No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

[RedMage125]

That does seem to be the primary objection, that an objective moral state cannot exist, even in an RPG.

I find it curious, because a belief that "absolute moral states cannot exist, even in a fictional world" is itself something of an absolute moral statement, isn't it? Sort of an "only the Sith deal in absolutes" sort of idea.

LMAO.

I find that I prefer to run more "classic" fantasy kinds of stories in general. And having a completely objective, bodiless, and dispassionate set of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos forces either suits me well enough, or is utterly irrelevant. It has never been an obstacle.

What I found, moreover, was that they were basing their cases on the premise of "given that good and evil can never even BE objective forces...", but were not really making that clear when they presented their case. So they were talking past us, and we were talking past them. It's a bit farcical, actually. And amusing.

[AdAstra]

That does seem to be the primary objection, that an objective moral state cannot exist, even in an RPG.

I find it curious, because a belief that "absolute moral states cannot exist, even in a fictional world" is itself something of an absolute moral statement, isn't it? Sort of an "only the Sith deal in absolutes" sort of idea.

There's a major difference here. The statement is an absolute statement, but it's not a morally absolute statement. "objective moral states cannot exist" doesn't contradict itself, since it itself says nothing about good or bad, merely what is true and what isn't.

Also, whether objective moral states can exist in games or not, It's hard to actually find them very useful. If you just want to kill stuff without caring about morality, that doesn't really require alignment, and arguably works better without it (after all, not every party has Detect Evil). If you do care about morality, it works a lot better when moral questions are more complicated than "kill the ones that ping Evil". Objective morality comes off to me as trying to have your cake and eat it too. Wanting to go all murderhobo, but also have it be morally validated by the universe.

For that matter, even in a universe where Evil and Good are objective forces, that still doesn't mean that Detect Evil and similar spells have merit. After all, how do corrupt politicians exist in Good nations if you can just have them stripped and Detect Evil-ed? How do Evil nations have their Good resistance groups if they can set up Detect Good checkpoints everywhere important?

Sure, there are countermeasures to the spells, but then the existence of countermeasures can screw up the validity of the spells entirely. What if someone makes a spell that causes a person to ping Evil (I think that might be a thing in 3.5, not sure)? Could you just zap someone with the spell, then call the Paladins in to do the dirty work for you? What value is Detect Evil in a world where it doesn't always work? What kind of world do you get when Detect Evil always works?

[Seto]

If you do care about morality, it works a lot better when moral questions are more complicated than "kill the ones that ping Evil". Objective morality comes off to me as trying to have your cake and eat it too. Wanting to go all murderhobo, but also have it be morally validated by the universe.

By the universe, sure. Not necessarily by society or human standards, though.
I think a necessary consequence of having objective, measurable Good and Evil as cosmic tags is that people in that universe will end up divorcing "Good" and "Evil" from "right" and "wrong" at least somewhat. In real life, people have differing moral convictions, and I don't think that would change in an objective universe - they just would say "well, most Good acts sure are nice, but this one thing seems kind of dumb - maybe Good is not always the way to go". Or "you know, we can't all be Evil folks, but they have kind of a point - a balanced society needs some of them".
Paladins who are by nature devoted to Good may have more absolute judgment, but I don't think "ping on Detect Evil" is gonna translate to "death sentence", even in-universe.

[MoiMagnus]

Paladins who are by nature devoted to Good may have more absolute judgment, but I don't think "ping on Detect Evil" is gonna translate to "death sentence", even in-universe.

It's heavily dependent on where are the boundary of neutrality. In other words, in current modern society where "detect evil" was suddenly available, what proportion of the population would be detected as Evil?

If petty childish evil gets you out of the neutral territory, indeed being evil would probably not be a death sentence.

If being evil means that you're the kind of person to willingly and significantly screw the life of multiple peoples over and over again, it's much more difficult to argue why Evil is not at least an "imprisonment until you're not Evil anymore".

[Seto]

Fair enough. At least that's the way it should work in an overall Lawful and Good society, with a working legal system and honest Paladin enforcers.
Although the more I think about it, the less convinced I am. In an overall Neutral-dominated society, I think there's margin for "willingly and significantly screwing the life of multiple people over and over again", and getting away with it, even getting admired for it if you do it legally and spin it the right way. I have to say that's where your idea of "current modern society where Detect Evil is suddenly available" takes me, but I won't discuss it in more detail to avoid straying from forum rules.

[hamishspence]

It's heavily dependent on where are the boundary of neutrality. In other words, in current modern society where "detect evil" was suddenly available, what proportion of the population would be detected as Evil?

If petty childish evil gets you out of the neutral territory, indeed being evil would probably not be a death sentence.

If being evil means that you're the kind of person to willingly and significantly screw the life of multiple peoples over and over again, it's much more difficult to argue why Evil is not at least an "imprisonment until you're not Evil anymore".

As Quintessential Paladin II puts it:

Spoiler

Show

Low Grade Evil Everywhere
In some campaigns, the common population is split roughly evenly among the various alignments - the kindly old grandmother who gives boiled sweets to children is Neutral Good and that charming rake down the pub is Chaotic Neutral. Similarly the thug lurking in the alleyway is Chaotic Evil, while the grasping landlord who throws granny out on the street because she's a copper behind on the rent is Lawful Evil.

In such a campaign up to a third of the population will detect as Evil to the paladin. This low grade Evil is a fact of life, and is not something the paladin can defeat. Certainly he should not draw his greatsword and chop the landlord in twain just because he has a mildly tainted aura. It might be appropriate for the paladin to use Diplomacy (or Intimidation) to steer the landlord toward the path of good but stronger action is not warranted.

In such a campaign detect evil cannot be used to infallibly detect villainy, as many people are a little bit evil. if he casts detect evil on a crowded street, about a third of the population will detect as faintly evil.

Evil As A Choice
A similar campaign set-up posits that most people are some variety of Neutral. The old granny might do good by being kind to people, but this is a far cry from capital-G Good, which implies a level of dedication, fervour and sacrifice which she does not possess. If on the other hand our granny brewed alchemical healing potions into those boiled sweets or took in and sheltered orphans and strays off the street, then she might qualify as truly Good.

Similarly, minor acts of cruelty and malice are not truly Evil on the cosmic scale. Our greedy and grasping landlord might be nasty and mean, but sending the bailiffs round to throw granny out might not qualify as Evil (although if granny is being thrown out into a chill winter or torrential storm, then that is tantamount to murder and would be Evil). In such a campaign, only significant acts of good or evil can tip a character from Neutrality to being truly Good or Evil.

if a paladin in this campaign uses detect evil on a crowded street, he will usually detect nothing, as true evil is rare. Anyone who detects as Evil, even faintly Evil, is probably a criminal, a terrible and wilful sinner, or both. Still, the paladin is not obligated to take action - in this campaign, detecting that someone is Evil is a warning, not a call to arms. The paladin should probably investigate this person and see if they pose a danger to the common folk, but he cannot automatically assume that this particular Evil person deserves to be dealt with immediately.

[Morty]

By the universe, sure. Not necessarily by society or human standards, though.
I think a necessary consequence of having objective, measurable Good and Evil as cosmic tags is that people in that universe will end up divorcing "Good" and "Evil" from "right" and "wrong" at least somewhat. In real life, people have differing moral convictions, and I don't think that would change in an objective universe - they just would say "well, most Good acts sure are nice, but this one thing seems kind of dumb - maybe Good is not always the way to go". Or "you know, we can't all be Evil folks, but they have kind of a point - a balanced society needs some of them".
Paladins who are by nature devoted to Good may have more absolute judgment, but I don't think "ping on Detect Evil" is gonna translate to "death sentence", even in-universe.

I don't really see the point or benefit of having some kind of "cosmic force of good" that doesn't correspond to actual morality and doing what's right.

[RedMage125]

That was an interesting back-and-forth.

I'm honestly surprised at the assertion that "Evil" somehow automatically implies "villain". One thing I have been saying about alignment that is a truism about it is this: Alignment is not an absolute barometer of action nor affiliation.

The owner/bartender of the lowlife tavern in the slums may be Neutral Evil. He is a miserly man who tries to squeeze every last copper out of every exchange. He doesn't murder people. He doesn't traffick with fiends, he doesn't raise undead. He doesn't want trouble with the law, but he'll do what he thinks he can get away with. He waters down his ale. His beds are none too clean. He will sometimes "accidentally" short change people who may in silver or gold. He might fantasize about poisoning the party of adventurers, but he won't do it. He might pass along info to the Thieves' Guild (in exchange for a small cut). But if a (3.5e) paladin walked in, used Detect Evil, and killed him, she would fall from grace. "He pinged as Evil!" isn't a valid reason to murder a civilian.

I think it's fun to play with that. ESPECIALLY in games which feature alignment and Objective Good/Evil/etc. Cardinal Krozen in Eberron, for example. One of the most powerful individuals in the Church of the Silver Flame (a Lawful Good faith, dedicated to protecting people from and stamping out supernatural evil). He is Lawful Evil because deep down, he only cares about his own power. He's a selfish person, and a quite proficient politician with schemes and plots within plots. HOWEVER...there is no reason he would ever betray the major tenets of the faith. He would likely never (knowingly) consort with fiends. He would be very likely to be a patron to Good-aligned PCs, because he would want to be associated with destroying or crusading against supernatural threats. It would be very good press, after all. He would be ruthless in stamping out necromancers or fiendish cultists, and he would make sure to cover himself in glory and take credit for doing so. But deep down...he doesn't really care about the well-being of others. He does it to glorify himself (remember, by the RAW, Intent and Context matter).

I've done the same with a villain, but ended up running it in 4e. Lawful Good paladin of Bahamut. Started as an NPC, helped the party, the city celebrated him as a hero (the party, too, but he was already a local hero). Eventually became a quest-giver. And while the party ran to and fro, stamping out evil, he kept gaining popularity in the city, until, after exposing corruption, he was asked to take over. Instituted a new regime where he stamped out not only darkness like demon cults, but also started making the city safer by cracking down on crime. He was very popular. And then, after the party had been gone for awhile, they returned to find he had become a sort of "benevolent tyrant". He started cracking down on what he perceived as "sin". And his regime was oppressive. He ended up turning into an antagonist the party had to confront. But he remained Lawful Good the whole time, by the RAW.

That last was inspired by a C.S. Lewis quote, which I cannot bring up right now (Navy Carrier internet is slow). But it's about how a tyranny "for their own good" is the most oppressive.

[Seto]

I don't really see the point or benefit of having some kind of "cosmic force of good" that doesn't correspond to actual morality and doing what's right.

Do you mean from a metagame perspective, or in-universe? In-universe, I'm saying that a lot of people won't see the point either. From a metagame perspective, the point is to allow alignment to function without debating endlessly about how morality is subjective and can't be mapped to universal truth.
In either case, my position is that morality IS subjective. Even when we do have "objective" tenets like alignment provides, we can't agree on how and when they should apply and if they even make sense. That's because the sense of "right", "wrong", and soul-searching about what to do in a particular situation matter to our existence as moral agents. If the only question is not "what should I do", but "how can we best apply what we know to be true about Good and Evil", there is no morality.
Think about how many topics we've had about "Sanctify the Wicked may be [Good], but it's wrong", or "[Deathwatch] is Evil but there's nothing morally wrong about it". Think about it: we have the rules, and we can't agree. In many ways, we have more knowledge about alignment than our PCs ever will, even if they're capable of casting Detect Evil and travelling the planes. And yet we refuse them. We claim "well the writers weren't coherent", or "it's obviously badly written". Why wouldn't people in-universe, with much less knowledge about the whole process than we do, say "well I don't care if your spell says it's Good, my heart is telling me it's wrong"?
Sure, characters in-universe believe that Good and Evil are dictated by the gods, or even higher forces, and they might choose not to challenge those rules for that reason. But then it's an act of faith, not a moral decision.

So, yeah, I believe morality has to be subjective. And as has been pointed out here, alignment has to be objective or it doesn't make sense. So, my conclusion is that objective Good and Evil cannot translate exactly to right and wrong. They're words, they're teams.
Of course, they're not completely divorced from morality, either. They are not morally neutral, like "team A" and "team B", because of the content of their descriptions. They will tend to correlate very strongly with right and wrong. Evil acts will be judged as morally wrong in the majority of cases, and Good acts will be seen as morally right in most cases. But [Detect Alignment] can't ever be the end-all be-all of moral questions. People will still wonder if sometimes, in some situations, committing what is nominally an Evil act is morally better than performing a Good act. They'll still maintain that casting [Deathwatch] is not wrong, and that the good they get out of it outweighs the bad, even if the gods don't agree. Because that's what it means to be a moral agent.

[ImNotTrevor]

Lost my post while lloking for a quote, gonna ditch all the flak and just get to the meat because BLAAAAARGH.

And yet, if you dig deeper than just the title, you will find that "Always Evil" doesn't even mean literally always. There are exceptions, but they are exceedingly rare. I mean, a fiend is "Always Evil", but they are literally made of Evil. And even then, it is canon that there's a LG Succubus Paladin. Exceptions happen. The "frequency" adverb in front of the typical alignment only denotes how often exceptions occur.

I had to find this thread to find a quote about that rule anywhere online.
https://forums.giantitp.com/archive/.../t-533238.html

And there seems to be a lot of "this crap is nonsensical" going on there, to my point of "D&D claims to be X but often doesn't succeed."

And again, when it comes to the alignment of an individual creature vis a vis what actions it is possible for it to take, alignment is only ever descriptive as per the RAW.

Descriptive is about "what it does" and Prescriptive is about "what it should do."
Note that "can" never shows up in either of these. Prescriptiveness is not a question of "can," it's a question of "should." The injuction "do/be X or be punished" is a "should" proposition.

My point, which you seemed to have missed, was to point out that once you have discarded "Objective Good/Evil/etc", alignment just cannot make sense.

Weirdly, I think you can have Good and Evil as natural forces without using Alignment.

But I will point out that an Objective Morality very quickly breaks down along the edge cases.

Because by what metric would someone be judged as "good" or "chaotic"?

The same ones we use irl?

It's like: imagine a fantasy world just like ours. But I'm going to put in a house rule: gasoline is not flammable. And you are complaining about diesel engines, saying they do not work. Well...no kidding.

I mean... not comparable to what I'm doing, but ok. I'm mostly saying "we're not gonna quibble about fuel types because I don't find that interesting compared to watching cars go zoom."

Almost all of the people defending alignment are engaging based on an adherence to certain "givens". For most of those, that means accepting the default assumptions of the Core Rules. So when you come back, contesting the very idea that anything even could be judged as objectively "good/evil", you're really talking past us. Because your real objection is to the idea that Objective Good/Evil/etc even could be a thing, and we're talking about alignment in a world where it is.

I think it could be a thing. I think it lends itself towards internal inconsistency, which is a problem.
Good and Evil are forces, immutable and objective. Yet beings literally made out of evilness can become good, while still being made out of evil, without any problems.

Good and Evil are forces, immutable and objective, yet beings literally made out of goodness can become evil, while being made out of goodness, without any problems.

Yet in almost every other context, the Good energy and the Evil energy destroy each other or ar actively harmful to one another.

Another thing I just realized, a fallen angel becomes an Erinyes, but a risen demon... stays a demon?
?????

It's not consistent, and wasn't designed with consistency in mind. It's an excuse to let people kill badguys indiscriminately without feeling iffy. Attempting to build a coherent objective morality out of an excuse to kill goblins is not something I'd generally recommend or attempt, but WotC decided to try.

I also don't really understand why it's a difficult thing to accept. I mean, a world with dragons, wizards, beholders, angels, demons...all of that. THAT is fine with you. But "Objective Good/Evil/Law/Chaos" ...that one stretches your disbelief? Which is one of the reasons I was talking about being clear on saying "I prefer..." or "in my opinion..." vis "this is a fact". Because if you're coming in, trying to discuss mechanics, and the very FOUNDATION of your argument is "given that objective good/evil/law/chaos cannot possibly exist...", but you do not make that CLEAR, then you and all the people defending alignment are only ever going to be talking past each other. Because you are coming from a place with very different "givens" than what your opponents are discussing.

