome (or possibly helsinki syndrome). It doesn't sit right with me at all. There's also the whole traumatic aspect of solitary confinement combined with having one's soul forcibly removed from their body and placed into a crystal.


I don't believe in the concept of irredeemability regardless of setting.(That said, I do agree that it would be mechanically better that way)

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point, it seems.

[Sereg]

Oh yes. Protection services. Just like the protection services that my friends Tony and Luigi provide in exchange for the money that they take from people by force. That definitely makes it not theft.

As said, it's payment for infrastructure. If you don't pay it, you are stealing by touching roads, entering buildings, and benefitting from having
access to electricity, water, post, public greenery, lighting, education, police, firefighters, ambulances, hospitals, libraries, laws telling people not to harm you etc. It's also there to support charity. I would consider it evil for it to not exist as yes, I consider charity mandatory (Of course, I am a socialist who considers capitalism pure evil)


The ability for possible abuse. If an exalted wizard decides to go on a spree he can theoretically keep as many evil creatures as he'd want imprisoned within diamonds inside of his sanctum, only popping them out after a year if he deems them worthy and/or has an xp loop set up. If he really wanted to, over time he could possibly cleanse an entire kingdom against their will and wishes with something far more effective than propaganda could ever be.

And how would that be bad in any way? The more the spell is cast, the inherently better as more and more evil is being gotten rid of.




Because it has no ability to fail whatsoever. Sure, it might not do anything wrong within the confinement, but the fact that there's a hard date for it to work on feels very off to me. With no way for the effect to fail and the possibility of eternal confinement even after conversion, it really does make me think of it as a good-aligned stockholm syndrome (or possibly helsinki syndrome). It doesn't sit right with me at all. There's also the whole traumatic aspect of solitary confinement combined with having one's soul forcibly removed from their body and placed into a crystal.



We'll have to agree to disagree on this point, it seems.

I think this is the reason for your problem with the former point. This spell says "Yes, everyone can be redeemed and this spell finds out how to redeem everyone"

[RatElemental]

The ability for possible abuse. If an exalted wizard decides to go on a spree he can theoretically keep as many evil creatures as he'd want imprisoned within diamonds inside of his sanctum, only popping them out after a year if he deems them worthy and/or has an xp loop set up. If he really wanted to, over time he could possibly cleanse an entire kingdom against their will and wishes with something far more effective than propaganda could ever be.

It would be faster and easier for a wizard to just use trap the soul for this. It's a spell level lower, has a price based on HD (so, cheaper to use for the vast majority of cases) works on neutrals and good people, and is also actually on the wizard spell list. You can also boost the save DC by just knowing the target's name, or set it up as a trap that doesn't allow a save at all.

Sanctify the Wicked, by comparison, has built in restrictions making it only work on evil people (so, no going on an indiscriminate rampage with it by definition), costs 10,000 gold for every casting (so, no going on an indiscriminate rampage with it unless you're super rich), and costs you a level every time one of the gems is broken (so, going on an indiscriminate rampage with it is a really bad idea). And if someone went on a rampage with it anyway, the end result would be... Less evil people on the streets, and all those evil people being subjected to a flawless redemption therapy course. I'm... struggling to see what the bad here is.

[Aniikinis]

And how would that be bad in any way? The more the spell is cast, the inherently better as more and more evil is being gotten rid of.

That's effectively a form of genocide via indoctrination, albeit a very slow version. That's honestly something that most people wouldn't be cool with.


I think this is the reason for your problem with the former point. This spell says "Yes, everyone can be redeemed and this spell finds out how to redeem everyone"

No, my problem with that point isn't that "everyone can be redeemed" it's that it does so by using methods that could be seen as traumatic, inculcative, and/or excessive. You want to redeem someone? Go ahead, I won't stop you from trying. I have no problem with people have having different ideas, ethics, or anything else, but I do have a problem with this spell being absolutely effective with the only thing stopping it being a single will save at the very beginning.


