No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

[Pleh]

Let's separate alignment from Auras, or at least separate morality from auras.

There should (and I know in many games they do) be a difference between characters that are good by nature and those who emanate the essence of another plane.

Therefore, a good hearted commoner should have a Good alignment, but this isn't what a Detect spell should be discerning.

A Good Aligned Paladin, however, should be emanating a Holy Aura that is Detected by spells.

Fiendish hags probably emanate a Profane/Unholy aura, but a corrupt town guard fishing for bribes won't magically ping on a Detect spell.

[Kitten Champion]

That's how it works in 5th edition. Using Detect Evil and Good -- identifies Aberrations, Fiends, Fey, Celestials, or Undead Creatures rather than the alignments of Creatures.

Granted that doesn't necessarily include Paladins or the like, but I wouldn't object to their inclusion on the argument that certain classes and sub-classes are heavily tied into extra-planar entities as their power source.

[Lord Raziere]

You mean what 5e has already done by making the paladin's ability about detecting supernatural creatures like Fae, Demons and so on without alignment being involved?

[Jason]

On the one hand I like that 5E has removed the "just detect the evil guy" method of solving mysteries for parties with paladins, but on the other I kind of miss the idea of forcing paladins to make choices to let someone go when they know a person is evil, just not being actively evil at that moment.

[ImNotTrevor]

On the one hand I like that 5E has removed the "just detect the evil guy" method of solving mysteries for parties with paladins, but on the other I kind of miss the idea of forcing paladins to make choices to let someone go when they know a person is evil, just not being actively evil at that moment.

Not gonna lie, I 100% do not miss that as an option.

It's a super boring false dilemma that only exists because the Paladin MIGHT randomly get insider information about a person's current Morality Score.

What that means is that based on the DM this dilemma is either:
1. Super low stakes, you're just debating killing them now or killing them later or
2. A super stupid GOTCHA moment on the Paladin where you either "kill da evul" or fall.

I cannot fathom a less interesting dilemma to find oneself in.

[Rynjin]

I mean, there's the (far more common) 3rd option: you detect someone as Evil...but it doesn't matter, because they're not an enemy.

There are plenty of Evil aligned characters who are not a threat to be Smote, and in fact killing them would be wrong. The Evil shopkeeper is a common example for a reason. They're Evil because they cheat their customers, or sell stolen goods, or some other such sustained and petty evils.

Detect Evil might ping them (if they're high enough level), but that doesn't tell you why they're Evil, how they're Evil, or any of the necessary info to DO anything about it.

It's not a mystery ender, it's a mystery beginner, as you might choose to investigate them further to see what kind of wrongdoing they're doing and report them to the proper authorities. Or don't; choosing to ignore a lesser evil in the pursuit of a greater one is perfectly fine for a Paladin to do.

[Lord Raziere]

I mean, there's the (far more common) 3rd option: you detect someone as Evil...but it doesn't matter, because they're not an enemy.

There are plenty of Evil aligned characters who are not a threat to be Smote, and in fact killing them would be wrong. The Evil shopkeeper is a common example for a reason. They're Evil because they cheat their customers, or sell stolen goods, or some other such sustained and petty evils.

Detect Evil might ping them (if they're high enough level), but that doesn't tell you why they're Evil, how they're Evil, or any of the necessary info to DO anything about it.

It's not a mystery ender, it's a mystery beginner, as you might choose to investigate them further to see what kind of wrongdoing they're doing and report them to the proper authorities. Or don't; choosing to ignore a lesser evil in the pursuit of a greater one is perfectly fine for a Paladin to do.

I prefer Divine Sense, as it can serve pretty much the same purpose, just in a different way, so detect evil is not needed. it can detect the location of celestials, fiends or undead within 60 feet of you that is not behind total cover, or things that have been consecrated or desecrated, is much more sensible, thematic and magical-seeming than seeing if people have eviltrons inside them, and if someone is dealing with undead or fiends this is often a much better indication of it something worth investigating by PCs, while also being more flexible: if your in an evil tyranny it serves as a good way to find somewhere consecrated or protected by a secret celestial so you can hide, doubling as a way to find hidden allies.

