No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

[Lord Raziere]

How about one in which the degree of nuance that exists in the cosmic definition of evil, whatever it is, is known to those people who can magically detect evil, and those people take that nuance into account when they decide how to act?

You are not Jason. How is this your question to answer?

I have entirely different scenario for you JoeJ:

say the paladins are unrealistically always the perfect moral actors as you describe them to be an always catch the people committing evil acts, and are therefore evil because they did so. The public notices a pattern that every criminal the paladins bring to justice is evil, unfailingly, even as the paladins pass over the minor evil people and justly ignore their alignment. The common people and the public begin questioning "if all the criminals that are brought to justice evil, why even have evil people at all?" and thus make a law to exile or punish all evil people pre-emptively against the paladins wishes. the paladins argue to repeal the law, and thus people reason that the paladins are corrupt for defending evil people, because they unlike the paladins are not perfect moral actors who can see the nuance, because they don't have the spell. and thus the paladins are punished as well for being evil-defenders.

But if the spell Detect Evil doesn't exist....then that doesn't occur. because people won't know anyone is evil from some eviltron readings that non-paladins don't get the nuances of, and paladins won't defend them and thus get punished for being perceived and suddenly turning against their job.

[JoeJ]

You are not Jason. How is this your question to answer?

I have entirely different scenario for you JoeJ:

say the paladins are unrealistically always the perfect moral actors as you describe them

I'm pretty sure I didn't describe paladins as perfect anything.

to be an always catch the people committing evil acts, and are therefore evil because they did so. The public notices a pattern that every criminal the paladins bring to justice is evil, unfailingly, even as the paladins pass over the minor evil people and justly ignore their alignment. The common people and the public begin questioning "if all the criminals that are brought to justice evil, why even have evil people at all?" and thus make a law to exile or punish all evil people pre-emptively against the paladins wishes. the paladins argue to repeal the law, and thus people reason that the paladins are corrupt for defending evil people, because they unlike the paladins are not perfect moral actors who can see the nuance, because they don't have the spell. and thus the paladins are punished as well for being evil-defenders.

That sounds like it would be a fascinating setting. Paladins would be kind of like X-Men, fighting to protect a public that hates and fears them. Cool idea!

[Lord Raziere]

That sounds like it would be a fascinating setting. Paladins would be kind of like X-Men, fighting to protect a public that hates and fears them. Cool idea!

So a less just world than one where Divine sense exists instead and people actually like them for doing their jobs. I rest my case.

[JoeJ]

So a less just world than one where Divine sense exists instead and people actually like them for doing their jobs. I rest my case.

Okay, and? I guess I'm not seeing your point. Are you trying to describe a world to live in, or one to have fantasy RPG adventures in?

[Rynjin]

Alignment doesn't track "moral state", because "moral state" isn't objective. Is someone who steals bread to feed their starving family Good or Evil? If alignment is objectively real, they have to be one or the other (unless you punt and make them Neutral, but that's just not having alignment with more steps). But people don't actually agree which they are in real life, so unless you're prepared to make a universally convincing argument for the morality you encode in alignment, what you are actually doing is creating a setting where people sometimes suffer arbitrarily for doing what's right. And we still haven't figured out what we get from this, aside from the fact that some people apparently really want to write the words "Lawful" and "Good" next to each other on their character sheet.

Theft is morally neutral. It is legally forbidden. You guys seem to be really stuck on the Good/Evil axis as the only one that matters.

Also, you know a setting where people sometimes arbitrarily suffer for doing what's right? Reality.

[Lord Raziere]

Okay, and? I guess I'm not seeing your point. Are you trying to describe a world to live in, or one to have fantasy RPG adventures in?

Let me answer your question with another question: Why would I want fantasy rpg adventures where Detect Evil exists? It just gets in the way of doing whats right.

[Jason]

Also, you know a setting where people sometimes arbitrarily suffer for doing what's right? Reality.

I could argue that in reality people sometimes atbitrarily suffer in spite of doing right, not because of doing right.

[NigelWalmsley]

It's kind of telling that after all this discussion, the only defense of alignment anyone has come up with is "you might like alignment". Which, yes, that is true. But that is true of every game mechanic. There's someone out there who gets good use out of FATAL's anal circumference table. Does that mean it should be a core element of D&D?

Theft is morally neutral. It is legally forbidden.