It would be faster and easier for a wizard to just use trap the soul for this. It's a spell level lower, has a price based on HD (so, cheaper to use for the vast majority of cases) works on neutrals and good people, and is also actually on the wizard spell list. You can also boost the save DC by just knowing the target's name, or set it up as a trap that doesn't allow a save at all.
Good point, however I never said it was a good idea, only that it was possible. Also, sanctified spells can be learned by wizards since they're on their spell list:


This section begins with a list of sanctified spells, which are available to any class that prepares spells rather than casting them spontaneously. Following the sanctified spells are lists of new spells for the bard, cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, and wizard classes.


Sanctify the Wicked, by comparison, has built in restrictions making it only work on evil people (so, no going on an indiscriminate rampage with it by definition), costs 10,000 gold for every casting (so, no going on an indiscriminate rampage with it unless you're super rich), and costs you a level every time one of the gems is broken (so, going on an indiscriminate rampage with it is a really bad idea). And if someone went on a rampage with it anyway, the end result would be... Less evil people on the streets, and all those evil people being subjected to a flawless redemption therapy course. I'm... struggling to see what the bad here is.

Again, I never said it was a good idea, just that it was possible. I'm not saying it's bad since there will be less evil on the streets, I'm saying it's bad since it forcibly reforms people and effectively rewrites them.

[King of Nowhere]

I didn't agree to fund a constitutional government or whatever they authorize themselves to spend my money on. :smallamused:
I am totally in favor of people being allowed to not pay taxes if they wish.
of course, once you stop paying taxes, you are not allowed to walk or drive your car on the public road that is built with the taxpayers money. the garbagemen won't collect your garbage. we will hang a big sign over your house saying that thieves robbing you will not be pursued by the police, as the police is funded on taxes that you spontaneously decided not to pay. and if you are ill, the hospital will kick you out.
in my experience, everyone agrees that taxes are necessary. they merely think someone else should pay them.


People's personalities change all the time automatically, just by interacting with others. By this argument all interaction is destroying personalities and thus evil. Remember that it takes a whole year and if the spell fails beforehand, the personality fails to have changed at all.


people change over time, but in small increments. and those changes are building up over what's already there. altering that with magic is instead a completely different process. else you could say that mindrape was ok too.



The differences are important. It takes a year, implying convincing instead of rewriting.

on the other hand, it has a will save and it works regardless of how vile was the evil, which implies rewriting.
I did specify that I could accept the spell if it was written in a way that was more consistent with convincing, like if it worked only on people with genuine redemption potential.

Also, mind rape can alter a person according to the caster's whim. StW can ONLY alter alignment.

So, you are saying that changing someone from vile chaotic evil to lawful good is not changing him according to the caster's whim?:smallconfused:

And you are also saying that mind rape is evil because you CAN do stuff with it, regardless of whether you do? :smallconfused: As in, "I could use my hands to kill somebody, so my hands are evil"? this also goes for all evil and good labeled spells.



Poisons harm everyone who accidentally comes in contact with them, making them dangerous to innocent bystanders.

how does that make them any different from any other weapon? a sword may accidentally a children grabbing it. an arrow can shoot an innocent bystander several streets away from the innocent bystander against which it was aimed. alchemist fire does collateral damage. but none of those is evil. only poisons are.


There are ways of intimidating without threatening torture.

please give me some reasonable ways an exhalted character could intimidate someoone without implying some untruth.

[Katie Boundary]

Taxes are payment for roads and (in functional modern countries) medical bills, funding for education, etc. Whether the modern military and police force are necessary expenses or tools of self-serving authoritarians is a separate issue imo

They are ALL tools of self-serving authoritarians. Especially public brainwashing centers schools. A public monopoly on indoctrination is infinitely more useful to an authoritarian government than the police are.

And you're not allowed to talk about "functional modern countries" here. Only stuff that can be applied to a D&D setting :)


And if you're upset by the idea of anyone contributing a bit of coin to the common good

I'm not. And people are able to contribute a lot more of their money to the public good when politicians aren't squandering 40% of it.