Divine Sense thus gives you much the same benefits while making it more of a planar and undead sensing thing rather than something inherent to everyone that we apparently can't judge anyone upon anyways. it also makes sure that you find out whether a shopkeep is evil through their actions or evidence that a rogue can gather instead which gives use to other classes for finding evil. and if a shopkeep has something demonic or undead around, thats more worth investigating and more specific than vague eviltron readings. if the evil alignment is so broad as to include such petty stuff, detecting it is not really useful as a class feature anyways.

it also focuses the paladin's job to fighting outsiders and undead, which makes more sense than being some righteous all-judging crusader. it can make them demon hunters and the defender of people being able to choose their way free of planar influence! it makes their job specific, thematic and with clearer goals in mind. there is no need to make a "greater good" justification because the paladin's jurisdiction and focus is already spelled as out as extraplanar or unnatural threats, and that taking care of normal crime and such is not their primary concern.

[jjordan]

That's how it works in 5th edition. Using Detect Evil and Good -- identifies Aberrations, Fiends, Fey, Celestials, or Undead Creatures rather than the alignments of Creatures.

Granted that doesn't necessarily include Paladins or the like, but I wouldn't object to their inclusion on the argument that certain classes and sub-classes are heavily tied into extra-planar entities as their power source.

I like this implementation of the spell and it ties nicely into my cosmology. I tend to expand this a little, particularly if it is upcast. Allowing them to detect the residue of lasting actions (people that were healed by magic might still show traces of that magic, for example).

[Pleh]

I mean, there's the (far more common) 3rd option: you detect someone as Evil...but it doesn't matter, because they're not an enemy.

I dunno. I feel like a system with Cosmological Good and Evil kind of implies that anyone who is Evil is automatically your enemy.

It pushes people towards Lawful Stupid. Why waste time investigating or collecting evidence when you know this person is doing evil? You take them in for inquisition and kill them if they resist.

[Jason]

It pushes people towards Lawful Stupid. Why waste time investigating or collecting evidence when you know this person is doing evil? You take them in for inquisition and kill them if they resist.

But being evil overall is not illegal in most places. A lawful character has to learn to draw the distinction between "evil because I commit punishable crimes" and "evil because I'm a petty jerk but I'm careful to never do anything actually illegal."

In my past campaigns, a Paladin killing someone "because he detected evil" wouldn't get a pass for murdering someone who didn't commit any actual crimes.

A good character must also accept that evil can repent and become good. So no, evil does not automatically mean "enemy."

[Pleh]

But being evil overall is not illegal in most places. A lawful character has to learn to draw the distinction between "evil because I commit punishable crimes" and "evil because I'm a petty jerk but I'm careful to never do anything actually illegal."

In my past campaigns, a Paladin killing someone "because he detected evil" wouldn't get a pass for murdering someone who didn't commit any actual crimes.

A good character must also accept that evil can repent and become good. So no, evil does not automatically mean "enemy."

What are you talking about? I specifically noted the indisputable fact that Evil is a Cosmological force of nature in this world.

It doesn't matter if the evil is legal or not. It contributes to the continuing desecration of the material plane. That's way more significant than petty mortal laws.

And I didn't say jump straight to murder. I said arrest them and take them in for inquisition. If they resist, it kind of implies their desire to continue desolving the fabric of reality, making them enemies of all mortal beings.

[Jason]

What are you talking about? I specifically noted the indisputable fact that Evil is a Cosmological force of nature in this world.

It doesn't matter if the evil is legal or not. It contributes to the continuing desecration of the material plane. That's way more significant than petty mortal laws.

And I didn't say jump straight to murder. I said arrest them and take them in for inquisition. If they resist, it kind of implies their desire to continue desolving the fabric of reality, making them enemies of all mortal beings.

Lawful characters obey the law. Paladins are Lawful Good (or were in earlier editions). You could create a campaign world where detecting as evil was a crime you could be arrested and sent to the inquisition for, but most of the published D&D settings don't have such laws. Being evil by itself may well be a danger to the cosmos in the larger scale of things, but if it's not outlawed in whatever place your paladin finds someone who detects as evil then immediatly taking action against them may be a good action, but it isn't a lawful action.