There are absolutely moral systems that unequivocally condemn theft.

You guys seem to be really stuck on the Good/Evil axis as the only one that matters.

The Good/Evil axis is the one the people who want alignment to exist are defending. JoeJ isn't asking for a Sword of Chaos Smiting. If you want to make a case for Law/Chaos being useful, no one is stopping you from doing that.

[Rynjin]

I could argue that in reality people sometimes atbitrarily suffer in spite of doing right, not because of doing right.

No, there are concrete examples that could be shared of people suffering BECAUSE of doing right. Without pulling anything specific, a person who stands up for revolution against a totalitarian monarchy or something that is causing their people to suffer WILL often suffer more, be made an "example of", BECAUSE of doing right. If they'd kept their heads down, they would not have suffered the same fate.

There are absolutely moral systems that unequivocally condemn theft.

None of these are systems I would give the time of day.

[JoeJ]

Let me answer your question with another question: Why would I want fantasy rpg adventures where Detect Evil exists? It just gets in the way of doing whats right.

You personally, I have no idea. As for why somebody might want it, your own suggestion about people turning against paladins provides one answer. I've seen a lot of ideas for settings where spellcasters are hunted. Having it be paladins instead is an interesting change that has a built-in reason why the hunted don't use their power to just take over: because the people who are doing this are not all evil, many of them are simply misguided.

Having something get in the way of doing what's right is a good thing! Overcoming tough challenges makes for excitement and fun. For me, anyway. If the challenge is too small, the game is boring. So yeah, I would totally play a paladin in the world you suggested. The popularity of X-Men makes me suspect I'm not the only one who would.

[JoeJ]

JoeJ isn't asking for a Sword of Chaos Smiting.

On that axis, I'd much rather have a Sword of Law Smiting. Most of my D&D characters are CG.

[Lord Raziere]

On that axis, I'd much rather have a Sword of Law Smiting. Most of my D&D characters are CG.

I wouldn't. I also play CG, but only because its closest a limiting troublesome alignment system gets the morality I like. Paladins can hold themselves to superfluous higher standards all they like, I'm a pragmatist, and I don't condone having weapons to kill entire categories of people just because their beliefs are different from mine- because I believe that is objectively wrong and I'd rather have an objective morality universe reflect this. If your going to give me a weapon, give me one deadly to all, that is only fair, so that I may choose who it harms with my own decisions and not the decisions of the universe.

[JoeJ]

I wouldn't. I also play CG, but only because its closest a limiting troublesome alignment system gets the morality I like. Paladins can hold themselves to superfluous higher standards all they like, I'm a pragmatist, and I don't condone having weapons to kill entire categories of people just because their beliefs are different from mine- because I believe that is objectively wrong and I'd rather have an objective morality universe reflect this. If your going to give me a weapon, give me one deadly to all, that is only fair, so that I may choose who it harms with my own decisions and not the decisions of the universe.

Cool. If you're ever a player in my game, I'll keep that in mind when I decide what magic items to drop.

[Jason]

None of these are systems I would give the time of day.

Wait, are you talking real world or in an RPG?

[Jason]

I wouldn't. I also play CG, but only because its closest a limiting troublesome alignment system gets the morality I like. Paladins can hold themselves to superfluous higher standards all they like, I'm a pragmatist, and I don't condone having weapons to kill entire categories of people just because their beliefs are different from mine- because I believe that is objectively wrong and I'd rather have an objective morality universe reflect this. If your going to give me a weapon, give me one deadly to all, that is only fair, so that I may choose who it harms with my own decisions and not the decisions of the universe.

I don't condone killing anyone just because their beliefs are different from mine, but if I have to kill someone who is actively trying to kill or enslave me or harm others, I will gladly accept a weapon that does more damage to them because of their moral beliefs and which can't be used against me because it will burn them if they pick it up, and even if they could manage it the weapon would be nothing special against me or my allies. And I'll gladly use spells in such a fight that won't affect any innocents but will harm the enemy.

[Lord Raziere]

I don't condone killing anyone just because their beliefs are different from mine, but if I have to kill someone who is actively trying to kill or enslave me or harm others, I will gladly accept a weapon that does more damage to them because of their moral beliefs and which can't be used against me because it will burn them if they pick it up, and even if they could manage it the weapon would be nothing special against me or my allies. And I'll gladly use spells in such a fight that won't affect any innocents but will harm the enemy.

