Alignment and Planar Politics

[Dhavaer]

Morality in D&D, at least as far as alignment goes, is kind of screwed up, best showcased by the poisons/ravages hypocrisy of the BoED and the vast threads that alignment debates spawn. Mostly because alignment is an apparently objective, set-in-stone system that no one has ever defined to everybody's satisfaction.

So, how about this:
Almost everyone is True Neutral. No matter who nice or nasty you are, no matter how many thieves you catch or laws you break, you will remain True Neutral. However, you can gain an alignment by buddying up with an extraplanar force. Paladins, for example, are allies of Celestia, showcased by their Smite Evil, Special Mount, etc. Thus, they are Lawful Good. On the other hand, Ravagers dedicate themselves to Erythnul, and are thus Chaotic Evil.

Behaviour is still a factor in alignment, but in a different way. Erythnul, for example, likes his Ravagers to eat babies and rape kittens. If a character persistantly does not do these things, they will revert to True Neutral. They do not gradually go to Chaotic Neutral and then to True Neutral, because that would require allying with the Slaadi, or with Olidammara.

Morality is not actually a factor. No matter how many innocents it would save, a Paladin is not allowed to slay an archonl unless ordered to do so by a more powerful archon. They can, however, kill any amount of puppies to save an archon, safeguard Celestia, etc.

[Maxymiuk]

I have to say, I like the simplicity of the solution. Alignment would become the domain of heroes and villains (since they're typically the ones to exhibit extreme views or alliegiances) and it would cut across the entire tired morality debate, since abilities such as Detect Evil would suddenly become Detect Follower of X. Never mind your actual personality, what counts is your participation in the great cosmic conflict between deities.

I recently presented a similar solution where your alignment denoted your part in the clash between Order, Chaos, Good, and Evil with individuals being agents of those forces, but I think you managed to get across the scale of the conflict a lot better by making it less esoteric.

[Wehrkind]

I rather like that too. I was thinking about it at work tonight, and decided that either doing away with all alignment made a lot of sense (sure, you lose a lot of spells, but it makes more overall sense) or rewriting the system to define followers instead of "alignments" like Maxymiuk had suggested.

I rather like your idea though. It is simple, and adds the possibility of gods vying for favor in the populace and recruiting powerful individuals. Sort of the gods playing politician in the vast world of the mortal plebeians. (Wow, spelled that right the first time, then changed it, then found it was right...) (Drat, I was correct in deeming "plebescite" not the word I wanted. I was looking for "plebian".)

It might be worthwhile to make factions of gods to allow for more broad Detect:X spells, since casting Detect: Follower of Bane and getting nothing, only to find out he was a Follower of Myrkul (oh, that OTHER evil god...) might be frustrating. Unless you only have like 3 gods, then it is cool.

As a side note, I have decided that Protection from Alignment spells are silly and need to go. Protection from Evil just never made much sense, as I don't see why someone being a villain would make them succeptible to the effect just like a demon. I think perhaps Protection from Creature type makes a lot more sense.

[Dhavaer]

It might be worthwhile to make factions of gods to allow for more broad Detect:X spells, since casting Detect: Follower of Bane and getting nothing, only to find out he was a Follower of Myrkul (oh, that OTHER evil god...) might be frustrating. Unless you only have like 3 gods, then it is cool.

I have no intention of removing the old Detect spells for this, it will still be Detect Evil, Law, etc. Evil will include everything from Hextor to Grazz't, for example.
Having Detect Lawful Evil, etc, might be an idea, though, since the alignments are far more seperate, rather than the moral and ethical alignments simply intersecting.

[joe]

I like this as well... my only question concerning it would be, would monks still be required to be lawful. Devoted discipline does not nescessarily align you with a lawful deity after all.

Otherwise, I like the idea a lot. ^_^

[Maxymiuk]

Maxymiuk

You're officially the first person on this board to spell my screen name correctly. Have a cookie.


So on one side we have the "good" deities of Celestia, Empyria, etc. On the other, the "evil" of... hmm, good question, since I don't have access to Deities and Demigods. Somewhere along we have the neutrals such as Obad-Hai and Boccob who...

Ok, the question I have here is how far up you'd want to carry the conflict and what are its terms. Is each side seeking complete victory over the other? Are they allowed to take part personally, or do they have to resort to agents on the material plane such as paladins and ravagers? Are the deities the penultimate power, or is there something a step higher, compelling them somehow? Finally, where does the Blood War figure in all this?

[Wehrkind]

Hehe no problem. I reserve my misspellings for Fhaolin, whose name I have spelled no less than 13 different ways. In 10 posts.