[NigelWalmsley]

Alignment is stupid and does not make sense. Any change that reduces the mechanical impact of alignment is, ceteris paribus, positive, because it causes the mechanics of the game to be less stupid and make more sense.

[Jason]

Alignment is stupid and does not make sense. Any change that reduces the mechanical impact of alignment is, ceteris paribus, positive, because it causes the mechanics of the game to be less stupid and make more sense.

How about making an argument instead of just asserting "it's stupid"?

[NigelWalmsley]

How about making an argument instead of just asserting "it's stupid"?

Why don't you make an argument for alignment? What problem do you think it solves? What does D&D have that games like Shadowrun (which don't use D&D-style alignment) don't have that justifies all the stupid debates about Paladins falling or whether cheating your taxes is Evil in the same way that sacrificing children to Orcus is or what the hell Law and Chaos mean?

We know that games without alignment work. The burden of proof is on your side to provide an affirmative defense for why alignment is useful, not on my side to provide a detailed argument for why it is bad. "It's stupid" is the problem with alignment.

[Jason]

Why don't you make an argument for alignment? What problem do you think it solves? What does D&D have that games like Shadowrun (which don't use D&D-style alignment) don't have that justifies all the stupid debates about Paladins falling or whether cheating your taxes is Evil in the same way that sacrificing children to Orcus is or what the hell Law and Chaos mean?

We know that games without alignment work. The burden of proof is on your side to provide an affirmative defense for why alignment is useful, not on my side to provide a detailed argument for why it is bad. "It's stupid" is the problem with alignment.

Okay.
Here's Ten things I like about the alignment system in D&D:

1. It's a useful shorthand for how to roleplay an NPC. By providing 9 broad categories of moral behavior for every NPC and monster in the game you have instant guidance to give to any DM on how to play them without having to read a few paragraphs. Will a typical goblin keep a promise or turn on the players as soon as they look the other way? Look at the alignment.

2. Not only is it useful for DMs, it's useful for players to know the moral reputation a particular variety of monster has, stuff their characters should know by virtue of being residents of their world.

3. It's a useful shorthand for how PCs want to play their characters. It's basically the third question you ask after "what class and race are you playing?" to get a basic idea of what the player has in mind.

4. It's a useful shorthand for how the DM might want players to play their characters in his campaign. "No evil alignments." "Everyone should be at least part Lawful" etc.

5. It's a tool for helping DMs to determine if players are holding to their vows or code of behavior. If a player's abilities come in part from their moral behavior, like with a cleric paladin, then violating their vows or code can mean a loss of abilities.

6. It allows magic to key off of a character's morality. Spells and weapons that only affect evil or good, or lawful or chaotic. You can smite the bad guys while sparing the innocents, or vice-versa.

7. It allows for the violence that most of the actual game play in D&D involves to be more justifiable. If you're clearly good and they are clearly bad then you don't feel as bad when you blow their face off with a fireball.

8. It allows for cosmic-level forces of good and evil (and chaos and law) clashing in true epic fashion, with your players already being clearly aligned with one side and ready to play pivotal rolls.

9. It is in keeping with the high fantasy genre. Tolkien has clear good and bad sides. Moorcock has the whole law vs. chaos struggle. Jordan has dark vs. light. Look at just about any high fantasy and you will see clear lines between the forces of good and evil.

10. It's part of D&D's product identity, as much as hit points, armor class, the six attributes, and ability scores that go from 3 to18. Remove alignment and it just doesn't feel like D&D anymore.

So yeah, other games do just fine without it, just like they do fine without classes or levels, but if you want to play the kind and style of games that D&D lets you play it is a useful tool and part of the whole experience.

[NigelWalmsley]

1. It's a useful shorthand for how to roleplay an NPC. By providing 9 broad categories of moral behavior for every NPC and monster in the game you have instant guidance to give to any DM on how to play them without having to read a few paragraphs. Will a typical goblin keep a promise or turn on the players as soon as they look the other way? Look at the alignment.