As said, it's payment for infrastructure. If you don't pay it, you are stealing

That is absolutely not how it works. It's only stealing if you take it without permission. If a government says "you can use this regardless of whether you pay taxes or not", then it's not stealing.


Of course, I am a socialist who considers capitalism pure evil

That sounds perfectly reasonable for a high fantasy setting like D&D, where wizards can spend all day magically pulling resources out of their butts and you don't have to worry about real-world economics.


I am totally in favor of people being allowed to not pay taxes if they wish.
of course, once you stop paying taxes, you are not allowed to walk or drive your car on the public road that is built with the taxpayers money. the garbagemen won't collect your garbage. we will hang a big sign over your house saying that thieves robbing you will not be pursued by the police, as the police is funded on taxes that you spontaneously decided not to pay. and if you are ill, the hospital will kick you out.

Municipal roads are a form of networked infrastructure, making them a natural monopoly, making them a legitimate thing for government to be involved in. Law-enforcement is also definitely one of the few things that everyone can agree is a legitimate function of government; anarchist fantasies about private security fail to account for the sorts of powers that police have and private security doesn't (I actually took a security guard training course once. It was very interesting). Garbage collection is... umm... hmm. That sounds like something that the free market can definitely handle. And hospitals.... yeah sorry, can't discuss that without using real-world references. However, I can confirm that, in a high-tech, low-magic D&D setting, free-market health care works much better than anything that the king and his court could devise.

[Sereg]

That's effectively a form of genocide via indoctrination, albeit a very slow version. That's honestly something that most people wouldn't be cool with.


And I am not cool with people allowing evil to exist. To me, I have a duty to get rid of it. If I didn't try, that would make me evil too.



No, my problem with that point isn't that "everyone can be redeemed" it's that it does so by using methods that could be seen as traumatic, inculcative, and/or excessive. You want to redeem someone? Go ahead, I won't stop you from trying. I have no problem with people have having different ideas, ethics, or anything else, but I do have a problem with this spell being absolutely effective with the only thing stopping it being a single will save at the very beginning.

That means that you think it must be evil just because it is good at its job. It isn't even perfect as it allows a will save instead of working automatically.



Good point, however I never said it was a good idea, only that it was possible. Also, sanctified spells can be learned by wizards since they're on their spell list:





Again, I never said it was a good idea, just that it was possible. I'm not saying it's bad since there will be less evil on the streets, I'm saying it's bad since it forcibly reforms people and effectively rewrites them.

Again, alignment is the only thing that changes and it takes a whole year. You talk about indoctrination, but mundane indoctrination is normally faster.




people change over time, but in small increments. and those changes are building up over what's already there. altering that with magic is instead a completely different process. else you could say that mindrape was ok too.

Again, it is over an entire year. That IS small increments. The problem is just that it doesn't stick if the gem breaks too early.



on the other hand, it has a will save and it works regardless of how vile was the evil, which implies rewriting.
I did specify that I could accept the spell if it was written in a way that was more consistent with convincing, like if it worked only on people with genuine redemption potential.

Diplomacy also works regardless of how vile the opponent is. It can even be done faster. And diplomacy also allows a way to resist. Just a different one.


So, you are saying that changing someone from vile chaotic evil to lawful good is not changing him according to the caster's whim?:smallconfused:

Yes, because that is what they will always come out as. You cannot choose a different option.



And you are also saying that mind rape is evil because you CAN do stuff with it, regardless of whether you do? :smallconfused: As in, "I could use my hands to kill somebody, so my hands are evil"? this also goes for all evil and good labeled spells.

Because it is the diversity in what it can do that impliess that IT is the one that is rewriting. That and its speed.



how does that make them any different from any other weapon? a sword may accidentally a children grabbing it. an arrow can shoot an innocent bystander several streets away from the innocent bystander against which it was aimed. alchemist fire does collateral damage. but none of those is evil. only poisons are.
please give me some reasonable ways an exhalted character could intimidate someoone without implying some untruth.

