Do your character know Alignment exists?

[BerzerkerUnit]

I play with a lot of veteran players that remember alignment languages. Even new players read the alignment portion of the book or get a cliffnotes version when they ask what to write in the alignment block then see “detect evil” and think it sensing inherent lack of virtue is thing in the game, even if it never comes up.

Honestly, I prefer if characters are aware the cosmological concepts of law/good/evil/chaos exist but long ago dumped the notion people were inherently bound to them. Now I try to explain them as an RP gudideline and that certain planes are tied to the forces and the denizens of those planes can be sensed with the spells.

[JackPhoenix]

Learned characters certainly know Chaos/Evil/Good/Law exist, as concepts and cosmic forces. But the description of alignments in PHB is pretty clear that thare's little interaction between those forces and character alignment, unless something supernatural is involved.

[OldTrees1]

Yes, but first I need to tell you what Alignment is in this context.

What ought one do? Is an IRL question that summarizes morality. This is a fundamental question that all moral agents have the capacity to ask. And asking the question means you know morality exists (even if you conclude everything is amoral). So my characters have all recognized morality exists. Good/Evil is just a description of the moral character of the character, and the moral character of a character is a result of their intent/action/outcomes of moral significance.

Order vs flexibility on the other hand is not as easily known but is easily intuited. As characters live their lives they will notice that not everyone is as organized/go with the flow as they are. So they will recognize there is some concept there, but not necessarily form firm opinions on it despite falling somewhere on it.


However in 5E that is the extent of the guidance characters get. My ex thief Paladin realized the spell "Detect Evil" detects creature types rather than moral character. Even in 3E the spell "Detect Evil" overgeneralizes the current moral character of the target and is of limited use in figuring out how to interact with the character.

[Boci]

However in 5E that is the extent of the guidance characters get. My ex thief Paladin realized the spell "Detect Evil" detects creature types rather than moral character. Even in 3E the spell "Detect Evil" overgeneralizes the current moral character of the target and is of limited use in figuring out how to interact with the character.

Whilst not nearly as common as 3.5, its worth noting there are items that interract with good an evil. Amulet of the Pure burns non-good creature who touch it, and also burns neutral and evil to different degrees (thought its doubtful 6d6 and 8d6 can be reliable observed in game). There's also a cloak I think that can only be attuned if you're evil.

So whilst its concievable to have even an expirienced PC and NPC feel alighment isn't something cosmic, you could also have one who knew that on some level they are quantifiable forces.

[Unoriginal]

I play with a lot of veteran players that remember alignment languages. Even new players read the alignment portion of the book or get a cliffnotes version when they ask what to write in the alignment block then see “detect evil” and think it sensing inherent lack of virtue is thing in the game, even if it never comes up.

Honestly, I prefer if characters are aware the cosmological concepts of law/good/evil/chaos exist but long ago dumped the notion people were inherently bound to them. Now I try to explain them as an RP gudideline and that certain planes are tied to the forces and the denizens of those planes can be sensed with the spells.

In-universe, people who have knowledge about the Planes know that the Outside Planes are semi-physical representations of the combined alignment concepts, and that some planar beings are personifications of said concepts.

But in-universe all mortals were *never* inherently bound to any alignment (except for beings like Gnolls who are just demon-light beings), and most people don't care. Farmer Brown doesn't think raiders are bad people because they're cosmically tied to a specific plane, he thinks the raiders are bad people because they're killing people Farmer Brown cares about and stealing things Farmer Brown had to work to obtain.

Meanwhile the orcs living in the Gruumsh-influenced orc culture know that they're hurting people (including other orcs) to satisfy their personal desires, but most don't care and think that the strong imposing their desires on those who can't win if they fight back is the proper way to do things, even when they're on the unpleasant end of it (which they endure because they enjoy being on the "good end" of being bad.


Learned characters certainly know Chaos/Evil/Good/Law exist, as concepts and cosmic forces. But the description of alignments in PHB is pretty clear that thare's little interaction between those forces and character alignment, unless something supernatural is involved.

Well, until the person dies and get into the gravitation field of the Outer Plane which nature fits the dead person the best.

[EggKookoo]

As a DM, whenever possible, I try to reinforce anything that prevents the PCs (and NPCs) from perceiving that they are characters in a game. I discourage anything that would undermine their perception of themselves as real, living, breathing people in a non-fictional reality. Generally, this means I tend to say PCs are utterly unaware of any game mechanic or rule as such. A character with a Strength of 18 almost certainly perceives themselves as stronger than their friend who has a Strength of 10, but not because they somehow have access to their Strength ability score value. It's because their in-fiction experience of reliably pulling off feats of strength has demonstrated it, while their friend more often seems to fail or at least be less effective. The kind of mathematical stuff a player performs when comparing their Strength mod to a DC and trying to calculate the chance of success is not really anything like what the PC is thinking when they look at that door and try to guess if they can kick it in.

So I guess to paraphrase Gump: "Strong is as strong does."

What this means for alignment is that, as far as I'm concerned, PCs are aware of alignment only to the degree that it perceptively manifests to their senses. Given that a PC with an alignment of "good" can still occasionally do things that might be considered neutral or evil without losing that alignment, it makes it a bit fuzzy on what "good" means to creatures within the fiction.

If a good PC has a hard restriction on their behavior, and performing one or some specific number of non-good actions causes them to lose that alignment, and in-fiction creatures can perform test to determine alignment, then it would be easy to say PCs can comprehend alignment the way we think of it as a game mechanic. But since a good creature doesn't automatically become non-good when doing something non-good, and the amount of non-good that has to happen before the DM decides it might be time to adjust their alignment varies by table (so it can't be predicted by the PCs), it makes it hard to believe that PCs know that specific alignments exist. More likely, they see it like we do -- good and evil are something of a spectrum, with the details pertaining to where you are on that spectrum being at least partially subjective and not super-consistent.

[MinotaurWarrior]

In my games, either characters know it, or it doesn't exist.

I think alignment is one of those things where every attempt I've ever seen to "fix" it makes it worse.

"I am, broadly speaking, on the side of the cosmic forces of Law and Good based in Mt. Celestia, where dwells my lord god Ilmater" works for me.

"I tend to be orderly and kind" (real world traits) be transformed into game mechanics as "I am lawful good" invites more unfortunate implications IMO.

[Unoriginal]

As a DM, whenever possible, I try to reinforce anything that prevents the PCs (and NPCs) from perceiving that they are characters in a game. I discourage anything that would undermine their perception of themselves as real, living, breathing people in a non-fictional reality. Generally, this means I tend to say PCs are utterly unaware of any game mechanic or rule as such. A character with a Strength of 18 almost certainly perceives themselves as stronger than their friend who has a Strength of 10, but not because they somehow have access to their Strength ability score value. It's because their in-fiction experience of reliably pulling off feats of strength has demonstrated it, while their friend more often seems to fail or at least be less effective. The kind of mathematical stuff a player performs when comparing their Strength mod to a DC and trying to calculate the chance of success is not really anything like what the PC is thinking when they look at that door and try to guess if they can kick it in.

So I guess to paraphrase Gump: "Strong is as strong does."

What this means for alignment is that, as far as I'm concerned, PCs are aware of alignment only to the degree that it perceptively manifests to their senses. Given that a PC with an alignment of "good" can still occasionally do things that might be considered neutral or evil without losing that alignment, it makes it a bit fuzzy on what "good" means to creatures within the fiction.

If a good PC has a hard restriction on their behavior, and performing one or some specific number of non-good actions causes them to lose that alignment, and in-fiction creatures can perform test to determine alignment, then it would be easy to say PCs can comprehend alignment the way we think of it as a game mechanic. But since a good creature doesn't automatically become non-good when doing something non-good, and the amount of non-good that has to happen before the DM decides it might be time to adjust their alignment varies by table (so it can't be predicted by the PCs), it makes it hard to believe that PCs know that specific alignments exist. More likely, they see it like we do -- good and evil are something of a spectrum, with the details pertaining to where you are on that spectrum being at least partially subjective and not super-consistent.

Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptible or restrictive, and what it describes is a creature typical behavior.

Even a Devil can do something genuinely nice and for no gain of their own. It just won't be typical.

Also, there are *a lot* of different typical behaviors which fall under the alignment's description. Two a gels can disagree on how to do good in a situation, if their personal experiences have taught them differently and their individual personality traits make them favor different things. I think it was Mearls who pointed out that while Dwarven society generally pushed its members toward lawful good behavior, it didn't mean they were "help the old lady accross the street then fight for Justice" kind, and that it was more a "follow traditions and do what's good for your fellow clans folks/townsfolks" mindset. Which could lead to lawful good Dwarves accepting a chaotic evil Red Dragon as their King if the Red Dragon showed they could be a proper King by dwarven standards and if they're not malevolent toward their dwarven subjects (ex: the Dwarves were losing a war, and the Dragon saved them in exchange for the throne, unleashing their power and cruelty on thee dwarves's enemies)

[Kyutaru]

I'm sure stories are told from generation to generation educating the youths of the terrors of the universe. Anyone who knows how the world came to be, something any religious character should know a version of, would be aware of the fundamental alignment aspects of order and chaos and of good and evil. These forces literally shaped the cosmos and were distinguishing characteristics of the interplanar wars that were sparked later. If you've heard of devils and demons you've heard of evil. If you know of the time celestials and fiends united to stop the slaadi then you know about law and chaos. The obyriths must be somewhere in the historical records and while not every commoner will know about it surely some tales have spread in the form of myth and legend.

