New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 306
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Utah...
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    It's the standard rule for any alignment conflict between person and item.
    Right, but the "mis-aligned weapon" level drain doesn't work like any other energy drain effect. It never results in permanent level loss and it disappears as soon as the weapon is dropped. Also, it doesn't give temporary hit points to the weapon, obviously.

    "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.
    Okay, it's a house rule, but it's a house rule that makes sense. The aligned weapon rule is obviously not intended to allow a bad guy to create hoards of undead by forcing a bunch of villagers to pick it up.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Enervation never results in permanent level loss too.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Utah...
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    Enervation never results in permanent level loss too.
    Granted, but you can't instantly lose the negative level by dropping an enervation spell either, so they are clearly different effects.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    There are many ways of inflicting negative levels. But the consequences of being "slain by negative levels" are always the same, except when explicitly stated otherwise.

    That's why a character with an intelligent weapon or an aligned weapon, should be extremely careful with it - and if the weapon kills somebody who handles it, the victim should always be dealt with in whatever way will prevent them rising as a wight.

    Either get them raised/resurrected, or, if they're an enemy, destroy the body.

    For another example - take a Life Drinker. Negative levels inflicted by it on its wielder go away in 1 hour instead of up to 15 hours. Still dangerous.


    https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItem...tm#lifeDrinker

    Life-Drinker
    This +1 greataxe is favored by undead and constructs, who do not suffer its drawback. A life-drinker bestows two negative levels on its target whenever it deals damage, just as if its target had been struck by an undead creature. One day after being struck, subjects must make a DC 16 Fortitude save for each negative level or lose a character level.

    Each time a life-drinker deals damage to a foe, it also bestows one negative level on the wielder. Any negative level gained by the wielder in this fashion lasts for 1 hour.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2020-10-31 at 10:39 AM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rynjin View Post
    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.
    The reason people are stuck on the good/evil axis is because it's the one with a clear enough definition to actually argue about; arguments about the law/chaos axis tend to break against the fact that few people can agree on what it actually means. It's telling that D&D 5E and Pathfinder 2E, the latest two instalments of the franchise, interpret it completely differently. As someone once put it, it's a solution 40 years in search of a problem.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    It's telling that D&D 5E and Pathfinder 2E, the latest two instalments of the franchise, interpret it completely differently.
    Are they really all that different? Or is it just that 5e doesn't discuss each axis separately, but only describes each alignment on its own rather than each part?

    From the relevant SRDs:

    Quote Originally Posted by Pathfinder 2e SRD
    Your character has a good alignment if they consider the happiness of others above their own and work selflessly to assist others, even those who aren’t friends and family. They are also good if they value protecting others from harm, even if doing so puts the character in danger. Your character has an evil alignment if they’re willing to victimize others for their own selfish gain, and even more so if they enjoy inflicting harm. If your character falls somewhere in the middle, they’re likely neutral on this axis.


    Your character has a lawful alignment if they value consistency, stability, and predictability over flexibility.

    Lawful characters have a set system in life, whether it’s meticulously planning day-to-day activities, carefully following a set of official or unofficial laws, or strictly adhering to a code of honor. On the other hand, if your character values flexibility, creativity, and spontaneity over consistency, they have a chaotic alignment—though this doesn’t mean they make decisions by choosing randomly.

    Chaotic characters believe that lawful characters are too inflexible to judge each situation by its own merits or take advantage of opportunities, while lawful characters believe that chaotic characters are irresponsible and flighty.

    Many characters are in the middle, obeying the law or following a code of conduct in many situations, but bending the rules when the situation requires it. If your character is in the middle, they are neutral on this axis.
    Quote Originally Posted by 5e SRD
    Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.

    Neutral good (NG) folk do the best they can to help others according to their needs. Many celestials, some cloud giants, and most gnomes are neutral good.

    Chaotic good (CG) creatures act as their conscience directs, with little regard for what others expect. Copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns are chaotic good.

    Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral.

    Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are neutral.

    Chaotic neutral (CN) creatures follow their whims, holding their personal freedom above all else. Many barbarians and rogues, and some bards, are chaotic neutral.

    Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.

    Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and goblins are neutral evil.

    Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.
    Both of them emphasise, at least for Lawful, a tendency to follow rules of some kind, whether those rules are personal codes, or "what's expected by society".
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2020-10-31 at 12:18 PM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    I don't really mind how 5e has done it, but i find it strange to assume that in the infinite scope of what magic can do in a fantasy setting, being able to scan and tell if someone is lowercase "good" or "evil" would somehow be impossible. Even if you removed the traditional alignment system entirely, people and things can still be "good" or "evil" in the colloquial sense of the word, after all.
    Last edited by NorthernPhoenix; 2020-10-31 at 12:21 PM.

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    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.
    Oh hey, look at that, someone nitpicking and demonstrating something I already addressed. Let me quote myself from the post you are replying to:

    Quote Originally Posted by Me, Myself & I View Post
    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. [...] 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.
    I will also paraphrase 1st edition AD&D rules, since they codified nine-grid alignment: "within these guidelines, every GM has to decide what, exactly, Good and Evil stand for in their game". I can fetch you the exact quote later when I have my ink & paper books at hand.

    Using (my particular brand of) Utilitarianism as in-game Good is not an error. It is how the system is meant to function. {scrubbed}

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley
    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.
    First of all, (A)D&D, which codified this, always had those other things to use alongside Alignment. Alignment has never been be-all-end-all of personality, so a large part of your criticism is aimed at a flaw that never existed. Second, have you ever asked if nine is actually a small amount for basic moral characteristics? Kohlberg's theory of moral development only characterized six, and when they couldn't find empirical evidence for the last one, they condensed it to five.

    If you tried to map levels of moral development on alignment grid, you'd run out of levels before running out of alignments.

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley
    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.
    You don't see how this is desireable in a game concerned with classical mythological concepts such as afterlives?

    Also, the game has made a point about players exploiting he system and had rules to penalize it from its inception. The game literally empowers a GM to play the part of god(s), with the option to enact in-game divine punishment for hypocrisy.

    Lastly... it's a game. Players attempting to optimize their moral decisions in a game is not more noteworthy than them trying to optimize other types of decisions. Since the game is concerned with modeling afterlife (etc.), characters in the game setting would conceivably do this themselves, were they real people. "What should I do to avoid the big fire below?" is a valid in-character question and mechanized alignment answers that question in a way that a player can also comprehend.

    So if you want to convince me this is "extremely awful" , you have to do better than say it "sounds" like it.
    Last edited by Peelee; 2020-10-31 at 04:05 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernPhoenix View Post
    I don't really mind how 5e has done it, but i find it strange to assume that in the infinite scope of what magic can do in a fantasy setting, being able to scan and tell if someone is lowercase "good" or "evil" would somehow be impossible.
    One 5e monster can - the Sprite (nixies, pixies, and grigs). Its power is more limited than the old 3e Detect Evil spell was though.

    Heart Sight. The sprite touches a creature and magically knows the creature’s current emotional state. If the target fails a DC 10 Charisma saving throw, the sprite also knows the creature’s alignment. Celestials, fiends, and undead automatically fail the saving throw.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2020-10-31 at 12:36 PM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Troll in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernPhoenix View Post
    I don't really mind how 5e has done it, but i find it strange to assume that in the infinite scope of what magic can do in a fantasy setting, being able to scan and tell if someone is lowercase "good" or "evil" would somehow be impossible. Even if you removed the traditional alignment system entirely, people and things can still be "good" or "evil" in the colloquial sense of the word, after all.
    I'm starting to wonder if many people feel threatened by the idea that good and evil might be defined differently than they define them, even as fantasy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I've tallied up all the points for this thread, and consulted with the debate judges, and the verdict is clear: JoeJ wins the thread.

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    One 5e monster can - the Sprite (nixies, pixies, and grigs). Its power is more limited than the old 3e Detect Evil spell was though.
    Yes that is a thing. But what i think is more important to remember (on this topic and others) is that this creature and its ability are just an example of the infinite variety of such things that can exist in a world. The perspective that nothing exists until it's in a book and that once a new book is published things go from not existing to existing is one i find fundamentally flawed and unhelpful. Published books just grant access or perspective over something that always was there.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    I'm starting to wonder if many people feel threatened by the idea that good and evil might be defined differently than they define them, even as fantasy.
    While that's certainly true, i don't think it's the whole story.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Troll in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernPhoenix View Post
    While that's certainly true, i don't think it's the whole story.
    I don't think it's the whole story either, but it may be one important facet of the discussion.