But Dragons! Is a fallacy. Just pointing that out here.

In any case, I'm not even arguing from this viewpoint. My only viewpoint is "D&D alignment is not helpful, introduces confusion in its attempts to have it both ways (good and evil are immutable forces but beings made of literal evil can still be good, but they'll still show as evil because made of evil but being made of evilness doesn't meaningfully prevent them from being good), and so it's easier to just toss it out the window, especially if you're hoping for more moral depth than THIS SIDE GOOD, THIS SIDE EVIL, GO FORTH AND SLAY, but even then Alignment doesn't actually help you any."

I've honestly never had an issue.
But, as with all my rulings as a DM, if they have an issue with a ruling I made, they can come to me after the session and discuss it. And if they can bring up some kind of RAW citation to support their claim, I may consider retconning my earlier ruling.

Again, this assumes your interpretation of the RAW is objectively superior to their reading, if you both interpret the same text differently.

Again, coming across as saying "I feel this way about it" creates a very different perception and level of approach-ability compared to "this thing that I am saying is a fact". Your choice of language did not make it clear that you were making a statement of opinion. That is what I have been saying about perception. And the fact that Nigel and I have had discussions in the past, on other topics, and I have had the same issue. Then you kind of jumped in the middle of that, and not only defended his claims, but used very similar language. Thus...perception created.

Again, the entire context of the discussion is inherently subjective. Bringing that up in every post is redundant. Asserting something in such a context is, essentially, saying "this is how I understand it to be."

The entire point of the "I remain unconvinced" schtick was that I'd yet to see a worthwhile value proposition for d&d alignment.

Hell, I had a post that I lost where I proposed an Objective Alignment system that actually had mechanical effects consistent with a gradient between Good and Evil, where one's position along that gradient would have definite mechanical effects without being needing to have "alien alignment" that doesn't track with the group's morality.

The mere concept of Elemental Good or Elemental Evil isn't anathema to me. But the way D&D approaches it is about as graceful as a drunk crossing an ice sheet.

I think I've located the main thrust of why were talking past each other though. Seems like a pretty significant miscommunication, rather than anything intentional or malicious.

I don't think you quite nailed it in my particular case, but yeah, I don't attribute maliciousness to anyone I talk to unless they give me a really good reason.

[Jason]

That last was inspired by a C.S. Lewis quote, which I cannot bring up right now (Navy Carrier internet is slow). But it's about how a tyranny "for their own good" is the most oppressive.

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

Lewis did not mean the moral busybodies would be actually lawful good, but that people who sincerely think they are lawful good and are using that as their rationale to control others are in fact doing evil, and more evil than someone who knows one some level that they are doing evil. Lewis was big on free will.

[RedMage125]

Lost my post while lloking for a quote, gonna ditch all the flak and just get to the meat because BLAAAAARGH.

I feel your pain, there.

I had to find this thread to find a quote about that rule anywhere online.
https://forums.giantitp.com/archive/.../t-533238.html

See, now I just remembered that such was in the Monster Manual Glossary.

And there seems to be a lot of "this crap is nonsensical" going on there, to my point of "D&D claims to be X but often doesn't succeed."

From the 3.5e PHB, chapter 6 (typed out, not copy/pasted, please forgive any typos):
"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straightjacket restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has even if that's not lawful or good behavior. People are also not consistent from day to day. A good character can lose his temper, a neutral character can be inspired to perform a noble act, and so on."

That is in the Player's Handbook. Which of those claims "does not succeed"? What about that claim somehow "is not true" by your metric? Remember to keep in mind the distinction between "fact", "circumstantial evidence" and "anecdotal evidence".

Descriptive is about "what it does" and Prescriptive is about "what it should do."
Note that "can" never shows up in either of these. Prescriptiveness is not a question of "can," it's a question of "should." The injuction "do/be X or be punished" is a "should" proposition.

I refer you again to the above. Also to the rest of what I said.

Yes, there actually are alignment detractors on these forums who claim alignment means they "can not do X", as in "not able to take X action". That is what almost everyone means when they say "alignment is prescriptive". While this may seem stupid, and I apologize if you feel my points in that regard were directed at you in an insulting manner, I assure you that I really have had to make this point before.

But again, I see your point, but I reject blaming alignment for that. Class Design prescribes that members of X class must stay within Y bounds of alignment. It is in the class descriptions, not under the rules for alignment, which stipulate the punishments from deviating from the narrow confines of what the class dictates.

Class Design says Bards/Barbarians "shall not be lawful".
Class Design says Monks must be Lawful.
Class Design says Druids must maintain a partially neutral alignment.
Class Design says Paladins must not only be Lawful Good, but also lose powers if they intentionally commit even one evil act.

Weirdly, I think you can have Good and Evil as natural forces without using Alignment.

But I will point out that an Objective Morality very quickly breaks down along the edge cases.

But if you take objective Good and Evil forces out, alignment completely falls apart. I'll even acknowledge that.

Objective Morality breaks down because it's still going to be one person's subjective view imposed on others, unless the RAW explicitly state "X is Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic", which the 3.5e RAW do. That's an external source and dictation to the people playing at the table. It is therefore fair.

The same ones we use irl?

Again, irl is too bound up in myriad, and often conflicting views on what those words could mean. Too much subjectivity.

I mean... not comparable to what I'm doing, but ok. I'm mostly saying "we're not gonna quibble about fuel types because I don't find that interesting compared to watching cars go zoom."

I just mean "internal combustion", not just "diesel", but had a brain fart and couldn't remember the phrase "internal combustion", lol.

My point was that by rejecting the idea of Objective Good/Evil/etc as a valid "given", you have eliminated one of the things that make alignment work, and then said alignment must be a "bad mechanic" because it does not work. So the metaphor stands. If I changed a default assumption of the world (gasoline is not flammable), and didn't work down the line to make changes to all the things that require it, then cars do not go "zoom" because internal combustion engines do not work. And you are then complaining that internal combustion engines are terrible game mechanics, because they do not make cars go zoom. To the contrary, they are now hundreds of pounds of dead weight that makes it harder to move the car.

Is that a more clear example?

I think it could be a thing. I think it lends itself towards internal inconsistency, which is a problem.

Let me say here, because you did what I asked, that this creates a perception of you being much more open to discussion from an opposing viewpoint.

Good and Evil are forces, immutable and objective. Yet beings literally made out of evilness can become good, while still being made out of evil, without any problems.

Good and Evil are forces, immutable and objective, yet beings literally made out of goodness can become evil, while being made out of goodness, without any problems.

I mean "fallen angels" and "redeemed fiends" are fairly classic tropes of fantasy.

Yet in almost every other context, the Good energy and the Evil energy destroy each other or ar actively harmful to one another.

Destroy each other? Example please? If you mean that a fiend takes more damage from Holy Smite than an evil mortal does, I will remind you that such things are weaponized Good energy. A fiend does not constantly lose hit points in Celestia, nor does an angel in Baator. These energies do not as a property of the energy cause harm. Discomfort, yes. Harm, no.

Another thing I just realized, a fallen angel becomes an Erinyes, but a risen demon... stays a demon?
?????

Not immediately. Because a fallen angel is still a fallen angel. Remember, that rituals to change subtypes exist. Erineyes used to be angels. As in, at some point in the past. In some editions, Graz'zt used to be a devil, and is now a demon. Depends on the edition, really.

For what it's worth, 5e is more clear. When a fiend becomes non-evil, it ceases to be a fiend. When an angel becomes non-good, it is no longer an angel. So when Graz'zt became Chaotic, that made him a demon, and not a devil. When Zariel became evil, she became a devil.

There's less involved specific mechanics on the process, and it works consistently.

It's not consistent, and wasn't designed with consistency in mind. It's an excuse to let people kill badguys indiscriminately without feeling iffy. Attempting to build a coherent objective morality out of an excuse to kill goblins is not something I'd generally recommend or attempt, but WotC decided to try.

I disagree with the claim that "it's not consistent", as detailed above. Sometimes there are other specific factors at play (such as why Holy smite does more damage to fiends, but they don't take damage in Celestia).
I also disagree with everything about "excuse to kill", to which I refer you to my last post before this one.

But Dragons! Is a fallacy. Just pointing that out here.

What's crazy is that I just answered this yesterday on another thread to someone else.
Here was my response to him:

Spoiler: blocked for length

Show

But in D&D the default, core assumption is "Good and Evil are not different points of view, they are the forces that shape the cosmos" (PHB, chapter 6).

The "evil" in the heart of a miserly old man (level 2 Aristocrat), a balor, an unholy sword, and a zombie are all the same energy. This is proven in that the "Detect Evil" spell in the PHB picks up ALL of them, in varying amounts, based on HD (or caster level, with evil magical objects).

Alignment isn't really "morality". It is which of those four cosmic forces one is aligned with. Someone may not know their actual alignment. A person could be travelling the world, killing orphans, to stop a prophecy that says during a conjunction of moons in 7 years, an orphan in their second decade of life will bring Demogorgon into the Prime. This guy may believe he is serving the greater good. He may think he is Good (or at least some sort of grim, Neutral hero). But the repeated, continuous, and above all unrepentant murder of so many children means his alignment will be Evil. He'd probably be quite shocked to take damage from Holy Smite. When someone's alignment is "Evil" there is an observable, quantifiable amount of Evil inside them.

That means that some acts have objective weight vis a vis Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. The BoVD and BoED clarify for us that Intent and Context matter (check out the Zophas example in chapter 2 of the BoVD). Sometimes an accident is just an accident.

But Selling One's Soul? Consorting With Fiends? These things are always evil. Creating Undead is just in keeping with those. On those same lines. The rules regarding this are consistent and coherent.

It's not "BUT DRAGONS", because it is in keeping in line with other rules, which, like many of this edition, serve to reinforce classic fantasy tropes.

In any case, I'm not even arguing from this viewpoint. My only viewpoint is "D&D alignment is not helpful, introduces confusion in its attempts to have it both ways (good and evil are immutable forces but beings made of literal evil can still be good, but they'll still show as evil because made of evil but being made of evilness doesn't meaningfully prevent them from being good), and so it's easier to just toss it out the window, especially if you're hoping for more moral depth than THIS SIDE GOOD, THIS SIDE EVIL, GO FORTH AND SLAY, but even then Alignment doesn't actually help you any."

Well, depending on the edition, there are other factors and mechanics in play there.

But I heartilly disagree on it not being helpful, and have already cited why several posts ago.

And again as far as alignment being about "sides", refer to my last post, above.

Again, this assumes your interpretation of the RAW is objectively superior to their reading, if you both interpret the same text differently.

If I am the DM? Then yes, my decision is superior to theirs. But, like I said before, I value the ruling which is most FAIR. If a player can, using text from the RAW, present a defense to contest a ruling I made, I will consider it, and may even retcon something. But it's never happened, either. So that's a hypothetical.

Again, the entire context of the discussion is inherently subjective. Bringing that up in every post is redundant. Asserting something in such a context is, essentially, saying "this is how I understand it to be."

It's not that much of a bother. Have you noticed how often some of my claims are "I find", or "I think" or "I feel"? When I am expressing something subjective, I make it clear. I usually include disclaimers vis a vis when something is circumstantial or anecdotal evidence.

I try and take responsibility for how I come across. This is, like I said before, in the same vein as why I have also had to say things like "I see how you got that from what I said. I was unclear, and that's on me." Blaming others for the way one's own words are perceived is not a mature response.

So what I (and others) have been saying to you on this note is "when you couch arguments like that, it comes across as either hyperbolic or inflammatory, neither of which are conducive to open discussion". So, like I said earlier when you WERE explicit about this issue, it made it much more clear and makes those with an opposing viewpoint feel less like you're trying to be combatative, and more like you're engaging openly and honestly. Again, Perception. You are responsible for the perception you create.

The entire point of the "I remain unconvinced" schtick was that I'd yet to see a worthwhile value proposition for d&d alignment.

That's a bit offensive. I've proposed SEVERAL. You were extremely dismissive with no actual basis other than "yeah, they're useful when the rules MAKE them useful".

One of my main points is that alignment and alignment mechanics give mechanical voice to certain classic tropes of fantasy in a manner that does not depend on DM fiat, which I find to be fickle. You even acknowledged that you agree that hard mechanics protect players. I am applying that same logic to the idea of "who takes more damage from the holy sword?", or "when does the paladin detect the lingering stink of evil in the demon cultists' lair?"

The mere concept of Elemental Good or Elemental Evil isn't anathema to me. But the way D&D approaches it is about as graceful as a drunk crossing an ice sheet.

That's an entirely valid opinion to have. And I disagree.

I don't think you quite nailed it in my particular case, but yeah, I don't attribute maliciousness to anyone I talk to unless they give me a really good reason.

I try not to. Even when I get combative, I still usually try to reach across the aisle. I really feel like Nigel seems to have a lot of play experience and could be an interesting debate opponent. But his apparent conviction that his opinions hold the same weight as fact (for EVERYONE) is a significant roadblock. I have felt for the better part of the last year that if he would just acknowledge that there is a gulf between his experiences as what is fact we could have very entertaining and possibly even constructive discussions.

Lewis did not mean the moral busybodies would be actually lawful good, but that people who sincerely think they are lawful good and are using that as their rationale to control others are in fact doing evil, and more evil than someone who knows one some level that they are doing evil. Lewis was big on free will.

That's the one, but there's also another couple lines to that quote.

I know what Lewis meant. I said my "Lawful Good antagonist was inspired by that quote". As in, I saw that, and it made me think "how great would it be to have someone who, in D&D is Good, and has created a tyranny of sorts that the players then have to deal with". Worked very well, actually. Party Cleric worshiped Bahamut, party Fighter was a dragonborn and was also a follower of Bahamut. This all happened gradually. Alastor was an NPC taht the party liked. Having him turned into someone they felt they needed to oppose (but not wanting to hurt him) was a great conflict.

If you care, they ended up trying to redeem him. It turned into a combination combat encounter/Skill Challenge, where once enough Skill Checks had been made and he was at half hit points, he conceded. He ended up disbanding his regime and went off on a sabbatical, feeling he had overreached in his pursuit of his calling to Bahamut (who is, after all, a god of justice and protection).

[Morty]

Do you mean from a metagame perspective, or in-universe? In-universe, I'm saying that a lot of people won't see the point either. From a metagame perspective, the point is to allow alignment to function without debating endlessly about how morality is subjective and can't be mapped to universal truth.
In either case, my position is that morality IS subjective. Even when we do have "objective" tenets like alignment provides, we can't agree on how and when they should apply and if they even make sense. That's because the sense of "right", "wrong", and soul-searching about what to do in a particular situation matter to our existence as moral agents. If the only question is not "what should I do", but "how can we best apply what we know to be true about Good and Evil", there is no morality.
Think about how many topics we've had about "Sanctify the Wicked may be [Good], but it's wrong", or "[Deathwatch] is Evil but there's nothing morally wrong about it". Think about it: we have the rules, and we can't agree. In many ways, we have more knowledge about alignment than our PCs ever will, even if they're capable of casting Detect Evil and travelling the planes. And yet we refuse them. We claim "well the writers weren't coherent", or "it's obviously badly written". Why wouldn't people in-universe, with much less knowledge about the whole process than we do, say "well I don't care if your spell says it's Good, my heart is telling me it's wrong"?
Sure, characters in-universe believe that Good and Evil are dictated by the gods, or even higher forces, and they might choose not to challenge those rules for that reason. But then it's an act of faith, not a moral decision.

So, yeah, I believe morality has to be subjective. And as has been pointed out here, alignment has to be objective or it doesn't make sense. So, my conclusion is that objective Good and Evil cannot translate exactly to right and wrong. They're words, they're teams.
Of course, they're not completely divorced from morality, either. They are not morally neutral, like "team A" and "team B", because of the content of their descriptions. They will tend to correlate very strongly with right and wrong. Evil acts will be judged as morally wrong in the majority of cases, and Good acts will be seen as morally right in most cases. But [Detect Alignment] can't ever be the end-all be-all of moral questions. People will still wonder if sometimes, in some situations, committing what is nominally an Evil act is morally better than performing a Good act. They'll still maintain that casting [Deathwatch] is not wrong, and that the good they get out of it outweighs the bad, even if the gods don't agree. Because that's what it means to be a moral agent.