The difference is long term environmental damage. This is why using biological and chemical weapons is a war crime. Poison is inherently a chemical weapon.




I'm not. And people are able to contribute a lot more of their money to the public good when politicians aren't squandering 40% of it.


Taxes being squandered doesn't make taxes theft. It makes squandering theft. There's a difference.



That is absolutely not how it works. It's only stealing if you take it without permission. If a government says "you can use this regardless of whether you pay taxes or not", then it's not stealing.

And they DON'T say that, so what's your point? Those facilities need to be funded somehow and people don't have the right to benefit from them if they refuse to contribute.




That sounds perfectly reasonable for a high fantasy setting like D&D, where wizards can spend all day magically pulling resources out of their butts and you don't have to worry about real-world economics.


Feel free to consider me unreasonable. You certainly won't be the first.

[Pirate ninja]

The Modly Roger:

Although the discussion of taxes started in a game setting, it now appears to be veering toward discussion of them in a real life context and thus our rule about not discussing real life politics. Please drop the strain of the discussion that focuses on taxes or it is very likely that infractions will be issued or the thread closed.

[Katie Boundary]

This discussion is doing a very good job of illustrating the differences between two EXTREMELY different branches of evil. On the one hand, you have the typical mustache-twirling, demon-worshipping, ripping-the-tag-off-the-mattress kind of evil. On the other hand, you have the kind that believes itself to be good because it pursues noble ideals, but fails to realize that its path to achieving those ideals is paved with ignorance, arrogance, and abuse of power... i.e., evil.

[hamishspence]

That's effectively a form of genocide via indoctrination, albeit a very slow version. That's honestly something that most people wouldn't be cool with.
It would only qualify if "Evil" was a culture in its own right - if a culture was so built around Doing Evil that if everyone Evil in it was redeemed, the culture as a whole, would die.


On the other hand, you have the kind that believes itself to be good because it pursues noble ideals, but fails to realize that its path to achieving those ideals is paved with ignorance, arrogance, and abuse of power... i.e., evil.

I'd say StW only qualifies as "abuse of power" in cases where killing the person would also be an abuse of power.

Casting StW on a random stranger who "pings as evil" when you have no idea what they've done, or what personality traits they have, that would make them evil - in a setting where nearly 1/3 of the population is evil - that's an abuse of power - because killing, would be equally so.

Similar principles could apply to any forcible alignment change - kidnapping the person and using Diplomacy checks on them over and over until their alignment changes. Putting a Helm of Opposite Alignment on them. And so forth.

According to BoED, all violence in the name of Good, need justification, and "the target has an Evil alignment" is not sufficient justification on its own.

So they're already aware of the "is this right?" question, and have taken steps.

[Satinavian]

(Also, while I know that that the Colour Pie is meant to not map anything to good and evil, I still see the Black colour as evil. Every time people disagree, they say things like, "It's not evil! It's *list of evil things*! It has good heroes like one who *description of evil person*!" Of course, that's presumably because I am extremely Bant (Green, Blue, White) according to MtG).

- Black has undeath, which is dark, but not evil. Any kind of benevolent necromancer or friendly neighborhood mummy would be pretty black.

- Black has decay, which is also not evil, but basically only useful in conflicts an in harmin other people. Still, as long as direct damage and desctruction (which is red) is not treated as evil, the decay aspects should not either.

- Black has sacrifice. While sacrificing others for personal gain pretty much counts as evil, the whole self-sacrifice also counts as black.

Now pretty much every other aspect of black is evil, particularly ambition and selfishness. But if you ever were to use the color wheel as alignemnt, it would be easy to construct black non-evil characters. Especially if you do allow multicolor alignments and get things like the iconic green-black circle of life druid ideology.

That said, i would also identify with Bant most.