    I also find it fascinating that many of the anti-alignment arguments object to an extremely simple "X is always evil" kind of morality that is nowhere implied in the rules. As the Planescape setting shows, the opposite can be the case; cosmic morality is sufficiently complex and nuanced that even angels don't come to the right conclusion 100% of the time.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I've tallied up all the points for this thread, and consulted with the debate judges, and the verdict is clear: JoeJ wins the thread.

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernPhoenix View Post
    The perspective that nothing exists until it's in a book and that once a new book is published things go from not existing to existing is one i find fundamentally flawed and unhelpful. Published books just grant access or perspective over something that always was there.
    I think the point behind changing the way the Detect Evil paladin power works though,

    is that the designers thought that the "3.5 version" was not conducive to the gameplay style they wanted.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    I also find it fascinating that many of the anti-alignment arguments object to an extremely simple "X is always evil" kind of morality that is nowhere implied in the rules.
    Maybe not in the core books - but BoVD does have a few "X is always evil" statements.

    Even in the 3.5 PHB, there was "Channelling positive energy is a good act and channelling negative energy is evil" for clerics.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2020-10-31 at 01:01 PM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  14. - Top - End - #104

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernPhoenix View Post
    I don't really mind how 5e has done it, but i find it strange to assume that in the infinite scope of what magic can do in a fantasy setting, being able to scan and tell if someone is lowercase "good" or "evil" would somehow be impossible. Even if you removed the traditional alignment system entirely, people and things can still be "good" or "evil" in the colloquial sense of the word, after all.
    But there's the rub. The colloquial sense isn't consistent. The colloquial good is like the colloquial "tall" or "old" or "dumb". What does it mean to "Detect Tall"? Does a guy who's 6 feet tall detect as Tall? Does it matter if he's a gnome or a giant? Does it matter what height you are? Does it matter how old he is? Similarly, you could detect things like "has killed someone" or "practices necromancy", but different groups are going to have different answers to the basic question of how moral doing those things is. So you can't have a "Detect Evil" spell and have that mean anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    Using (my particular brand of) Utilitarianism as in-game Good is not an error.
    Yes, it is. It's an error because it makes the game more complicated for no reason. If you mean Utilitarianism, say that. Then we can all know what everyone is talking about. Insisting that we call your opinion "Good" and other opinions "Evil" is childish petulance, particularly when your justification is "it's that way because I'm the DM".

    First of all, (A)D&D, which codified this, always had those other things to use alongside Alignment.
    Then why do we need alignment exactly? If we're already using something that is fit for purpose, why do we also need obscurantist ranting? Why not just use something that is simple, comprehensible, and doesn't cause pointless arguments?

    Also, the game has made a point about players exploiting he system and had rules to penalize it from its inception. The game literally empowers a GM to play the part of god(s), with the option to enact in-game divine punishment for hypocrisy.
    If your system needs an explicit "DM slaps down the PCs" mechanic to work, it is a bad system. Full stop. Every word you say in defense of alignment leaves me more convinced it is a mechanic that has no place in the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    I'm starting to wonder if many people feel threatened by the idea that good and evil might be defined differently than they define them, even as fantasy.
    That's not how morality works. You can't have good and evil "defined differently", because those terms are subjective. However you define Good is how you define Good. It doesn't matter if someone else defines Good differently, even if that person has the power to punish you for doing things they don't like (unless you'd like to take the stance that "Good" means different things in different countries). You can have a metaphysical force and call it Evil, but that just makes things confusing. If you declare, for example, that Utilitarianism is "Good", you haven't magically made Virtue Ethics wrong. Virtue Ethics doesn't claim to be correct because of the way the universe functions to begin with. You've fixed exactly zero moral debates, but you've made all moral debates more confusing.

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Utah...
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    I will also paraphrase 1st edition AD&D rules, since they codified nine-grid alignment: "within these guidelines, every GM has to decide what, exactly, Good and Evil stand for in their game". I can fetch you the exact quote later when I have my ink & paper books at hand.
    If you had bought the digital version you could quote it right now:
    Quote Originally Posted by AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, pg 24:
    You, as Dungeon Master, must establish the meanings and boundaries of law and order as opposed to chaos and anarchy, as well as the divisions between right and good as opposed to hurtful and evil.

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Troll in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    That's not how morality works. You can't have good and evil "defined differently", because those terms are subjective.
    Unless they're not. If they're not subjective, then it's possible to be 100% convinced that you're right and be mistaken, just like you can be 100% convinced you know the law of gravity and be mistaken. Not just possible in fact, but given characters who aren't omniscient, it's certain to occur some of the time.