I meant from any kind of perspective. If objective Good and Evil are just teams, then there's no point using those words. Just have factions and groups with goals or ideologies we might call good or evil. Of course, this is where the lack of equivalence between good and evil comes up. It's easy enough to picture a demonic horde, evil army or such that only seeks to destroy and despoil everything. Trying to come up with "pure good" is a lot trickier.

[hamishspence]

Not immediately. Because a fallen angel is still a fallen angel. Remember, that rituals to change subtypes exist. Erineyes used to be angels. As in, at some point in the past. In some editions, Graz'zt used to be a devil, and is now a demon. Depends on the edition, really.

For what it's worth, 5e is more clear. When a fiend becomes non-evil, it ceases to be a fiend. When an angel becomes non-good, it is no longer an angel. So when Graz'zt became Chaotic, that made him a demon, and not a devil. When Zariel became evil, she became a devil.

There's less involved specific mechanics on the process, and it works consistently.

It's worth noting that the 5e Detect Evil-type powers detect celestials, not angels. Angels are a subset of celestials, and it's possible for an Evil celestial to exist.

The Empyrean (5e version of 3e's Titan) is specifically called out as sometimes evil - yet an evil-aligned empyrean is still a celestial and will still "ping" as one on the relevant spells or powers.

Same with the "Radiant Idol" from the 5e Eberron Campaign Setting book.

It's quite plausible that counterparts exist for fiends. The 5e rulebooks say that when a devil ceases to be evil, it ceases to be a devil, not, "when a fiend ceases to be evil it ceases to be a fiend."

So you could have something that "pings as a fiend" and is not evil.

Changing type from celestial to fiend sometimes happens with alignment changes, but doesn't always happen with alignment changes. And possibly vice versa as well.

[RedMage125]

It's worth noting that the 5e Detect Evil-type powers detect celestials, not angels. Angels are a subset of celestials, and it's possible for an Evil celestial to exist.

The Empyrean (5e version of 3e's Titan) is specifically called out as sometimes evil - yet an evil-aligned empyrean is still a celestial and will still "ping" as one on the relevant spells or powers.

Same with the "Radiant Idol" from the 5e Eberron Campaign Setting book.

It's quite plausible that counterparts exist for fiends. The 5e rulebooks say that when a devil ceases to be evil, it ceases to be a devil, not, "when a fiend ceases to be evil it ceases to be a fiend."

So you could have something that "pings as a fiend" and is not evil.

Changing type from celestial to fiend sometimes happens with alignment changes, but doesn't always happen with alignment changes. And possibly vice versa as well.

You are correct, thank you for the correction. And the extra detail.

Devil and Demon are subtypes of fiends, just as angel is a subtype of celestial. The 5e rules say when a devil ceases to be lawful evil it ceases to be a devil. So I think it's not the "celestial/fiend" dynamic that immediately changes, but the more specific one. Zariel used to be an angel. Erineyes devils used to be angels. They are no longer that. So perhaps ones that are strictly "celestial" without being "angel" (like Empyreans and Radiant Idols) don't necessarily change. Wonder what that means for Night Hags, Cambions, Rakshasa and Succubi is in question.

[Jason]

It may also be worth noting that in 2nd Edition, an evil alignment did not set off detect evil.

This spell discovers emanations of evil, or of good in the case of the reverse spell, from any creature, object, or area. Character alignment, however, is revealed only under unusual circumstances: characters who are strongly aligned, who do not stray from their faith, and who are of at least 9th level might radiate good or evil if intent upon approptiate actions.

The emphasis is in the original.
So in 2nd edition, the random neutral evil shopkeeper that has been brought up in this thread a few times wouldn't set off a Paladin's "eviltron" unless he was about to do something appropriately evil. Only high-level evil characters or characters actively doing evil things will set off detect evil. That and creatures who are made of evil:

Powerful monsters, such as rakshasas or kl-rin, send forth emanations of evil or good, even if polymorphed. Aligned undead radiate evil, for it is this power and negative force that enable them to continue existing. An evilly cursed object or unholy water radiates evil, but a hidden trap or an unintelligent viper does not.

There is a spell that detects alignment directly in 2nd edition: know alignment. Significantly, it's not an ability paladins get at will. It's a second level Priest or Mage spell, and thus significantly more rare than detect evil. Interestingly, it takes two rounds (two minutes, not 12 seconds) to get a full reading. The first round reveals the Law/Chaos axis, and the second reveals Good/Evil, which implies that Law/Chaos is easier to detect.

[ImNotTrevor]

I feel your pain, there.


See, now I just remembered that such was in the Monster Manual Glossary.


From the 3.5e PHB, chapter 6 (typed out, not copy/pasted, please forgive any typos):
"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straightjacket restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has even if that's not lawful or good behavior. People are also not consistent from day to day. A good character can lose his temper, a neutral character can be inspired to perform a noble act, and so on."

That is in the Player's Handbook. Which of those claims "does not succeed"? What about that claim somehow "is not true" by your metric? Remember to keep in mind the distinction between "fact", "circumstantial evidence" and "anecdotal evidence".

Look, man. I sold my 3.5 stuff like 2 years ago because I didn't forsee any return to tabletop gaming in my future, and if I was going to do it, it wasn't going to be in 3.5, anyways.

The above description would be accurate for 5e, in that it is the totality of what Alignment is in that system: just a descriptor tag.

In 3.5 your alignment is not just a descriptor tag. It's a measuring tool and a qualifier. Certain spells will or won't harm you based on it. (Creature types do similar, and aren't pushed as "just a description." They're a mechanical piece, as is Alignment.) It can affect what items you can use effectively, what items negatively affect you, etc. It can also disqualify you from prestige classes or multiclassing. There are even effects of items that forcibly alter your alignment, indicating that alignment is in some ways divorced from character choice, since it can be arbitrarily altered by magical effects. Essentially, it leaves out "Alignment also has mechanical effects such as:" and a list of them. Saying "it's just a description" doesn't inform the player of what alignment is *actually* used for.

Yes, there actually are alignment detractors on these forums who claim alignment means they "can not do X", as in "not able to take X action". That is what almost everyone means when they say "alignment is prescriptive". While this may seem stupid, and I apologize if you feel my points in that regard were directed at you in an insulting manner, I assure you that I really have had to make this point before.

That's not a position I take, and they're flat-out wrong about what Prescriptive means if they use it that way. The term they would want to use is "Obligatory" or "compulsory."

But again, I see your point, but I reject blaming alignment for that. Class Design prescribes that members of X class must stay within Y bounds of alignment. It is in the class descriptions, not under the rules for alignment, which stipulate the punishments from deviating from the narrow confines of what the class dictates.

Alignment in this case, as noted above, is being used as a Qualifier. Alignment doesn't enforce anything by itself. But Alignment is USED prescriptively. Making the distinction of "it's the classes that make the restriction based on alignment" doesn't really change the effect:
Not of the right alignment? Get the stick.
The thing that triggers the negative outcome is an alignment change, not a class change. Alignment is being used as a qualifier, which is a prescriptive utilization of it, which the description of alignment doesn't name, giving an incorrect impression. It does not state that "certain alignments may bar you from taking certain prestige classes" nor "your alignment may affect how your character benefits or doesn't from certain magic items." These are things that are true of the system, but players aren't actually told. If making a decision will have certain consequences, players need to be well informed about it.

Class Design says Bards/Barbarians "shall not be lawful".
Class Design says Monks must be Lawful.
Class Design says Druids must maintain a partially neutral alignment.
Class Design says Paladins must not only be Lawful Good, but also lose powers if they intentionally commit even one evil act.

I'll reiterate that this distinction doesn't mean much. Alignment is still the qualifier in this prescriptive interaction, so saying it's "pure description" is out. It's also used as a qualifier in several different applications.

Hair Color and Eye Color are purely descriptive. They don't DO anything, and they don't INTERACT with the rules in a way that prescribes certain things to happen. If there were a Sword of Blondeslaying that dealt extra damage to blondes, then hair color wouldn't be PURELY descriptive anymore. It would suddenly become a potential qualifier.

But if you take objective Good and Evil forces out, alignment completely falls apart. I'll even acknowledge that.

Objective Morality breaks down because it's still going to be one person's subjective view imposed on others, unless the RAW explicitly state "X is Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic", which the 3.5e RAW do. That's an external source and dictation to the people playing at the table. It is therefore fair.

Indeed, the problem is that Objective Morality will inevitably have to make arbitrary decisions based on nothing. D&D 3.5 does not comment on what is the specific, objective moral good in the Trolley Problem, nor in the variation people feel rather differently about where instead of flipping a switch, you have to shove a big fat guy (me, for instance) in front of the trolley to gum up the works and make it stop so it doesn't kill the 5. Are both murder? Just one? Why? Is willful inaction that causes death also murder?

Do you mean to tell me that 3.5 has objectively weighed in on all possible moral dilemmas, or will there inevitably be points of contention where the established rules come into conflict?

Again, irl is too bound up in myriad, and often conflicting views on what those words could mean. Too much subjectivity.

Subjectivity =/= A Bad Thing All TRPGs Must Avoid Like A Plague.

Subjectivity means a place where we've gotta talk it out when it comes up. If we're using subjective morality along with alignment, that means Good follows the general group consensus on what Good is. And "When it comes up, we'll talk like grownups and allow some things to be a Gray area."

I just mean "internal combustion", not just "diesel", but had a brain fart and couldn't remember the phrase "internal combustion", lol.

My point was that by rejecting the idea of Objective Good/Evil/etc as a valid "given", you have eliminated one of the things that make alignment work, and then said alignment must be a "bad mechanic" because it does not work. So the metaphor stands. If I changed a default assumption of the world (gasoline is not flammable), and didn't work down the line to make changes to all the things that require it, then cars do not go "zoom" because internal combustion engines do not work. And you are then complaining that internal combustion engines are terrible game mechanics, because they do not make cars go zoom. To the contrary, they are now hundreds of pounds of dead weight that makes it harder to move the car.

Is that a more clear example?

Be careful with who the "you" is. I'll interpret it as the Royal one for ease.

Again, noting that I don't prescribe to the notion that objective morality is inherently Anathema, I'm still gonna disagree with the metaphor, from where I'm standing.

Basically, from where I'm standing someone is showing me an internal combustion lawnmower engine, saying it's a great engine for going fast, and you just can't mow a lawn and do a decent job without it.

Then I look at my electric lawnmower and raise an eyebrow, since it does all the same stuff as the gas one, and I don't huff the exhaust. It has its own drawbacks, sure, but it's certainly no worse.

Then when I say "I don't really see any reason to go back to the gas engine" I get inundated with people insisting I just don't understand how the gas engine works and that I hate gas engine users and hate the mere concept of internal combustion.

Let me say here, because you did what I asked, that this creates a perception of you being much more open to discussion from an opposing viewpoint.

I've toned down my sarcasm, let's not respond by toeing the line into condescension, here. We're supposed to be playing nice.

I mean "fallen angels" and "redeemed fiends" are fairly classic tropes of fantasy.

Destroy each other? Example please? If you mean that a fiend takes more damage from Holy Smite than an evil mortal does, I will remind you that such things are weaponized Good energy. A fiend does not constantly lose hit points in Celestia, nor does an angel in Baator. These energies do not as a property of the energy cause harm. Discomfort, yes. Harm, no.

Then shouldn't a good-aligned fiend be in constant discomfort with itself to some degree?

Also, that people have to go out and buy the Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds to get half of the alignment specifics is double dumb, but I'll let it go. I owned neither, and I doubt the average player invested in them, either. So consider me as coming from the position of someone who doesn't own those splatbooks, which is an important position to consider.

Not immediately. Because a fallen angel is still a fallen angel. Remember, that rituals to change subtypes exist. Erineyes used to be angels. As in, at some point in the past. In some editions, Graz'zt used to be a devil, and is now a demon. Depends on the edition, really.

That's not particularly helpful in dealing with the issue of why some are Erinyes and others aren't, unless you're busting out splats. If you've not got the splatbook that covers the topic, you're SOL on this one.

For what it's worth, 5e is more clear. When a fiend becomes non-evil, it ceases to be a fiend. When an angel becomes non-good, it is no longer an angel. So when Graz'zt became Chaotic, that made him a demon, and not a devil. When Zariel became evil, she became a devil.

This makes more sense, tbh. Again, 5e noticing an issue and just... getting rid of the problem. Good on them.

I disagree with the claim that "it's not consistent", as detailed above. Sometimes there are other specific factors at play (such as why Holy smite does more damage to fiends, but they don't take damage in Celestia).
I also disagree with everything about "excuse to kill", to which I refer you to my last post before this one.

I mean, I'd think something was up if something vulnerable to fire took extra fire damage and then went to the plane of fire and was just "uncomfortable."

[QUOTE]
What's crazy is that I just answered this yesterday on another thread to someone else.
Here was my response to him:
[spoiler=blocked for length]
But in D&D the default, core assumption is "Good and Evil are not different points of view, they are the forces that shape the cosmos" (PHB, chapter 6).

The "evil" in the heart of a miserly old man (level 2 Aristocrat), a balor, an unholy sword, and a zombie are all the same energy. This is proven in that the "Detect Evil" spell in the PHB picks up ALL of them, in varying amounts, based on HD (or caster level, with evil magical objects).

Alignment isn't really "morality". It is which of those four cosmic forces one is aligned with. Someone may not know their actual alignment. A person could be travelling the world, killing orphans, to stop a prophecy that says during a conjunction of moons in 7 years, an orphan in their second decade of life will bring Demogorgon into the Prime. This guy may believe he is serving the greater good. He may think he is Good (or at least some sort of grim, Neutral hero). But the repeated, continuous, and above all unrepentant murder of so many children means his alignment will be Evil. He'd probably be quite shocked to take damage from Holy Smite. When someone's alignment is "Evil" there is an observable, quantifiable amount of Evil inside them.

That means that some acts have objective weight vis a vis Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. The BoVD and BoED clarify for us that Intent and Context matter (check out the Zophas example in chapter 2 of the BoVD). Sometimes an accident is just an accident.[QUOTE]
As I said before "To fully understand this thing on your character sheet we really need to make 2 entire books to explain ourselves better" isn't an indication that the system is easily coherent and consistent without additional help beyond the core.

But Selling One's Soul? Consorting With Fiends? These things are always evil. Creating Undead is just in keeping with those. On those same lines. The rules regarding this are consistent and coherent.

It's not "BUT DRAGONS", because it is in keeping in line with other rules, which, like many of this edition, serve to reinforce classic fantasy tropes.

I mean, the fallacy is "Because this is a fantasy setting, you're not allowed to have verisimilitude issues."
Which is the thrust of what I contend with.

If I am the DM? Then yes, my decision is superior to theirs. But, like I said before, I value the ruling which is most FAIR. If a player can, using text from the RAW, present a defense to contest a ruling I made, I will consider it, and may even retcon something. But it's never happened, either. So that's a hypothetical.

I imagine they can't if your call is superior by default. I don't tend to give my position as GM the additional power of my interpretation being superior by default.

It's not that much of a bother. Have you noticed how often some of my claims are "I find", or "I think" or "I feel"? When I am expressing something subjective, I make it clear. I usually include disclaimers vis a vis when something is circumstantial or anecdotal evidence.

I try and take responsibility for how I come across. This is, like I said before, in the same vein as why I have also had to say things like "I see how you got that from what I said. I was unclear, and that's on me." Blaming others for the way one's own words are perceived is not a mature response.

So what I (and others) have been saying to you on this note is "when you couch arguments like that, it comes across as either hyperbolic or inflammatory, neither of which are conducive to open discussion". So, like I said earlier when you WERE explicit about this issue, it made it much more clear and makes those with an opposing viewpoint feel less like you're trying to be combatative, and more like you're engaging openly and honestly. Again, Perception. You are responsible for the perception you create.