As for new axes to describe personality, i would agree with

introvert - extrovert

but mix it with

individualism - conformism

and

spontanity - rigidity


as easier to understand/use than Briggs/Meyers stuff.



I also would stop trying to describe gouvernments/societies and personalities with the same kind of rules. That might have been useful in old D&D where alignments were team jerseys, but that was a long time ago.

[Katie Boundary]

- Black has sacrifice. While sacrificing others for personal gain pretty much counts as evil, the whole self-sacrifice also counts as black.

No. Sacrificing your health or soul for power or some other kind of personal gain is black. Heroically sacrificing yourself to save others is white.


as easier to understand/use than Briggs/Meyers stuff.

Well Briggs/Myers is a load of horse crap, so...

[RatElemental]

Bacon/Necktie is the superior alignment axis.

Those who walk the path of bacon shell be with dinner blessed, yet he who follow the way of necktie shall be for dinner dressed.

Getting back to sanctify the wicked for a second, though... I'm not convinced it falls under the clause of 'doing it because they're evil isn't enough,' that usually is for stuff like executing random peasants because they happen to be jerks.

Personally though, I'm completely fine with the spell, and with just a few simple changes even more fine with it:

Instead of taking a year and spitting out someone matching your alignment, every month the soul within makes a will save. Failing two in a row shifts them one step towards good. (evil>neutral>good). Getting shifted to neutral imposes a -5 penalty on future will saves. The ethical axis is not affected in any way. Once they reach goodness the gem shatters by itself. If the gem is broken before then, they keep their current alignment (even if they ended up neutral) but resent the caster for their treatment and will be unfriendly or hostile towards them, at GM's discretion. Succeeding on 12 will saves in a row shifts you back towards evil and removes the -5 penalty if you had one, and causes the gem to shatter if you're already evil.

If you have some way to communicate with it (such as detect thoughts, the soul can hear you, you just need to be able to 'hear' it) you can also offer the soul atonement spells to leave early, or attempt mundane redemption via diplomacy.

[Aniikinis]

And I am not cool with people allowing evil to exist. To me, I have a duty to get rid of it. If I didn't try, that would make me evil too.

Technically that would make you neutral, but that's your take on it so I'll leave that to you.


That means that you think it must be evil just because it is good at its job. It isn't even perfect as it allows a will save instead of working automatically.

Yes, that's basically the reasoning I've put forward.


Feel free to consider me unreasonable. You certainly won't be the first.

I can do that, since this seems to be running in circles.


It would only qualify if "Evil" was a culture in its own right - if a culture was so built around Doing Evil that if everyone Evil in it was redeemed, the culture as a whole, would die.

Fair point, I admit it was a poor choice of words.


I'd say StW only qualifies as "abuse of power" in cases where killing the person would also be an abuse of power.

Casting StW on a random stranger who "pings as evil" when you have no idea what they've done, or what personality traits they have, that would make them evil - in a setting where nearly 1/3 of the population is evil - that's an abuse of power - because killing, would be equally so.

Similar principles could apply to any forcible alignment change - kidnapping the person and using Diplomacy checks on them over and over until their alignment changes. Putting a Helm of Opposite Alignment on them. And so forth.

According to BoED, all violence in the name of Good, need justification, and "the target has an Evil alignment" is not sufficient justification on its own.

So they're already aware of the "is this right?" question, and have taken steps.

I agree with you here, though.


Bacon/Necktie is the superior alignment axis.

Those who walk the path of bacon shell be with dinner blessed, yet he who follow the way of necktie shall be for dinner dressed.

Bacon/Necktie is the best alignment axis because it can also show how your character presents themself not just their outlook.


Getting back to sanctify the wicked for a second, though... I'm not convinced it falls under the clause of 'doing it because they're evil isn't enough,' that usually is for stuff like executing random peasants because they happen to be jerks.