No, it isn't. "Evil" or "Law" or "Chaos" aren't useful shorthands. Is a "Lawful" character devoted to the principles of society, or their own principles? Do "Good" characters follow virtue ethics, deontology, or utilitarianism? I don't know, and you don't either. Maybe the fluff says something, but good luck convincing your friend that his moral principles don't actually make him Good. That's not to say that alignment couldn't do this, but the way to do that would be by using something like MTG's Color Wheel where your alignments are associated with actual character traits, rather than terms that people can't even agree on definitions for in the real world.

2. Not only is it useful for DMs, it's useful for players to know the moral reputation a particular variety of monster has, stuff their characters should know by virtue of being residents of their world.

"Moral reputation" is not consistent across alignment. The appropriate response to a demon, a ghoul, a drow, and an orc is different, despite the fact that those creatures are all Chaotic Evil.

5. It's a tool for helping DMs to determine if players are holding to their vows or code of behavior. If a player's abilities come in part from their moral behavior, like with a cleric paladin, then violating their vows or code can mean a loss of abilities.

That doesn't make any sense. You know what determines if you are keeping to a code of behavior? Your code of behavior. If you have a code that says "no using poison" or "no killing captives" or "never submit to authority" or whatever, you don't also need alignment. You can just look at the things you are supposed to do and see if you are doing them, then look at the things you are supposed to not do and see if you are not doing them.

6. It allows magic to key off of a character's morality. Spells and weapons that only affect evil or good, or lawful or chaotic. You can smite the bad guys while sparing the innocents, or vice-versa.

Explain to me why you need an alignment system to have spells not effect people. I'll be over here, casting spells with shapeable areas, or using Fireball on Red Dragons.

7. It allows for the violence that most of the actual game play in D&D involves to be more justifiable. If you're clearly good and they are clearly bad then you don't feel as bad when you blow their face off with a fireball.

No, it doesn't. It encourages you to ignore those questions, but it doesn't solve them. The questions "should we kill the baby orcs" and "is it actually morally necessary to kill the baby orcs" are still there, alignment just hopes you don't bother asking them.

9. It is in keeping with the high fantasy genre. Tolkien has clear good and bad sides. Moorcock has the whole law vs. chaos struggle. Jordan has dark vs. light. Look at just about any high fantasy and you will see clear lines between the forces of good and evil.

If all you want is a team name, what's the benefit to having it be "Good"? If your sides are cosmic forces, isn't it much simpler to have them be abstractions you can clearly define rather than messy real-world terms? You'll note that the examples you cite largely do it that way. Sauron's team isn't "Team Evil", it's just "Sauron's Team". We're able to figure out that they're evil on account of them doing evil stuff.

10. It's part of D&D's product identity, as much as hit points, armor class, the six attributes, and ability scores that go from 3 to18. Remove alignment and it just doesn't feel like D&D anymore.

Funny you mention armor class. Because in the early editions, it worked completely differently from how it does now. And yet the transition from THAC0 to BAB did not break D&D. What feels like D&D is going into dungeons and fighting dragons. Any detail you change is just that: a detail.

[JeenLeen]

You mean what 5e has already done by making the paladin's ability about detecting supernatural creatures like Fae, Demons and so on without alignment being involved?

I recall one of the familiar options for a warlock still had the old Detect Evil (or Good--forget which) as an option. Or somehow that we got it. I reckon that was a typo (and thus updated/errata'd away by now) and failure while updating the power description from 3.5 to 5e, but it was an interesting abnormality.

[Jason]

If all you want is a team name, what's the benefit to having it be "Good"? If your sides are cosmic forces, isn't it much simpler to have them be abstractions you can clearly define rather than messy real-world terms? You'll note that the examples you cite largely do it that way. Sauron's team isn't "Team Evil", it's just "Sauron's Team". We're able to figure out that they're evil on account of them doing evil stuff.

I would argue that Team Sauron most definitely is team evil, regardless of what he calls himself. Also it's not a team so much as "Sauron and those he has enslaved". It's a more fundamental issue than what you call your side. The kind of stories in high fantasy are stories where one side really is evil. In a fundamental and objective sense, not just as a matter of perspective. Having an in-game alignment allows it to be an objective description of a character, like an attribute score. Games that don't have some kind of moral mechanic can't do this.