Well I don't condone killing innocents either, which is why I don't trust a weapon that harms anyone who is Lawful or Chaotic, and thus could potentially be more likely to kill a lawful or Chaotic innocent if it strikes them. furthermore any good aligned weapon can have an evil aligned weapon in response, thus causing more danger for any good allies or innocents. whats worse is that Evil lacks the moral compunctions of Good. Thus an evil being is more likely to be willing and able to make a Evil Nuke that just wipes out all GOOD people without harming any Evil people. or worse, enchant a plague to only affect good-aligned people. Good on the other hand has to be better than that, thus making them more likely they lose by default.

[Rynjin]

Wait, are you talking real world or in an RPG?

IRL.

Any morality system that judges an action as inherently evil/good regardless of context is essentially meaningless to me.

[Jason]

IRL.

Any morality system that judges an action as inherently evil/good regardless of context is essentially meaningless to me.

Oh, so you weren't saying that theft is always morally neutral, just sometimes, depending on the circumstances surrounding the theft.

I can't argue with you there. I don't know of any moral system that completely ignores the circumstances and context in which an action is performed when trying to judge if the action was good or evil.

[NigelWalmsley]

Your personal moral judgements are all well and good, but the reality is that there are people who don't agree with you. Stealing isn't morally anything in a general way, because there is no moral consensus (let alone objective morality) by which it can be judged. Some people are opposed to theft on principle, either an absolute "stealing is never okay", or a more pragmatic "stealing is okay sufficiently rarely that we're better off forbidding it in general to minimize motivated reasoning" way. Some people are opposed or not opposed to theft based on the particulars of what was stolen and by who and why. But if you declare that your setting has objective Good in it, you're going to have to decide when (if ever) stealing is "Good", and that's going to leave some completely valid (or at least, not disproven by you) moral frameworks in conflict with the universe.

I will gladly accept a weapon that does more damage to them because of their moral beliefs

That is not what alignment does. Alignment does not give you weapons that are baleful to people who think kicking puppies is hilarious. It gives you weapons that are baleful to people who violate the fundamentally arbitrary set of rules that alignment follows. That might correspond to moral beliefs you don't like, but it also might not. The heroes of a lot of fantasy stories (particularly ones told in the periods D&D claims to model) don't really follow moral codes we'd agree with.

And I'll gladly use spells in such a fight that won't affect any innocents but will harm the enemy.

Didn't we just establish that you can be Evil and not deserve summary imprisonment? Because I'm pretty sure we did, and that makes this nonsense. If "pings as Evil" isn't grounds for execution, Holy Word doesn't protect innocents. It protects some innocents, but so does Fireball. Fireball just protects innocents that belong to the arbitrary category "is immune to fire".

[Jason]

That is not what alignment does. Alignment does not give you weapons that are baleful to people who think kicking puppies is hilarious. It gives you weapons that are baleful to people who violate the fundamentally arbitrary set of rules that alignment follows. That might correspond to moral beliefs you don't like, but it also might not. The heroes of a lot of fantasy stories (particularly ones told in the periods D&D claims to model) don't really follow moral codes we'd agree with.

But the rules are not arbitrary. There are often very good reasons for categorizing actions as good or evil. And if I'm the DM, as I often am, then what is good or evil in the game will in fact exactly correspond to my beliefs, at least as far as I want it to.

Didn't we just establish that you can be Evil and not deserve summary imprisonment? Because I'm pretty sure we did, and that makes this nonsense.

Yes we did. But (a) "doesn't deserve to be killed for their beliefs when they aren't actively doing evil right now" is not the same thing as "innocent". And (b) we've moved on to an example where evil creatures or NPCs are actively attempting to do evil things, at which point it is justifiable to use force to prevent them from doing those things.

[hamishspence]

I don't condone killing anyone just because their beliefs are different from mine, but if I have to kill someone who is actively trying to kill or enslave me or harm others, I will gladly accept a weapon that does more damage to them because of their moral beliefs and which can't be used against me because it will burn them if they pick it up, and even if they could manage it the weapon would be nothing special against me or my allies.

As written, when it comes to Holy (and Unholy, and Anarchic, and Axiomatic) the weapon will kill (and cause to raise as a wight) a 1st level character of the opposed alignment who picks it up.

So, in the context of the Wightopocalypse, these weapons are supremely dangerous.

[Vahnavoi]

It's kind of telling that after all this discussion, the only defense of alignment anyone has come up with is "you might like alignment".

Ask and ye shall receive.

1) alignment serves as a pledge for what kind of character you're playing. "My character is Good" tells the GM "my character desires well-being of other creatures", "My character is Neutral" tells the GM "my character is indifferent to well-being of other creatures" and "My character is Evil" tells "my character desires suffering of other creatures". These give the GM a benchmark to evaluate your player decisions against and give them ideas of how other characters might react to them.

2) It gives the GM, who has to play a wide array of characters, ideas of how these characters differ in attitude, behaviour and response to player actions.

3) It can serve as a turning point for other mechanism. In D&D, this means which afterlife a character would go, which gods are for or against them, which spells and magic items they can use etc. It connects particular moral choices made by characters with discreet game mechanics, allowing them to change progress of a game in ways that a player can comprehend and plan for.

---

You can replace semantic content of "Good", "Neutral" and "Evil" with whatever you like, as long as they have a clear relationship the arguments hold. In fact, you can extend the same arguments to other dichtomous pairs, like "Human versus Machine", "Human versus Vampire", "Sane versus Insane" etc.. (Yes, from a perspective of mechanical design and game function, Cthulhu's sanity rules constitute an alignment system, as do WoD various virtue mechanics, Cyberpunk's empathy, corruption as found in many other game systems, etc.)

The only real argument against Good and Evil, specifically, is that some people clearly can't accept "Game Good isn't what I think is good in real life" and that a character following their real life idea of good might be Chaotic Evil (or whatever else) instead. If you think doing a search-and-replace with those terms and turning them into "Holy" and "Unholy", go ahead. It's actually a non-change, because it retains all the good parts of Alignment and fails to avoid this one bad thing (because people still have ideas of what is Holy or Unholy in real life).

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Stealing isn't morally anything in a general way, because there is no moral consensus (let alone objective morality) by which it can be judged. Some people are opposed to theft on principle, either an absolute "stealing is never okay", or a more pragmatic "stealing is okay sufficiently rarely that we're better off forbidding it in general to minimize motivated reasoning" way. Some people are opposed or not opposed to theft based on the particulars of what was stolen and by who and why. But if you declare that your setting has objective Good in it, you're going to have to decide when (if ever) stealing is "Good", and that's going to leave some completely valid (or at least, not disproven by you) moral frameworks in conflict with the universe.

I don't know why you or anyone else would insist that Ultimate Objective Good in D&D have a single answer for every possible moral question, because the entire point of the ethical alignment axis is that there at least three answers to those questions: the Lawful Good answer (i.e. a deontological one), the Neutral Good answer (i.e. an aretological one), and the Chaotic Good answer (i.e. a consequentialist one). And explicit in character descriptions in prior editions and implicit still in the Great Wheel structure is the fact that even those alignments are not monoliths, as each alignment comes in at least three different flavors (e.g. LG comes in LG[N], LG, and L[N]G, represented in the Wheel by Arcadia, Celestia, and Bytopia, respectively).

Heck, the different layers in each Outer Plane physically represent different philosophies within a plane, which is why the NG/NE/TN/LN/CN planes only have one layer and the LG/CG/LE/CE planes have the most layers. Alignments are categories, not caricatures or straitjackets.

One can make a comparison between the alignments and the elements. Somewhere out there in the multiverse is Ultimate Platonic Fire, the pure cosmic essence of Fire that contains and represents everything physical and metaphysical about fire, cannot be quenched by Water, and doesn't depend on Air's oxygen or Earth's fuel to burn. But if you go to the Elemental Plane of Fire it's not an infinite featureless plain of identical Platonic Fire with a singular native creature that perfectly represents the Platonic Fire Creature; rather, the plane has smoky fire and smokeless fire and liquid fire and solid fire and intense flames and smoldering flames and red flames and violet flames and so on, and it has all sorts of creatures from barely-sapient animentals to supra-genius fire dragons and from amoral fire elementals to decidedly immoral efreet and everything in between. And, further, there are planes of Smoke and Magma and Radiance and Ash that represent combinations of Platonic Fire with other elements without being less Platonic than Fire itself.