[Unoriginal]

Obyrths aren't in 5e lore, but yeah they'd be in myths and legends in the past editions they're part of.

[Tanarii]

Generally speaking, it's best if Alignment is a kept as a subjective player concept. Even when it is objective in-universe (the most common situation), PCs should be at best peripherally aware of it as a cosmic thing, and have subjective beliefs regarding it.

In other words:
- player picks Alignment and writes it on the character sheet. That's the objective in-universe alignment. They then write down the typical but not constantly required behavior.
- player uses their good faith personal interpretation of their personality traits + alignment behavior description as a guideline when making decisions for their PC in the fantasy environment (aka Roleplaying). That's a subjective player interpretation.
- Pc believes whatever they like about themselves. That's the subject belief about their behavior.

For example entirely possible for a player to make a good faith attempt using their best interpretation while playing a PC as personality traits + lawful evil, when said PC believes themselves to be a Robin Hood freedom fighter.


Now I try to explain them as an RP gudideline and that certain planes are tied to the forces and the denizens of those planes can be sensed with the spells.
That's a really good summary of the best way to handle things.

[Valmark]

If it isn't an homebrew setting, yes. Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are actual cosmic forces with beings rapresenting them- they are probably in some school books, even.

In a setting without these things then no, it's just an abstract concept of morality and nothing more.

[EggKookoo]

I think alignment for PCs should have been folded into your background, and represent the sum total of your ethical and moral behavior up to the point where you became an adventurer. Now that you're a true PC, you are no longer bound by it, but your history may have an impact.

[Chronos]

They tried to remove alignment as a mechanic in 4th and 5th editions, but it doesn't work, because alignment is just too fundamentally built into the game.

In-game, it is a known fact that when people die, they go to the Outer Planes. And it is possible to contact, or even to travel to, those planes before death, and to find out what souls are where. If you know that someone ended up in Baator, then you know that, when they died, that person was absolutely, definitely, according to the rules of the Cosmos, lawful evil. Which means that alignment is, in fact, an absolute, definite thing. And if it's possible to determine, after someone's death, what alignment they were, why wouldn't it be possible to determine it before death, as well?

[PhoenixPhyre]

They tried to remove alignment as a mechanic in 4th and 5th editions, but it doesn't work, because alignment is just too fundamentally built into the game.

In-game, it is a known fact that when people die, they go to the Outer Planes. And it is possible to contact, or even to travel to, those planes before death, and to find out what souls are where. If you know that someone ended up in Baator, then you know that, when they died, that person was absolutely, definitely, according to the rules of the Cosmos, lawful evil. Which means that alignment is, in fact, an absolute, definite thing. And if it's possible to determine, after someone's death, what alignment they were, why wouldn't it be possible to determine it before death, as well?

Let's distinguish between system issues with removing mechanical alignment (minimal at most) and setting issues (huge in the default meta-setting). All the things you mentioned are setting level issues, not game level issues. Even as simple a change as going to Eberron's planar structure eliminates those issues without disturbing the game. The only vestiges of mechanical alignment in the game as a whole are hangovers from previous editions, really. It's all Planescape's fault.

My home setting doesn't have cosmological or mechanical alignment at all. The total changes I've had to make at the system level? Not using a couple items. Changing one (extremely rare) creature. That's it.

[Boci]

Let's distinguish between system issues with removing mechanical alignment (minimal at most) and setting issues (huge in the default meta-setting). All the things you mentioned are setting level issues, not game level issues. Even as simple a change as going to Eberron's planar structure eliminates those issues without disturbing the game. The only vestiges of mechanical alignment in the game as a whole are hangovers from previous editions, really. It's all Planescape's fault.

My home setting doesn't have cosmological or mechanical alignment at all. The total changes I've had to make at the system level? Not using a couple items. Changing one (extremely rare) creature. That's it.

What does that mean for demons and angels? Are they still majority chaotic evil and majority good respectivly, or are they now evenly split along the alighments?

[Naanomi]

Even a Devil can do something genuinely nice and for no gain of their own. It just won't be typical.
Though if they do too much of it, they likely won’t be Devils for much longer

[stoutstien]

Though if they do too much of it, they likely won’t be Devils for much longer

Kinda reminds me of the notion of the greater good. Could a devil do good deeds as long as the end goal or results are fundamentally evil?

[PhoenixPhyre]

What does that mean for demons and angels? Are they still majority chaotic evil and majority good respectivly, or are they now evenly split along the alighments?

Alignment, for me, is entirely descriptive. So there are demons and devils (and angels) of all types out there.

By the nature of their role in the universal economy, angels tend towards law--they gain the power needed to exist as non-mortals from upholding their duty to act as a cosmic police force (mainly in the elemental realms and at the outer boundary of the universe, against things that leak in from Beyond). Questions of good and evil are left to mortals.

Devils range across the spectrum, but also tend (much more slightly) towards law, as many of them gain extra power (beyond their role as the interfaces between the Mortal and the Astral) from cutting deals with mortals. The ones seen on the Mortal plane tend slightly towards evil (ie hurting people and taking things) because the people who are willing to pay the price to make a pact tend to prefer those devils with fewer scruples. But devils fought on the side of the status quo (ie the good guys) in the Cataclysm War, same as the angels.

Demons are considered by mortals to be evil, because they subsist on stolen/sacrificed souls. This is only sort of true--their diet does make them dangerous and opens them up to acting as contamination vectors. But many of them understand that their role in the divine economy is to be the plug that seals the Oblivion Gate in the Abyss. This is why the universe allows them to continue to exist, despite their dangerous nature.

Even undead are not necessarily evil. Dangerous, yes. They exist by draining the life out of the world around them--an undead-infested area is barren and even sterile. But good undead exist (a whole city of clerics and paladins turned themselves undead, binding their souls to their bodies in "eternal" (it wasn't) torment to fight an endless war against an invading evil army).

There is no permanent afterlife for anyone--all souls that don't transcend (either on their own power or with the help of someone else to become a demigod/ascendant) will fade away eventually (~100 years in most cases but with high variation) after death. But the tradeoff for ascension is that you become dependent on someone else's power--faith/worship (for most ascendants) or some form of attachment to the divine economy (gods, angels, devils, elemental ascendants) or souls (demons). And in doing so, you lose the power to grow and develop, because that's a property of mortality. Same with becoming "immortal" as an undead (or similar)--the essential tradeoff is that only mortals can grow and create new things. Everyone else, despite being essential to the workings of the universe, is a consumer of that creation.

I don't use the words "good" and "evil" as anything more than what mortals perceive. And different groups disagree on what makes it up.


Kinda reminds me of the notion of the greater good. Could a devil do good deeds as long as the end goal or results are fundamentally evil?

Absolutely. Tempting a king to save someone from death (showing mercy, generally considered good), knowing that as a result the the vizir will be able to overthrow the king (due to the populist outcry) and rule in evil might is totally a devilish thing to do.

That's the fundamental asymmetry here--evil can do good (in order to do more evil), but good can't really get away with the reverse very well at all.

[Tanarii]

That's the fundamental asymmetry here--evil can do good (in order to do more evil), but good can't really get away with the reverse very well at all.
That is fall from grace thinking, and it certainly permeated old editions.

5e doesn't work that way unless you want it to. The alignments have an associated typical, but not always required, behavior. That means they're not proscriptive and only generally descriptive. They're far better used as another (very broad) personality trait. A given personality, bond or especially flaw may occasionally override it for a specific act. In either direction. They'll more usually work in conjunction but can be at odds.

And that's fine. Conflicted characters can make for great characters. Especially good characters who believe they are damned for having done something terrible as a single act because of a flaw or bond.

Paladins and Oaths are a different matter. They're no longer alignment bound, but they can still potentially fall from grace for flagrant oath violations.

[Boci]

That is fall from grace thinking, and it certainly permeated old editions.

5e doesn't work that way unless you want it to.

That's not just 5e, that how most cultures comprehend good and evil. Kill an defencless innocent in cold blood and you've undone a life of good. Save a defenceless innocent at risk to yourself, you still haven't undone a life of tormenting and exploiting others. It is at best a start.

[Tanarii]

That's not just 5e, that how most cultures comprehend good and evil. Kill an defencless innocent in cold blood and you've undone a life of good. Save a defenceless innocent at risk to yourself, you still haven't undone a life of tormenting and exploiting others. It is at best a start.
Sure, fall from grace thinking and inability to redeem is common way of thinking about morality.

But baseline, 5e alignment not only doesn't require that, it's written in a way that specifically runs counter to that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure, fall from grace thinking and inability to redeem is common way of thinking about morality.

But baseline, 5e alignment not only doesn't require that, it's written in a way that specifically runs counter to that.

