When "it's what my character would do" is actually true.

[Batcathat]

Moral is relative and contextual.

Not in D&D though. There morality is objective, detectable and neatly divided into nine little boxes. Which to me seems more unrealistic than all the magic and monsters put together, but it's case none the less.

[KorvinStarmast]

Not in D&D though. There morality is objective, detectable and neatly divided into nine little boxes.

Not really, and that perception is part of the problem with how alignment is used. The original 2 axis approach had various creatures scattered all over the map (a two axis cartesian grid)...and if you look at after lives that number greater than 9 in some of the editions, you can see how the error in creating a box was being corrected conceptually.

[Batcathat]

Not really, and that perception is part of the problem with how alignment is used. The original 2 axis approach had various creatures scattered all over the map (a two axis cartesian grid)...and if you look at after lives that number greater than 9 in some of the editions, you can see how the error in creating a box was being corrected conceptually.

Fair enough, though I don't really see how viewing it like that does much to help with any of the major issues I have with the system.

[Easy e]

The real question is not about alignment. The real question is if you are following the Most Important Rule of gaming.

Are you helping yourself and everyone else at the table have fun with the way you are playing? If the answer is NO, then you have a big problem. You just violated the Most Important Rule of gaming.

The consequences of violating this rule is pretty simple. Eventually, you will have no one to play games with. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow; but the world is littered with outcasts who violated the Most Important Rule to often and too liberally.

Do not be an outcast.

[Jay R]

Not really, and that perception is part of the problem with how alignment is used.

I wish that were true. But in fact, the problem isn't perception; the problem is the actual rules of the game

The original 2 axis approach had various creatures scattered all over the map (a two axis cartesian grid)...and if you look at after lives that number greater than 9 in some of the editions, you can see how the error in creating a box was being corrected conceptually.

Yes, I remember that graph. It first appeared in the February 1976 issue of The Strategic Review. I agree with you that it would be nice if that more-or-less continuous two-axis grid had any effect on the rules or play of the game.

Meanwhile, back at the actual rules, a Protection from Evil spell protects against anything that is Lawful Evil^TM, Neutral Evil^TM, or Chaotic Evil^TM, no matter how "Evil" they are. Similarly, the rules for Protection from Law, Chaos, and Good (and other spells and items that relate to alignment) functionally divide all creatures into nine little boxes that are objective and detectable.


... despite that 46-year-old graph.

[Vahnavoi]

Not in D&D though. There morality is objective, detectable and neatly divided into nine little boxes. Which to me seems more unrealistic than all the magic and monsters put together, but it's case none the less.

The boxes aren't little. They are very big, and if you take a look at the world around you at all, you'll see being able to sort objectively detectable existence into a few big boxes is nothing unusual.

For contrast, this is an actual theory of how moral reasoning develops in humans.

Even if you reject (for real life) notions of cosmic good, there is no actual issue in objectively observing behaviour and rationalizations of people and sorting them into boxes - which is what a game master actually does when determining alignment for game purposes. All of this is no more exotic than a personality test.

---

@JayR: from 1st to 3rd edition, detection spells regularly make a point about strength of aligned auras, so the idea that there gradations within alignment categories never left the rules for editions that made strong use of the dual axes. The concept was well-established enough that it even made its way to multiple independent computerizations of D&D rulesets.

You can argue it's an underutilized concept. But it's an underutilized concept because people pay more attention to alignment as a meme than as an actual system. I extend this to actual game design of 5th edition, which I maintain only has alignment at all for IP and legacy reasons.

[KorvinStarmast]

Fair enough, though I don't really see how viewing it like that does much to help with any of the major issues I have with the system.

Fair response, as you still often end up with mechanical sticking points.

I wish that were true. But in fact, the problem isn't perception; the problem is the actual rules of the game

Only if one choses to be rules bound.

Yes, I remember that graph. It first appeared in the February 1976 issue of The Strategic Review. I agree with you that it would be nice if that more-or-less continuous two-axis grid had any effect on the rules or play of the game.

It's been done violence to by the nine box meme.

Protection from Evil spell protects against anything that is Lawful Evil^TM, Neutral Evil^TM, or Chaotic Evil^TM, no matter how "Evil" they are.

Yes, any brand of evil triggers that.

Similarly, the rules for Protection from Law, Chaos, and Good (and other spells and items that relate to alignment) functionally divide all creatures into nine little boxes that are objective and detectable.