    A great example of this is Zariel. She didn't fall because she wanted to do wrong. She was zealous to do good but too arrogant to consider that she might be mistaken about what the good really was.

    Less dramatically, the Ceremony/Atonement spell (in Xanathar's Guide to Everything) exists for characters who recognize their error and wish to correct it.


    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    However you define Good is how you define Good. It doesn't matter if someone else defines Good differently, even if that person has the power to punish you for doing things they don't like (unless you'd like to take the stance that "Good" means different things in different countries). You can have a metaphysical force and call it Evil, but that just makes things confusing. If you declare, for example, that Utilitarianism is "Good", you haven't magically made Virtue Ethics wrong. Virtue Ethics doesn't claim to be correct because of the way the universe functions to begin with. You've fixed exactly zero moral debates, but you've made all moral debates more confusing.
    The goal of D&D is not to resolve moral debates, but to roleplay a fantasy character. Cosmic good vs. evil is a theme in many fantasy stories, so why shouldn't it also be possible in a fantasy game?
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I've tallied up all the points for this thread, and consulted with the debate judges, and the verdict is clear: JoeJ wins the thread.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Avatar By Astral Seal!

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    Less dramatically, the Ceremony/Atonement spell (in Xanathar's Guide tThe goal of D&D is not to resolve moral debates, but to roleplay a fantasy character. Cosmic good vs. evil is a theme in many fantasy stories, so why shouldn't it also be possible in a fantasy game?
    Why should it be the default?
    I have a LOT of Homebrew!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
    Show

    Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
    Show

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Troll in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post
    Why should it be the default?
    It's only the default in a small number of published games. In most, it's not there at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I've tallied up all the points for this thread, and consulted with the debate judges, and the verdict is clear: JoeJ wins the thread.

  19. - Top - End - #109

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    Unless they're not.
    They are. Those things are, fundamentally, subjective. That is the inherent nature of moral claims. When someone says "you should kill one guy in the Trolley Problem" or "you should kill five guys in the Trolley Problem", they are not making a factual claim. You cannot change the facts so that one of those answers is wrong. You can change the facts so that they have different consequences, but they already have different consequences, and people already give different answers.

    The goal of D&D is not to resolve moral debates
    Then why are you demanding that the game center things that do nothing but cause moral debates? You can still have cosmic conflicts without "Good" and "Evil" as the sides. See: most of the examples people give of "Good v Evil" conflicts, Malazan, The Stormlight Archive, Mistborn, MtG, Lensman, and The Second Apocalypse. Frankly, the only story I've seen that has an explicit "Good v Evil" setup is A Practical Guide to Evil, and that very much is not in line with people's notions of how D&D alignment should work.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    It's only the default in a small number of published games. In most, it's not there at all.
    Yes, such obscure titles as two of the three RPGs that have ever held the title for "best selling RPG". We're not debating some obscure mechanic from Fading Suns or something, alignment is part of the game that is synonymous with TTRPGs for most of the world.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    Yes, it is. It's an error because it makes the game more complicated for no reason. If you mean Utilitarianism, say that. Then we can all know what everyone is talking about. Insisting that we call your opinion "Good" and other opinions "Evil" is childish petulance, particularly when your justification is "it's that way because I'm the DM".
    As any good Utilitarian will tell you, there's no error in saying "Utilitarianism = Good". But more importantly, statements like this communicate big and important ideas about settings. Accompanied by the mythological and mechanical layers, they frame and reframe how things work. A setting where "Utilitarianism = Good" is radically different from, say, "Utilitarianism = Evil" - it makes the entire game of "dodge the big fire below" (etc.) different.

    That you can only see GM's authorial statements of setting morality as "childish petulance" is your own failing. If this is the level you feel is the cutting edge of the argument, you're just being a case in my earlier point: a player who can't cope with the idea that "Game Good is not real life good".

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley
    Then why do we need alignment exactly? If we're already using something that is fit for purpose, why do we also need obscurantist ranting? Why not just use something that is simple, comprehensible, and doesn't cause pointless arguments?
    Were you using Kohlberg's theory of moral development in your games? Had you even considered that concept, if not for me saying it? Had I ever come up with the comparison, if I wasn't already familiar with Alignment?