[Lord Raziere]

I dunno. I feel like a system with Cosmological Good and Evil kind of implies that anyone who is Evil is automatically your enemy.

It pushes people towards Lawful Stupid. Why waste time investigating or collecting evidence when you know this person is doing evil? You take them in for inquisition and kill them if they resist.

Indeed, when applied on a societal level you end up with something like this:
"Okay he's evil, get him."
"Why, what he'd do?"
"Who cares? He's evil. the shopkeep has got to have done something to earn that. We can figure out why later, but right now its clear he is on the wrong side of the cosmos. We'll have to put him through the redemption process, he'll confess sooner or later. Of course if he doesn't, we got to kill him as he could be intending to corrupt everyone else into being evil."

black and white cosmological morality seems nice until you start examining what it means for society and building a world around it, and what it means for people to have a way to just automatically know it at a glance. then it quickly starts becoming something alien at best, ugly at worst and not heroic fantasy funtimes at all. a degree of grey and uncertainty is required for the fantasy to work or it devolves into a LE world in all but name where everyone with eviltron rather than virtuetron readings has to undergo forced conversion into virtuetrons.

Divine Sense provides this as well. with divine sense, what you don't know is the alignment of mortals. This makes sense! Why would the personal alignment of a mortal, some so weak be detectable? It isn't, not compared to the powerful divine beacons that are celestials, fiends and undead. it makes interaction with society relatable and sensible, while emphasizing the extraplanar nature and alignment when dealing with the literal incarnations of alignment. It makes it important when dealing with beings that the trait is important FOR.

For most beings in the prime material plane, alignment isn't actually all that important. most Dnd adventurers don't care about it and neither do the beings they fight. random joe fighter or his rogue buddy aren't thinking about their afterlives they're busy wanting loot in this life, while wizards are often more concerned about knowledge or power. while your random goblin in a generic DnD world doesn't care all that much- they're just trying to live one more day in the wilderness no matter the method.

there the people that care most about it are the religious ones and the beings that are literally incarnations of those forces- and their concerns and conflicts are distant things from your average DnD party. DnD characters don't go and fight monsters for a crusade, they do it for exp and loot. while the machinations of angels and demons are often one note without something like Planescape to set things up to make it work. and as it has been observed, most DnD parties don't go past level 10. Such extraplanar concerns as the fate of the universe is thus often not actually addressed.

This kind of distance from such divine concerns is a good thing. it makes the divine more mysterious- and therefore properly DIVINE. It keeps the times when good and evil come up as IMPORTANT and CLIMACTIC rather than a background thing that is constantly required. in high fantasy, the problem of morality isn't actually brought up all that much. most of the hero's actions of their stories aren't actually judged and I could probably find something morally questionable that they do in any story. the times it comes up are rare climatic ones where good or evil is decisively defeated, rather than every literal fight being a contribution. the eviltrons make the conflict feel more like your trying to clean people of bad background radiation or something, its too accumulative to feel fantastic. divine sense makes sure that when celestials and fiends show up, it makes morality important, emphasizes that this is something that the cosmos reps of good and evil care about on a big scale. sure detect evil tells you someone is evil.....but it doesn't tell you whether its something you should care about if your someone playing paladin, leaving room for a lot of knight templar interpretations where the paladin brings such cosmological matters into every day life like a crazy person. that isn't epic, thats pathetic. that is being a crazy moralhobo who rants on the street that the end is nigh and that the angels will come for you all when the time comes. its being that guy who brings up controversial stuff at the grocery store or something, like why even?

divine sense allows the paladin to interact with someone like normal people. it gives them dimensions where they can be sure about fighting a demon but not so sure when they fight a mortal. it makes normal society a better social challenge, allowing the rogue to have more use, and be more believable as they live in a world where they aren't constantly judged for their rogueish actions, but instead are free to do them, as they are one of the people least connected to the divine forces- much like say, Han Solo. sure the Force in Star Wars is an important thing, but its primarily important for JEDI, for a smuggler like Han? its not something they hold to in any meaningful capacity., and rogues should be free to not be held to the standards of paladin and have to follow the paladin's goals in every interaction and encounter because every bit of the world is in on the fight. by making the fights more climactic and rare, you make the fight of good and evil something that is a bigger deal than a constant low level effort. the battle for good and evil should be like the big fights of Minas Tirith or Helms Deep, should be like the Battle of Yavin 4 or the Moon of Endor or the Last Battle in Wheel of Time. not every fight is epic or apart of the cosmos struggle, and thats vital to make sure that when it comes up it feels properly epic and heroic.

[ImNotTrevor]

No, it isn't. "Evil" or "Law" or "Chaos" aren't useful shorthands. Is a "Lawful" character devoted to the principles of society, or their own principles? Do "Good" characters follow virtue ethics, deontology, or utilitarianism? I don't know, and you don't either. Maybe the fluff says something, but good luck convincing your friend that his moral principles don't actually make him Good. That's not to say that alignment couldn't do this, but the way to do that would be by using something like MTG's Color Wheel where your alignments are associated with actual character traits, rather than terms that people can't even agree on definitions for in the real world.



"Moral reputation" is not consistent across alignment. The appropriate response to a demon, a ghoul, a drow, and an orc is different, despite the fact that those creatures are all Chaotic Evil.



That doesn't make any sense. You know what determines if you are keeping to a code of behavior? Your code of behavior. If you have a code that says "no using poison" or "no killing captives" or "never submit to authority" or whatever, you don't also need alignment. You can just look at the things you are supposed to do and see if you are doing them, then look at the things you are supposed to not do and see if you are not doing them.



Explain to me why you need an alignment system to have spells not effect people. I'll be over here, casting spells with shapeable areas, or using Fireball on Red Dragons.



No, it doesn't. It encourages you to ignore those questions, but it doesn't solve them. The questions "should we kill the baby orcs" and "is it actually morally necessary to kill the baby orcs" are still there, alignment just hopes you don't bother asking them.



If all you want is a team name, what's the benefit to having it be "Good"? If your sides are cosmic forces, isn't it much simpler to have them be abstractions you can clearly define rather than messy real-world terms? You'll note that the examples you cite largely do it that way. Sauron's team isn't "Team Evil", it's just "Sauron's Team". We're able to figure out that they're evil on account of them doing evil stuff.



Funny you mention armor class. Because in the early editions, it worked completely differently from how it does now. And yet the transition from THAC0 to BAB did not break D&D. What feels like D&D is going into dungeons and fighting dragons. Any detail you change is just that: a detail.

Bravo.

I am personally in full agreement that Alignment has no practical utility that cannot be achieved with a Session 0 or, in the case of the NPC biz, a small note.

I've never yet had anyone give me a unique and meaningful reason for alignment to exist beyond "it's part of the brand." In an old interview I watched shortly after the 5e release even the developers of 5e admitted that the only thing keeping Alignment in the system was its association with the D&D brand making it obligatory. Hence why alignment has NO mechanical effect in 5e.

Which is good and correct.

[ImNotTrevor]

I would argue that Team Sauron most definitely is team evil, regardless of what he calls himself. Also it's not a team so much as "Sauron and those he has enslaved". It's a more fundamental issue than what you call your side. The kind of stories in high fantasy are stories where one side really is evil. In a fundamental and objective sense, not just as a matter of perspective. Having an in-game alignment allows it to be an objective description of a character, like an attribute score. Games that don't have some kind of moral mechanic can't do this.

Sorry to double post but this is outright false. "Chaotic Evil" is exactly as objective as labelling a particular set of stats as "Galtorax, Embodiment of All Evil" and roleplaying accordingly.

Fate has no such alignment system and literally giving "Embodiment of all Evil" as an aspect does the EXACT SAME THING with BETTER MECHANICAL/THEMATIC COHESION.

In Apocalypse World (a game with no alignment at all) I have had an NPC who was the personification of humanity's collective sins, violence, trauma, pain, etc. And I did not require alignment to have that character.

So nah, man, systems without alignment do "inherently evil big bads" just fine.

[NigelWalmsley]

I would argue that Team Sauron most definitely is team evil, regardless of what he calls himself.