[Saph]

So no matter how hideously evil you are, no matter how many horrendous things you do, you aren't actually, y'know, evil unless you worship the right deity? So a murderous psychopath who worships an evil god is evil, but a murderous psychopath who doesn't worship any god is neutral?

I think I prefer the alignment system as is. I'd rather that good and evil mean something more than which deity you worship.

Honestly, I've never once seen the alignment system cause any problems in a game. Just because people argue about something doesn't mean it's actually a problem, nor that it needs to be removed . . .

- Saph

[Thomas]

Honestly, I've never once seen the alignment system cause any problems in a game. Just because people argue about something doesn't mean it's actually a problem, nor that it needs to be removed . . .

The system sucks, but I don't have problems with it while playing, either. It just exists so you can tell which characters are going to be affected by which spells. "Is this character nasty enough to show up on Detect Evil? No? Then he's Neutral."

Anyway, it's all descriptive of behavior, rather than defining behavior.

[Saph]

*shrug* I like D&D alignment, actually. But people who dislike something are always going to talk about it more than the people who don't - hence all the alignment arguments.

- Saph

[Maxymiuk]

So no matter how hideously evil you are, no matter how many horrendous things you do, you aren't actually, y'know, evil unless you worship the right deity? So a murderous psychopath who worships an evil god is evil, but a murderous psychopath who doesn't worship any god is neutral?

I think the entire point here is to divest alignment from morality since entangled as they are, people can't help but be confused.

It's a matter of perspective. When you just have the "real" material world to consider, there's room for subjective morality, or even morality at all.
In a world where you have to contend with deities, devils, demons, angels, solars, whole planes devoted to a particular alignment, and where Good, Evil, Chaos, and Law are indeed very real forces influencing everything, subjective morality pretty much goes out the window.
In such case alignment does not equal morality. Rather, it means what's implied by the word itself: that you're aligned with a certain cosmic force, and something like that tends to leave an imprint upon you - a mark that can be "pinged" with a specific spell or ability.

No one is stopping you from calling a murderer evil, or a helpful stranger good. However, those are your own, subjective definitions, and as such they don't matter much to the multiverse as a whole.

It bears repeating, so I'll say it again. It's a matter of perspective.

[Saph]

I think the entire point here is to divest alignment from morality since entangled as they are, people can't help but be confused.

. . .

No one is stopping you from calling a murderer evil, or a helpful stranger good. However, those are your own, subjective definitions, and as such they don't matter much to the multiverse as a whole.

It bears repeating, so I'll say it again. It's a matter of perspective.

I think you're better off playing in a system with no alignment at all, then. Having one set of good and evil for alignment, and another set of good and evil for morality would be hideously confusing. "Well, that good guy is evil, but that evil one is evil. As for you guys, you're evil, even though you're good, unless you're looking at it from their perspective, in which case you're evil." WTF?

Alignment is SUPPOSED to be about morality. That's why it uses the words "good" and "evil".

- Saph

[Maxymiuk]

I think you're better off playing in a system with no alignment at all, then.

I definitely agree. The only problem is, D&D is so prevalent and popular that it's a real pain trying to find a group who'd be interested in playing anything else. And if I throw alignment out of D&D I have to throw out the alignment based spells, abilities, and items, which will leave me with... no longer D&D at all. While in the game I'm currently running I've lessened the impact the alignment by having deities be no-shows and some minor class adjustments, I don't think I understand the system well enough yet to try a major overhaul. Therefore, I'm settling for second best, which is to cast the alignment system in terms that make sense to me.

Having one set of good and evil for alignment, and another set of good and evil for morality would be hideously confusing. "Well, that good guy is evil, but that evil one is evil. As for you guys, you're evil, even though you're good, unless you're looking at it from their perspective, in which case you're evil." WTF?

Morality exists as understood by a given society or nation - but it's restricted to their society and does not influence planes such as Empyria or Abaddon. Heck, it doesn't even have to influence the set of morals of a different society.
Whereas alignment is something different. It's a flag telling you "this guy is a devout worshipper of Erythul or Wee Jas." His deity has left a mark on him that makes him resistant to particular magics and vulnerable to others." Whether he's a murderer or a rapist is irrelevant, though given that particular deities encourage their followers to do just that, it's also highly possible.
If you take your run of the mill murderer on the other hand and ping him with Detect Alignment, he shows up as "this guy has no alliegiance to a given deity."

Alignment is SUPPOSED to be about morality. That's why it uses the words "good" and "evil".