Yes, yes, you are the moral authority here, I am scum, etc, I'll let you keep your moral high ground and I'll stay down here in the wastes.

That's a bit offensive. I've proposed SEVERAL. You were extremely dismissive with no actual basis other than "yeah, they're useful when the rules MAKE them useful".

The rules can decide that Hair Color is important, as shown by the Sword of Blondeslaying. That doesn't mean a Haircolor System is inherently worthwhile outside of that context. That's the point I was making.

One of my main points is that alignment and alignment mechanics give mechanical voice to certain classic tropes of fantasy in a manner that does not depend on DM fiat, which I find to be fickle. You even acknowledged that you agree that hard mechanics protect players. I am applying that same logic to the idea of "who takes more damage from the holy sword?", or "when does the paladin detect the lingering stink of evil in the demon cultists' lair?"

As I talked about, this doesn't really require alignment as D&D proposes. And I don't know that hard mechanics protect players from bad GMs anymore than soft mechanics do. The problem in both cases is the GM, not the mechanic.

That's an entirely valid opinion to have. And I disagree.

See? I don't have to constantly reiterate that it's an opinion. You've got the context now.

I try not to. Even when I get combative, I still usually try to reach across the aisle. I really feel like Nigel seems to have a lot of play experience and could be an interesting debate opponent. But his apparent conviction that his opinions hold the same weight as fact (for EVERYONE) is a significant roadblock. I have felt for the better part of the last year that if he would just acknowledge that there is a gulf between his experiences as what is fact we could have very entertaining and possibly even constructive discussions.

As much as I can sympathize.... I gotta say, it sounds like you've already decided he's just wrong in his position, and HE has to budge, because your perception of the situation is Correct.

I have had a long work history, part of which was working in psych. (Perhaps that's part of why the subjective and talking through subjective topics with my players holds no great terror or discomfort for me) And based on that experience...I'm not thinking the stance of "you are wrong, I am right, if you'd just admit you're wrong everything would be fine" is... not a helpful position to create understanding from.

[RedMage125]

The above description would be accurate for 5e, in that it is the totality of what Alignment is in that system: just a descriptor tag.

In 3.5 your alignment is not just a descriptor tag. It's a measuring tool and a qualifier. Certain spells will or won't harm you based on it. (Creature types do similar, and aren't pushed as "just a description." They're a mechanical piece, as is Alignment.) It can affect what items you can use effectively, what items negatively affect you, etc. It can also disqualify you from prestige classes or multiclassing. There are even effects of items that forcibly alter your alignment, indicating that alignment is in some ways divorced from character choice, since it can be arbitrarily altered by magical effects. Essentially, it leaves out "Alignment also has mechanical effects such as:" and a list of them. Saying "it's just a description" doesn't inform the player of what alignment is *actually* used for.

Nothing about what you've said shows how that citation from the 3.5e PHB "does not succeed".

That there are other mechanics that relate to, intersect with, or springboard OFF alignment does not change what alignment is.

That's not a position I take, and they're flat-out wrong about what Prescriptive means if they use it that way. The term they would want to use is "Obligatory" or "compulsory."

...you realize that's synonymous right? If being of a given alignment cannot take action X because of his alignment, then alignment has prescribed what he can or cannot do.

That's for "compulsory", anyway. Saying "alignment is obligatory", functionally means "you are obliged to USE alignment, or at least HAVE an alignment".

Alignment in this case, as noted above, is being used as a Qualifier. Alignment doesn't enforce anything by itself. But Alignment is USED prescriptively. Making the distinction of "it's the classes that make the restriction based on alignment" doesn't really change the effect:
Not of the right alignment? Get the stick.
The thing that triggers the negative outcome is an alignment change, not a class change. Alignment is being used as a qualifier, which is a prescriptive utilization of it, which the description of alignment doesn't name, giving an incorrect impression. It does not state that "certain alignments may bar you from taking certain prestige classes" nor "your alignment may affect how your character benefits or doesn't from certain magic items." These are things that are true of the system, but players aren't actually told. If making a decision will have certain consequences, players need to be well informed about it.

They have the rulebooks, right? Thus, informed.

And I disagree, still, on blaming alignment for that. If the Barbarian class was not narrowly designed to only specifically imitate the trope of "uncivilized savage from the wilderness who shuns the trappings of cities and their inhabitants", there would be no alignment restriction, right? I mean, those restrictions resonate in some way. Paladin means "a noble knight; defender of a noble cause", right? Barbarian is a word that carries with it connotations of "uncivilized" behavior. But bards? That restriction, as I mentioned before, was absurd. 3.5e could have dropped the alignment restriction from the classes, and left all of the other mechanics (spells, magic items) in place, and nothing would be affected. The restrictions AND the punishments come from class design.

I'll reiterate that this distinction doesn't mean much. Alignment is still the qualifier in this prescriptive interaction, so saying it's "pure description" is out. It's also used as a qualifier in several different applications.

Hair Color and Eye Color are purely descriptive. They don't DO anything, and they don't INTERACT with the rules in a way that prescribes certain things to happen. If there were a Sword of Blondeslaying that dealt extra damage to blondes, then hair color wouldn't be PURELY descriptive anymore. It would suddenly become a potential qualifier.

I'm sorry, but to my perception, you're equating "descriptive" with "is only JUST a description, and nothing more".

Spoiler: Definition of Descriptive from Mirriam-Webster

Show

Definition of descriptive
1: presenting observations about the characteristics of someone or something : serving to describe
a descriptive account
2a: referring to, constituting, or grounded in matters of observation or experience
the descriptive basis of science
b: factually grounded or informative rather than normative, prescriptive, or emotive
descriptive cultural studies
3of a modifier
a: expressing the quality, kind, or condition of what is denoted by the modified term
hot in "hot water" is a descriptive adjective
b: NONRESTRICTIVE
4linguistics : of, relating to, or dealing with the structure of a language at a particular time usually with exclusion of historical and comparative data
descriptive linguistics

So my use of "descriptive" is #3, and is not wrong.

And you insisting that "descriptive" can ONLY mean "used to describe, but nothing more"...so even the existence of ANY alignment mechanics somehow means it's "not descriptive"...

I'm sorry, but by the very definition of "descriptive", that's too narrow a view to be the only factual point of view.

And...bear with me here...if the definition you use creates problems with what the RAW say and what is actually true...but a different (but still valid) definition does NOT create problems...what is more likely? That the game mechanics are, themselves, wrong, or that you were looking at things too narrowly?

Indeed, the problem is that Objective Morality will inevitably have to make arbitrary decisions based on nothing. D&D 3.5 does not comment on what is the specific, objective moral good in the Trolley Problem, nor in the variation people feel rather differently about where instead of flipping a switch, you have to shove a big fat guy (me, for instance) in front of the trolley to gum up the works and make it stop so it doesn't kill the 5. Are both murder? Just one? Why? Is willful inaction that causes death also murder?

Do you mean to tell me that 3.5 has objectively weighed in on all possible moral dilemmas, or will there inevitably be points of contention where the established rules come into conflict?

I've written on this exhaustively. I'm just going to copy/paste from an earlier post of mine. This was originally from a 3.5e thread, too.

Spoiler: blocked for length

Show

3.xe D&D most closely resembles Deontological ethics. Good and Evil (as well as Law and Chaos) are objective forces that shape the cosmos (PHB, Chapter 6, first paragraph). These forces can be observed, measured and quantified in an objective fashion (Detect line of spells). These forces can be manipulated to protect or harm others (Protection From X, Holy Smite/Unholy Blight, etc). There are environments (Outer Planes) where these energies are so omnipresent that they have effects on individuals there.

Now, if we look to the DMG (page 134) where it talks about changing alignments, that occurs when an individual character's behavior is more in keeping with an alignment other than his/her listed one, in a pattern of consistent behavior, over a period of time which shall be no less than one week of in-game time.

Furthermore, the books which give us treatises on how alignment work (BoVD, BoED), tell us that consequences are not what determine the alignment weight of an act, but rather action and intent (BoVD Chapter 2, under header of "Intent and Context"). The listed example has a Paladin named Zophas who tries to climb some rocks to escape some owlbears. He accidentally triggers a rockslide, which kills several innocent peasants in a hut below. If it is a genuine accident, it is not an Evil act. but if Zophas' friend points out the instability of the rocks and the hut below and Zophas climbs anyway...then it is an Evil act, because he willingly endangered those innocents and caused their deaths. He loses his Paladin powers. However, the same books also tell us that certain acts can be objectively Evil, regardless of context (Consorting With Fiends, Creation of Undead, etc).

This more closely models deontological ethics than consequentialist ones, although not perfectly. Because sometimes, consequences have a small factor (in so much as they create a framework of "Context" as the BoVD tells us). The BoVD tells us, for example, that the killing of a creature of "consumate, irredeemable evil", such as a fiend or a chromatic dragon, even for selfish reasons (thus meeting that same book's definition of "murder"), is not an Evil act. If you want to slaughter a Red Dragon just because you want the treasure it hoards, or kill a specific fiend just to exact vengeance for your family, it's not Evil. It won't be a Good act, since, you know...murder...but not evil if the being meets certain criteria. Contrariwise, a hero who sets out to slay that same dragon to save lives and prevent its rampage of slaughter has committed a Good act.

Spoiler: Trolley Problem rant

Show

The contrast between deontological and consequentialist ethical ramifications is exactly why the standard Trolley problem proposed by Foot is utterly useless in a D&D framework. The Trolley Problem is not about a "moral dilemma", because there is no true "moral" answer. The Trolley Problem only highlights whether the person being asked it values Utlitarianism (or consequentialism, if you prefer) vis Personal Accountability (or deontological ethics). That is, whether they believe it is more important to save a net of 4 lives vis feeling personally responsible for the death of even one.

It's useless in D&D because by 3.xe D&D mores, the Evil Act was committed by the villain who tied all 6 people to the tracks in the first place. The PC at the lever has no actual agency to "murder" anyone. Even a 3.5e paladin at the switch would not fall for not pressing the switch, since they only fall for "intentionally committing an evil act", which we know requires Action, Intent, and Context. So if the paladin does nothing, he does not fall. And that's where it gets REAL screwy. Because, if the Paladin chooses not to throw the switch, has he placed his value of his own purity over the lives of 4 people? Isn't that selfishness? Contrariwise, if he was willing to risk falling by throwing the lever, because saving 4 lives is more important than him having Paladin powers, isn't that actually a very selfless act? Isn't he actually sacrificing his own power to save them? Like I said, it's all screwy, and moreso, because by the RAW, the Paladin has no agency to actually "murder" anyone in this scenario. I always maintain that the best and "most paladin-like" thing to do is throw his own armored body in front of the Trolley to stop it. That, or summon his Celestial Warhorse (a Clydesdale weighing about 2,000 pounds and likely wearing armor), to stop the trolley. Reject the dichotomy of choice, if you will.

OTOH, there are 2 variants to the Trolley Problem that are relevant to D&D alignment, and to Paladins. The Fat Man and Fat Villain variants.

In the Fat Man variant, the Paladin is on a bridge over the runaway trolley, which is speeding towards 5 people tied to the tracks. Also on the bridge is a grossly obese man. The fat man is a total innocent. If the paladin pushed this innocent fat man off the bridge onto the tracks in front of the trolley, his weight will be sufficient to arrest the momentum of the trolley before it hits the 5 people tied to the tracks. This is "killing an innocent" to save lives. Not the standard Trolley Problem. And it is an Evil act, because this Paladin still should have chosen to sacrifice himself and not killed someone else to avoid that. Saving lives is a Good Act. But Committing an Evil Act to achieve a Good End, even if you succeed, is still, by 3.5e mores, committing an Evil Act, followed by a Good Act.

The Fat Villain variant is very similar to above, but that obese man? He's the one who tied the 5 other people to the tracks, and the querent knows this. While this may still pose some ethical problems IRL, D&D is actually quite simple. A Paladin does not fall for pushing the Fat Villain in front of the Trolley. Much how it is not an evil act in D&D to defend yourself with lethal force when attacked with lethal force. Killing an evil person who is in the process of attempting to murder 5 people by throwing them into their own trap which also saves the 5 intended victims? Not evil. Period.

But that's because D&D has specific mores of "Evil" and "not Evil" that don't always line up with the real world, mostly to accomodate for fantasy adventuring (which is why deontological ethics don't perfectly model it either). In D&D, if you are attacked with lethal force and lethal intent, it is not evil to defend yourself with lethal means. If you are a level 10 Paladin, and a bunch of level 2 bandits attack you, doing their level best to murder you for your stuff, you are carte blanche to kill them where they stand. Obviously, the most Good thing to do in a situation where you obviously out-power such individuals would be to defeat them nonlethally, since they are not a true threat to your life, but you're not obliged to spare the life of anyone trying to kill you.

Because Good and Evil are objective, quantifiable forces, though, D-ethics is the ones that it bears the most similarity to.
But Consequences ONLY really matter as they frame context. Keep in mind, absolute D-ethics were designed in the real world, where we do not have beings who are literally made of evil, and even the concept of an "innately" evil being that is intelligent without having the kind of free will that we associate with ourselves is alien to the concept of D-ethics, or V-ethics, for that matter. As soon as you begin applying thse processes to a world with such fantastical elements, some of the absolutes are going to break down. A demon is not a disturbed individual who needs mental health help, nor is it a foreigner with a different world perspective; it is evil and chaos incarnated into flesh, and it's worldview is in many ways, alien to us.

If you mistakenly kill an innocent person because you thought they were a demon, then it was still an evil act, and will always remain so. If you find out the truth (and let's assume you're a good-aligned person), you will probably be filled with guilt and seek to make amends. Thus no danger of an alignment shift. if your response to finding out that it was not a demon is to coldly shrug it off as "casualty of war against demons", you're becoming less Good (because concern for the well-being of sentient beings is one of the hallmarks for Good), and are likely starting to shift towards a Neutral alignment. If that trend continues, and you demonstrate, through your actions, that your outlook has changed, your alignment will as well.

Because that's all alignment is, a grotesquely oversimplified summation of your general outlooks and beliefs, which are shown through your actions.

Subjectivity =/= A Bad Thing All TRPGs Must Avoid Like A Plague.

Subjectivity means a place where we've gotta talk it out when it comes up. If we're using subjective morality along with alignment, that means Good follows the general group consensus on what Good is. And "When it comes up, we'll talk like grownups and allow some things to be a Gray area."

If you're going to base game mechanics off it? Yes, objective is better.

People act like 4e "removed all alignment mechanics", but that isn't true. Most Divine classes had to match alignment with their deity (or be close). Holy Weapons (in the 1st PHB) did more damage on a crit to evil creatures.

Once again, if the desire is that "Good" and "Evil" are objective, and there are hard-coded mechanics that ping off that...the TTRPG system is better served by defining what that means*.

*Disclaimer: "Better" in this instance is, of course, subjective, and based off my position that DM fiat is fickle and untrustworthy.

Be careful with who the "you" is. I'll interpret it as the Royal one for ease.

You mean the ephemeral "you" (which could have been substituted by saying "one" and using 3rd person verbs).
Such was the intent, yes. I apologize if it was not clear, but I'm glad you got it across that way anyway.

Again, noting that I don't prescribe to the notion that objective morality is inherently Anathema, I'm still gonna disagree with the metaphor, from where I'm standing.

Basically, from where I'm standing someone is showing me an internal combustion lawnmower engine, saying it's a great engine for going fast, and you just can't mow a lawn and do a decent job without it.

Then I look at my electric lawnmower and raise an eyebrow, since it does all the same stuff as the gas one, and I don't huff the exhaust. It has its own drawbacks, sure, but it's certainly no worse.

Then when I say "I don't really see any reason to go back to the gas engine" I get inundated with people insisting I just don't understand how the gas engine works and that I hate gas engine users and hate the mere concept of internal combustion.

That's not really the same thing I was saying. I was comparing "disregarding objective good/evil/etc" to "gasoline is no longer flammable". You have given that impression before.