I generally agree as to 5e alignment. But disabusing people of that notion is really hard.

Honestly, I only use alignment as shorthand for me and for describing the NPCs to the players. It's a touchpoint for "how do I act when nothing else about the characterization is relevant."

[Boci]

Sure, fall from grace thinking and inability to redeem is common way of thinking about morality.

Again, potentially relevant to real world. Someone who knowingly created and oversaw an program of ethnic cleaning, can they ever redeem themselves? A lot of people will say no its too late, and carry that attitude through to the game as well, which isn't unreasonable.

[Unoriginal]

They tried to remove alignment as a mechanic in 4th and 5th editions, but it doesn't work, because alignment is just too fundamentally built into the game.

It's built into the lore. 4e had a very different alignment system as they dramatically changed the lore.



In-game, it is a known fact that when people die, they go to the Outer Planes. And it is possible to contact, or even to travel to, those planes before death, and to find out what souls are where. If you know that someone ended up in Baator, then you know that, when they died, that person was absolutely, definitely, according to the rules of the Cosmos, lawful evil. Which means that alignment is, in fact, an absolute, definite thing. And if it's possible to determine, after someone's death, what alignment they were, why wouldn't it be possible to determine it before death, as well?

Some entities can determine someone's alignment before death (namely, the Unicorn and the Water Weird), not to mention the magic items which do react differently depending on it.

But while it's a definite thing, it's neither absolute nor is it the Cosmos judging you. Your soul is just attracted by the Outer Plane which is the most similar to it (unless your patron deity, another entity with a claim on your soul, or the Raven Queen intervene).

Or to put it in another way: there are 16 Outer Planes + the Outlands (the plane of neutrality), with 8 of them being composed of two alignments. Someone who is lawful evil could end up in the Nine Hells, or Acheron, or Gehenna.

But take a look at someone like Emmek Frewn, in Dragon Heist. He is a neutral evil bar owner who is a greedy, envious, entitled, petty jerk who will send a gang to ruin his rivals' business if he can get away with it and pisses the city's Guilds off by doing non-guild construction work on his bar in order to cut corners. So clearly not someone who cares for rules. Yet, if he's killed in the adventure, he'll likely end up in Gehenna, the plane of suspicion and greed, as the plane matches his soul and his soul matches the plane, despite the fact Gehenna is as much lawful evil than it is neutral evil.

A lawful neutral person can end up in Acheron, Mechanus, and Arcadia. A lawful neutral person whose mindset is fixated on war and strife is obviously closer to Acheron than they are of the Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia, even if they never did anything evil in their life.

[Tanarii]

Again, potentially relevant to real world. Someone who knowingly created and oversaw an program of ethnic cleaning, can they ever redeem themselves? A lot of people will say no its too late, and carry that attitude through to the game as well, which isn't unreasonable.
I try not to bring real world thinking about morality into a fictional one, so it's not an issue for me.

Edit: it also helps that the fictional system is structured so that it can easily be used without worrying too much about that. What it's good at is being very handy as a tool for playing someone other than yourself, just as the other personality traits are. It gives a single sentence you can consider with the other 4 single sentences describing other aspects of your character when making decisions for them, if applicable.

[Boci]

I try not to bring real world thinking about morality into a fictional one, so it's not an issue for me.

So then how do you make the call? Is the act of knowingly administrating a program ethnic cleaning something a character in the game can redeem themselves from?

[Tanarii]

So then how do you make the call? Is the act of knowingly administrating a program ethnic cleaning something a character in the game can redeem themselves from?
Why would I have to make a "call"?

[Boci]

Why would I have to make a "call"?

You said 5th ed is "written in a way that specifically runs counter to that", which strongly implied you felt the intention with the system was no evil action would ever leave someone unredeemably.

[Tanarii]

You said 5th ed is "written in a way that specifically runs counter to that", which strongly implied you felt the intention with the system was no evil action would ever leave someone unredeemably.

It seems to be written* so you can use it as a general behavior, with personality, ideal, bond and flaw in conjunction. Not so that you have to make "calls" about if a given action is good or evil or redeems or causes a fall from grace.

*slight change of position to make it clear it's my opinion. "Specifically written" would imply I knew the designers intent

[EggKookoo]

I haven't gotten into this at my table because my players don't really care about alignment (everyone's pretty much neutral). But I've been working on a more objective definition of good and evil for my campaign. It involves the role of pain. Good believes pain is something to be eliminated, and is an obstacle that prevents people from achieving their full potential. Evil believes pain is an essential requirement, and that nothing of value comes pain-free. Good can cause small amounts of pain if the goal is to reduce more pain in the long term. Evil can soothe pain but will often do so in order to cause more pain later.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You said 5th ed is "written in a way that specifically runs counter to that", which strongly implied you felt the intention with the system was no evil action would ever leave someone unredeemably.

I see 5e's system as being descriptive. Someone who would be willing to carry out genocide wasn't good to begin with, at least not when he countenanced that. That doesn't mean that someone can't change later, by intentionally forming new patterns of thought and action. Single actions (genocide isn't a single action) have little weight--there's lots of noise in the system because the world is imperfect. Patterns of thought and action, default reactions, these are what matter.

Doing evil deeds intentionally and repeatedly, to the point that it becomes a default for you, speaks to who you are. It doesn't change who you are, merely reveals that you weren't a good person to begin with, because good people won't do evil things intentionally and repeatedly. But so does doing good deeds for evil reasons. Or doing evil deeds with good intentions. Because the nature of evil deeds and intentions is that they're corrupting and infectious.

To be good, you have to both do good deeds (or at least avoid doing evil deeds) and have good (or at least non-evil) intentions habitually, as part of your basic character. Doing one bad thing, no matter how bad is unlikely to condemn someone by itself, as long as they repent and regret their action and do their best to not do anything like that again.

So to me, there's asymmetry.

[Unoriginal]

You said 5th ed is "written in a way that specifically runs counter to that", which strongly implied you felt the intention with the system was no evil action would ever leave someone unredeemably.

Boci, just to give an idea about 5e's take on the subject: Zariel is capable of becoming good again.

Zariel, who is an Archduke of Hell.

It takes exceptional circumstances, but it is possible.


Admittedly, 5e alignment is not a measure of your history. It is a description of your typical behavior. How much it takes to make a benevolent behavior your "typical one" after a lifetime of horror inflicted on others is debatable, however.


It's not about redemption, or even forgiveness. The D&D cosmos isn't judging you for your sins, it's just sending you toward your likely-minded people after death.

[Boci]

Boci, just to give an idea about 5e's take on the subject: Zariel is capable of becoming good again.

That actually raises an interesting point: the notion that "insert very evil thing" makes you inredeemable could easily be based on the knowledge that human have a measurably finite life. One could argue that existence of creature will live for centuries or even forever, could change how the consequences of even very evil actions effect ones redeemability.

[stoutstien]

In a recent campaign my players came across a rather clever fiend that figured out that no matter what a certain portion of people go out of their way to contact the lower plane to cut deals which almost always lead to more souls being collected. Rather than trying to target harder to corrupt people he set out to simply make more people. He acted and was seen as a fairly benevolent being on the mortal plane by ending plagues and such.
The party uncovered his true intentions but never figured out exactly how to address it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That actually raises an interesting point: the notion that "insert very evil thing" makes you inredeemable could easily be based on the knowledge that human have a measurably finite life. One could argue that existence of creature will live for centuries or even forever, could change how the consequences of even very evil actions effect ones redeemability.

There are no unredeemable creatures. There are many (mortal and immortal) who will never be redeemed, no matter how hard others try. Because they don't want to be redeemed. It's not a cosmic "ok, your morality balance is X, so set the cannot be redeemed flag." Someone who is knowingly evil rarely wants to change--they're "happy" the way they are. And thankfully 5e removed all the real creepy mind-rape spells and magic items, so redemption is up to the individual. The only forced alignment change I know of is one of the planes, and that's a variant rule.

In fact, you can't redeem someone. They can only choose to accept the opportunity to redeem themselves, an opportunity you can help provide.

[Boci]

Because they don't want to be redeemed.

That's certainy one way to run it, but if a creature is going to live for thousands of years, or even forever, maybe they one day will want to be redeemed even if they don't right now, who know.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's certainy one way to run it, but if a creature is going to live for thousands of years, or even forever, maybe they one day will want to be redeemed even if they don't right now, who know.

And? Nothing hinges on someone being actually irredeemable, as opposed to just not open to redemption right now. An unrepentant human or devil is the same--unrepentant. It's a time discount thing--someone potentially being interested in redemption an arbitrarily-long time from now is only minimally different from someone who will never be interested in redemption.

Letting a monster (of any type) continue to rampage because he might be open to redemption sometime in the distant future isn't the act of a hero. You're trading off certain damage now for uncertain redemption later. Much later, because habits of thought are only changed with extreme difficulty, which difficulty increases the longer they have to reinforce themselves.

[Unoriginal]

That actually raises an interesting point: the notion that "insert very evil thing" makes you inredeemable could easily be based on the knowledge that human have a measurably finite life. One could argue that existence of creature will live for centuries or even forever, could change how the consequences of even very evil actions effect ones redeemability.