So the idea that "detect evil exists therefore anyone who disagrees with the DM is wrong therefore moral philosophy implodes" completely mischaracterizes how D&D alignment actually works. To mangle a Walt Whitman quote, The alignment grid is large, it contains multitudes.

[Jason]

As written, when it comes to Holy (and Unholy, and Anarchic, and Axiomatic) the weapon will kill (and cause to raise as a wight) a 1st level character of the opposed alignment who picks it up.

So, in the context of the Wightopocalypse, these weapons are supremely dangerous.

Uh, no, it doesn't work that way as written, at least not in 3rd edition:

It bestows one negative level on any good creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. This negative level never results in actual level loss, but it cannot be overcome in any way (including restoration spells) while the weapon is wielded.

All the other aligned weapons feature the same rules text. Picking up such a weapon won't kill anyone, because the level drain effect never actually drains a real level, and there isn't anything in the rules about turning anyone into wights.

[NigelWalmsley]

But the rules are not arbitrary. There are often very good reasons for categorizing actions as good or evil. And if I'm the DM, as I often am, then what is good or evil in the game will in fact exactly correspond to my beliefs, at least as far as I want it to.

Your moral framework is also arbitrary. You may agree with it (indeed, one would assume that you do), but not everyone will. Not even everyone you game with.

Yes we did. But (a) "doesn't deserve to be killed for their beliefs when they aren't actively doing evil right now" is not the same thing as "innocent". And (b) we've moved on to an example where evil creatures or NPCs are actively attempting to do evil things, at which point it is justifiable to use force to prevent them from doing those things.

Sure. But we're also talking about the possibility of innocents. There's a demon attacking the town, and right now it's in the middle of a group of villagers. You drop a Holy Word on it to try to "protect innocents". But it turns out that a third of the peasants -- who are, in this context, innocent -- are in fact Evil, and they die. The spell does not do what you are claiming it does.

alignment serves as a pledge for what kind of character you're playing. "My character is Good" tells the GM "my character desires well-being of other creatures", "My character is Neutral" tells the GM "my character is indifferent to well-being of other creatures" and "My character is Evil" tells "my character desires suffering of other creatures". These give the GM a benchmark to evaluate your player decisions against and give them ideas of how other characters might react to them.

That's not "Good". That's "Utilitarian". And that's fine. Having people be Utilitarians is a useful thing, because Utilitarianism is a real philosophy that we can agree about the claims of and make predictive claims based off of. But it's stupid -- and quite frankly insulting -- to claim that's the only way to be Good. There are people who have other ethical frameworks and still claim to be good people. And even among Utilitarians, there isn't universal agreement about what action is correct in what circumstances.

It gives the GM, who has to play a wide array of characters, ideas of how these characters differ in attitude, behaviour and response to player actions.

Alignment seems like an extremely bad way of doing this. I understand the appeal of having roleplaying prompts for NPCs, but you want more than nine of them. The 3.5 DMG has a table of a hundred different personality traits, which seems like a much better toolkit than alignment. Particularly because you're going to want to distinguish between different characters of the same alignment. Clerics of Kord, Corellon Larethian, and Tymora should not all have the same attitude towards things, despite the fact that those gods are all Chaotic Good.

It can serve as a turning point for other mechanism. In D&D, this means which afterlife a character would go, which gods are for or against them, which spells and magic items they can use etc. It connects particular moral choices made by characters with discreet game mechanics, allowing them to change progress of a game in ways that a player can comprehend and plan for.

I don't see how this is desirable. Mechanical consequences for moral choices means players will optimize their morality. That sounds extremely awful for the game.

* snip *

This is just punting. You are accepting that alignment is stupid and we should use philosophies whose definitions we can agree on instead, but insisting that we keep a layer of obscurantism between "this faction is Utilitarians" and the name of the faction, and that the layer of obscurantism we use be extremely loaded terms that people care deeply about in real life. But if the faction actually are Utilitarians, we should just call them that and short-circuit all the stupid debates about definitions. Because while we may or may not agree on whether Utilitarianism is a useful or correct moral framework, we can at least agree what the word means in a way that we can't for "Good" or "Lawful". And we can agree what actions a Utilitarian would take in what circumstances.

[hamishspence]

Picking up such a weapon won't kill anyone, because the level drain effect never actually drains a real level, and there isn't anything in the rules about turning anyone into wights.