To your metaphor, I say: "who cares which lawnmower you use?". Does your lawn get mowed? Is the presentation something you and your neighbors find aesthetically pleasing? Yes? Then more power to you.

But by your same metaphor, you have, to my perception and that of others, been coming here, relating your preferences, and coming across as saying "gas mowers are factually inferior to the electric ones, and everyone should get rig of the gas mowers going forward, because they are actually WORSE for mowing lawns AND create stinky exhaust no one likes to inhale".

That's just the perception you and Nigel have created. Does that make the vehemence of some of your opposition more clear? I get that you don't THINK you've been saying that. But that is how you were being received.

I've toned down my sarcasm, let's not respond by toeing the line into condescension, here. We're supposed to be playing nice.

I apologize, that was not condescension. You genuinely came across as more approachable, and doind so was not a big imposition to you, right? I did not feel that your statements were inflammatory or hyperbolic, like some of the earlier ones.

Then shouldn't a good-aligned fiend be in constant discomfort with itself to some degree?

I don't know. Maybe?

Also, that people have to go out and buy the Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds to get half of the alignment specifics is double dumb, but I'll let it go. I owned neither, and I doubt the average player invested in them, either. So consider me as coming from the position of someone who doesn't own those splatbooks, which is an important position to consider.

The edition has been out of print for 12 years. The edition is complete, and this stuff is old. The BoVD and BoED are just more detail. You don't need the Libris Mortis to use undead, or Lords of Madness to use Aberrations. But those books give a lot more detail and stuff to use.

As an aside, however, I find most of the actual "crunchy bits" of BoVD and BoED to be varying degrees of terrible. Awkward, ungainly, and either hilariously underpowered or brokenly overpowered. And the "mature" art is awful. I really only like the early chapters as treatises on good and evil.

That's not particularly helpful in dealing with the issue of why some are Erinyes and others aren't, unless you're busting out splats. If you've not got the splatbook that covers the topic, you're SOL on this one.

I actually only know, for certain that erinyes are fallen angels in 5th. I don't remember about 3.5.

This makes more sense, tbh. Again, 5e noticing an issue and just... getting rid of the problem. Good on them.

It did streamline quite a bit.

I mean, I'd think something was up if something vulnerable to fire took extra fire damage and then went to the plane of fire and was just "uncomfortable."

I think you missed everything I said about the distinction between "Good Energy" and "Weaponized Good Energy".

So it's like claiming that a creature vulnerable to fire should be taking constant damage just because it's 105 degrees outside. Not the same thing.

As I said before "To fully understand this thing on your character sheet we really need to make 2 entire books to explain ourselves better" isn't an indication that the system is easily coherent and consistent without additional help beyond the core.

That's not actually true, and I feel it's intentional on your part. The Core rules have what you need. Those extra books have more details and rules if you want to learn. Since you are debating things about the RAW of alignment, they are valid fodder for discussion.

I mean, the fallacy is "Because this is a fantasy setting, you're not allowed to have verisimilitude issues."
Which is the thrust of what I contend with.

I don't understand when people act like "objective Good/Evil/etc" is a thing outside the realm of possibility. The ones that act like their perspective is the only valid one

I imagine they can't if your call is superior by default. I don't tend to give my position as GM the additional power of my interpretation being superior by default.

Well...the DM is the only one with the authority to MAKE a ruling or change one, so...yeah

Yes, yes, you are the moral authority here, I am scum, etc, I'll let you keep your moral high ground and I'll stay down here in the wastes.

Don't outline yourself in chalk. I never said that.

I am simply making a case about taking responsibility for how you come across. That's it. You seem to have post-secondary education yourself. How you can act like it's not your responsibility eludes me. TO my perception it is saying: "if a bunch of people in the audience misunderstand me, and they all misunderstand in the same way, it's only their problem, nothing about what I communicated or the way I did it is my fault."

The rules can decide that Hair Color is important, as shown by the Sword of Blondeslaying. That doesn't mean a Haircolor System is inherently worthwhile outside of that context. That's the point I was making.


As I talked about, this doesn't really require alignment as D&D proposes. And I don't know that hard mechanics protect players from bad GMs anymore than soft mechanics do. The problem in both cases is the GM, not the mechanic.

But alignment DOES do it, and it's a thing alignment CAN be used for. Which is what you asked. Just because those things "don't interest you" or "you'd rather do them in other ways" doesn't change the fact that I answered your bloody question.

As much as I can sympathize.... I gotta say, it sounds like you've already decided he's just wrong in his position, and HE has to budge, because your perception of the situation is Correct.

I have had a long work history, part of which was working in psych. (Perhaps that's part of why the subjective and talking through subjective topics with my players holds no great terror or discomfort for me) And based on that experience...I'm not thinking the stance of "you are wrong, I am right, if you'd just admit you're wrong everything would be fine" is... not a helpful position to create understanding from.

No. No one's opinion or preference is wrong. When someone declares their opinion is a fact, THAT is incorrect.

The only wrong way to play D&D is when people at the table are not having fun

[ImNotTrevor]

Nothing about what you've said shows how that citation from the 3.5e PHB "does not succeed".

It fails to adequately explain what Alignment ACTUALLY is.

That there are other mechanics that relate to, intersect with, or springboard OFF alignment does not change what alignment is.

So you'd contend that Alignment in 3.5, which has many mechanics attached, is EXACTLY THE SAME as 5e alignment which has exactly 1 mechanic, and there is no qualitative difference between the two?

Because... those seem to be qualitatively different things, from where I'm standing.

...you realize that's synonymous right? If being of a given alignment cannot take action X because of his alignment, then alignment has prescribed what he can or cannot do.

1st: Not synonymous. https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/prescriptive

2nd: Let me repeat this AGAIN, in the big letters, because you're doing the thing again:
PRESCRIPTIVE IS ABOUT SHOULD, NOT CAN.
IF YOU ASSERT THAT PRESCRIPTIVE IS ABOUT CAN, AS OPPOSED TO SHOULD, THEN YOU ALSO ASSERT THAT PRESCRIPTIVIST GRAMMARIANS, WHO CHOSE THEIR OWN NAME, ARE LESS INFORMED ABOUT WHAT PRESCRIPTIVE MEANS THAN YOU.

All of that for emphasis, since I don't think you're reading my posts all the way through.

That's for "compulsory", anyway. Saying "alignment is obligatory", functionally means "you are obliged to USE alignment, or at least HAVE an alignment".

If you only swap it into a blank in "alignment is ____," yes. But Obligatory is a good root-word to describe their asserted relationship between a given alignment and behavior. "Being Lawful Good makes X action obligatory" is perfectly reasonable as a usage of the word, hence why I chose it as a stand-in for that sort of relationship.

Prescriptive is a similar but not nearly so strong relationship. It has a connotation of what you SHOULD do, not what you CAN do, as shown by "laws are prescriptive" yet people manage to successfully break them all the time, meaning they clearly CAN break them. But the idea is that they SHOULDN'T break them lest bad things happen.

They have the rulebooks, right? Thus, informed.

So if I make a system that takes important information and hides it in the index, you'd call that good game design? I mean, you own the book, right?

And I disagree, still, on blaming alignment for that. If the Barbarian class was not narrowly designed to only specifically imitate the trope of "uncivilized savage from the wilderness who shuns the trappings of cities and their inhabitants", there would be no alignment restriction, right? I mean, those restrictions resonate in some way. Paladin means "a noble knight; defender of a noble cause", right? Barbarian is a word that carries with it connotations of "uncivilized" behavior. But bards? That restriction, as I mentioned before, was absurd. 3.5e could have dropped the alignment restriction from the classes, and left all of the other mechanics (spells, magic items) in place, and nothing would be affected. The restrictions AND the punishments come from class design.

3.5 barbarian was a naked guy who hit real hard.
3.5 paladin was a worse cleric.
3.5 bard was a sorcerer with PANACHE.
Mechanically, all of the restrictions were stupid.
Alignment was still the toggle, though, and you've agreed to that point. Moving on....

I'm sorry, but to my perception, you're equating "descriptive" with "is only JUST a description, and nothing more".

This was the moment when I realized you'd not read me carefully.

Note that I put in a "purely" in front of Descriptive. Allow me to explain why it's there by bumping back to a previous point I made:
Descriptive and Prescriptive are not mutually exclusive. They are often different sides of a spectrum, but they can intermingle.
Alignment in 3.5 walks that line. It is descriptive, and used in prescriptive mechanics, meaning that it is BOTH.

Prescriptive =/= NOT Descriptive
And
Descriptive =/= NOT Prescriptive

3.5 alignment manages to have both uses in the same system

Spoiler: Definition of Descriptive from Mirriam-Webster

Show

Definition of descriptive
1: presenting observations about the characteristics of someone or something : serving to describe
a descriptive account
2a: referring to, constituting, or grounded in matters of observation or experience
the descriptive basis of science
b: factually grounded or informative rather than normative, prescriptive, or emotive
descriptive cultural studies
3of a modifier
a: expressing the quality, kind, or condition of what is denoted by the modified term
hot in "hot water" is a descriptive adjective
b: NONRESTRICTIVE
4linguistics : of, relating to, or dealing with the structure of a language at a particular time usually with exclusion of historical and comparative data
descriptive linguistics

So my use of "descriptive" is #3, and is not wrong.

Yes. Alignment can be used as an adjective, unless you're referring to 3(b), in which case.... 3.5 alignment is pretty restrictive in a couple areas, in that it causes restrictions to be placed upon you.

Even so, that's not the Nonrestrictive that it means. It points over to another definition which says: "not limiting the reference of a modified word or phrase," ie, it just gives additional information about it. To see Nonrestrictive used in this manner elsewhere, look to the Nonrestrictive Clause, which is an adjective clause added to a noun which doesn't grant additional specification as to which individual we're talking about(thus restricting our pool of potential subjects) but DOES grant additional information. For example:
"My dog, with the shaggy hair, loves to go on walks." Would be a restrictive clause because it specifies which dog we're talking about.
"My wife, who's a great chef, made me some soup" is a Nonrestrictive clause. I only have the one wife, so clearly I'm just giving additional info.
You can google "nonrestrictive clause" to verify this information.

Why do I think this is how they use it? Because Definition 3 is describing "modifiers" which are a linguistics thing, ironically, and Nonrestrictive has a particular linguistic meaning that is being linked to when you click it. So.... not really what you're taking it to mean, but even so that's sideways to my point.


I think of it like this:
Tony Marconi, infamous mob boss, tells his goons to tie you to a chair, and they do.
Now, does it make any practical difference to say that, technically, Tony Marconi, infamous mob boss, didn't tie you to a chair?
Does it make any practical difference to say the goons only tied you because Tony said so?
You're still tied to a chair, and all of these guys were part of this event happening. So at some point we're trying to pass the buck on who got you tied to this chair, when I'm perfectly willing to say "Tony and his goons tied you up in that chair."

And you insisting that "descriptive" can ONLY mean "used to describe, but nothing more"

No, "purely descriptive" means it is ONLY used to describe, and nothing more. That's why that adverb is there, to distinguish between something that is Descriptive with Prescriptive uses, and something that is ONLY a description.

..so even the existence of ANY alignment mechanics somehow means it's "not descriptive"...

I'm sorry, but by the very definition of "descriptive", that's too narrow a view to be the only factual point of view.

Based on the above, no. Genuinely not.

And...bear with me here...if the definition you use creates problems with what the RAW say and what is actually true...but a different (but still valid) definition does NOT create problems...what is more likely? That the game mechanics are, themselves, wrong, or that you were looking at things too narrowly?

Have you considered that your view may be too broad?

That the RAW description of alignment in the alignment section fails to mention that Alignment has in-game mechanical consequences, and players must *read the entire book* to tease out that alignment has these consequences (and for some of those magic items, purchase and read a DIFFERENT book, and for some other details purchase and read TWO different books...) and we're going to pretend like that's just.... good design? Sorry if I'm not convinced that hiding the functionality of a mechanic across the entire book and never outright stating what it can do or be used for is good design.

[QUOTE]
I've written on this exhaustively. I'm just going to copy/paste from an earlier post of mine. This was originally from a 3.5e thread, too.

Spoiler

Show

3.xe D&D most closely resembles Deontological ethics.

I just wanna snip this, but I'm going to point out that you describe the outcomes as "screwy" at least once in this, and describe alignment as "grotesquely oversimplified."

Which makes me confused as to why you're currently defending alignment as if it has no faults?

If you're going to base game mechanics off it? Yes, objective is better.

Apocalypse World would like to have a word. (And pretty much all PbtA systems)
As would Fate.
And Burning Wheel.

In my experience, these games work just as well when the measure for the mechanic engaging is "When it makes sense to."

People act like 4e "removed all alignment mechanics", but that isn't true. Most Divine classes had to match alignment with their deity (or be close). Holy Weapons (in the 1st PHB) did more damage on a crit to evil creatures.

....when did 4e show up in the conversation?

Once again, if the desire is that "Good" and "Evil" are objective, and there are hard-coded mechanics that ping off that...the TTRPG system is better served by defining what that means*.

*Disclaimer: "Better" in this instance is, of course, subjective, and based off my position that DM fiat is fickle and untrustworthy.

I disagree with that position, provided the GM and players are adults who can communicate.

You mean the ephemeral "you" (which could have been substituted by saying "one" and using 3rd person verbs).

People use the term "the royal you" as an inverse of "the royal we:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AJohn_Kerry

"I'm just trying to clue people in to the fact that there are
other perspectives than what you read in the press and I'm trying to let you
("royal you"--not only you personally) know that the..."

http://www.forwardproductions.com/ftose/022503.html

"How many times and how much money will it take for you (the royal
you, of course) to realize that time and effort is required on
the internet to make a go of it?"

http://www.songnet.org/members/guest/bo ... erant.html

"Can we do all of that? When I say "you" I am saying the "royal" you."

http://www.livejournal.com/users/thefer ... ad=8098934

" You (the royal 'you', not you personally
Ferrett) have 500 people on your friends list?"

You can also call it the Emphemeral You, but Royal You has usage as well, and some small historical backing. The Royal We is MUCH more common, though.

That's not really the same thing I was saying. I was comparing "disregarding objective good/evil/etc" to "gasoline is no longer flammable". You have given that impression before.

I disregard Alignment. Alignment and Objective Good and Evil aren't actually the same thing.

To your metaphor, I say: "who cares which lawnmower you use?". Does your lawn get mowed? Is the presentation something you and your neighbors find aesthetically pleasing? Yes? Then more power to you.

But by your same metaphor, you have, to my perception and that of others, been coming here, relating your preferences, and coming across as saying "gas mowers are factually inferior to the electric ones, and everyone should get rig of the gas mowers going forward, because they are actually WORSE for mowing lawns AND create stinky exhaust no one likes to inhale".

They indeed don't make stinky gas.

I am nothing if not opinionated, and this is not my first rodeo on this topic. Honestly, if we're going to be arguing about something as dumb as how we write down our character's feelings about morality in our pretend elf games, I might as well come out swinging. Even if I'm a sarcastic butt and nobody here likes me... I'm here to kill time, and there's other websites.

That's just the perception you and Nigel have created. Does that make the vehemence of some of your opposition more clear? I get that you don't THINK you've been saying that. But that is how you were being received.

Oh, this time I definitely stirred the pot a bit, though it was more of a "Dropping Alignment is equal or better to keeping it: prove me wrong" style of opener. And while some of my perceptions of how 3.5 alignment strictly functioned were not quite spot on.... it's still not striking me as any more useful for accomplishing the implied goal of "model good vs evil conflicts" than any other morality system, and definitely no better at the stated goal of "describe character morality" than... describing the character's morality. I mean, even you called that function "grotesquely oversimplified." I'd agree. It is grotesquely oversimplified.

I apologize, that was not condescension. You genuinely came across as more approachable, and doind so was not a big imposition to you, right? I did not feel that your statements were inflammatory or hyperbolic, like some of the earlier ones.

Do take note here, that prefacing a praise with "you did what I asked" reads like a big-time power play. This still reads like you're trying to take on a teaching role.
Ironic.