Again, the D&D 5e alignment system does not have a "X sin weights on your soul" component. There is no redeeming of past actions needed to change alignment, strictly speaking, you just need to start consistently and typically behave a certain way.

Mortals may say that you need to work extra hard to make up for your past, or to earn forgiveness, but that is not about alignment, it's about what is socially accepted or acceptable.


Dwarves are generally lawful good. But one of their most followed treaties on war has this on how to deal with gnolls: 1) if there is a suspicion of Gnoll threat in an area, send spies to the human villages and towns in the area without telling the spies the true purpose 2) when a spy stops reporting due to having been eaten by Gnolls, pinpoint the location 3) use the time you've gained by letting the Gnolls eat the villages with your spies on to assemble and equip an army to destroy the demon-hyena horde.

Meanwhile, Doresain, creator of the Ghouls, was an elf who betrayed the elven gods to worship Orcus. He became a powerful demon, but Orcus abandoned Doresain when he defeated by Yeenoguh. Doresain begged the elven pantheon for help, and taking pity on him, the gods of the elves saved him.

People may say that sending a subordinate to their death without informing them and letting villages get destroyed in order to get more time is unforgiveable, and people may say that a mass murderer and creator of mass murderers asking for forgiveness when on the receiving end of arbitrary violence for once does not deserve to be redeemed. But that is not what alignment is about.

[Boci]

Again, the D&D 5e alignment system does not have a "X sin weights on your soul" component.

I didn't say it did? The whole point of "making ammends" or "redeeming yourself" is that its not a balancing act, you don't save one life for every life you ruined and then *bing* neutral. "I must act good to redeem myself for my sins" and "I must act good to change what constitutes my typical behavior" are functionlly largely identical.


And? Nothing hinges on someone being actually irredeemable, as opposed to just not open to redemption right now.

You said "There are many (mortal and immortal) who will never be redeemed,". Which whilst true, but it was 3.5 too, just for largely different reasons, which I felt was worthy of clarifying.

[Unoriginal]

There are no unredeemable creatures. There are many (mortal and immortal) who will never be redeemed, no matter how hard others try. Because they don't want to be redeemed. It's not a cosmic "ok, your morality balance is X, so set the cannot be redeemed flag." Someone who is knowingly evil rarely wants to change--they're "happy" the way they are.

Indeed. And 5e even acknowledge that while many evil deities would rather force the beings to behave in ways consistant with their favorite flavor of evil, they can't do it because without free will there is no worship or actual malevolence.



In fact, you can't redeem someone. They can only choose to accept the opportunity to redeem themselves, an opportunity you can help provide.

Fairly true, though it's more change in general than redemption.



And thankfully 5e removed all the real creepy mind-rape spells and magic items, so redemption is up to the individual. The only forced alignment change I know of is one of the planes, and that's a variant rule.


There are a few magic items who can change your alignment. But 5e recognizes that a) it's essentially death of personality for the person b) doesn't portray it as a *good* thing even if it turns a malevolent being into a benevolent one.



I didn't say it did? The whole point of "making ammends" or "redeeming yourself" is that its not a balancing act, you don't save one life for every life you ruined and then *bing* neutral. "I must act good to redeem myself for my sins" and "I must act good to change what constitutes my typical behavior" are functionlly largely identical.

Untrue.

"I must act good to redeem myself from my sins" is not something the 5e alignment cares about, and it is based on the idea you have some kind of sin debt to pay to be good. "I must act good to change what constitute my typical behavior" is either a redundant statement (your typical behavior is good if you actually changed to act good) or a statement that shows insincerity for the person ("I'll act good so that I won't get in trouble for what was my typical behavior")

Someone who act good just to get the perks of acting good (like a pleasant afterlife) would probably end up in one of the neutral alignments

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fairly true, though it's more change in general than redemption.


I'm using "redemption" to mean "changing from evil to good". So for Zariel (or any devil) to be redeemed, they'd have to abandon their habits of evil and replace them with habits of good. As you said, there's no moral debt to pay off--the instant they sincerely decide to live that way for the rest of their life (sincerely being the key word here), they've made the switch. And jumped straight to good--alignment isn't a continuum where you gain or lose "good points". Doing good is an inevitable consequence of being good, not vice versa.



There are a few magic items who can change your alignment. But 5e recognizes that a) it's essentially death of personality for the person b) doesn't portray it as a *good* thing even if it turns a malevolent being into a benevolent one.

Ah? I'm not aware of any from the main books. Are they in adventures? Or am I misremembering?

[Boci]

I'm using "redemption" to mean "changing from evil to good". So for Zariel (or any devil) to be redeemed, they'd have to abandon their habits of evil and replace them with habits of good. As you said, there's no moral debt to pay off--the instant they sincerely decide to live that way for the rest of their life (sincerely being the key word here), they've made the switch.

But free will exists. She may sincere decide to be good, and in the moment she means it, but 2 weeks later she returns to hell, deciding she likes it more. She was trying to decieve anyone, not even herself. She genuinly meant, but she changed her mind, which is a consequence of free will and reccissary for redemption.


"I must act good to redeem myself from my sins" is not something the 5e alignment cares about, and it is based on the idea you have some kind of sin debt to pay to be good. "I must act good to change what constitute my typical behavior" is either a redundant statement (your typical behavior is good if you actually changed to act good) or a statement that shows insincerity for the person ("I'll act good so that I won't get in trouble for what was my typical behavior")

I'm paraphrasing for the sake of clarity, they're not literally saying that to themselves. As I mentioned, free will is a thing, they might in the moment sincere mean to do good but then later change their mind, it can happen.

You're also taking a very narrow view of a how a creature might see their own action. Its perfectly possibly that a creature wanting to do good does infact understand their own actions are currently evil, its considered rare but not impossible. Once you accept, a creature may well then have a thought that is basically "I should change and be good, but I'm not sure how".

[PhoenixPhyre]

But she can't can she? Free will exists. She may sincere decide to be good, and in the moment she means it, but 2 weeks later she returns to hell, deciding she likes it more. She was trying to decieve anyone, not even herself. She genuinly meant, but she changed her mind, which is a consequence of free will and reccissary for redemption.

That's possible, but extremely unlikely. To the point where we don't have to worry about it happening. Because the first sincere change was already so unlikely.

But yes. People can be redeemed, then fall again. Or fall, then become re-redeemed. Most mortals, in fact, fluctuate (usually among some flavor of neutral IMO). Just like dieting, true change takes willpower and hard work to stick with it against a lifetime's inertia. But generally, rapid back-and-forth swings (especially when there's a short span of different behavior then back to status quo ante) aren't really signs of redemption (or the inverse)--they're just noise. People do things against their alignment. Not frequently, not habitually, but they happen.

[Boci]

That's possible, but extremely unlikely. To the point where we don't have to worry about it happening. Because the first sincere change was already so unlikely.

I don't think so. As in, yes, the initial redemption is unlikely, but once that occurs it not lasting long seems like a real possiiblity. We see a similat concept with ex cons often enough unfortunately.

[Unoriginal]

I'm using "redemption" to mean "changing from evil to good". So for Zariel (or any devil) to be redeemed, they'd have to abandon their habits of evil and replace them with habits of good. As you said, there's no moral debt to pay off--the instant they sincerely decide to live that way for the rest of their life (sincerely being the key word here), they've made the switch. And jumped straight to good--alignment isn't a continuum where you gain or lose "good points".


True.


Doing good is an inevitable consequence of being good, not vice versa.

Not sure what you mean by that. You're of a good alignment because your typical behavior is benevolent.


Ah? I'm not aware of any from the main books. Are they in adventures? Or am I misremembering?

The few I know show up in adventures, yes.

Ex: in Dungeons of the Mad Mage, one of the floors' bosses was stabbed through the head with a sapient weapon, who got stuck there, and now their personalities are kinda intermingled but the weapon has the most influence, with the boss going from lawful evil to the weapon's neutral good (however, the weapon's desire to leave Undermountain is suppressed as well).

[Boci]

Not sure what you mean by that. You're of a good alignment because your typical behavior is benevolent.

But what is typical behavior? No one is 100% good or evil in their daily routine. Most people's will behavior will be a mixture of things considered good and bad. At what point does someone negative personality traits becone too serious for you to be considered good?

I'm asking you to answer, I'm just demonstrating how I feel the issue isn't really resolved here, its just shifted. Instead of "what is evil" its now "what constitutes typical behavior". For example a racist person may act very nicely without their own community out of the good of their heart, whilst advocating for oppression towards others.

[Unoriginal]

But free will exists. She may sincere decide to be good, and in the moment she means it, but 2 weeks later she returns to hell, deciding she likes it more. She was trying to decieve anyone, not even herself. She genuinly meant, but she changed her mind, which is a consequence of free will and reccissary for redemption.

That doesn't change anything. If they want to switch, they switch. If they want to switch again, they switch again.




I'm paraphrasing for the sake of clarity, they're not literally saying that to themselves. As I mentioned, free will is a thing, they might in the moment sincere mean to do good but then later change their mind, it can happen.