But not in D&D 5e, though. That "protection from" (and now dual purpose) spell protects one from Aberrations, Celestials, Elementals, Fey, Fiend, and Undead

Spoiler: Protection from Evil and Good SRD p. 173)

Show

Protection from Evil and Good / 1st-*‐‑level abjuration / Casting Time: 1 action / Range: Touch / Components: V, S, M (holy water or powdered silver and iron, which the spell consumes)
Duration: Concentration up to 10 minutes
Until the spell ends, one willing creature you touch is protected against certain types of creatures: aberrations, celestials, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead. The protection grants several benefits. Creatures of those types have disadvantage on attack rolls against the target. The target also can’t be charmed, frightened, or possessed by them. If the target is already charmed, frightened, or possessed by such a creature, the target has advantage on
any new saving throw against the relevant effect.

[Batcathat]

The boxes aren't little. They are very big, and if you take a look at the world around you at all, you'll see being able to sort objectively detectable existence into a few big boxes is nothing unusual.

I've yet to see a box size that's actually useful to me though. It seems that either they're small and specific, making them useful descriptions but very limiting in what kind of characters you can play or they're big and rather vague, allowing for pretty much any kind of character but being practically useless as descriptions (since you still have to explain how this particular Lawful Good character behaves to the point of the label "Lawful Good" itself being rather superfluous). There are a lot of potential issues with alignments, but I think most of them can be avoided, there just doesn't seem to exist any upside making it worth the trouble.

[Mechalich]

I've yet to see a box size that's actually useful to me though. It seems that either they're small and specific, making them useful descriptions but very limiting in what kind of characters you can play or they're big and rather vague, allowing for pretty much any kind of character but being practically useless as descriptions (since you still have to explain how this particular Lawful Good character behaves to the point of the label "Lawful Good" itself being rather superfluous). There are a lot of potential issues with alignments, but I think most of them can be avoided, there just doesn't seem to exist any upside making it worth the trouble.

The upside of alignment is that you can have inherently moral beings present in the setting, like angels and demons. Without some kind of objective morality framework for the fiction setting many of the traditional tropes of fantasy don't work.

One of the problems of alignment is that it is both overly complex and rather counter-intuitive. In particular the 'neutral' section of the alignment doesn't match with almost any extant human-derived morality system due to its positing of a huge moral space between good and evil (and an equally huge space between lawful and chaotic).

A point of reference to how this works: boxes is a terrible metaphor for how the alignment system functions. The Great Wheel as presented in D&D or the pie chart used in Pathfinder, which both display moral alignment zones spread around a True Neutral hole in the middle is a much more effective visualization as to how alignment actually works.

[RandomPeasant]

The upside of alignment is that you can have inherently moral beings present in the setting, like angels and demons. Without some kind of objective morality framework for the fiction setting many of the traditional tropes of fantasy don't work.

I don't buy this at all because those tropes are present, and in many cases established, in stories and setting without any objectively-detectable morality. Demons are all over in fantasy, and it's basically only in D&D and closely D&D-derived media where they have an explicit "is the bad guy" tag. But you can figure out that the giant horned dude who lives in a world full of fire and offers people power in exchange for getting to eat them later is a "demon" without also needing a HUD that says he is Evil.

[awa]

I don't buy this at all because those tropes are present, and in many cases established, in stories and setting without any objectively-detectable morality. Demons are all over in fantasy, and it's basically only in D&D and closely D&D-derived media where they have an explicit "is the bad guy" tag. But you can figure out that the giant horned dude who lives in a world full of fire and offers people power in exchange for getting to eat them later is a "demon" without also needing a HUD that says he is Evil.

There are plenty of stories where demons are nothing more than the bad guys, its definitely not exclusive to d&d. Its not wildly uncommon for pure of heart to be able to sense the demons evil in some fashion. In fact this seems so self evident that I feel their most be a miscommunication here.

[RandomPeasant]

There are plenty of stories where demons are nothing more than the bad guys, its definitely not exclusive to d&d. Its not wildly uncommon for pure of heart to be able to sense the demons evil in some fashion. In fact this seems so self evident that I feel their most be a miscommunication here.

There are stories where demons are the bad guys, but there are very few stories where it is metaphysically important that demons have a "Bad Guy" tag in a detectably real way. The demons in The Warded Man are antagonists, but that's because they are monsters that eat people, and any question of whether or not they detect as Evil is entirely irrelevant. Their actions could be ordained as correct by the metaphysics of the universe, and the people in the setting would still be opposed to them because "I would prefer not to be eaten" is a strongly adaptive trait.

[awa]

There are stories where demons are the bad guys, but there are very few stories where it is metaphysically important that demons have a "Bad Guy" tag in a detectably real way. The demons in The Warded Man are antagonists, but that's because they are monsters that eat people, and any question of whether or not they detect as Evil is entirely irrelevant. Their actions could be ordained as correct by the metaphysics of the universe, and the people in the setting would still be opposed to them because "I would prefer not to be eaten" is a strongly adaptive trait.

The demons in warded man are just monsters called demons, they do not traffic in souls or rule over an after life for the wicked they are not set up in opposition to an often absent being of perfect good. I mean is the exorcist based on d&d? The number of stories where demons are intrinsically evil and corruption is a fundamental part of their nature is overwhelming.

Have you really never read/ seen a story where a deal with a demon/ the devil no matter how well intentioned is a road to damnation?

Off the top of my head here is an urban fantasy novel about evil demons trying to corrupt a good person

Spoiler: good reads

Show

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12146537-diabolical

[RandomPeasant]

The demons in warded man are just monsters called demons, they do not traffic in souls or rule over an after life for the wicked they are not set up in opposition to an often absent being of perfect good.

No true demon has butter with his damned souls.

I mean is the exorcist based on d&d?

You see the exorcist casting detect evil? No. I mean, it doesn't even meet your standard, because the movie never takes a stance on the afterlife one way or the other.

Have you really never read/ seen a story where a deal with a demon/ the devil no matter how well intentioned is a road to damnation?

Something ruining your life is different from that thing being capital-E Evil in a cosmological sense. No matter how well-intentioned your meth addiction is, it's still going to cost you your teeth. That doesn't give meth an inherent moral character.

[Pex]

The demons in warded man are just monsters called demons, they do not traffic in souls or rule over an after life for the wicked they are not set up in opposition to an often absent being of perfect good. I mean is the exorcist based on d&d? The number of stories where demons are intrinsically evil and corruption is a fundamental part of their nature is overwhelming.

Have you really never read/ seen a story where a deal with a demon/ the devil no matter how well intentioned is a road to damnation?

Off the top of my head here is an urban fantasy novel about evil demons trying to corrupt a good person

Spoiler: good reads

Show

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12146537-diabolical

Technically in the Xanth books the hero Bink deals with demons in The Source Of Magic. They aren't Team Evil, not that they're nice either. The demon X(a)nth even rewards Bink for helping him to Understand Things - he guarantees all his descendants will have Magician Level magic.

[awa]

Technically in the Xanth books the hero Bink deals with demons in The Source Of Magic. They aren't Team Evil, not that they're nice either. The demon X(a)nth even rewards Bink for helping him to Understand Things - he guarantees all his descendants will have Magician Level magic.

I'm not certain why you are quoting me here, I have made no reference to the xanth books just the fact that demon being aligned with a cosmic evil is not unheard of in non D&d fiction.

No true demon has butter with his damned souls.



You see the exorcist casting detect evil? No. I mean, it doesn't even meet your standard, because the movie never takes a stance on the afterlife one way or the other.



Something ruining your life is different from that thing being capital-E Evil in a cosmological sense. No matter how well-intentioned your meth addiction is, it's still going to cost you your teeth. That doesn't give meth an inherent moral character.

So is your argument that only d&d has the exact spell detect evil? What actually is your argument?

[RandomPeasant]

So is your argument that only d&d has the exact spell detect evil? What actually is your argument?

What is your argument? Your last post simultaneously asserts that The Warded Man isn't an example of what you're talking about (because no afterlife), then gives The Exorcist as an example of what you are talking about, despite the fact that it too is neutral on the question of an afterlife. So what exactly are you defending here? You'd think if this sort of thing were so common you'd be able to give an example that you did not directly contradict and that I had ever heard of.

[Vahnavoi]

@RandomPeasant: your entire line of argument is backwards. Demons in fiction have horns and hooves because at a point those were seen as symbolic of moral and religious evil - they are outward indicators of moral alignment and examples of "bad guy tags" you say aren't there.

Magical ability to detect alignment, as opposed to simply deducing it from behaviour and appearance of a being, is a minor part of the overall system. Yet, if you go looking, folklore and fantasy predating D&D is full of magical means to detect moral or supernatural evil, insofar as people even made a difference between those. Silvered mirrors not reflecting vampires, milk curdling or grains of rice spoiling in presence of evil spirits, a blade glowing in presence of the enemy, so on and so forth.

Retrojecting modern ideas of what is "adaptive behaviour" is even worse

[Batcathat]

Magical ability to detect alignment, as opposed to simply deducing it from behaviour and appearance of a being, is a minor part of the overall system. Yet, if you go looking, folklore and fantasy predating D&D is full of magical means to detect moral or supernatural evil, insofar as people even made a difference between those. Silvered mirrors not reflecting vampires, milk curdling or grains of rice spoiling in presence of evil spirits, a blade glowing in presence of the enemy, so on and so forth.

Almost all of those are against a particular type of evil creatures though, non-vampiric evil still have reflections even in stories where vampires don't. That's not to say that those attributes aren't intended as a sign of their evil, but I can't think of anything as broad as Detect Evil.

[Elkad]

Even if your real-life alignment is Chaotic Neutral, you probably wear matching socks and obey the speed limit and don't shoot heroin for kicks and cross busy streets on green lights and avoid punching old people randomly and etc etc.

Because, even if in your deepest heart of hearts there is no such thing as good or evil and the only thing in life that's worth anything is the subtle whispering whims of your wild untamed soul, there are all kinds of reasons presented to you (from social judgement to prison) to make different choices.

Sure. Restricting your actions because of potential consequences is perfectly normal. Even if you are CE, you don't do your murdering in front of law enforcement, because you might get caught/dead.

But I don't think any of those things, other than the last, should actually be LAWS. I cross busy streets against the light. I'll do it right in front of law enforcement. I just do it with a bit of caution so I don't go gwish under a bus. The socks on my feet right now are the same style, so they feel identical, which I care about. They are NOT the same color, because I don't care about that, and I don't care if anyone else does.

And I don't claim to be CN. More like CG. Not the outer planar ideal, as I do have some differing outlook.

For example, I think there should be exactly ONE traffic law. Reckless driving, with the evidence considered by a jury of my peers (other drivers - even just one), not a judge. Societal custom covers the rest, and should offer no penalty if you do it safely.

[KorvinStarmast]

The upside of alignment is that you can have inherently moral beings present in the setting, like angels and demons. Without some kind of objective morality framework for the fiction setting many of the traditional tropes of fantasy don't work.

They are borrowed from cultural archetypes though, aren't they?

A point of reference to how this works: boxes is a terrible metaphor for how the alignment system functions. The Great Wheel as presented in D&D or the pie chart used in Pathfinder, which both display moral alignment zones spread around a True Neutral hole in the middle is a much more effective visualization as to how alignment actually works.

Agreed. An intermediate L-N-C approach that includes LE/LE, N, CG/CE for five alignments was a lot less difficult to use.

But you can figure out that the giant horned dude who lives in a world full of fire and offers people power in exchange for getting to eat them later is a "demon" without also needing a HUD that says he is Evil.

You can, but that requires one to not be rules bound as an approach, I suspect.

[Vahnavoi]

Almost all of those are against a particular type of evil creatures though, non-vampiric evil still have reflections even in stories where vampires don't. That's not to say that those attributes aren't intended as a sign of their evil, but I can't think of anything as broad as Detect Evil.

Not quite. Silver, for example, was seen as symbolically pure substance that was used to ward off many kinds of evils and impurities - which is why it hurts werewolves and faeries also (insofar as those were distinct from vampires to begin with) and refused to reflect other evil thongs as well. Some theorists hold that the folkloric evil-warding properties of such things came about as a result of their real anti-microbial properties. The idea that it was specific is because some piece of folklore remained in circulation while others declined in popularity.

These kinds of folklore are clear, sometimes direct precursors to how magic and supernatural alignment works in D&D. Saying they aren't exactly alike isn't really an argument for anything. A similar relationship exists between wish-granting entities of folklore and the Wish spell of D&D. In folklore, wishes were almost always expressed to a specific entity and limited in scope by power of that entity - there was no generic all-purpose Wish spell. But it would be strange to argue the D&D spell doesn't have its roots in the older versions.

[Batcathat]

Not quite. Silver, for example, was seen as symbolically pure substance that was used to ward off many kinds of evils and impurities - which is why it hurts werewolves and faeries also (insofar as those were distinct from vampires to begin with) and refused to reflect other evil thongs as well. Some theorists hold that the folkloric evil-warding properties of such things came about as a result of their real anti-microbial properties. The idea that it was specific is because some piece of folklore remained in circulation while others declined in popularity.

Sure, there are some methods said to work against multiple types of Evil creatures but the leap between that and something like a Detect Evil spell is still very big, I think. I'm not saying there's not a kind of relation between them, but it's pretty weak and something like D&D alignments isn't the only way (nor the best, in my opinion) way to include the sort of things seen in folklore in a game.

(And yeah, gotta watch out for those evil thongs. )

[Satinavian]

There are a lot of stories of supernatural beings using various disguises (shapeshifting, Illusion, glamour, masks or just a literal mundane disguise for e.g. hiding nonhuman bodyparts) and about various countermeasures, some of them specialized against specific beings, other multipurpose like mirrors showing the true nature of a thing or such.

But none of these depend on a framework of good and evil. So i wouldn't say that slignments or alignment detection are needed or even useful for recreatin the feel of such stories. If anything, a gem of true seeing or somesuch would even work better.

[Tanarii]

Agreed. An intermediate L-N-C approach that includes LE/LE, N, CG/CE for five alignments was a lot less difficult to use.

I mean, the current edition alignment system isn't difficult to use at all. Choose alignment, choose personality, ideal, bond, flaw, jot the descriptions from them down, keep them in mind when making decisions for the character in the fantasy environment, aka roleplaying.

The problem only comes when folks try to apply concepts to it that weren't even correct in older editions. Most commonly their own person views on morality and/or ethics or their own personal definitions of the words lawful, chaotic, good or evil.

[KorvinStarmast]

The problem only comes when folks try to apply concepts to it that weren't even correct in older editions. Most commonly their own person views on morality and/or ethics or their own personal definitions of the words lawful, chaotic, good or evil.

No argument there. And alignment doesn't exist in a vacuum. As you have often mentioned, character motivations and goals are also part of the properly fleshed out character. Simply slapping on an alignment tag and considering that sufficient for RP is lazy thinking.

A similar relationship exists between wish-granting entities of folklore and the Wish spell of D&D. In folklore, wishes were almost always expressed to a specific entity and limited in scope by power of that entity - there was no generic all-purpose Wish spell. But it would be strange to argue the D&D spell doesn't have its roots in the older versions.

FWIW, in the original version there wasn't even a wish spell: there was a ring of wishes. It is arguable that the "wish" spell should never have been added to the spell list, except that in the campaign style of play, if someone gets to a high enough level to craft the mightiest of magical items, how then does one try to craft a Ring of Three Wishes?

{Ring of} Three Wishes: As with any wishes, the wishes granted by the ring must be of limited power in order to maintain balance in the game. This requires the utmost discretion on the part of the referee. Typically, greedy characters will request more wishes, for example, as one of their wishes. The referee should then put that character into an endless closed time loop, moving him back to the time he first obtained the wish ring. Again, a wish for some powerful item could be fulfilled without benefit to the one wishing ("I wish for a Mirror of Life Trapping!", and the referee then places the character inside one which is all his own!). Wishes that unfortunate adventures had never happened should be granted. Clues can be given when wishes for powerful items or great treasure are made.

A wish can be a great narrative device in story telling (see the story of King Midas for example) but mechanically it's always been messy.

[RandomPeasant]

Retrojecting modern ideas of what is "adaptive behaviour" is even worse

Famously modern notion that being eaten is bad. Demons aren't evil because they have horns. They don't even have horns to show they are evil. They have horns (when they do, plenty of demons don't) because horns are scary. Which is the point: it's not about some metaphysical "Evil", it's about doing things that are bad.

[Vahnavoi]

@BatCatHat:

Sure, you can include folkloric beliefs in a roleplaying games in other ways. This is a poor argument against alignment when and where such beliefs existed against a background of belief in a moral universe.

---

@Satinavian: D&D includes virtually all of the non-moral tropes about illusions and seeing through them as well (as various spells and special abilities). Bringing such up is hence pointless; alignment isn't used to facilitate them and they don't exist to facilitate moral fantasy.

---

EDIT:

Which is the point: it's not about some metaphysical "Evil", it's about doing things that are bad.

A distinction without a difference.

[Batcathat]

@BatCatHat:

Sure, you can include folkloric beliefs in a roleplaying games in other ways. This is a poor argument against alignment when and where such beliefs existed against a background of belief in a moral universe.

Sure, if the folkloric belief you want to include is specifically objective morality being a thing then D&D alignment or something similar might indeed be the best choice. But if what you want to include is the various methods of detecting and protecting yourself from supernatural creatures, I think something like Detect and/or Smite Evil is a poor choice.

[RandomPeasant]

A distinction without a difference.

Exactly! Alignment is either offensive (if the list of actions that get the [Evil] tag does not align with the list of actions generally agreed to be bad) or pointless (if it does). Glad we're on the same page about kicking this outdated relic to the curb.