Yes, that's the point. You were able to identify Sauron as the bad guy on the basis that he uses strategies like "bombard Gondor with severed heads" and "make magic rings that corrupt the minds of men" without Sauron being on an explicit "Team Evil".

It's a more fundamental issue than what you call your side. The kind of stories in high fantasy are stories where one side really is evil. In a fundamental and objective sense, not just as a matter of perspective.

Have you read Malazan? Or The Second Apocalypse? Or The Chronicles of Amber? Or The Black Company? Or Lord of Light? Hell, even A Practical Guide to Evil, a book where the protagonist is literally on "Team Evil" does a pretty good job of demonstrating that "Team Evil" and "Team Morally In The Wrong" are not equivalent concepts. Plenty of high fantasy doesn't have a definite, unambiguous "Good" and "Evil".

[Jason]

Fate has no such alignment system and literally giving "Embodiment of all Evil" as an aspect does the EXACT SAME THING with BETTER MECHANICAL/THEMATIC COHESION.

Wouldn't being able give someone the aspect "embodiment of evil" or a similar "pure goodness" aspect be an alignment system of sorts?

In Apocalypse World (a game with no alignment at all) I have had an NPC who was the personification of humanity's collective sins, violence, trauma, pain, etc. And I did not require alignment to have that character.

Like i said, you can play other games just fine without an alignment system.

I'm not familiar with Apocalypse World, but I'm guessing it doesn't have the same six attributes, classes like fighter or cleric, levels, or elves or dwarves, and that you don't generally play out high fantasy struggles between good and evil with it either.

No, you don't need alignment if you're not playing D&D.

[jjordan]

No, it isn't. "Evil" or "Law" or "Chaos" aren't useful shorthands. Is a "Lawful" character devoted to the principles of society, or their own principles? Do "Good" characters follow virtue ethics, deontology, or utilitarianism? I don't know, and you don't either. Maybe the fluff says something, but good luck convincing your friend that his moral principles don't actually make him Good. That's not to say that alignment couldn't do this, but the way to do that would be by using something like MTG's Color Wheel where your alignments are associated with actual character traits, rather than terms that people can't even agree on definitions for in the real world.



"Moral reputation" is not consistent across alignment. The appropriate response to a demon, a ghoul, a drow, and an orc is different, despite the fact that those creatures are all Chaotic Evil.



That doesn't make any sense. You know what determines if you are keeping to a code of behavior? Your code of behavior. If you have a code that says "no using poison" or "no killing captives" or "never submit to authority" or whatever, you don't also need alignment. You can just look at the things you are supposed to do and see if you are doing them, then look at the things you are supposed to not do and see if you are not doing them.



Explain to me why you need an alignment system to have spells not effect people. I'll be over here, casting spells with shapeable areas, or using Fireball on Red Dragons.



No, it doesn't. It encourages you to ignore those questions, but it doesn't solve them. The questions "should we kill the baby orcs" and "is it actually morally necessary to kill the baby orcs" are still there, alignment just hopes you don't bother asking them.



If all you want is a team name, what's the benefit to having it be "Good"? If your sides are cosmic forces, isn't it much simpler to have them be abstractions you can clearly define rather than messy real-world terms? You'll note that the examples you cite largely do it that way. Sauron's team isn't "Team Evil", it's just "Sauron's Team". We're able to figure out that they're evil on account of them doing evil stuff.



Funny you mention armor class. Because in the early editions, it worked completely differently from how it does now. And yet the transition from THAC0 to BAB did not break D&D. What feels like D&D is going into dungeons and fighting dragons. Any detail you change is just that: a detail.

You don't need alignment. You also don't need HP or AC (which is mechanically different in 5e from 2e but conceptually does the exact same job of determining how hard it is to cause damage to an opponent). It's just another mechanic used by the game and, as long as you don't let it get out of hand, it works well enough for most. Literally most. While I prefer a more nuanced approach that doesn't use alignment at all, I grew up playing the game with people who were overwhelmingly detect evil -> smite evil players.

[JoeJ]

Why don't you make an argument for alignment? What problem do you think it solves?