I don't know. Maybe?

The edition has been out of print for 12 years. The edition is complete, and this stuff is old. The BoVD and BoED are just more detail. You don't need the Libris Mortis to use undead, or Lords of Madness to use Aberrations. But those books give a lot more detail and stuff to use.

The state of the game now doesn't really have meaning as far as discussing this principle, because that edition wasn't always 12 years old.

I actually only know, for certain that erinyes are fallen angels in 5th. I don't remember about 3.5.

I haven't even read the Erinyes entry in 5e (haven't needed to, Demons and Devils haven't come up much for my games) and the last edition I played was 3.5, so that's where the idea had to have come from.

I think you missed everything I said about the distinction between "Good Energy" and "Weaponized Good Energy".

A camlfire is just fire and a fireball is weaponized fire. I imagine the fire-weak creature getting caught up in either will have a bad time.

So it's like claiming that a creature vulnerable to fire should be taking constant damage just because it's 105 degrees outside. Not the same thing.

Heat isn't fire, though.

That's not actually true, and I feel it's intentional on your part. The Core rules have what you need. Those extra books have more details and rules if you want to learn. Since you are debating things about the RAW of alignment, they are valid fodder for discussion.

ngl, this post has taken me hours off and on. Can't remember this point but I probably addressed it above.

In short, from what I can piece together:
If the core rules don't cover something well or adequately, that's a problem. (Not making Alignment'a functions and mechanical interactions clear, and in fact ignoring thejr existence, in the Alignment section is a big flaw in the clarity of the system.) A problem not mitigated by "you could have spent 100 bucks to learn more about it." That's just an additional problem.

I don't understand when people act like "objective Good/Evil/etc" is a thing outside the realm of possibility. The ones that act like their perspective is the only valid one.

There are people who think 3.5 strains their sense of verisimilitude because a Barbarian with no armor or gear can fall off a 100 foot tall cliff and live, no problem.

There are people for whom 3.5 strains their sense of verisimilitude because spells go underutilized and by RAW shouls be ruining economies.

It strains my sense of verisimilitude that dragons are pretty much color coded for your convenience.

Is it really such a shock that "Eh, Objective morality strains my sense of verisimilitude" is a stance?

Well...the DM is the only one with the authority to MAKE a ruling or change one, so...yeah

As a DM you only have power because the players sit at the table and buy in to you having power. (And what a pittance of power it really is.) It makes your opinions 0% more valid or expert. You're just the appointed referee. Don't inflate it to more than it is.

Don't outline yourself in chalk. I never said that.

I am simply making a case about taking responsibility for how you come across. That's it. You seem to have post-secondary education yourself. How you can act like it's not your responsibility eludes me. TO my perception it is saying: "if a bunch of people in the audience misunderstand me, and they all misunderstand in the same way, it's only their problem, nothing about what I communicated or the way I did it is my fault."

The point was "I'm tired of being talked down to like I've committed a grave sin and you're gonna teach me to be good." I get it. I got the concept. I just don't happen to care.

But alignment DOES do it, and it's a thing alignment CAN be used for. Which is what you asked. Just because those things "don't interest you" or "you'd rather do them in other ways" doesn't change the fact that I answered your bloody question.

The question was "can you sell me on it being the genuinely superior method?" And the answer so far has been "No."

Which is fine. You don't HAVE TO sell me on it. I'm just some schlub on the internet. I just think it's interesting that me saying "I'm not sold on it, convince me otherwise" draws such empassioned responses.

No. No one's opinion or preference is wrong. When someone declares their opinion is a fact, THAT is incorrect.

The only wrong way to play D&D is when people at the table are not having fun

This was the 2nd thing that assured to me you didn't read what I'd actually said.


I'm gonna stop my responses to you here, I think. This post took too many dang hours and I genuinely don't care enough to keep explaining the same things in a loop. I'll probably pop up on the thread if something interesting happens, but this chain of responses is just.... wow. I read 3 posts in one, my guy. Ridonkulous.

Have a swell day, friend.

[RedMage125]

It fails to adequately explain what Alignment ACTUALLY is.

According to whom?

You?

It sounds like you are claiming that "alignment is something other than what the RAW says (just on my say-so), and the RAW failure to explain that is a failure of the RAW". In which case, I am utterly dismissive of your claim.

House rules and how people play at their table are fine. But when discussing rules on the forums, we are operating in a vacuum of such deviations, and only what RAW says is true.

So you'd contend that Alignment in 3.5, which has many mechanics attached, is EXACTLY THE SAME as 5e alignment which has exactly 1 mechanic, and there is no qualitative difference between the two?

Because... those seem to be qualitatively different things, from where I'm standing.

As far as "what the alignment of a given character/creature is"? Yes.

That there are less mechanics throughout the rest of the system that relate to it is a whole different monster.

1st: Not synonymous. https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/prescriptive

2nd: Let me repeat this AGAIN, in the big letters, because you're doing the thing again:
PRESCRIPTIVE IS ABOUT SHOULD, NOT CAN.
IF YOU ASSERT THAT PRESCRIPTIVE IS ABOUT CAN, AS OPPOSED TO SHOULD, THEN YOU ALSO ASSERT THAT PRESCRIPTIVIST GRAMMARIANS, WHO CHOSE THEIR OWN NAME, ARE LESS INFORMED ABOUT WHAT PRESCRIPTIVE MEANS THAN YOU.

All of that for emphasis, since I don't think you're reading my posts all the way through.

I've been debating on this subject for over a decade, and this is the colloquial use of prescriptive used on these and other forums, when people discuss whether or not alignment is Prescriptive vis Descriptive.

It is still 100% valid use of the words "prescriptive" and "descriptive", because it's still about what action a given character can take. And again, it is Class Design that creates prescriptive mechanics and punishments.

Prescriptive is a similar but not nearly so strong relationship. It has a connotation of what you SHOULD do, not what you CAN do, as shown by "laws are prescriptive" yet people manage to successfully break them all the time, meaning they clearly CAN break them. But the idea is that they SHOULDN'T break them lest bad things happen.

Right, but by taking the action prescribed against, the law has been "broken", right? The legislators who wrote that law don't enforce it, and don't punish those who break it, we have a whole separate branch that handles that.

As opposed to the mechanics of a game, which are still in force, and still operating. By changing alignment, one hasn't "broken" any rules about alignment. One may have violated the tenets of Class Design which specify that one must stay within specific bounds. But alignment rules were not "broken".

So if I make a system that takes important information and hides it in the index, you'd call that good game design? I mean, you own the book, right?

That isn't the case with the rules we're talking about, because it's IN the class description. So this is either completely non-sequitur, or a Straw Man.

3.5 barbarian was a naked guy who hit real hard.
3.5 paladin was a worse cleric.
3.5 bard was a sorcerer with PANACHE.
Mechanically, all of the restrictions were stupid.
Alignment was still the toggle, though, and you've agreed to that point. Moving on....

3.5 barbarian wasn't "naked", they usually wore light or medium armor. 5e barbarians had unarmored defense.

But yes, I agree that a great deal of the restrictions (even though I can see how they resonate and were intended to imitate specific tropes), were a poor choice. Because it makes the classes not able to be anything BUT the specific trope they were trying to imitate, and I think they can be more.

Alignment, however, was just the metric by which restrictive Class Design used to set the boundry.

If a neighboring kingdom says "any of your citizens that we catch on our side of the river will be hanged". What's the cause of the restriction/punishment? That king's law? Or the river? Because you are arguing that crossing rivers causes people to be hanged, and rivers are bad.

This was the moment when I realized you'd not read me carefully.

Note that I put in a "purely" in front of Descriptive. Allow me to explain why it's there by bumping back to a previous point I made:

*snip*
No, "purely descriptive" means it is ONLY used to describe, and nothing more. That's why that adverb is there, to distinguish between something that is Descriptive with Prescriptive uses, and something that is ONLY a description.

Nobody on this side of the alignment fence ever used the term "purely descriptive", and you only started using it last post.

You are either clarifying something about your stance which was WILDLY UNCLEAR before, or you are moving the goalposts.

So let me be clear with what I have been saying: "Alignment of a given character or creature is descriptive, because it stems FROM their actions, outlooks and beliefs. When those things change, their alignment changes, thus, descriptive. There are other mechanics in the game, such as Class Features (or loss thereof), prerequisites for feats/Prestige Classes, or the way certain spells and magic items interact with the character/creature in question, which will be different depending on what the character/creature's alignment is. This does not change what alignment is or how it works."

Have you considered that your view may be too broad?

That the RAW description of alignment in the alignment section fails to mention that Alignment has in-game mechanical consequences, and players must *read the entire book* to tease out that alignment has these consequences

Wow, almost as if...like I have been saying for pages now...it is those game mechanics (such as class, magic items, or spells) that are the source of the restriction, and alignment is only what the alignment section says it is.

Shocking.

(and for some of those magic items, purchase and read a DIFFERENT book, and for some other details purchase and read TWO different books...) and we're going to pretend like that's just.... good design? Sorry if I'm not convinced that hiding the functionality of a mechanic across the entire book and never outright stating what it can do or be used for is good design.

Those other books are not required to understand it. If you want to delve deeper into the subject, they are additional detailed rules.

I mean, is the Monster Manual "bad design" because it doesn't have all the information on dragon physiology that the Draconomicon does?

At some point, one has to acknowledge that WotC is a business. And they are interested in selling product.

But those additional books are not "required" to understand alignment.

I just wanna snip this, but I'm going to point out that you describe the outcomes as "screwy" at least once in this, and describe alignment as "grotesquely oversimplified."

I said using the Trolley Problem as some kind of alignment-related limitus test results in outcomes that are "screwy". Again, because the Trolley Problem IS NOT ABOUT RIGHT OR WRONG, LET ALONE "GOOD" OR "EVIL". By 3.5e alignment metrics, the only "evil act" was committed by the villain who tied all 6 people to the tracks in the first place. Even a 3.5e paladin has no agency to "commit an evil act" by 3.5e alignment mores, even using all the details of "good and evil" from the BoVD/BoED.

And yes, I have ALWAYS maintained that a given individual's alignment is a "grossly oversimplified summation of one's general outlooks and beliefs, as shown through one's actions". Because a Lawful Good person may do "non-lawful" or "non-good" things from time to time. One of the best ways to highlight this is Roy's interview with the celestial in Order of the Stick when he is dead. I suggest you read that section again.

Which makes me confused as to why you're currently defending alignment as if it has no faults?

Have I ever said "alignment is a perfect system with no faults and no mechanic related to alignment has ever been bad, problematic, or even weak"?

No. I have not said that.

I have said alignment has positives. And I have contested some of the things YOU claimed were "facts" about alignment that were incorrect.

Would you like an example of a criticism I have of 3.5e alignment mechanics, just for perspective? Alignment being detectable in any kind of creature (by a level 1 spell or at-will ability of paladins) makes some kind of "mystery" plots difficult to pull off without some very "deus ex machina" string pulling by the DM. I mean, you could have non-evil villains, or they could have rings of mind shielding, or be spellcasters, but those would get trite after awhile, and may not fit the story (say, if the foe is too low level to afford such a ring, and is not a spellcaster, and you want them to be evil because of what they're doing). It was possible to do such. But it felt hackneyed and trite, especially if it was used more than once. I heartily approve of 5e's change that only supernatural Evil can be detected.

THAT is what a valid criticism of an alignment mechanic looks like. Going after narrow and prescriptive class design but blaming alignment is like suing Ford when someone runs you over in their truck (with no mechanical failure of said truck implied).

Apocalypse World would like to have a word. (And pretty much all PbtA systems)
As would Fate.
And Burning Wheel.

In my experience, these games work just as well when the measure for the mechanic engaging is "When it makes sense to."

Not even remotely familiar with any of these systems. So I am afraid I cannot engage competently on the subjects.

I disagree with that position, provided the GM and players are adults who can communicate.

You and I agreed that "hard mechanics" > "DM fiat", earlier. That's all I meant.

People use the term "the royal you" as an inverse of "the royal we:"

You can also call it the Emphemeral You, but Royal You has usage as well, and some small historical backing. The Royal We is MUCH more common, though.

I mean, I get it, but "Royal We", really means "I". Kings and Queens often used "we" when they spoke about themselves, to emphasize that they were less an individual, and more "the whole nation".

I disregard Alignment. Alignment and Objective Good and Evil aren't actually the same thing.

I'm getting sick of saying this, but:

IF objective good/evil/law/chaos are not a thing at all, alignment becomes borderline unusable, because there are no objective metrics by which to judge alignment. That orphan-killing guy I mentioned a few posts back? He could call himself "lawful neutral" if it was all subjective.

They indeed don't make stinky gas.

I am nothing if not opinionated, and this is not my first rodeo on this topic. Honestly, if we're going to be arguing about something as dumb as how we write down our character's feelings about morality in our pretend elf games, I might as well come out swinging. Even if I'm a sarcastic butt and nobody here likes me... I'm here to kill time, and there's other websites.

If you're trying to convince others of the validity and increased value of your perspective, then inflammatory hyperbole is an inefficient method, wot?

Oh, this time I definitely stirred the pot a bit, though it was more of a "Dropping Alignment is equal or better to keeping it: prove me wrong" style of opener. And while some of my perceptions of how 3.5 alignment strictly functioned were not quite spot on.... it's still not striking me as any more useful for accomplishing the implied goal of "model good vs evil conflicts" than any other morality system, and definitely no better at the stated goal of "describe character morality" than... describing the character's morality. I mean, even you called that function "grotesquely oversimplified." I'd agree. It is grotesquely oversimplified.

I will again say that alignment is not "morality". It's about which objective, dispassionate forces (of good/evil/law/chaos) is one aligned with. And I maintain that alignment mechanics "give mechanical voice to certain classic fantasy tropes", not "model good vs evil conflicts".

A given individual's alignment is a "gross oversimplification" of their general outlooks and beliefs.

Do take note here, that prefacing a praise with "you did what I asked" reads like a big-time power play. This still reads like you're trying to take on a teaching role.
Ironic.

I understand. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I am an instructor at heart, but that kind of dynamic is not appropriate here. So that is my fault for how I came across, and I apologize.

The state of the game now doesn't really have meaning as far as discussing this principle, because that edition wasn't always 12 years old.

The core books are sufficient. You don't need Expanded Psionics Handbook or Lords of Madness to have a campaign where mind flayers star as the primary antagonists, but those books provide a lot more detail and depth if that's a main theme.

A camlfire is just fire and a fireball is weaponized fire. I imagine the fire-weak creature getting caught up in either will have a bad time.

Heat isn't fire, though.

And the ambient Good energy that is the atmospheric effect of the Upper Planes doesn't have the same effect as being hit with Holy Smite. It's like standing close enough to the campfire to feel warm, vis getting hit with fireball.

There are people who think 3.5 strains their sense of verisimilitude because a Barbarian with no armor or gear can fall off a 100 foot tall cliff and live, no problem.

There are people for whom 3.5 strains their sense of verisimilitude because spells go underutilized and by RAW shouls be ruining economies.

It strains my sense of verisimilitude that dragons are pretty much color coded for your convenience.

Is it really such a shock that "Eh, Objective morality strains my sense of verisimilitude" is a stance?

So you take issue with several core assumptions of the game. Sounds like you'd be better served with either a bunch of house rules,a different setting, or a different system.

As a DM you only have power because the players sit at the table and buy in to you having power. (And what a pittance of power it really is.) It makes your opinions 0% more valid or expert. You're just the appointed referee. Don't inflate it to more than it is.

Right, I am the appointed referee. By the players at my table. If there is confusion to how the RAW text should be interpreted, that is literally exactly within my bailiwick to make an adjudication.

Stop trying to make it more sinister to vilify me.

The point was "I'm tired of being talked down to like I've committed a grave sin and you're gonna teach me to be good." I get it. I got the concept. I just don't happen to care.

Please don't play the victim. I was simply asking you to be aware of and take responsibility for how you come across, to encourage more constructive discussion. I never called you "scum", or said "you've committed a grave sin".

The question was "can you sell me on it being the genuinely superior method?" And the answer so far has been "No."