And can you give me a clear, quantifiable definition of "good" and "evil?" Because by my reckoning it's the confusion over what those terms actually mean that gets people arguing.

[Saph]

Morality exists as understood by a given society or nation - but it's restricted to their society and does not influence planes such as Empyria or Abaddon. Heck, it doesn't even have to influence the set of morals of a different society.

If that's the case, then toss out the D&D alignments completely and just have a "Detect Worshipper" spell. Isn't that easier?

And can you give me a clear, quantifiable definition of "good" and "evil?"

*laughs*

You're asking for an off-hand solution to one of the most complex philosophical subjects in existence. Want me to write you up a Unified Field Theory while I'm at it? It would probably be simpler.

Good and evil are unbelievably complicated. You're never going to get a nice clear definition, much less a 'quantifiable' one. But you can't do without them, either. If you try, you'll just end up relocating them somewhere else.

- Saph

[Thomas]

Not confusion. Many people are pretty clear on what Good and Evil mean to them. The issue is incompatibility and Wizards' own inability, inconsistency, and occasional straight-out idiocy in defining these terms for the game.

[Maxymiuk]

If that's the case, then toss out the D&D alignments completely and just have a "Detect Worshipper" spell. Isn't that easier?

Yes, yes it is, though that still leaves you a fair number of spells and abilities to reconsider. Such as Unholy Blight or Unhallow - do they now affect anyone who doesn't worship the cleric's deity, or only the guys on the "good" side? Does the paladin's Smite Evil ability become Smite Heathen instead? Changes of this magnitude put the balance of the game to a stress test.

*laughs*

You're asking for an off-hand solution to one of the most complex philosophical subjects in existence. Want me to write you up a Unified Field Theory while I'm at it? It would probably be simpler.

Good and evil are unbelievably complicated. You're never going to get a nice clear definition, much less a 'quantifiable' one. But you can't do without them, either. If you try, you'll just end up relocating them somewhere else.

- Saph

Which is what D&D does - it relocates them into the hands of the deities and their servants. They know what is good and evil, having cosmic wisdom and all. They have the capacity to send down an angel to give you a divine pimpsmack if you break their rules. That's objective morality for you - right and wrong are very clearly defined. There's no "but this is a special case..." People may not like it, but it's hard to argue at swordpoint.

[Leush]

The system of allignment, I'd think, is perfectly fine as it is- the base system as it is. The definitions for good and evil set out in the SRD are pretty sound. The only problem is that it is open to interpretation. What I mean is that when game designers say "This class is lawful evil" they will, half the time not have read the description. When people play paladins who smite first and ask questions later they are completely missing the point of LG. The problem is not so much in a stupid system as in stupid people using a spoon to chop firewood.

To be fair I would say that most people are neutral, since I think it's fairly safe to say that they have no qualms about saving their skins at the expense of others. I'd even go so far to suggest that neutral evil is a far more common allignment than we are led to believe. Often the psychopath is no more evil than your average corporate manager- he is just Stupid Puppy Eating Evil, rather than the Scheming Pauper Starving Evil- evil is represented as much by pure, head-walking selfishness as by outgoing bloodlust, if they lead to the same thing.

Personally I don't like the pact idea- you would be already of that allignment to make the pact rather than the other way around- You are already pious if you work with angels, and not suddenly "Poof! I work with angels! I became pious!" Although arguably anyone who works with angels would become pious as a result of their influence. However, I do not believe in the "pact" system. Maybe for auras, but not for allignments. Although I do admitt that it would make for a pretty neat setting- a lot more in line with the god vs devil sort of thing of monotheistic religions except with more gods and more devils.

[Maxymiuk]

Often the psychopath is no more evil than your average corporate manager

See, by strict medical terms, the corporate manager may very well be a psychopath.

"Psychopath" doesn't have to be the pop-culture's image of an axe-wielding maniac. In fact, very often they're not. Medically, a psychopath is someone incapable of empathy or compassion. He doesn't care about others at all - this makes him capable of indiscriminate and often "sensless" murder - he does it because it simply gives them a thrill. But then there are the psychopaths who learn while growing up that acting like a "normal" human is simply more beneficial - though for them that is a gain-loss assesment rather than getting a case of conscience. Those go on to become "well-adjusted" citizens who channel their ruthlessness into their chosen field. This makes them excellent in a corporate setting where it's the biggest bastard that wins.

But that's neither here nor there. Back on topic.