It solves the problem of how to model a setting in which alignment is inherent to the cosmos. Planescape completely doesn't work without an alignment system. Star Wars pretty much requires there be a mechanical effect to choosing the light side vs. the dark side of the force. OTOH, setting where the cosmos doesn't have alignments don't really need it for the characters either.

[NigelWalmsley]

It's just another mechanic used by the game and, as long as you don't let it get out of hand, it works well enough for most.

"It works okay" is not the kind of ardent defense I was hoping for.

It solves the problem of how to model a setting in which alignment is inherent to the cosmos. Planescape completely doesn't work without an alignment system. Star Wars pretty much requires there be a mechanical effect to choosing the light side vs. the dark side of the force. OTOH, setting where the cosmos doesn't have alignments don't really need it for the characters either.

Planescape doesn't need alignment. You can gather demons to the banner of "more stuff should be run by demons" without bringing objective morality into the question, and even insofar as it is necessary, it could just as easily be "demons fight devils because demons are Red/Black and devils are Blue/Black", and that would be more useful and more coherent. And you're just flat wrong about Star Wars. There's basically no underlying logic to who gets what force powers. Vader and the Emperor do evil stuff with the force, but that's because they're evil, not because those force powers are inherently evil. There's no meaningful difference between Vader's Force Choke and Luke's Force Grab except that Vader uses his abilities on people's throats and Luke doesn't. The Emperor is the only person who uses force lightning in the OT, but that could as easily be because he's higher level than everyone else as because it's an inherently evil power.

[Jason]

Hmm. I see my longest reply has completely disappeared. Probably too late to recreate it now. Oh well.

[JoeJ]

Planescape doesn't need alignment. You can gather demons to the banner of "more stuff should be run by demons" without bringing objective morality into the question, and even insofar as it is necessary, it could just as easily be "demons fight devils because demons are Red/Black and devils are Blue/Black", and that would be more useful and more coherent.

It's not just about teams; the planes themselves have alignment, and inhabitants and visitors are affected by the plane's alignment. On Mt. Celestia, for example, the chance of successfully casting many spells depends on how close the caster's alignment is to lawful good.

It's also possible for a region on one plane to shift to a different plane if a critical mass of that region's inhabitants changes alignment (or if enough people of that other alignment travel there at once). Gate cities on the Outlands are especially susceptible to this.

And you're just flat wrong about Star Wars. There's basically no underlying logic to who gets what force powers. Vader and the Emperor do evil stuff with the force, but that's because they're evil, not because those force powers are inherently evil. There's no meaningful difference between Vader's Force Choke and Luke's Force Grab except that Vader uses his abilities on people's throats and Luke doesn't. The Emperor is the only person who uses force lightning in the OT, but that could as easily be because he's higher level than everyone else as because it's an inherently evil power.

That doesn't match what I recall from the films. According to Yoda, the dark side is easier and quicker, although no more powerful. But it also seduces and eventually dominates the wielder. The two sides of the force are objectively different in ways that affect the wielder.

[NigelWalmsley]

It's not just about teams; the planes themselves have alignment, and inhabitants and visitors are affected by the plane's alignment. On Mt. Celestia, for example, the chance of successfully casting many spells depends on how close the caster's alignment is to lawful good.

A passive effect that cares what team you're on is very much "just about teams". Imagine that we replaced D&D's alignment with MTG's color wheel. Is there anything in Planescape we couldn't port? What are we getting for defining our factions in a way that is confusing, ambiguous, and causes IRL arguments over terms?

That doesn't match what I recall from the films. According to Yoda, the dark side is easier and quicker, although no more powerful. But it also seduces and eventually dominates the wielder. The two sides of the force are objectively different in ways that affect the wielder.

The movies don't really bear that out though. The only person we see learn to use the force is Luke, and he learns the Light Side over like three lessons. Hard to imagine the Dark Side beating that for speed. In fact, going strictly by what's shown on-screen, the Dark Side seems to be the harder to master, as it's the only one with exclusive techniques. But regardless, that still doesn't require alignment. Maybe Sith do learn faster but eventually turn into gibbering cultists. No part of that requires that you declare that Sith are Evil and Jedi are Good.