You're edging very close to gaslighting me. You originally asked for "a positive use for alignment", and most recently (in this chain of replies) it was "I'd yet to see a worthwhile value proposition for d&d alignment.".

Now you're claiming you asked to "prove it was superior"?

If you're going to pretend you asked something different just to make it look like I failed to answer, you could at least take the effort to go back and edit your old posts so I can't quote you like that.

Which is fine. You don't HAVE TO sell me on it. I'm just some schlub on the internet. I just think it's interesting that me saying "I'm not sold on it, convince me otherwise" draws such empassioned responses.

Again, I was explicitly NOT trying to "change your opinion". Never have been.

Just as I made some assumptions about what you've been saying (vis "prescriptive alignment") based on my experiences, you have been assuming that I must be trying to change your opinion.

This was the 2nd thing that assured to me you didn't read what I'd actually said.

This is ironic, given what you accused me of earlier.

I disagree with you, ergo "I must not have read what you said".

No, sirrah, we've been talking past each other in some respects, but in others, I simply disagree.

I'm gonna stop my responses to you here, I think. This post took too many dang hours and I genuinely don't care enough to keep explaining the same things in a loop. I'll probably pop up on the thread if something interesting happens, but this chain of responses is just.... wow. I read 3 posts in one, my guy. Ridonkulous.

Have a swell day, friend.

I'm in the military, I can do repetitive, frustrating things quite a bit. I have also been on repeat, trying to get things across to you. Only to finally get "I understand, I just don't care", after spending several posts acting like you refused to accept that "responsibility for perception you create" was even a thing.

[Jason]

A few points, if I may:

As opposed to the mechanics of a game, which are still in force, and still operating. By changing alignment, one hasn't "broken" any rules about alignment. One may have violated the tenets of Class Design which specify that one must stay within specific bounds. But alignment rules were not "broken".

If a neighboring kingdom says "any of your citizens that we catch on our side of the river will be hanged". What's the cause of the restriction/punishment? That king's law? Or the river? Because you are arguing that crossing rivers causes people to be hanged, and rivers are bad.

Technically I suppose you are correct that it is your choice of class and its accompanying restrictions that is causing you to no longer have your nifty class abilities when you change your alignment, but it is also because you chose to change your alignment as well. The two are not completely independent.

I'm not sure why the distinction is important. You can't have a class that restricts you to a specific alignment without having an alignment system, and you won't get into trouble violating your class's alignment restrictions if you don't change your alignment.

So let me be clear with what I have been saying: "Alignment of a given character or creature is descriptive, because it stems FROM their actions, outlooks and beliefs. When those things change, their alignment changes, thus, descriptive. There are other mechanics in the game, such as Class Features (or loss thereof), prerequisites for feats/Prestige Classes, or the way certain spells and magic items interact with the character/creature in question, which will be different depending on what the character/creature's alignment is. This does not change what alignment is or how it works."

I agree. Because alignment can be changed it is descriptive. And it's really only descriptive of past behavior. It is only proscriptive in situations where a character or creature cannot change their alignment - a creature without free will, in other words.
That does not include paladins or other PCs, because a paladin can change his or her alignment, albeit at the penalty of losing paladin class abilities. Regardless of the penalty the character is still fully capable of changing alignment.

I said using the Trolley Problem as some kind of alignment-related litmus test results in outcomes that are "screwy". Again, because the Trolley Problem IS NOT ABOUT RIGHT OR WRONG, LET ALONE "GOOD" OR "EVIL". By 3.5e alignment metrics, the only "evil act" was committed by the villain who tied all 6 people to the tracks in the first place. Even a 3.5e paladin has no agency to "commit an evil act" by 3.5e alignment mores, even using all the details of "good and evil" from the BoVD/BoED.

Yeah, I agree with you. You might argue that a more lawful individual will probably try to save the most people while a more chaotic individual will try to save the person or people he thinks is the most valuable or he is most friendly with, but good and evil only enter in on the variations where you can try to punish the villain who set the tragic situation up in the first place.

And yes, I have ALWAYS maintained that a given individual's alignment is a "grossly oversimplified summation of one's general outlooks and beliefs, as shown through one's actions". Because a Lawful Good person may do "non-lawful" or "non-good" things from time to time.

Indeed. Alignment is only useful because it is a simple summation. Make it more specific and you would need more than nine categories to use.

I'm getting sick of saying this, but:

IF objective good/evil/law/chaos are not a thing at all, alignment becomes borderline unusable, because there are no objective metrics by which to judge alignment. That orphan-killing guy I mentioned a few posts back? He could call himself "lawful neutral" if it was all subjective.

I agree. Alignment must be objective in order to be useful. There is no point in listing items on a character sheet that are purely subjective.

I will again say that alignment is not "morality". It's about which objective, dispassionate forces (of good/evil/law/chaos) is one aligned with. And I maintain that alignment mechanics "give mechanical voice to certain classic fantasy tropes", not "model good vs evil conflicts".

I'm a little less in agreement here. Yes, it's a measurement of where you stand with respect to objective, dispassionate forces, but it is also a measurement in what is commonly called the "morality" of your past actions. And alignment can be useful in modelling good vs. evil conflicts.

You're edging very close to gaslighting me. You originally asked for "a positive use for alignment", and most recently (in this chain of replies) it was "I'd yet to see a worthwhile value proposition for d&d alignment.".

Now you're claiming you asked to "prove it was superior"?

Yeah, alignment being useful is enough of an argument to leave it in the system, I think. Nobody needs to prove it's superior to all other systems, or even to another specific system. If you must prove that every game mechanic in D&D is superior to some other game's mechanic before you can use it then we'll never get any actual playing done.

[ImNotTrevor]

A
Yeah, alignment being useful is enough of an argument to leave it in the system, I think. Nobody needs to prove it's superior to all other systems, or even to another specific system. If you must prove that every game mechanic in D&D is superior to some other game's mechanic before you can use it then we'll never get any actual playing done.

You guys are forgetting the context that 5e has effectively neutered alignment's mechanical uses down to 1 esoteric monster ability, and the designers have not been shy about saying they'd cut it out entirely if it weren't a Branding issue, and it's just not needed. 3.5 made alignment a key mechanical piece, where 5e did not. Which is a very important practical distinction.

In the context of 5e, the position I started from, I don't see any reason to lend credence to alignment, and I don't. That system works great when you excise alignment. No problemo.

I play lots of systems that use no such systems, and manage to have good vs evil conflicts at the large scale without any real problem, because identifying what, SPECIFICALLY, is Good or Evil doesn't really come up as often as some would have you think. And again, if everyone is an adult able to communicate, then the kind of in-game behavior that has people going "wow, dude, that was pretty evil" tends to not happen. And if somebody wants to do a slow slide into evil, they tend to talk to me about if that's kosher, since I ask them to share their character ideas with me so that I can make stuff happen. You know, I talk to my players.

In 3.5 I really downplayed alignment. I didn't have the chops as a young DM to really go and cut stuff out and rebalance based on alignment's omission, but I also didn't have players that wanted to play Paladins and didn't have any that wanted to detect good as clerics. They just wanted to go through my simple little stories. But I survived just fine without emphasizing alignment and, at times, flagrantly changing what alignment meant to suit my purposes. I created a god with a penchant for "good necromancy," where the honored dead could, as a provision against the potential desecration of their resting place, have their bodies animated to defend their graves and/or their still-living relatives. And that wasn't Evil, it was honorable. And once done, the sepulchers where closed again and their rest continued. People understood that their bodies may be post-mortem utilized in that fashion. However, Necromancers who used bodies not lain to rest or for reasons not related to the defense of resting place or relatives of the deceased, that was Evil, because it was violating that sacred understanding and perverting it towards profane and selfish ends.

And nobody blew a lid or had to have me read through the alignment page, nobody even blinked.

Long story short, I've seen a lot of "the only way to look at alignment is in a vacuum." And I disagree. I think analyzing the merits of any game mechanic in a vacuum is generally a poor idea, and that's why playtesting is a thing. Seeing how the rule interacts with real people needs to be part of the math.

The data points I contribute are that I've seen a lot more "well I'm X alignment so I guess I do Y action," than "Because my character cares about X, he'll do Y" in systems that emphasize alignment (3.5 has shown me more of the former, 5e more of the latter, for instance.) And the previous was even happening when I was downplaying alignment with a few players. Once I eliminated alignment entirely, and said to ignore it, it obviously stopped. Dipping back in, it didn't pop up nearly so much anymore. I figured that, hey, why not scrap it?

On a quick subject change back to something Redmage said in the latest long reply and a few others before, I want to put forth an idea that is forming.

So we've talked about the impression a person gives, and that they should be responsible for how they present themselves, yes?
And you've seen that there is a common problem where people interact with 3.5 alignment and come to the conclusion that it is highly restrictive, yes?

Do you see how these might relate, in my mind? I'll explain either way, but lightbulb moments are fun to have. This one was fun for me, anyways.

Have you considered that those people might not be idiots and/or haters for no reason?
Have you considered that perhaps the way D&D presents alignment gives the impression that it is restrictive, and people are reacting to that impression being given?
This isn't a wildly uncommon problem. It must be fairly ubiquitous, if you've been arguing about it with a variety of people for a decade.

So perhaps, the idea that people see and interact with 3.5 alignment and come away feeling like it's pretty restrictive isn't because they're dumb or malicious or didn't read the book. Perhaps they're having a similar disconnect as you'd have if I'd responded to your tone bits with "I've been perfectly friendly and reasonable this whole time." Sure, that's what I SAID, but your experience would sure lead you to think that was inaccurate, even if I somehow could give a perfectly innocent explanation for all my turns of phrase. I'm sure that would all eventually feel a bit hollow because at the end of the day, I came across as a jerk.

While this is obviously not 100% identical logic, I'm guessing it's close enough that you get what I'm putting forward:
If enough people are having the same criticism of the same thing, they probably aren't all WRONG, and there's probably some merit to what they're talking about. Or at least, that has been my experience.

[Jason]

You guys are forgetting the context that 5e has effectively neutered alignment's mechanical uses down to 1 esoteric monster ability, and the designers have not been shy about saying they'd cut it out entirely if it weren't a Branding issue, and it's just not needed. 3.5 made alignment a key mechanical piece, where 5e did not. Which is a very important practical distinction.

If anything, the 5E approach is more a return to form, except for the removal of class alignment restrictions. I already pointed out that detect evil in 2nd Edition wasn't set off for petty, low-level evil or just evil alignments. There were also relatively few effects that keyed off of alignment compared to 3rd.

I play lots of systems that use no such systems, and manage to have good vs evil conflicts at the large scale without any real problem, because identifying what, SPECIFICALLY, is Good or Evil doesn't really come up as often as some would have you think. And again, if everyone is an adult able to communicate, then the kind of in-game behavior that has people going "wow, dude, that was pretty evil" tends to not happen. And if somebody wants to do a slow slide into evil, they tend to talk to me about if that's kosher, since I ask them to share their character ideas with me so that I can make stuff happen. You know, I talk to my players.

I think it kind of depends on the system and the campaign setting. Legend of the Five Rings, any variety of Star Wars, and The One Ring all rather need such a system. If you count "corruption" and "sanity" systems as a sort of alignment system then it's hard to imagine Call of Cthulhu or any of the White Wolf games without an alignment system. There are plenty of games that really don't need an alignment system, though. Traveller, Shadowrun, etc.
For D&D sometimes it comes up and some times it doesn't. Since it is sometimes useful and it's brand identity I want to keep it. In fact, I might put back some of the class alignment restrictions in my games, because a paladin that isn't lawful good just seems wrong to me.

[RedMage125]

Jason, I didn't respond to your whole post, only because some of it was just agreeing with me, and I'm trying to conserve SOME space, lol.

A few points, if I may:

Technically I suppose you are correct that it is your choice of class and its accompanying restrictions that is causing you to no longer have your nifty class abilities when you change your alignment, but it is also because you chose to change your alignment as well. The two are not completely independent.

I'm not sure why the distinction is important. You can't have a class that restricts you to a specific alignment without having an alignment system, and you won't get into trouble violating your class's alignment restrictions if you don't change your alignment.

I said from the beginning of this particular debate point that the distinction I make vis the one ImNotTrevor makes is kind of pedantic, but in a significant way.

I view Class Design as restrictive in more ways that JUST alignment restrictions. I find Barbarian Illiteracy to be another. I find so many Monk abilities that say they come from "hours spent in meditation" (or similar verbage) to be another. I think that alignment restrictions on classes are actually a symptom of the greater problem, which is restrictive, narrow Class Design.

Yeah, I agree with you. You might argue that a more lawful individual will probably try to save the most people while a more chaotic individual will try to save the person or people he thinks is the most valuable or he is most friendly with, but good and evil only enter in on the variations where you can try to punish the villain who set the tragic situation up in the first place.

I don't think the Trolley Problem is a Law vs Chaos thing, either. For those unfamiliar with "Consequentliast" and "Deontological" Ethics, I usually break it down into more common-use langauge.

To that, I say: All the Trolley Problem tells you is how the person you are asking to answer prioritizes Utilitarianism (in that, saving a net of 4 lives is better), vis Personal Accountability (in that, feeling responsible for the death of one person is worse). Not that I said feeling responsible. By D&D mores, the person at the switch has no agency to commit an evil act.

I'm a little less in agreement here. Yes, it's a measurement of where you stand with respect to objective, dispassionate forces, but it is also a measurement in what is commonly called the "morality" of your past actions. And alignment can be useful in modelling good vs. evil conflicts.

I would say that "morality/ethics" are a useful shorthand when discussing the good/evil/lawful/chaotic value of something in D&D. But only conversationally. If you want to get down to brass tacks, they don't model morality or ethics very well.

I, myself, have used that shorthand. Usually the Good/Evil axis is the "Moral" axis, and the Law/Chaos one is the "Ethical" one.

You guys are forgetting the context that 5e has effectively neutered alignment's mechanical uses down to 1 esoteric monster ability, and the designers have not been shy about saying they'd cut it out entirely if it weren't a Branding issue, and it's just not needed. 3.5 made alignment a key mechanical piece, where 5e did not. Which is a very important practical distinction.

In the context of 5e, the position I started from, I don't see any reason to lend credence to alignment, and I don't. That system works great when you excise alignment. No problemo.

I quite like 5e. To include what they did with alignment. Where we differ, is that I see that they cut out all the alignment-intersecting mechanics out of OTHER mechanics, rather than view it as "neutering alignment". Alignment, by and large, did not change much. Although they don't give, in the PHB, any kind of cohesion between what all the "good/lawful/chaotic/evil" alignments share in common.

I play lots of systems that use no such systems, and manage to have good vs evil conflicts at the large scale without any real problem, because identifying what, SPECIFICALLY, is Good or Evil doesn't really come up as often as some would have you think. And again, if everyone is an adult able to communicate, then the kind of in-game behavior that has people going "wow, dude, that was pretty evil" tends to not happen. And if somebody wants to do a slow slide into evil, they tend to talk to me about if that's kosher, since I ask them to share their character ideas with me so that I can make stuff happen. You know, I talk to my players.

You could play a game of 3.5e completely by the RAW where that never comes up, either. That's a factor of gameplay. To some tables, the tropes that alignment mechanics are a boon to never come up.

In 3.5 I really downplayed alignment. I didn't have the chops as a young DM to really go and cut stuff out and rebalance based on alignment's omission, but I also didn't have players that wanted to play Paladins and didn't have any that wanted to detect good as clerics. They just wanted to go through my simple little stories. But I survived just fine without emphasizing alignment and, at times, flagrantly changing what alignment meant to suit my purposes. I created a god with a penchant for "good necromancy," where the honored dead could, as a provision against the potential desecration of their resting place, have their bodies animated to defend their graves and/or their still-living relatives. And that wasn't Evil, it was honorable. And once done, the sepulchers where closed again and their rest continued. People understood that their bodies may be post-mortem utilized in that fashion. However, Necromancers who used bodies not lain to rest or for reasons not related to the defense of resting place or relatives of the deceased, that was Evil, because it was violating that sacred understanding and perverting it towards profane and selfish ends.