[Thomas]

To be quite precise, it's called an antisocial personality disorder (or dissocial personality disorder). Just as well, since "psycho" and "psychopath" have become so strongly connotated with axe-wielding maniacs in the minds of the unwashed mass-- I mean the public...

Medically, "psychopath" doesn't mean anything; it's not in the DSM-IV-TR or the ICD-10.

[Maxymiuk]

Medically[/I], "psychopath" doesn't mean anything; it's not in the DSM-IV-TR or the ICD-10.

I stand corrected.

[Thomas]

Well, it used to mean something medically, I expect (don't ask me which version of which book it was in), but terminology and definitions both become outdated fairly fast in psychology and medicine. It's very difficult for people who don't pay close attention to the fields or specific subjects to stay on top of them, especially when media is always dragging some 10-20 years behind on theories (many shows still portray actual Freudian psychoanalysis as credible psychiatry - that's a riot!).

[kamikasei]

On the face of it, I don't like the idea. My central objection is that divorcing alignment from behaviour seems to make it rather hollow. Why should an evil person (someone who would be evil under a 'normal' alignment scheme) be 'non-evil' if not bound to an evil deity? More to the point, what does it mean for the deity to be 'evil' if people are only 'evil' by reference to it?

I do think there's promise there, though. Perhaps a system set up as present, but instead of an even 9-way split of the 'alignment plane', have True Neutral occupying something like 99 percent; make the edges (Lawful Good, etc.) be so exacting in their requirements that it requires extraplanar intervention to maintain such an alignment. Thus, any LG character would need divine grace to adhere to a code of conduct as strict as a paladin's. Any CE character would need the voices of the Pit drowning out any prompting of conscience to remain steadfast on his merciless path. It keeps the alignment system much as it is but shifts the goalposts.

The other way I might take it would be dropping the traditional designators on the system. Say that you have an alignment system but it's nothing to do with morality and will not use such terms as Good or Evil (because, let's be honest, if a paladin is required to save an archon at the cost of any number of innocents, that's not really very Good). Separate the extraplanar parties from ideas of angels and demons - or separate the angels from traditional ideas of Good. Order vs. Chaos would be a good dichotomy. I'm thinking of John Constantine here, though I can't remember how much what I have in mind is from the comics, and how much the movie; but Constantine operates in a world where agents aligned with both Heaven and Hell operate, and sees a victory for either side as inimical to humanity, for the "pure good" of the angels' rule would destroy free will as surely as the rule of demons would crush the human spirit.

That would actually be a pretty interesting setting for a campaign - two opposed supernatural forces at work in the world, neither of which can be allowed to win outright. PCs working to keep some gray around. In the comics vein, consider Vertigo's depiction of Lucifer, who doesn't give a fig about good or evil and owes no allegiance anywhere, caring only to preserve and extend his own freedom.

[Thomas]

Whatever this John Constantine is, it sounds like another Moorcock rip-off...

One of my favorite bits in the Elric books is Elric's visit to a plane where the Lords of Order have won. The whole place is a lifeless grey wasteland, with only a single insane deity walking around, willing everything it meets into stasis and/or nonexistence... (Because life is inherently both Ordered and Chaotic, and change is Chaotic by definition, so...)

[Matthew]

I like this idea, Dhavaer. I use a fairly similar system, though it is slightly easier to acquire an 'extreme' alignment in my games. The exception being that Orcs and Goblins virtually all detect as evil.

[Mewtarthio]

If that's the case, then toss out the D&D alignments completely and just have a "Detect Worshipper" spell. Isn't that easier?

That's precisely what's being suggested. "Detect Evil" essentially becomes "Detect Worshipper of Lower Planes Deity." "Smite Good" becomes "Smite Worshipper of Upper Planes Deity." "Protection From Law" becomes "Protection From, er, Left-Hand Planes Deity."

[Amotis]

Your system says the ends justify the means, which I think is something that should either not be true or be left unanswered. Morality and alignment are vague debatable things and I think the old system keeps them vague.

On a plus note, I do like your neutral stance there.

[Cocktail Umbrellas]

Seems like a neato idea. Not the way I play, but RPing's all about trying out different ideas, right? Worth a try in any case ^_~

Planar politics seem more something I'd want to play alongside alignment, but that's probably because I'm so partial to Planescape . Combining the two is a new idea, I wish you loads of luck with it ^_^

As for the blood war factoring in, it'd really only be of worry to evil aligned characters... Even then it wouldn't necessarily have to be of importance, most of the fighting is in the Grey Waste (and Carceri and Gehenna too I suppose) but even if you were somehow sworn via alignment to a plane with blood war skirmishes, to consider the blood war a threat to the plane would probably be silly (I mean it is as much a part of the plane as the plane itself, really, unless the blood war is dragged into Celestia or Elysium or something equally ridiculous). Allies of the Tanar'ri or Baatezu (or the 'loths I suppose) would probably consider fighting in it, but I don't think residents of the Abyss or Baator would be obliged to do so, even if the alignment were attached to the plane, just because there are more than tanar'ri and baatezu on the abyss and baator and the blood war isn't really a threat to either plane.