Fair, but I don't see how it relates to what I was talking about.




You're also taking a very narrow view of a how a creature might see their own action. Its perfectly possibly that a creature wanting to do good does infact understand their own actions are currently evil, its considered rare but not impossible.

I did not imply *anything* of the sort, nor have I ever.

Yes many beings are perfectly aware that their actions are evil. There is nothing rare about that (ex: all goblins know that the Maglubyet-influenced goblin culture pushes them to be bad persons, but most of them don't care because they enjoy causing suffering to others to alleviate their own suffering).

However a creature who does good does good, and such (assuming they stick to it) is good.



Once you accept, a creature may well then have a thought that is basically "I should change and be good, but I'm not sure how".

You're arguing against yourself. A creature who is capable of recognize what they did in the past was bad knows what doing good means (for starter, stopping doing the thing they're considering evil and helping the victims).

The creatures who *don't* understand what they're doing is evil are the one for which it's complicated to do good.



But what is typical behavior? No one is 100% good or evil in their daily routine. Most people's will behavior will be a mixture of things considered good and bad. At what point does someone negative personality traits becone too serious for you to be considered good?

Typical means the majority of time/the default behavior. If they're doing both good and evil typically then they're neutral.


As the PHB says:


These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.



For example a racist person may act very nicely without their own community out of the good of their heart, whilst advocating for oppression towards others.

Said racist person wouldn't act nicely in their own community out of "the good of their heart", they would be acting nicely because "people in my community meet their conditions to be treated well" (lawful), while advocating for the oppression of those who don't fit said conditions (evil). Such, lawful evil.

A mother who treats her son well and who would give her life for his without hesitation, but who would kill a starving kid for daring to beg for food to her isn't of a good alignment. Even though there are likely more occasions for her to treat her son well than for her to kill a begging child. Because her typical behavior includes "would kill a kid if they ask her for food" and similar things

[Boci]

You're arguing against yourself. A creature who is capable of recognize what they did in the past was bad knows what doing good means

Not neccissarily. They're know to stop doing bad things yes, but that doing not-bad thing, which is different from doing good.

Plus as mentioned, what constitutes typical behavior, since peoples typical behavior tends to include both good and bad elements? What is the typical behavior of a racist person who is very kind to their own community, not out of any desire to be appreciate but because they have a kind heart, but it also racist? Is their typical behavior good or bad? That's what it comes down to. Removing "detect evil" makes it less likely to come up in game, but ultimately the world building still requires a judgement, which is almost certain;y going to be arbitary and that people will disagree one.

[Unoriginal]

Not neccissarily. They're know to stop doing bad things yes, but that doing not-bad thing, which is different from doing good.

And how would they know what doing bad is, if they don't know what doing good is?



Plus as mentioned, what constitutes typical behavior, since peoples typical behavior tends to include both good and bad elements?

If there is typically good with some bad, it's good, if there is typically bad with some good, it's bad, and if there is typically both it's neutral




What is the typical behavior of a racist person who is very kind to their own community, not out of any desire to be appreciate but because they have a kind heart, but it also racist?

See my edited post above, but to reiterate: doing nice things for people you like based on an oppressive ideology doesn't make you good.

A surgeon who heals career killers for free because they advocate for career killing and like the killers isn't good-aligned. A slaver aristocrat who helps out another aristocrat no string attached because "people of our social group should help each other" doesn't change how they're a slaver who inflicts horrible things on other for their personal benefit and the one of their social strata.


Is their typical behavior good or bad?[QUOTE=Boci;24718846]

Advocating for the oppression of others and helping some people who fits your definition of "acceptable human beings" is typical evil.

[QUOTE=Boci;24718846]
That's what it comes down to. Removing "detect evil" makes it less likely to come up in game, but ultimately the world building still requires a judgement, which is almost certain;y going to be arbitary and that people will disagree one.

As the PHB says:


A typical creature in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes.

It's not supposed to be absolute, detailed, and all-descriptive.

[Boci]

And how would they know what doing bad is, if they don't know what doing good is?

Because they do? You recognize indescriminate slaughter is bad without neccissarily understanding what good is. Its not a human thought process, but this is D&D, there are many other sentient creatures.


Said racist person wouldn't act nicely in their own community out of "the good of their heart", they would be acting nicely because "people in my community meet their conditions to be treated well" (lawful), while advocating for the oppression of those who don't fit said conditions (evil).

No, human being are more complex than that (and this is human stuff, not "well in D&D maybe some creatures think differently"). You can totally have someone who is racist who is nice out of the good of their heart. Not everything a racist person does is done because of their racist ideology, there is likely more to the person.

[Unoriginal]

Because they do? You recognize indescriminate slaughter is bad without neccissarily understanding what good is. Its not a human thought process, but this is D&D, there are many other sentient creatures.

Which sapient creature in D&D is capable of knowing they're doing something harmful and malevolent



No, human being are more complex than that (and this is human stuff, not "well in D&D maybe some creatures think differently"). You can totally have someone who is racist who is nice out of the good of their heart.

Except they aren't "nice out of the good of their heart" toward those who just happens to not fit their arbitrary definition of "acceptable person", and toward those who disagree with them on what constitute an "acceptable person", and those who have no problem with people who don't fit their definition of "acceptable person"...

If you're "nice out of the good of your heart" toward the few that fits your standards and want everyone else oppressed or forcibly converted to your ideology, then you don't have much "good of your heart".



Not everything a racist person does is done because of their racist ideology, there is likely more to the person.

Maybe not *because of*, but certainly *through the lens their racist ideology*.

Anyway. I won't be responding to this thread anymore, so as to not derail it.

[Boci]

Except they aren't "nice out of the good of their heart" toward those who just happens to not fit their arbitrary definition of "acceptable person", and toward those who disagree with them on what constitute an "acceptable person"

Not neccissarily. This can make debating with racist people infuriating, because they will walk away thinking you were the unreasonably one, because they accepted that you weren't racist and offered to agree to disagree but you insisted on them accepting that all humans are equal and wouldn't accept them disagreeing on that. Some racist likely know this isn't fair, but it does seem quite a few genuine don't get why its not okay to agree to disagree on the matter.

[MinotaurWarrior]

I see 5e's system as being descriptive. Someone who would be willing to carry out genocide wasn't good to begin with, at least not when he countenanced that.

This is why muddying the waters of alignment with any real world ideas is bad and just leads to unfortunate implications.

Lawful Good just means that you are literally aligned with the cosmic forces of law and good. It is not an endorsement of what a character does.

The forces of Law and Good may want you to find religious minorities and eliminate you from the population because those minorities are aligned with cosmic evil and chaos (demon worshippers). The forces of law and good may want you to kill all of the Illithids on your world. They may want you to kill a guy and take his stuff.

IRL none of that is OK and I really don't want to have a discussion with a player about them trying to justify any of it or explaining how they should still be "described" as good and lawful. Cosmic LG also wants them to be nice and orderly and, for example, doesn't support killing baby orcs, but while some of those elements may coincidentally lead someone to be "descriptively" good, but that's not what actually makes them LG.

[Tanarii]

Someone who act good just to get the perks of acting good (like a pleasant afterlife) would probably end up in one of the neutral alignments
Why? It's the behavior that matters. Motivation doesn't, except insofar as it could result in the behavior not actually being typical.

And of course in terms of using 5e alignment the "right way around" it'd be irrelevant any way. Alignment typical behavior is the player's motivation that leads to PC actions that typically fall within it. Along with personality, ideal, bond and flaw.

[Unoriginal]

Why? It's the behavior that matters. Motivation doesn't, except insofar as it could result in the behavior not actually being typical.


Last reply to precise something:

Motivation is part of behavior. There's a reason why chaotic evil is described as "chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust". Or why setting up charities that feed the poor when your motivation is "make it easier to find people to kidnap and sacrifice to Asmodeus" is not a good thing.




And of course in terms of using 5e alignment the "right way around" it'd be irrelevant any way. Alignment typical behavior is the player's motivation that leads to PC actions that typically fall within it. Along with personality, ideal, bond and flaw.

Indeed.

[Tanarii]

Last reply to precise something:

Motivation is part of behavior. There's a reason why chaotic evil is described as "chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust". Or why setting up charities that feed the poor when your motivation is "make it easier to find people to kidnap and sacrifice to Asmodeus" is not a good thing.Okay, that's fair for the first one. Motivation is built into a lot of them.

But the second one is a pretty clear case of results matter to me. Because it's a statement of short term and long term results.

I guess I should have made it clearer I was thinking of results more than just immediate behavior. It'd certainly be possible to interpret the immediate behavior as neutral good for the latter, without the context of the long term results.

OTOH I'm a results oriented person when it comes to using 5e personality traits as a roleplaying aid. I call them 'motivations', but the goal is: list of behaviors to be considered in (to the players mind) results in actual in-game activity out (by the character).

In other words, I wouldn't use a Something Good behavior description on a character likely to have the latter motivation in the first place.