Personally though, I'm completely fine with the spell, and with just a few simple changes even more fine with it:

Instead of taking a year and spitting out someone matching your alignment, every month the soul within makes a will save. Failing two in a row shifts them one step towards good. (evil>neutral>good). Getting shifted to neutral imposes a -5 penalty on future will saves. The ethical axis is not affected in any way. Once they reach goodness the gem shatters by itself. If the gem is broken before then, they keep their current alignment (even if they ended up neutral) but resent the caster for their treatment and will be unfriendly or hostile towards them, at GM's discretion. Succeeding on 12 will saves in a row shifts you back towards evil and removes the -5 penalty if you had one, and causes the gem to shatter if you're already evil.

If you have some way to communicate with it (such as detect thoughts, the soul can hear you, you just need to be able to 'hear' it) you can also offer the soul atonement spells to leave early, or attempt mundane redemption via diplomacy.

While I have a differing view on when it's justified to be used, I'd be fully on-board with your changes here.

[Necroticplague]

- Black has undeath, which is dark, but not evil. Any kind of benevolent necromancer or friendly neighborhood mummy would be pretty black.

Minor nitpick: mummies are actually White. Still Zombies, but White zombies. That might have just been Amonket’s crop (heh) of public servant dead, though.


Now pretty much every other aspect of black is evil, particularly ambition and selfishness. But if you ever were to use the color wheel as alignemnt, it would be easy to construct black non-evil characters. Especially if you do allow multicolor alignments and get things like the iconic green-black circle of life druid ideology.
Ambition and selfishness aren’t evil. Like many other traits, they can be taken to unhealthy extremes, but in moderation, are positive traits. While the mad act of trying to achieve ore-sundering status is ambitious, so is the basic act of trying to improve your own lot in life. While stealing from others is an act of selfishness, so is the persistent but irrational desire to continue to live when doing so necessitates others die.

[Satinavian]

No. Sacrificing your health or soul for power or some other kind of personal gain is black. Heroically sacrificing yourself to save others is white.By far most cards that let you sacrifice your lifepoints or cards from your hand are black. That is totally self-sacrifice. Additionally black has a lot of creature cards with effects that let you sacrifice the creature in question to get positive effects for your other creatures. And while white reigns over damage mitigation and protection, i would say that heroic sacrifice is firmly black.


Minor nitpick: mummies are actually White. Still Zombies, but White zombies. That might have just been Amonket’s crop (heh) of public servant dead, though.Ah, yes, Amonketh. I admit that several sets play with the undead = black assumption, there are also white or red vampires in scores, blue and green zombie etc. But necromancy is still a black theme.


Ambition and selfishness aren’t evil. Like many other traits, they can be taken to unhealthy extremes, but in moderation, are positive traits. While the mad act of trying to achieve ore-sundering status is ambitious, so is the basic act of trying to improve your own lot in life. While stealing from others is an act of selfishness, so is the persistent but irrational desire to continue to live when doing so necessitates others die.Ambition maybe, but i would argue that selfishness as soon as it becomes a pronounced trait that anyone could recognize is always evil.

Not that this matters if we want to replace the old alignments. Selfishness is an important aspect of black and people who think selfishness to be evil would argue that this makes black seem more evil and he others won't. But both still have the same meaning of black they just value it differently, so that won't lead to alignment arguments.

[Katie Boundary]

Additionally black has a lot of creature cards with effects that let you sacrifice the creature in question to get positive effects...

https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=22936https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=3709&type=cardhttps://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=12356&type=cardhttps://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=21255&type=cardhttps://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=31771&type=card


i would say that heroic sacrifice is firmly black.

https://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=202450&type=cardhttps://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=870&type=cardhttps://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=2855&type=cardhttps://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=1980&type=card

[RatElemental]

Ah, yes, Amonketh. I admit that several sets play with the undead = black assumption, there are also white or red vampires in scores, blue and green zombie etc. But necromancy is still a black theme.


Well there was Phyrexian Unlife (a white card that grants you a form of undeath) and all the cards that become spirit tokens when they die (or let other cards do that) that are white. Ghosts in general seem to walk the line between being white, black, or both.