    I know the answer to the last one: "No". Prior to D&D, games weren't really concerned with describing moral characteristics of game characters at all, as far as I know. Certainly, D&D popularized it and AD&D codified it in a way that directly inspired multiple other systems. Alignment directly inspired concepts and settings such as the Great Wheel and Planescape. Due to its foundational nature, not having Alignment makes those things less functional than they'd otherwise be.

    If you cannot find a point for Alignment in all of that, there's no point in me trying to try to convince you any further.

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley
    If your system needs an explicit "DM slaps down the PCs" mechanic to work, it is a bad system. Full stop. Every word you say in defense of alignment leaves me more convinced it is a mechanic that has no place in the game.
    You must absolutely hate all manners of sports with referees. Having a mechanic to "slap down" players who are trying to exploit a game rule is Tuesday. It's nothing special, certainly it's not especially bad, and if you want to try proving it is instead of just stating it is, plenty of ludologists will be interested in your graduate thesis.

    Nevermind that the actual mechanic is the GM playing part of in-game entities. Such a radical concept in a roleplaying game!

    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    If you had bought the digital version you could quote it right now:
    That was not an option when I bought my copy of the rules.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    But there's the rub. The colloquial sense isn't consistent. The colloquial good is like the colloquial "tall" or "old" or "dumb". What does it mean to "Detect Tall"? Does a guy who's 6 feet tall detect as Tall? Does it matter if he's a gnome or a giant? Does it matter what height you are? Does it matter how old he is? Similarly, you could detect things like "has killed someone" or "practices necromancy", but different groups are going to have different answers to the basic question of how moral doing those things is. So you can't have a "Detect Evil" spell and have that mean anything.
    I think, in the absence of a strict alignment system, it's up to the DM to define such things, just as it's up to them to define the weather or or how easy or hard it is to climb a given wall.

  22. - Top - End - #112

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    That you can only see GM's authorial statements of setting morality as "childish petulance" is your own failing. If this is the level you feel is the cutting edge of the argument, you're just being a case in my earlier point: a player who can't cope with the idea that "Game Good is not real life good".
    The cutting edge of the argument is that, fundamentally, you agree with me. You don't have a "Good" alignment in your games. You have a "Utilitarian" alignment in your games. Calling it "Good" is one of two things: obscurantism, or a childish demand that the rest of the group stroke your ego. If we could just call a spade a spade, we'd be able to have clearer discussions, better transparency between groups, and more useful terminology. And since the concepts at hand would be exactly the same, we wouldn't lose anything. All you're doing is digging in your heels for no reason.

    Prior to D&D, games weren't really concerned with describing moral characteristics of game characters at all, as far as I know.
    Prior to FATAL, games weren't really concerned with describing the anal circumference of game characters at all, as far as I know.

    Alignment directly inspired concepts and settings such as the Great Wheel and Planescape.
    The Great Wheel and Planescape work noticeably better with a non-standard alignment system. Specifically, Planar Alignment. In the Great Wheel, the units of alignment aren't really "Evil" or "Law", but the specific planes, which embody specific philosophies. If you wanted to faithfully model that system, what you'd do is allow people to declare themselves to be aligned with "Baator" or "The Beastlands" or whatever plane had a philosophy they liked, or even no plane at all. That would make alignment clear, useful, and specific, while keeping the overall dynamics the same.

    You must absolutely hate all manners of sports with referees.
    That's true. I also only read CYOA books, and the only think on Netflix that I've watched is Bandersnatch. Or, wait, no I understand that context matters and there's a difference between competitive and cooperative play, or single-author and multi-author fiction. If the rules are broken, it's the responsibility of the group to determine how to deal with that, not the responsibility of the DM to slap the players around until they stay on the garden path.

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernPhoenix View Post
    I think, in the absence of a strict alignment system, it's up to the DM to define such things, just as it's up to them to define the weather or or how easy or hard it is to climb a given wall.
    Why do such things need to be defined? It's not like a wall, where you need a DC to climb it. In the real world, we don't know what the right answer to the Trolley Problem is. But we manage to make moral decisions none the less. The players can save the princess because they think that is the right thing to do, without having to have the DM reassure them that it is the Good thing to do as well. For all the ranting and raving by the people demanding that the game take stances on deep moral questions, that's not actually necessary at all. There's no story you can only tell if it is objectively and absolutely Good to save the princess, even if that was a thing that made sense.
    Last edited by NigelWalmsley; 2020-10-31 at 05:15 PM.