Nope - one negative level is enough to kill a 1st level character the moment it's taken. The character does not need to fail the save 24 hours later against it converting to a real level loss - just the negative level, is enough.

And the standard rule for energy drain (anything that inflicts negative levels) of any kind, is that they come back as a wight unless specified otherwise.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAb...NegativeLevels

Negative levels remain until 24 hours have passed or until they are removed with a spell, such as restoration. If a negative level is not removed before 24 hours have passed, the affected creature must attempt a Fortitude save (DC 10 + ½ draining creature’s racial HD + draining creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). On a success, the negative level goes away with no harm to the creature. On a failure, the negative level goes away, but the creature’s level is also reduced by one. A separate saving throw is required for each negative level.

A character with negative levels at least equal to her current level, or drained below 1st level, is instantly slain. Depending on the creature that killed her, she may rise the next night as a monster of that kind. If not, she rises as a wight.

A first level Evil character who picks up a Holy sword "has negative levels equal to their current level" even if they are never required to make that save 24 hours later.

[Jason]

Nope - one negative level is enough to kill a 1st level character the moment it's taken.

A first level Evil character who picks up a Holy sword "has negative levels equal to their current level" even if they are never required to make that save 24 hours later.

Yes, the standard effect of a level drain is death and wightness, but you didn't read the rule I posted from the DMG carefully enough: "This negative level never results in actual level loss,"

No real level loss = nobody killed just by picking up a sword.

The SRD descriptions I have of aligned weapons include the same text as the DMG about no actual level drains occurring.

It might be open to interpretation whether "no real level loss" means it can kill or not. Certainly it would be weird for a holy sword to turn evil creatures who try to use it into wights.

[hamishspence]

you didn't read the rule I posted from the DMG carefully enough: "This negative level never results in actual level loss,"

No real level loss = nobody killed just by picking up a sword.

That's not how negative levels work. A 1st level person hit by a wight dies immediately, not 24 hours later.

Same with Enervation:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/enervation.htm

You point your finger and utter the incantation, releasing a black ray of crackling negative energy that suppresses the life force of any living creature it strikes. You must make a ranged touch attack to hit. If the attack succeeds, the subject gains 1d4 negative levels.

If the subject has at least as many negative levels as HD, it dies. Each negative level gives a creature a -1 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, ability checks, and effective level (for determining the power, duration, DC, and other details of spells or special abilities).

Additionally, a spellcaster loses one spell or spell slot from his or her highest available level. Negative levels stack.

Assuming the subject survives, it regains lost levels after a number of hours equal to your caster level (maximum 15 hours). Usually, negative levels have a chance of permanently draining the victim’s levels, but the negative levels from enervation don’t last long enough to do so.



A negative level does not need to be one which "permanently drains the victim's level" to kill.

Sure. But we're also talking about the possibility of innocents. There's a demon attacking the town, and right now it's in the middle of a group of villagers. You drop a Holy Word on it to try to "protect innocents". But it turns out that a third of the peasants -- who are, in this context, innocent -- are in fact Evil, and they die. The spell does not do what you are claiming it does.

It's worse. Any nongood being 10 levels lower than the caster, who hears a Holy Word and fails their save, dies.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/holyWord.htm

So an 11th level caster casting it in a crowd, will kill a bunch of 1st level Evil and Neutral people.

[Jason]

Hmm. I see the problem. But as it makes no sense for a holy weapon to make 1st level evil creatures who pick it up more powerful by turning them into wights (CR3 creatures), and since the level drain effect is supposed to be temporary (only while wielding the weapon, and never causes permanent level loss when you drop it), I would rule in my games that it only kills them and does not also turn them into a wight. After all, as soon as they're dead they drop the weapon and regain their lost level.

[hamishspence]

I would rule in my games that it only kills them and does not also turn them into a wight. After all, as soon as they're dead they drop the weapon and regain their lost level.

It's the standard rule for any alignment conflict between person and item.

Negative energy and "things that inflict negative levels" are neutral - all alignments can use them.


But things that inflict negative levels, are dangerous, because all beings "killed by having a negative level inflicted on them" arise as wights the next night. Even if the beings or items inflicting the negative levels are good.

"You dropping it after you die" doesn't change the fact that what killed you, was A Negative Level. You can houserule otherwise, but it is a houserule.



The sole exception is certain undead beings whose energy drain powers turn victims into undead of the same kind, instead.