And nobody blew a lid or had to have me read through the alignment page, nobody even blinked.

I mean...good? I guess? As long as the game was fun for you and your players, more power to you. The "good necromancy" deity sounds intruiging.

I understand how much of a bear it would be to actually excise alignment from 3.5e. There would be a cascading waterfall of mechanics affected in the fallout. Alignment mechanics in 3.5e had their tentacles in deep.

Long story short, I've seen a lot of "the only way to look at alignment is in a vacuum." And I disagree. I think analyzing the merits of any game mechanic in a vacuum is generally a poor idea, and that's why playtesting is a thing. Seeing how the rule interacts with real people needs to be part of the math.

I meant "in a vacuum" in the sense of "no house rules or rulings". I apologize if that was unclear.

The data points I contribute are that I've seen a lot more "well I'm X alignment so I guess I do Y action," than "Because my character cares about X, he'll do Y" in systems that emphasize alignment (3.5 has shown me more of the former, 5e more of the latter, for instance.) And the previous was even happening when I was downplaying alignment with a few players. Once I eliminated alignment entirely, and said to ignore it, it obviously stopped. Dipping back in, it didn't pop up nearly so much anymore. I figured that, hey, why not scrap it?

And my experience has been the opposite. For people who are entirely new to roleplaying at all, when a situation comes up, and they can't figure out "what would my character do?" because their background/personality did not cover a situation like this and they were otherwise at a loss for a decision...then they could look at their alignment. Someone with a Chaotic Good character might then say "well, since my alignment is Chaotic Good, I suppose a lot of the things I did in my past are what made me Chaotic Good. So I'm going to try and find the MOST GOOD option, no matter what people expect". Something like that. THAT is how I have found it to be a boon for less experienced players.

On a quick subject change back to something Redmage said in the latest long reply and a few others before, I want to put forth an idea that is forming.

So we've talked about the impression a person gives, and that they should be responsible for how they present themselves, yes?
And you've seen that there is a common problem where people interact with 3.5 alignment and come to the conclusion that it is highly restrictive, yes?

Do you see how these might relate, in my mind? I'll explain either way, but lightbulb moments are fun to have. This one was fun for me, anyways.

Have you considered that those people might not be idiots and/or haters for no reason?
Have you considered that perhaps the way D&D presents alignment gives the impression that it is restrictive, and people are reacting to that impression being given?
This isn't a wildly uncommon problem. It must be fairly ubiquitous, if you've been arguing about it with a variety of people for a decade.

I think you're also missing some other things I have said:

• 1 - In all my 20+ years of playing D&D (5 states, homes, stores, conventions, 3 naval aircraft carriers)...I have never ONCE met, in person, someone who frequents the forums.
• 2 - I have never once, in all my years of play experience and the problems that I have seen, experienced "alignment arguments"
• 3 - In 100% of the cases I have read about where people are discussing "problems with alignment". The things they cite as "reasons it's bad" are always a deviation from RAW. Such as: Player says I'm Chaotic Neutral, so when I backstab and steal from the party, it's what my character would do (no, player is just a jerkbag); or DM says "you're Lawful Good, you cannot agree to lie to the guards" (alignment doesn't prohibit lying). Crap like that.

So no, I don't think the problem is as "ubiquitous" as you claim. First of all, I don't believe the forum users represent an accurate cross-section of people who play D&D at all. Most people who come here are either 1) people with problems they would like solved; 2) Theorcrafters looking for feedback; or 3) the SUPER big nerds who enjoy hypotheticals and meta regarding our hobby (I am totally in #3, for the record). Second, I don't believe it would even be a majority of forum-goers who have problems with alignment. People who aren't in category #3 don't tend to even click on tabs involving arguments on subjects they don't feel strongly about. And people in category #1, if they had alignment problems, are going to be the most vocal about it.

In order to prove it was as ubiquitous as you claim, you would need to conduct a study that polled an accurate cross-section of people who play D&D, which would be hard enough. I mean, you'd have to have a HUGE sample size. You have to cover People who ONLY play at home, people who ONLY play in public, like at stores (and thus often with varying, changing groups), people who ONLY play AL...you need to account for gender, race, and even economic diversity lines as well, because that could affect your findings. People from different parts of the country need to be included. You might have an area that, due to local social and political factors, is more likely to be the kind of people who chafe at rules and restrictions. Not to mention military service members/veterans (a LOT of us play, and a lot of us really like structures and rules). Your SAMPLE size would have to be almost a thousand people, EASY. Or else risk your results being skewed.

I'd be fascinated to see such a study, no matter what the findings are. Do you have one handy?

And my 3rd point...that's that a lot of the problem was people. If a mechanic is ONLY bad when it is misused...is it a problem with the mechanic, or the people who misuse it? I say the people.

So perhaps, the idea that people see and interact with 3.5 alignment and come away feeling like it's pretty restrictive isn't because they're dumb or malicious or didn't read the book. Perhaps they're having a similar disconnect as you'd have if I'd responded to your tone bits with "I've been perfectly friendly and reasonable this whole time." Sure, that's what I SAID, but your experience would sure lead you to think that was inaccurate, even if I somehow could give a perfectly innocent explanation for all my turns of phrase. I'm sure that would all eventually feel a bit hollow because at the end of the day, I came across as a jerk.

I hope I don't sound condescending here, such is not my intent. I mean this sincerely.

You didn't "come across as a jerk". At least not how I perceive things, because to me "being a jerk" is being intentionally mean. I think you were unaware how strongly inflammatory you came across as. And I think that you had a perfectly normal (if somewhat reactionary) response to being called out on it, and then you calmed down.

That doesn't mean "you came across as a jerk", because I never attributed malice in your posts. If that helps.

While this is obviously not 100% identical logic, I'm guessing it's close enough that you get what I'm putting forward:
If enough people are having the same criticism of the same thing, they probably aren't all WRONG, and there's probably some merit to what they're talking about. Or at least, that has been my experience.

I actually agree. But on the topic of alignment, I come back to what I said about a survey. I would like to see some kind of actual raw data on how pervasive these "problems" are. Because (and I know this is anecdotal evidence, but) my play experience has been extremely varied, and I've never met another forum-goer or seen an alignment argument.

And again, in 100% of the cases I have seen on the forums, someone says "I hate alignment because it does X". And then you show them the RAW quote from the edition they were playing that basically says, ver batim "alignment does not do X". Most of them suffer from cognitive dissonance, and refuse to believe that the preconceptions they came to the boards with may have been wrong. A few have. A few alignment detractors have looked at the rules again and said "Huh. Well, I'll be. That DM/Player I used to play with is just a huge jerkbag then". But by and large, changing people's opinions isn't even something I strive to attempt. My goal is to spread the idea of getting people to let go of preconceptions and just look at the rules. Place blame where it belongs. Because honestly, that is my pet peeve. In things IRL, too. Whether it's politics or game rules, people being upset at [X], when [X] isn't really at fault for what they're upset...it grinds my gears.

So...you know...if that explains my own vehemence...that is why.

For D&D sometimes it comes up and some times it doesn't. Since it is sometimes useful and it's brand identity I want to keep it. In fact, I might put back some of the class alignment restrictions in my games, because a paladin that isn't lawful good just seems wrong to me.

Oof, really? I mean, for Devotion I can see it. But Vengeance strikes me as a very non-lawful kind of paladin. Maybe even non-good (although non-evil). Crown could be Lawful Neutral. Ancients is almost like the 4e Wardens. Nature protectors, I can see them sharing Druid-like tenets. But honestly, Conquest Paladins as LG-only? Conquest seems more LN or even LE, just as far as the theme of the oath, and the powers it grants.

[JoeJ]

To that, I say: All the Trolley Problem tells you is how the person you are asking to answer prioritizes Utilitarianism (in that, saving a net of 4 lives is better), vis Personal Accountability (in that, feeling responsible for the death of one person is worse). Not that I said feeling responsible. By D&D mores, the person at the switch has no agency to commit an evil act.

I have to disagree with that last part. In D&D (and in real life IMO) the person at the switch can commit an evil act by choosing whether or not to divert the trolley based upon how each result benefits them personally. The people on the track are, in that case, treated merely as the means to a selfish end.

[AdAstra]

I have to disagree with that last part. In D&D (and in real life IMO) the person at the switch can commit an evil act by choosing whether or not to divert the trolley based upon how each result benefits them personally. The people on the track are, in that case, treated merely as the means to a selfish end.

Absolutely. While the Trolley Problem is not even close to a good determinant of Good vs. Evil in DnD terms, it's possible to make an Evil Choice if you account for reasoning. A person might refuse to divert the trolley specifically because they want more people to die, or divert the trolley because the one person owes them a dollar, which the vast majority of people would consider evil, and probably falls into capital E Evil if you use DnD definitions. Obviously very few people in the real world would ever use that reasoning, if anyone, but DnD absolutely accounts for the sort of person who would do that.

[Jason]

I have to disagree with that last part. In D&D (and in real life IMO) the person at the switch can commit an evil act by choosing whether or not to divert the trolley based upon how each result benefits them personally. The people on the track are, in that case, treated merely as the means to a selfish end.

You make an excellent point. We've been approaching from the "can a good person make a non-evil choice?" perspective, and you are approaching from the "can an evil person make an evil choice?" with the trolley dilemma.
The answer appears to be "yes".

Oof, really? I mean, for Devotion I can see it. But Vengeance strikes me as a very non-lawful kind of paladin. Maybe even non-good (although non-evil). Crown could be Lawful Neutral. Ancients is almost like the 4e Wardens. Nature protectors, I can see them sharing Druid-like tenets. But honestly, Conquest Paladins as LG-only? Conquest seems more LN or even LE, just as far as the theme of the oath, and the powers it grants.

Well, that's my whole problem with the 5th edition paladin. I see the archetype the class is based on as chivalry and honor in pursuit of good, and it offends my romantic sensibilities to see someone who is dedicated to a life of good service and honor receives roughly the same powers mechanically as someone who has vowed to conquer and utterly destroy his enemies and who might, according to the class description, openly consort with evil powers to do so. In my views such characters shouldn't really be called paladins. They have broadened the class a little too far, I think. But we probably see differently on this issue.

[RedMage125]

I have to disagree with that last part. In D&D (and in real life IMO) the person at the switch can commit an evil act by choosing whether or not to divert the trolley based upon how each result benefits them personally. The people on the track are, in that case, treated merely as the means to a selfish end.

Absolutely. While the Trolley Problem is not even close to a good determinant of Good vs. Evil in DnD terms, it's possible to make an Evil Choice if you account for reasoning. A person might refuse to divert the trolley specifically because they want more people to die, or divert the trolley because the one person owes them a dollar, which the vast majority of people would consider evil, and probably falls into capital E Evil if you use DnD definitions. Obviously very few people in the real world would ever use that reasoning, if anyone, but DnD absolutely accounts for the sort of person who would do that.

I suppose, since Intent and Context matter, you have a point for discussion.

But remember, neither "pulling the switch" nor "refusing to pull the switch", constitute "murder" by 3.5e D&D mores. Which was what I said. There are SIX people that some villain put into a deathtrap, not five. At no point does the person at the switch have any agency whatsoever to "cause death", in any way, shape or form.

So, yes, an individual could base their decision on which person or group to save ensure the survival of, based on selfish reasoning. But that's not the same as "murder".

Which is one reason I maintain that a truly diabolical villain would have the group of 5 be 5 pederasts and murderers, and the one guy be a saintly old priest and don't tell the person at the switch.

Well, that's my whole problem with the 5th edition paladin. I see the archetype the class is based on as chivalry and honor in pursuit of good, and it offends my romantic sensibilities to see someone who is dedicated to a life of good service and honor receives roughly the same powers mechanically as someone who has vowed to conquer and utterly destroy his enemies and who might, according to the class description, openly consort with evil powers to do so. In my views such characters shouldn't really be called paladins. They have broadened the class a little too far, I think. But we probably see differently on this issue.

I think it's important to remember that Dungeons and Dragons has more or less absconded with the word "paladin". And I blame 3.xe. By the dictionary "paladin" means "a just and noble knight" or "defender of a righteous cause" (or something like that). But during the 3e period, people started equating "paladins" with "clerics". Alhandra (iconic paladin) worshiped Heironeous, even though the PHB said paladins were not required to have deities ("devotion to righteousness is enough" is I believe the exact words). And the 3.0 splatbook Defenders Of The Faith put paladins and clerics together. These led a lot of people to believe "paladin" meant "warrior of a deity/faith". Leading to the often-asked question "why don't evil gods have paladins?". Which is just incorrect on so many levels, because the answer (in all pre-4e editions) is "because people who devote themselves to righteousness and goodness do not often serve evil deities".

4e changed that. In 4e, "paladin" WAS, in fact "warrior of a specific deity/faith". That was a drastic shift, thematically. And now, in 5e, paladins get power -not from devotion to righteousness, but from their devotion to their Oath. And those Oaths are quite varied in what they can be. Another poster on these forums, when discussing their view on Magical Theory, characterized Paladin spellcasting as "they out-stubborn the universe", which is droll, but not entirely inaccurate. Point is, the RAW say that Paladins are "rarely of any evil alignment", not that they "MUST be good", or even lawful. Yes, a lot of the flavor text still paints them as champions of good, or having a "commitment to justice", but remember that the DMG's "Oathbreaker" is still a paladin subclass who has all standard paladin powers.

It's an important thing to keep in mind that what a Paladin even means, in essence, is different than it was in previous editions. I don't know if that affects how you view the 5e class or not, but...there you go.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And now, in 5e, paladins get power -not from devotion to righteousness, but from their devotion to their Oath. And those Oaths are quite varied in what they can be. Another poster on these forums, when discussing their view on Magical Theory, characterized Paladin spellcasting as "they out-stubborn the universe", which is droll, but not entirely inaccurate. Point is, the RAW say that Paladins are "rarely of any evil alignment", not that they "MUST be good", or even lawful. Yes, a lot of the flavor text still paints them as champions of good, or having a "commitment to justice", but remember that the DMG's "Oathbreaker" is still a paladin subclass who has all standard paladin powers.

It's an important thing to keep in mind that what a Paladin even means, in essence, is different than it was in previous editions. I don't know if that affects how you view the 5e class or not, but...there you go.

I believe that was me who said that.

And that last paragraph? That applies to more than just paladins. 5e and 3e are very different in underlying philosophy. Lots of words get re-used, but most of the core ideas have changed in important ways. Importing lore (especially) and ideas of "how things should be" into 5e from earlier editions generally causes heartache and anger.

IMO, if it weren't for that pesky branding thing, they should have labeled 3e, 4e, and 5e as separate games entirely. They're not just minor tweaks, they're fundamentally different at the philosophy-of-gaming level. As well as the setting designs that fit well. Even the mechanics show significant drift down to the core "d20 + mods vs TN" level due to changes in the nature of the "+mods" and "TN" components.

Basically, 5e has to be looked at with fresh eyes for best results. People who expect lots of carryover from 3e (mechanically or philosophically) tend to get disappointed.

[Jason]

4e changed that. In 4e, "paladin" WAS, in fact "warrior of a specific deity/faith". That was a drastic shift, thematically. And now, in 5e, paladins get power -not from devotion to righteousness, but from their devotion to their Oath. And those Oaths are quite varied in what they can be. Another poster on these forums, when discussing their view on Magical Theory, characterized Paladin spellcasting as "they out-stubborn the universe", which is droll, but not entirely inaccurate. Point is, the RAW say that Paladins are "rarely of any evil alignment", not that they "MUST be good", or even lawful. Yes, a lot of the flavor text still paints them as champions of good, or having a "commitment to justice", but remember that the DMG's "Oathbreaker" is still a paladin subclass who has all standard paladin powers.

It's an important thing to keep in mind that what a Paladin even means, in essence, is different than it was in previous editions. I don't know if that affects how you view the 5e class or not, but...there you go.

My group and I pretty much skipped 4th edition entirely. Here is yet another way in which that appears to have been a wise decision on our part.