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Troll in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    They are. Those things are, fundamentally, subjective. That is the inherent nature of moral claims.
    Unless you're wrong and those things aren't fundamentally subjective. Are you unable to accept the possibility that morality might not work the way you think it does, even if only in a fantasy game?


    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    Yes, such obscure titles as two of the three RPGs that have ever held the title for "best selling RPG". We're not debating some obscure mechanic from Fading Suns or something, alignment is part of the game that is synonymous with TTRPGs for most of the world.
    That level of popularity is good evidence that for an awful lot of people the alignment system is a positive, or at the least not enough of a negative to spoil their enjoyment of the game. So why change what clearly isn't a problem when there are plenty of other games you can play if D&D isn't to your taste.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I've tallied up all the points for this thread, and consulted with the debate judges, and the verdict is clear: JoeJ wins the thread.

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Utah...
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    Unless you're wrong and those things aren't fundamentally subjective. Are you unable to accept the possibility that morality might not work the way you think it does, even if only in a fantasy game?
    Indeed, I would say that playing in a world which absolutely has objective good and evil written into its rules is part of the draw for many people. You really can play someone who is objectively good (or evil) - it says so right on your character sheet, and the world will react to your alignment.

    I for one have never met someone able to consistently maintain that good and evil are entirely subjective. Thorough discussion will always reveal something that they feel is just plain wrong or unfair, as if they really do believe there is an objective framework within which to judge such things.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Thing is, I want objective morality, but detect evil and smite evil are incredibly flawed executions of that idea. Again, I don't want objective morality in the form of literal eviltron readings. there is objective morality and then there is just being cartoonish. right and wrong do not have aesthetics/cosmetics, nor are they are matter of opinion. Its the former belief that makes me dislike detect evil, as it implies that evil has a specific aesthetic that makes it identifiable and thus anyone that emulates that aesthetic can be mistaken for evil- as well as aesthetics that if one use can be mistaken for good. I don't want this, not for mortals. for outsiders like celestials and fiends, them having specific aesthetics makes sense, but for mortal people on the prime material plane I do not want to kill something just because "looks evil", not even with the nuances involved.

    Why? Well hm.....lets say I found someone found some hidden villain who really deserves killing, like really truly deserves it, and say to do so I got a lot of evidence to support my case for killing him so that everyone will allow me to. I do everything right....so then why is Detect Evil needed? If there is no enough evidence to convince people someone needs to die because he is evil, then there is enough evidence for anyone to make that case and hunt that person down to do it. whether a paladin is there is superfluous, because a rogue with skills in finding the clues could just as easily find evidence of something fishy and figure it out from non-detect evil means and bring the person to justice. There are other ways of finding the villain that are more organic and fun than detect evil, because, how would know to use detect evil on some hidden villain in the first place? what are you, just randomly turning it on just because? while if you have suspicions of someone already, wouldn't your energy be better suited to finding a piece of evidence that you can prove to someone else that wrongdoing was done rather than something only you can see? It makes no sense. and if the ability is so useless as to not even be sure that you can pursue further evidence even if they are evil, its hard to see why you'd even turn it on, as your still someone randomly activating it or activating it on unconfirmed suspicion.
    I'm also on discord as "raziere".


  26. - Top - End - #116
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley View Post
    The cutting edge of the argument is that, fundamentally, you agree with me. You don't have a "Good" alignment in your games. You have a "Utilitarian" alignment in your games. [...] If we could just call a spade a spade, we'd be able to have clearer discussions, better transparency between groups, and more useful terminology. And since the concepts at hand would be exactly the same, we wouldn't lose anything. All you're doing is digging in your heels for [I]no reason
    What weird twisting of terms here. Utilitarianism is a moral theory - it's concerned with defining what is good and what is not. You can't do a text-editor search-and-replace between "Good" and "Utilitarian" because it fails to explain roles of "Neutral" and "Evil" in the system.

    You also forgot the entire point of the actual AD&D rules that I paraphrased and another person quoted verbatim: a GM decides exact meaning of Good and Evil for their setting. I may define them in Utilitarian terms, but another GM may not, and is allowed not to, by the rules. Sure, when and where two GMs want to compare notes and know the relevant philosophical terms, they can use those to quickly communicate ideas. But for non-philosopher, you need to follow "I'm using Utilitarian alignment" with "Utilitarianism considers good to be this and evil to be that" (etc.). Thus, to most players, saying "Good is X and Evil is Y" is calling spade a spade. And again, it communicates focus of the setting. A game system does not need to define, include or appeal to every moral theory that exists in real life.