[Naanomi]

Motivation appears to matter a lot on the cosmic scale... Celestials who fell and became fiends were often ‘doing’ evil for a long time; but their final straw was something about intentional decisions to cross a line.

You see it the other way as well, with polluted intentions. Torment’s ‘Fall-From-Grace’ remains a succubus and a fiend at least in part because her good and pacifistic ways are driven more by desire to defying her fiendish heritage rather than an actual desire/instinct to do good

Player Characters:
+: Pact of Chain Warlock’s Sprite familiar can detect alignment with their 'Heart Sight' ability
+: Your alignment can be forcefully changed by artifact effects, undeath, lycanthropy, nilbogism, deck of many things, and some campaign specific factors
+: Only Evil characters can be Oathbreaker paladins

Spells:
+: Someone who is being Resurrected knows the alignment of the person trying to resurrect them (for a variety of spells with that effect)
+/-: The damage type and appearance for 'Spirit Guardians' varies depending on if you are Evil or not
+: Part of the trigger of Glyph of Warding can be set to trigger from being s with specific alignments
+: Nystul’s Magic Aura can specifically emulate false alignments
-: Animate Dead (and other spells that may create undead beings) has language that indicates it may carry specific alignment consequences for its use, though it is vague in the specifics
+/-: Some of the effects of some spells that summon or transform creatures may have creatures with specific alignment effects (see Monsters section for more details)

Monsters:
+: Modrons lose their Axiomatic Mind if they are non-lawful
+: Water Weirds can have their alignment forcefully changed with certain spells
+: Several of the regional effects around a Ki-Rin’s Lair help people of Good Alignment, or hinder those of Evil Alignment
+: A Gold Dragon has a single regional effect that also targets Evil creatures negatively while providing support to Good Creatures
+: Silver Dragon has a potential regional effect that only helps non-Evil creatures
+: Likewise, a Unicorn’s regional effects around their lair benefit Good Aligned creatures exclusively
+: One of the Demi-Lich’s lair traits can damage Non-Evil creatures entering it
dragons lair effect evil and non-evil creatures differently or detect alignments
+: Lemures don’t return to life if killed by a Good character
+: Night Hags only capture the souls of Evil beings with their abilities
+: Raksasha damage resistance overcome by Good characters (with piercing weapons)
-: Scarecrows and Will-o-the-Wisps can only be animated by the spirit of an evil individuals, though no mechanics exist for them to specifically do so
?: The fluff of some monsters seems to indicate they can 'sense' alignment (angels, devils, flumphs), though their stat block does not include an ability to do so

Magic Items:
+: Candle of Invocation has a specific, detectable Alignment and benefits those who share that Alignment only when used; especially Clerics/Druids who share that Alignment
+: Obsidian Steed has a 10% chance each usage of bad things to happen if you are of Good Alignment
+: Robe of the Archmagi come in Evil/Good/Neutral varieties, and cannot be attuned by people without that Alignment
+: Sword of Answering come in all nine Alignments, and cannot be attuned by people not matching that Alignment
+: Talisman of Pure Good/Ultimate Evil can not only be attuned by a character of a matching Good/Evil Alignment, they damage people of other Alignments handling it; and their special attack can only be used on targets of the opposite (on the Good/Evil spectrum) Alignment targets
+/-/?: Intelligent Items have Alignements, and have more conflict (with associated mechanics) of people not sharing those alignments. They may also have ‘special purposes’ directly related to that alignment. Some examples in the book may only be attuned by creatures of specific Alignments, among other restrictions.
+: The Ring of Mindshielding specifically protects your alignment from being known
+: Many Artifacts have specific Alignment effects. Some artifacts requires killing someone 'of the same Alignment’ to be attuned, or change your Alignment (like Vecna’s body parts, or sometimes randomly!). Some have other specific Alignment related effects or requirements (Book of Exalted Deeds/Vile Darkness especially)

Setting:
+: Curse of Strahd has a bunch of things that reference alignment specifically
-: Where you end up when you die in the default Cosmology is (generally) determined by our Alignment
+/-: It is heavily implied that the Outer Planes 'know' your alignment and may treat you differently, and that people of the ‘wrong’ Alignment in the outer planes feel distressful psychic dissonance while there (Optional Rules about Alignment in terms of psychic dissonance exist, including that they may forcefully change a character’s Alignment in some cases, but it is implied the effect exists even if you don't use the optional mechanic; and most of the Outer Planes have further optional rules that address Alignment in some way)

[Valmark]

+: Only Evil characters can be Oathbreaker paladins

-: Animate Dead (and other spells that may create undead beings) has language that indicates it may carry specific alignment consequences for its use, though it is vague in the specifics


Haven't checked them all, but these specifically have no mechanical effect on alignment- no mechanics stop good oathbrokers or good necromancers from existing (just like nothing mechanical stops evil paladins of other oaths from existing).

And good I say, always hated alignment restrictions on spells and classes.

[cutlery]

Mine don't. The only characters I see that act as if they do are paladins that are played as if they are still mired in 3rd edition; complete with getting upset when other characters are using necrotic damage.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I generally run things without Meta knowledge of "Alignment" existing, but still have it in the background, sort of how the 5e books present it.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is why muddying the waters of alignment with any real world ideas is bad and just leads to unfortunate implications. It also gets in the way of having fun, or of having a fruitful discussion on the internet. :smallfrown:

Mine don't. The only characters I see that act as if they do are paladins that are played as if they are still mired in 3rd edition; complete with getting upset when other characters are using necrotic damage. Did the rest of the party throw the Paladin out of the party? Question 0 is : Why are we adventuring together? What common mission/purpose/threat brought us together such that we go on life threatening adventures and possibly kill various Monsters/NPCs and break stuff? That apparently has not been established at your table, or, as you say, the paladin may be stuck in a bucket full of old assumptions.
I generally run things without Meta knowledge of "Alignment" existing, but still have it in the background, sort of how the 5e books present it. Which overcomes most of those problems. :smallcool:

[JackPhoenix]

Meanwhile, Doresain, creator of the Ghouls, was an elf who betrayed the elven gods to worship Orcus. He became a powerful demon, but Orcus abandoned Doresain when he defeated by Yeenoguh. Doresain begged the elven pantheon for help, and taking pity on him, the gods of the elves saved him.

People may say that sending a subordinate to their death without informing them and letting villages get destroyed in order to get more time is unforgiveable, and people may say that a mass murderer and creator of mass murderers asking for forgiveness when on the receiving end of arbitrary violence for once does not deserve to be redeemed. But that is not what alignment is about.

It should be noted Doreisan wasn't redeemed, the elven gods saved him, and in return, elves are immune to ghoul paralysis, but he's not any less evil than before. He's just a hypocrite who begged for help from deities he's spurned before when he was in trouble.

[cutlery]

Question 0 is : Why are we adventuring together? What common mission/purpose/threat brought us together such that we go on life threatening adventures and possibly kill various Monsters/NPCs and break stuff? That apparently has not been established at your table, or, as you say, the paladin may be stuck in a bucket full of old assumptions.

It's always been this way with paladins, though - nearly never with clerics or anything else. It's like week one in paladin school is "How to be a Lawful Jerk."

5e is making strides away from this, but lots of people already think they know what "paladin" means, no matter what the flavor text in the book says.

That they got this understanding of paladin (perhaps secondhand) from previous editions of the game doesn't matter.

[Darth Credence]

In my campaign, I have three alignment axes - good/evil, order/chaos, and civilization/nature. Every Deity is an aspect of one of those, touching on another - e.g. the is a God of good touching on order who creates paladins, and a Lord of order touching on good that does the same.

My players picked the Deity they follow at the beginning of the game, giving a starting point. Other than that, they do not know their alignments. They understand the concept of alignments, because the structure of the Deities pretty much require that people know about it. As we play, I record when they do something that adjusts their alignment one way or another, and track their points, so I know exactly where they fall. This will usually only matter for clerics or paladins, because if they stray too far from their Deity's alignment, the Deity might decide they are done with them.

This actually became a bit interesting recently, when one of them cast detect good and evil when trying to figure out if they were in the presence of a fiend. Two of the five started to glow, indicating that they were good, while the others did not. There were some interested looks at the table from this, although no one said anything at the time. One was the party's paladin, who does a great job of being lawful good but not lawful jerk. The other was the artificer, who just does the right thing. I think the cleric, who is aligned with the Father of civilization leaning to chaos, was a little surprised that they weren't good as they see themselves as fighting evil, but when you are willing to create elaborate plans to steal things from your party members in order to fight evil, it doesn't make you good.

[Tanarii]

It's like week one in paladin school is "How to be a Lawful Jerk."Those players all play LN Vengeance Paladins now tho

[PhoenixPhyre]

This actually became a bit interesting recently, when one of them cast detect good and evil when trying to figure out if they were in the presence of a fiend. Two of the five started to glow, indicating that they were good, while the others did not. There were some interested looks at the table from this, although no one said anything at the time. One was the party's paladin, who does a great job of being lawful good but not lawful jerk. The other was the artificer, who just does the right thing. I think the cleric, who is aligned with the Father of civilization leaning to chaos, was a little surprised that they weren't good as they see themselves as fighting evil, but when you are willing to create elaborate plans to steal things from your party members in order to fight evil, it doesn't make you good.

House rule on detect evil and good? Because by default it won't tell you anything about alignment. It only pings for certain creature types, and none of them are mortals.

With that house rule in place, then sure. People will know something about alignment, as long as there are people who can cast the spell around (not hard, as it's one on at least cleric and paladin lists).

[Porcupinata]

Characters in my settings know that the Great Wheel exists and that it's arranged the way it is - with a Good/Evil axis and a Law/Chaos axis. They also know that their afterlife destination will be based on their moral/ethical outlook and behaviour.

So in a sense they know that at the end of their life they'll be sorted by alignment.

But on the other hand, there's no easy way to know the alignment of a living person. It's not like it shows up on detection spells or anything simple like that. So alignment is often seen as a retroactive "verdict" that sums up your life at its end rather than an active measure that can change during your life.

This is complicated by the fact that the gods will intervene in the afterlife destinations of their followers. If you're a well-behaved follower of Thor then you might end up in Asgard as one of his einherjar even if you're Lawful Neutral and would otherwise have gone to Arcadia after death. So there is a lot of conflation between "this behaviour is good" and "this behaviour pleases the gods I worship" - the two probably have a large overlap, but there's enough difference that different religious groups can have major (and violent) disagreements about what is good and what isn't.

[cutlery]

Those players all play LN Vengeance Paladins now tho



That would be easier to get along with.

Warlock: "Hey, look, the focus for your entire revenge story just went down that corridor!"

Paladin: "Me Smite!"

Rogue: "Bob, that's the corridor full of traps."

Warlock: "I know."

[KorvinStarmast]

It's always been this way with paladins No, it hasn't. Maybe at your tables, but I've rarely run into it. (And when we did we took it out of character to resolve)

Mind you, there was one particular player (college time frame, late 1970's) who was the kind of toxic presence at a table who got lucky enough to roll a 17 on Charisma (which if you knew the guy, would seem to be quite the ironic roll of the die). This was OD&D+Greyhawk days. He was insufferable. So we basically told him to not come back; IIRC, of the five different people who were DMs in that group, four of the five refused to have him as a player at their table, and most of the players would not play with him.
The issue wasn't/isn't "paladin" ... not in my experience.

The other guy in that group of players (we had not quite 20 all told) who had a paladin was freaking awesome.

[cutlery]

No, it hasn't. Maybe at your tables, but I've rarely run into it.

Not necessarily every paladin, but the players that take the role of alignment police are nearly always paladins.

The class does not pair well with a player with a lack of imagination.

[Darth Credence]

House rule on detect evil and good? Because by default it won't tell you anything about alignment. It only pings for certain creature types, and none of them are mortals.

With that house rule in place, then sure. People will know something about alignment, as long as there are people who can cast the spell around (not hard, as it's one on at least cleric and paladin lists).

Yes, that's a house rule, because of the way the Deities work. The spell can also be easily defeated through a couple of different methods, so it isn't always accurate with mortals, but in this case, no one was attempting to defeat it.

[Naanomi]

Haven't checked them all, but these specifically have no mechanical effect on alignment- no mechanics stop good oathbrokers or good necromancers from existing (just like nothing mechanical stops evil paladins of other oaths from existing).
Oathbreaker specifically says 'A Paladin must be Evil and at least 3rd level to become an Oathbreaker'


House rule on detect evil and good? Because by default it won't tell you anything about alignment. It only pings for certain creature types, and none of them are mortals.
A Warlock's Sprite Familiar can 'heart-sight' Alignment though

[Valmark]

Oathbreaker specifically says 'A Paladin must be Evil and at least 3rd level to become an Oathbreaker'


*Rereads* Oh, it says that. Says the same thing about the Death domain, apparently.

That... Makes no sense and I'll completely ignore it, but it is true.

[ProsecutorGodot]

*Rereads* Oh, it says that. Says the same thing about the Death domain, apparently.

That... Makes no sense and I'll completely ignore it, but it is true.

Well you had to have taken an oath, broke it willingly (generally takes a big thing to do that nowadays) and have no remorse or willingness to atone for whatever act made you break your oath.

From my point of view, a non evil oath breaker is either not a paladin or takes a different more appropriate oath, but gaining power over the undead after having broken a binding vow that had previously granted you divine power is very hard to spin as non evil.

Death cleric I can perhaps see an argument for neutral, but any god that would grant you that sort of power will generally try to tempt you wholly to evil, in fact many might not even bother granting the person cleric powers at all if they aren't already aligned with the gods interest, which is almost always evil as far as undead creation is concerned.

Necromancers are significantly more grey considering they're able to be divorced from any gods or oaths. The debates have been long on them.

[Demonslayer666]

Yes, but not as strictly as it is defined. Good vs. evil, and Law vs. Chaos are well known concepts, but in my game, alignment does not restrict your actions. It is merely a roleplaying guideline of your typical behavior. So you can't look at someone and know their alignment. The character would know where their own alignment sits, and I warn them before a change. I've never had to change a character's alignment in my games. I came close last campaign, but they changed their mind on fireballing a group of ruffians in town that were only threatening them (not attacking). Crisis averted.

I have changed my alignment on character's I have played. My Blood Hunter went from NG, to CG, to CN to reflect his struggle with the demons within.

[Tanarii]

From my point of view, a non evil oath breaker is either not a paladin or takes a different more appropriate oath, but gaining power over the undead after having broken a binding vow that had previously granted you divine power is very hard to spin as non evil.

Chaotic.

Chaotic paladins are really hard to justify in the first place, given the typical associated behaviors. And oath breakers should require being chaotic.

The oath breaker as written should really be named fallen knight or something. Its a fall from Good grace theme, not a "broke my oath of vengeance and have no remorse" class. With oath of conquest out it makes even less sense as a person that violated their oath.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well you had to have taken an oath, broke it willingly (generally takes a big thing to do that nowadays) and have no remorse or willingness to atone for whatever act made you break your oath.

From my point of view, a non evil oath breaker is either not a paladin or takes a different more appropriate oath, but gaining power over the undead after having broken a binding vow that had previously granted you divine power is very hard to spin as non evil.


Yeah. Oathbreakers aren't just those paladins who broke their oath and fell. They're those that recoiled all the other way and immersed themselves in dark powers. You've not just gone back to neutral, you've come out as in opposition to all that is good.

You can be a non-good paladin. You can be a non-evil fallen paladin (meaning you don't have any paladin powers or you've switched oaths, although I'd say that's rare). But being a non-evil Oathbreaker just doesn't make sense in any serious setting.


Chaotic.

Chaotic paladins are really hard to justify in the first place, given the typical associated behaviors. And oath breakers should require being chaotic.

The oath breaker as written should really be named fallen knight or something. Its a fall from Good grace theme, not a "broke my oath of vengeance and have no remorse" class. With oath of conquest out it makes even less sense as a person that violated their oath.

It's more than that. You can be a chaotic Vengeance paladin just fine. Oathbreaker is not just fall from Good, it's open, direct acceptance of darkness and opposition to Good. You haven't quit the game, you've outright defected to the other side.

[cutlery]

It's more than that. You can be a chaotic Vengeance paladin just fine. Oathbreaker is not just fall from Good, it's open, direct acceptance of darkness and opposition to Good. You haven't quit the game, you've outright defected to the other side.

Oathbreakers are a great way to cover the bases the Blackguard did in 3e without making a whole new class or prestige class.

And, yeah, vengeance can be chaotic just fine. "Screw everything, I need revenge" sounds a lot more chaotic than lawful to me; while "Tradition demands vengeance for [grievance], and I shall devote my life to seek it" is the other way.

[Valmark]

The problem with the oathbreaker having to be evil is that evil paladins can exist of other oaths which are mostly based on Good- before Xanathar's I think the most evil oath you could get was the Vengeance one, and even that strongly implies you not being Evil.

Then Conquest and maybe some other came around and that defies the whole theme making Oathbreaker just weird to be considered strictly evil.

The thing about Death Cleric is that... It's honestly simply geared towards damage, rather then undeads. It's even good against them, since you can pierce their resistance to necrotic. I'd easily see a good death cleric (I've actually made one).

[Unoriginal]

Yeah. Oathbreakers aren't just those paladins who broke their oath and fell. They're those that recoiled all the other way and immersed themselves in dark powers. You've not just gone back to neutral, you've come out as in opposition to all that is good.

You can be a non-good paladin. You can be a non-evil fallen paladin (meaning you don't have any paladin powers or you've switched oaths, although I'd say that's rare). But being a non-evil Oathbreaker just doesn't make sense in any serious setting.



It's more than that. You can be a chaotic Vengeance paladin just fine. Oathbreaker is not just fall from Good, it's open, direct acceptance of darkness and opposition to Good. You haven't quit the game, you've outright defected to the other side.

Yeah, the DMG specifically says it's possible to stop following your oath and such stop being a Paladin, or change your Oath. It's not even a question of Chaos, because a Paladin's Oath also is (or can be) a contract with yourself.

An Oathbreaker meanwhile is empowered by the hole left as they broke the contract magic and then kept digging.

They're people who looked at the Conquest Oath and went "pfft, amateurs."

Also interesting to note that if you use the lore from the MM, all the Oathbreaker Paladins become Death Knights after dying.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yeah, the DMG specifically says it's possible to stop following your oath and such stop being a Paladin, or change your Oath. It's not even a question of Chaos, because a Paladin's Oath also is (or can be) a contract with yourself.

An Oathbreaker meanwhile is empowered by the hole left as they broke the contract magic and then kept digging.

They're people who looked at the Conquest Oath and went "pfft, amateurs."

Also interesting to note that if you use the lore from the MM, all the Oathbreaker Paladins become Death Knights after dying.

I can't remember their names, but in mad mage we recently encountered what our DM described to us as fallen paladins who's souls were made into devils. They were specifically not death knights though, I'm unsure if that was something my DM came up with or an actual creature in a book.


Chaotic.

Chaotic paladins are really hard to justify in the first place, given the typical associated behaviors. And oath breakers should require being chaotic.

I thought about this distinction, from a thematic standpoint I agree but the mechanics don't leave a lot of grey area for anything but evil or hard leaning neutral, which as far as I'm concerned is just not wanting to write evil on your sheet. I just think if you were prone to acts of goodness this path isn't even an option.

[Tanarii]

It's more than that. You can be a chaotic Vengeance paladin just fine.

All the chaotic behaviors will struggle somewhatwith Paladin oaths IMO. chaotic Good the least.


Oathbreaker is not just fall from Good, it's open, direct acceptance of darkness and opposition to Good. You haven't quit the game, you've outright defected to the other side.
&


I thought about this distinction, from a thematic standpoint I agree but the mechanics don't leave a lot of grey area for anything but evil or hard leaning neutral, which as far as I'm concerned is just not wanting to write evil on your sheet. I just think if you were prone to acts of goodness this path isn't even an option.

And yeah that was my point at guess. Breaking your oath and being unrepentant and losing your powers is A thing that should be more about chaos and the name oathbreaker fits.

The villain class called oath breaker with a certain theme to its class features, and requiring being evil, should have been called a black knight or fallen one or forsworn one or something.

[PhoenixPhyre]

All the chaotic behaviors will struggle somewhatwith Paladin oaths IMO. chaotic Good the least.


I think it strongly depends on the Oath. Chaos vs Law isn't about being able to hold to a fixed intention; being Chaotic doesn't mean you're random. It's fundamentally about whether you care what other people think, about whether you're focused on self-will or society. "I will do this, because I said I would" is chaotic, while "I will do this because society expects me to" is lawful. And the flip side is whether you're comfortable imposing those behaviors on others in the name of society.

Conquest? Crown? Yeah, Lawful or bust. They're all about leading or following others.
Devotion? Mostly lawful, but neutral can fit. It's more about people, but building up society is a sub-theme.
Ancients? I'd say it's neutral or chaotic better than lawful. Nurture the light even in people society has cast out.
Vengeance? This is all about self. You're free to shatter societal norms--in fact you're obligated to if it gets in the way of your vengeance and hunting evil.
Redemption? Neutral/Chaotic. Even when society says that they're outlaws, you try to find the good in them and bring them back if possible. And you are the judge of those that cannot be redeemed, not society.



And yeah that was my point at guess. Breaking your oath and being unrepentant and losing your powers is A thing that should be more about chaos and the name oathbreaker fits.

The villain class called oath breaker with a certain theme to its class features, and requiring being evil, should have been called a black knight or fallen one or forsworn one or something.

Oathbreaker (the sub-class) has breaking your oath and inverting it as prerequisites. So you must be a fallen paladin to gain it. You also have to be evil and bound to dark and ruinous powers. A fighter who turns to evil isn't an Oathbreaker. It relies on the "the higher they are, the harder they fall" theme--no one is so far fallen as one who rejected a divine Oath; once you've bound yourself to the universe by an Oath, neutral isn't really an option any more if you reject what you know in full knowledge of its truth. Not just "I'm not sure anymore" (that's a crisis of faith and a "regular" fallen paladin if it continues). It's "I know what I swore, but I reject that the Oath has any power over me and I intend to fight everything it stood for, including the Power by which it was made."

[ProsecutorGodot]

Redemption? Neutral/Chaotic. Even when society says that they're outlaws, you try to find the good in them and bring them back if possible. And you are the judge of those that cannot be redeemed, not society.

Purely nitpicking here, but a strict adherence to a well defined personal code is still considered lawful behavior. If your redemption paladin has a well understood idea of what is right, he can still be lawful trying to redeem creatures or people that would be seen as irredeemable by society at large.

If I had to summarize it (probably not very well, but generally accurate) the Lawful part would be trying to redeem them to good standards rather than how you feel they should act at the time, the Good part would be bothering to attempt redemption at all.

[JackPhoenix]

Oathbreaker specifically says 'A Paladin must be Evil and at least 3rd level to become an Oathbreaker'

You need to be evil to become Oathbreaker, but you don't have to stay that way. One of my old character concepts was a paladin who in a fit of rage killed his wife, turned against everything he stood for and ended up as your standard dark lord type. On his death bed, he begged the gods for forgiveness, and they dropped him back in the world few centuries later to see if he can redeem himself. They depowered him, but left him his dark powers, to see how he'll manage with that.

Cue non-evil revenant Oathbreaker starting at level 3 like everyone else....

[ProsecutorGodot]

You need to be evil to become Oathbreaker, but you don't have to stay that way. One of my old character concepts was a paladin who in a fit of rage killed his wife, turned against everything he stood for and ended up as your standard dark lord type. On his death bed, he begged the gods for forgiveness, and they dropped him back in the world few centuries later to see if he can redeem himself. They depowered him, but left him his dark powers, to see how he'll manage with that.

Cue non-evil revenant Oathbreaker starting at level 3 like everyone else....

That's some semantics, much like you need to adhere to your oath to keep it, if you're no longer okay with the Oathbreaker stuff like you were when you ran down that road, you probably shouldn't keep those powers.

Seems much more appropriate to be a Oath of Redemption Paladin here, surprisingly similar to the route I took for my current Paladin who died some centuries ago because he was a young reckless hooligan and his recklessness cost good people their lives to boot.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Purely nitpicking here, but a strict adherence to a well defined personal code is still considered lawful behavior. If your redemption paladin has a well understood idea of what is right, he can still be lawful trying to redeem creatures or people that would be seen as irredeemable by society at large.


That's not stated anywhere but in the LN text. LG and LE don't claim personal codes. So if you're adhering to a personal code above all else and don't care about good and evil, you're LN. But someone who does what society doesn't want can't be LG, no matter what kind of personal code they've got. But they can "act as their personal conscience directs, with little care for what others think," which is CG (literally torn from the CG description).

But yes, Redemption can be lawful. But just as easily chaotic or neutral. It's fact-dependent. Hard for it to not be Good, however.

Old-edition alignment mentality doesn't work in 5e. The labels and the general sense are the same, but all the details are different.

[Sigreid]

I imagine for most people, including characters the answer is, to quote Rick Sanchez "don't think about it". They're running around doing their thing, living their lives and while they probably honor one or more gods, they don't put a lot of thought into what that means in the grand scheme of things. That said, other people are probably not only aware of the constant cosmic struggle, but dedicated to their "faction". For example, Mordenikian is dedicated to keeping things more or less in balance between the cosmic forces, believing that if one were to dominate it would be the ruin of all.

[Tanarii]

Purely nitpicking here, but a strict adherence to a well defined personal code is still considered lawful behavior.
Yeah, it fits with all the lawful behaviors quite well.

Even the 'follow the dictates of your conscience' of Chaotic Good might cause occasional conflicts with the oath. Unless you want to define your conscience as the oath.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, it fits with all the lawful behaviors quite well.

Even the 'follow the dictates of your conscience' of Chaotic Good might cause occasional conflicts with the oath. Unless you want to define your conscience as the oath.

That's what the oath means IMO. It's why not everyone who believes something gets paladin powers. You have to live it to a self-defining degree. An oath isn't something you can get behind and intellectually agree with. It's not something you try to follow even. It's something that defines who you are and what defines right to you. Violating your oath is a violation of your conscience. No room for wishy washy maybes.

Edit:
Although there's a Vengeance tenet that's interesting here:


By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can't get in the way of exterminating my foes.


That's renouncing any effect of your personal code/conscience, should you have one, on your actions in regards to your targets.

Heck, I could see a CE Vengeance Paladin, swearing vengeance against the evil that broke his toys (ie people) before he was done with them, and realizing that evil people are "fair game" for his particular brand of "fun".

1. Fight the Greater Evil: I am the lesser evil. Once there aren't any greater evils left, I'll fight myself. But there will always be greater evils.
2. No mercy for the wicked: or for anyone else, unless I feel like it. But the wicked? Yeah no.
3. BAMN: No conscience == no problems, right?
4. Restitution: By that point I'll be dead. And I'll just have to stop them quicker. Says nothing about the damage caused by my misdeeds after all.