Buuut, its all a matter of flavour. I'm sure you could come up with loads more by chatting with someone who has the blood war box, or maybe reading up on it at planewalker.com

In any case, I'm sure you'll come up with all manner of stirring up the planar pot to toy with your PCs (from a PC's standpoint, interplanar war is super-interesting (with this particular alignment system, even more so) but hard to keep track of). I'm sure there will be tons of fun stories that come of it.

[Dhavaer]

I like this as well... my only question concerning it would be, would monks still be required to be lawful. Devoted discipline does not nescessarily align you with a lawful deity after all.

No, monks would be N like everyone else, unless they hooked up with the Modrons or St Cuthbert or something.

So on one side we have the "good" deities of Celestia, Empyria, etc. On the other, the "evil" of... hmm, good question, since I don't have access to Deities and Demigods. Somewhere along we have the neutrals such as Obad-Hai and Boccob who...

Ok, the question I have here is how far up you'd want to carry the conflict and what are its terms. Is each side seeking complete victory over the other? Are they allowed to take part personally, or do they have to resort to agents on the material plane such as paladins and ravagers? Are the deities the penultimate power, or is there something a step higher, compelling them somehow? Finally, where does the Blood War figure in all this?

There aren't 'sides' any more than there are now. Someone could be a devoted crusader to unite the planes under the lawful rule of modrons, and be LN, or they could also just like magic and love and respect the inevitability of death, and Wee Jas would make them LN. Those two people probably wouldn't get on all that well, though.

So no matter how hideously evil you are, no matter how many horrendous things you do, you aren't actually, y'know, evil unless you worship the right deity?

No, you'd still be evil, you just wouldn't have an evil alignment. So you wouldn't have that little spark of evil in you that makes you vulnerable to, say, Smite Evil or Holy weapons. You wouldn't be any less evil, though.

Personally I don't like the pact idea- you would be already of that allignment to make the pact rather than the other way around- You are already pious if you work with angels, and not suddenly "Poof! I work with angels! I became pious!" Although arguably anyone who works with angels would become pious as a result of their influence. However, I do not believe in the "pact" system. Maybe for auras, but not for allignments. Although I do admitt that it would make for a pretty neat setting- a lot more in line with the god vs devil sort of thing of monotheistic religions except with more gods and more devils.

I don't think 'pious' means what you think it means. Under this system, anyone with an alignment would be notably pious.
More to the point though, what you say about 'maybe for auras' is exactly my point. Someone who has buddied up with Kord is going to Detect as Good and Chaotic, be immune to Holy Smite but vulnerable to Order's Wrath. To maintain this alignment, and thus keep any benefits they gain (cleric powers, for example) they have to act the way Kord would want them to. However, someone could act the same way without being a Cleric of Kord and not having the alignment. Alignment = behaviour, behaviour =/= alignment.

On the face of it, I don't like the idea. My central objection is that divorcing alignment from behaviour seems to make it rather hollow. Why should an evil person (someone who would be evil under a 'normal' alignment scheme) be 'non-evil' if not bound to an evil deity? More to the point, what does it mean for the deity to be 'evil' if people are only 'evil' by reference to it?

The evil person would be non-evil because they haven't allied to any extraplanar power, and thus don't show up on the 'planar radar' of Detect spells and Smiting. They'd still be very much morally evil, though. The evil of the deity is simply mechanical, meaning this deity's followers will be vulerable to Holy Smite but immune to Unholy Blight.

[Maxymiuk]

Damn it, now I'd like Dhavaer to run a campaign just to see how this idea would pan out.

I suppose there's no chance you'd start one up, is there?

[PhoeKun]

Damn it, now I'd like Dhavaer to run a campaign just to see how this idea would pan out.

I suppose there's no chance you'd start one up, is there?

As an educated observer, I highly doubt it.

In regards to this alignment fix - I like it for the most part, but I'm kind of iffy on a few aspects (such as the puppy slaying Paladin). But as someone chiefly concerned with the moving and shaking of the Outer Planes, I like the idea that alignment can't happen without them.