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley
    Calling it "Good" is one of two things: obscurantism, or a childish demand that the rest of the group stroke your ego.
    You keep saying that; at this point, I'm going ahead and just dismiss as an ad hominem.

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley
    Prior to FATAL, games weren't really concerned with describing the anal circumference of game characters at all, as far as I know.
    But FATAL's rules didn't inspire people to make entire settings. It's almost as if describing moral characteristics has greater appeal to and utility for players and game designers.

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley
    The Great Wheel and Planescape work noticeably better with a non-standard alignment system. Specifically, Planar Alignment. In the Great Wheel, the units of alignment aren't really "Evil" or "Law", but the specific planes, which embody specific philosophies. If you wanted to faithfully model that system, what you'd do is allow people to declare themselves to be aligned with "Baator" or "The Beastlands" or whatever plane had a philosophy they liked, or even no plane at all. That would make alignment clear, useful, and specific, while keeping the overall dynamics the same.
    Uh, except, invented terms like "Baator" and "the Beastlands" don't tell most players anything about morality before you go through a process like described earlier and explain "Baator is based on a philosophy where X is evil and Y is good...". And even once you have every invented term associated with a proper philosophical term, you pretty much need to invoke AD&D's original construction of Law versus Chaos and Good versus Evil to explain their relative positions on the Wheel.

    Quote Originally Posted by NigelWalmsley
    That's true. I also only read CYOA books, and the only think on Netflix that I've watched is Bandersnatch. Or, wait, no I understand that context matters and there's a difference between competitive and cooperative play, or single-author and multi-author fiction. If the rules are broken, it's the responsibility of the group to determine how to deal with that, not the responsibility of the DM to slap the players around until they stay on the garden path.
    And when the group chooses to deal with rule-breaking by nominating a single person among them as a referee, what happens to your argument? It vanishes in a puff of logic, because the distinctions between multi-author versus single-author and competitive versus co-operative gaming do not matter for what I said. Conflicts between players happen in all kinds of games, there is no special flaw in empowering the GM to serve as a referee and giving them tools with which to deal with rule-brealking.

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Banned
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    I think the point behind changing the way the Detect Evil paladin power works though,

    is that the designers thought that the "3.5 version" was not conducive to the gameplay style they wanted.
    According to an interview I watched a few years back, the 5e team wanted to minimize what alignment does, period. They can't remove it from the game, but they can make it have no functions or effect on the gameplay in any real way. Which is what they did.

    Which was the right call.

    I've been busy for a couple days but I'm still with OP here:
    Alignment is pointless, and running 5e as if alignment isn't there is easy, simple, and flat-out better.

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by ImNotTrevor View Post
    According to an interview I watched a few years back, the 5e team wanted to minimize what alignment does, period. They can't remove it from the game, but they can make it have no functions or effect on the gameplay in any real way. Which is what they did.

    Which was the right call.

    I've been busy for a couple days but I'm still with OP here:
    Alignment is pointless, and running 5e as if alignment isn't there is easy, simple, and flat-out better.
    See, that's the part where i disagree. You can take out the old alignment system in terms of player vs DM gatcha mechanics entirely, but i don't belive any character, protagonist or antagonist, can or should be encouraged to be described as if they are post-modern abstractions beyond morality.
    Last edited by NorthernPhoenix; 2020-11-01 at 04:23 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernPhoenix View Post
    See, that's the part where i disagree. You can take out the old alignment system in terms of player vs DM gatcha mechanics entirely, but i don't belive any character, protagonist or antagonist, can or should be encouraged to be described as if they are post-modern abstractions beyond morality.
    ....Pardon?

    what do you mean by that? what is a "post-modern abstraction beyond morality"?

    Can you please explain? I'd just run them as enemies and people, villains and heroes. no need for an alignment system for that.
    I'm also on discord as "raziere".


  30. - Top - End - #120
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: No more Detect Good. Detect Holy instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by ImNotTrevor View Post
    According to an interview I watched a few years back, the 5e team wanted to minimize what alignment does, period. They can't remove it from the game, but they can make it have no functions or effect on the gameplay in any real way. Which is what they did.

    Which was the right call.
    I'd say 5e is a compromise between 3e and 4e - alignment is "more mechanically relevant" than in 4e, but less mechanically relevant than in 3e.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •