D&D morality

[Sam]

Hi. I'm the sort of person who doesn't play the game, but tries to get their hands on ALL the rule books and loves looking into things in detail.

This thread is due to reading the Book of Exalted Deeds and Vile Fantasy AND their reviews. Obviously we can't go into detail about them, except to note that they didn't do things right. Unlike Heroes of Horror, which is one of the few books to make me care about the characters- it has the best opening EVER.

This thread is about how morality should/does work in D&D (fixing up both the books at the same time). Obviously, this does not apply entirely to the real world... although for the sake of consistancy use SoD. I'll put up ideas, and you can offer your own, or shoot them down.

I came up with 5 things of the top of my head:

-Ravages should not do any damage. Instead, they should affect a person by preventing them from getting anything out of something- a form of punishment. For example, one could block the ability to taste or enjoy lording over others. Other forms could make a person literally feel others pain. Given that they don't stack, on a normal person they would be annoying, on an obcessed person, they would powerful.

-Eating souls gives you xp benefits- after all, why do you think you level up after killing things? You are consuming their lifeforce!

-The good/evil spectrum should have benevolent and vile. Benevolent are people who go out of their way, looking for ways to help. Vile individuals are psychopaths- evil individuals are callus towards the value of some people's live, but vile people are callous towards EVERYONE. Individuals on the extreme ends gain greater power in their respective spells, but the evil ones are more vulerable to good magic.

-The chastity, vow of poverty, etc feats should be scrapped, along with the deformity feats being vile. There should be a class of feats for body manipulation. In addition, Grey Guards and Inquisitors should be dumped.

-People's status in this world translates into LE afterlifes, making working for the evil gods a viable career option. Pledge yourself to Hector in this world and he will give you a legion in reward after your death. Unlike good afterlifes, you can gain a large amount of sheer power.

I had some ideas for really evil deads, but due to the availibility of magic AND afterlives, it is sort of useless. Why organ leg when heal and shapeshift spells are available?

Is this silly? Do you have any suggestings? Or should I stop writing threads in the wee hours of the morning?

[Tempest Fennac]

What did you mean when you said "Why organ leg when heal and shapeshift spells are available?". I know what you mean about some of the Vows not really working (eg: a Good Aligned fertillity diety would probably consider a follower who took Chastity Vow to be committing a sin). As far as Exp. and sols goes, the idea of consuming a soul for extra Exp. is interresting, but the general idea is that you gain Exps. for overcoming obsticals rather then specifically for killing things. I'll need to look into Ravages (the problem with your idea is that it's not really a punishment to the player, but damage is).

[nagora]

Just from a 1e perspective:

Eating souls gives you xp benefits- after all, why do you think you level up after killing things? You are consuming their lifeforce!

An interesting interpretation, and one I can see Evil deities promoting, but you get xp for other things, even in 1e. Are you sucking out the lifeforce of all that gold too?

The good/evil spectrum should have benevolent and vile. Benevolent are people who go out of their way, looking for ways to help. Vile individuals are psychopaths- evil individuals are callus towards the value of some people's live, but vile people are callous towards EVERYONE. Individuals on the extreme ends gain greater power in their respective spells, but the evil ones are more vulerable to good magic.

This seems fairly BtB to me: good is benevolent (in the extreme, self-sacrificing), while evil seeks to deprove others (in the extreme, murder and human(oid) sacrifice).

People's status in this world translates into LE afterlifes, making working for the evil gods a viable career option. Pledge yourself to Hector in this world and he will give you a legion in reward after your death. Unlike good afterlifes, you can gain a large amount of sheer power.

Well, that's what they tell YOU. In reality, most evil deities don't want to share power, especially with anything as dangerous as a high-level PC! Much of the time, their worshippers are tools.

In my Greyhawk campaign, the suggestion you made is more relevent and I view the gods' aim as wanting to "harvest" lifeforce in preparation for some sort of showdown with the other gods for control of the gameworld. Higher level souls are worth correspondingly more power. After the showdown, the world will become monotheistic (or at least mono-pathenionstic if there is such a word) and the struggle will move on to the next parallel PMP. The druids' cabal works to prevent this and to ultimately expel all gods from the PMP.

I had some ideas for really evil deads, but due to the availibility of magic AND afterlives, it is sort of useless. Why organ leg when heal and shapeshift spells are available?

Well, in 1e these things are rare so it's still a possibility in, say, cities. I seem to remember a short story on the topic in the Dragon once, many years ago.

[Xenogears]

Personally I thought the Ravages themselves were a pretty lame idea. From what I've heard they are basically poisons/diseases that are somehow holy because they only hurt evil people. Basically a way for a LG character to use poison and still denounce the villain for using poison.

Your idea about ultra extreme morality just seems like it is putting unneeded rules on something that can be roleplayed. If you want an evil character to be a sadistic murderer who wants to set the world on fire then do so; if you want him to be greedy and willing to kill people but still has people he cares about then just have him do it. Same idea for good aligned or lawful/chaotic for that matter. Your idea was somewhat interesting but seemed like it would needlessly complicate matters.

Eating souls for XP? Well I was kinda annoyed that all the ways to get bonus xp in the book of vile darkness only worked for spellcasters who create stuff. It could be a viable option but would allow for some cheap leveling if done right. I mean a level 10-15 character (Especially one with Leadership) could crush a small town with ease. How many souls would that be? Eating souls for XP is a too easily exploited idea.

Evil characters getting an army to lead from their god when they die? Well in the Dieties and Demigods book it mentions Petitioners and I think that might work for some evil gods to use them as such, but you are a mind-slave to the god. Actually turning loyal worshippers into perfect slaves is exactly what an evil god would do.

I actually kind of liked the Vows. From what I read of them then the ones like Vow of Chastity and Vow of Abstinence aren't incredibly good(which seems fair since they only affect Roleplaying and not all Players care much about that). And the ones like Vow of non-violence are interesting. I mean even if you get the super strict one you can still kill constructs and undead or just heal/buff your allies. It might make some of your party members angry that you capture all your opponents instead of killing them but nothing prevents them from killing the target without telling/asking you first. I've read plenty of stories where one character believes in never killing and even though his friends do kill he doesn't ditch them. He just tries to get them to stop and to change to his way of thinking.

The vows are a way of rewarding players for Roleplaying something that is normally very disadvantageous. I mean someone might have wanted to play a character that doesn't like to kill and only heals his allies or captures his enemies and now iff they do that they get some bonuses so they don't have to feel like they are crippling their character just for the sake of Roleplaying.

[Shazzbaa]

This thread is due to reading the Book of Exalted Deeds and Vile Fantasy AND their reviews.

...The Book of Vile Fantasy?... Clearly my D&D collection is missing a vital piece...

-Ravages...

GAH, I hate Ravages so much. Upon thinking about it, I'm not really sure why, since there are plenty of things that affect you based on alignment, but the justification involved of "Oh, it's like poison, which you shouldn't be using, but since it only hurts evil stuff it's okay!" makes it seem awfully cheap to me. Just make the good characters have to use poison if they want poison, despite its questionable ethics, and see if they do it!

Though they work alright as enhancement to a weapon; there they don't bother me -- if I have a Holy Greataxe and my friend has arrows tipped in a Ravage, we're pretty much doing the same thing.

-The good/evil spectrum should have benevolent and vile.

I've always kind of referred to "Exalted Good" as an alignment, so I'm sort of with this idea. Though I don't think stating it explicitly within the rules would do anything, really. Especially if "Exalted Good" were a pre-req for something, and the DM felt you weren't acting "exalted" enough, it would only be adding to the problems with alignment.

People's status in this world translates into LE afterlifes...

I'm glad to see this addressed. In the real world, the idea of the devil tempting people to give up their souls for some passing pleasure makes sense, because we know that in this world the afterlife is uncertain -- and how is this "Scratch" guy planning on collecting, anyway? -- but in the 3.x D&D world, where anyone with a decent INT score knows (with remarkable precision) how the afterlife works, where powerful magic can travel to the various afterlife locations and check out the real estate, where everyone should know by now that it's more than possible to collect someone's soul... it's hard to rationalise anyone actually pledging himself to a devil or demon just 'cause they promised him fleeting power. It just makes anyone who does so look like a chump, rather than a dangerous man trafficking in dangerous power.

[TheCountAlucard]

I disagree; most people are Commoners with no ranks in Knowledge (the planes) and an Intelligence score of 10. They won't leave the town they're in during their lifetime, let alone travel to another plane.

[Tempest Fennac]

Aren't they likely to listen to Clerics about the afterlife? The D&D worlds tend to have plenty of evidence to support the idea that there are other planes as well in the form of demon attacks and adventurer's stories.

[Thane of Fife]

it's hard to rationalise anyone actually pledging himself to a devil or demon just 'cause they promised him fleeting power. It just makes anyone who does so look like a chump, rather than a dangerous man trafficking in dangerous power.

I disagree, for two reasons.

1. If one is fairly certain that one is already going to go to whatever evil afterlife, then making that certain in exchange for a better time beforehand is not unreasonable.

2. More importantly, dying isn't certain in D&D. A character who deals with an evil entity may be striving for enough power to ascend, or to use other means to prolong his life. Who cares where your soul goes after you die if you never die in the first place?

[SuperPanda]

Re: Ravages - I've never really liked any of the alignment tied abilities or even items. I find that most things tied to alignments (ie holy sword) simply work better as tied to a class (ie holy avenger). It just makes the item that much cooler and far more useful over all (not to mention less of a headache).

As far as ravages go, I'd likely either not include them, or use a variation of the system you mentioned where they affect people based on a behavior (poetic justice). I'd also make this common knowledge and build in a set of superstitions tied to behaviors ravages commonly target (knocking on wood after boasting so that it doesn't come back to bite you). It would all be roleplay, but then thats the part of the game I like more.

---

Re:Eating souls gives xp bonus...

Personally... the way I see it, eating a soul gives you the bonus that the person you destroyed cannot be resurrected, ever. The power you get from that sort of activity is the fear it generates in others. If this guy kills you, you stay dead no mater what. In the DnD world thats scary, scary in a way that a elder red wyrm just isn't.

I'd give a fear aura based on reliable reputation myself or at the least a heavy bonus on Intimidate checks, something which can be graphed as a square root (not exponentially but the other way) starting quickly and then slowing down requiring ever increasing consumption to gain even a small bonus.
-------------
Re:Good Evil spectrum

Personally I think there should be a alignment graph, rather than chart:


((Positions on the imaginary graph are do to where
We have the X axis: Law vs Chaos (-X to X)
The Y axis: Evil vs Good (-Y to Y)

Now for the puproses of argument you have Neutral defined as any number under |1| in any direction.

Law is any number between -2 and -1 on the X axis
Obsessive Compulsive (and/or Miko-esque strictness) is -3 to -2 on the X axis

Chaos is any number between 1 and 2 on the X axis
Completely Random, pure anarchist, or the like is a 2 to 3 on the X axis.

Evil is between -2 to -1 on the Y axis
Vile (as you described) is between -3 to -2 on the Y axis

Good is between 1 to 2 on the Y axis
Exalted (your version of Benevolent) is between 2 to 3 on the Y axis.

a 4 should be reserved for beings like Constructs or such that are unable to function outside of that parameter and should be impossible to exist on both axis (something with a -4 on the X axis instantly has a 0 on the Y axis and cannot do anything it has not received instructions for in the proper format and cannot receive new instrunctions until it has completed the previous task.) An Inveitable is an example of Alignment (-4, 0), or True Lawful.

This way you get Lawful, Axiomatic, Good, Exalted, Chaotic, Anarchic, Evil, Vile, Neutral, and True _____ as alignment options...

Most people will think that this is too complicated for the current DnD system, and I agree with them. But I feel alignment is best used as an RP guide and less as a hard mechanic (not that I agree with the direction 4th ed took with it at all).

--------------------

I personally believe vows and the such are best worked out between players and DMs and that the ones provided in the books are examples or templates.

creating a character based on Doctor Who for a DnD game isn't exactly a bright idea if you DM wants to play a hack and slash, but if they want an investigation and mystery campaign with a dangerous or violent aspect to it, suddely that Vow you made to always try to reason with the BBEG and give them a second chance becomes an easy plot hook for the DM to work with and create a more interesting story while giving the player a spotlight. Like alighment I see these more as role play "flags" for players to let the DMs know what sort of story they are hoping for.

That said, chastity being vowed by a follower of a fertility god should be akin to denouncing that god before all... and would lead to a very amusing story hook if I was DMing it (the god sends its most loyal, and attractive, servants to try to break your vow just so that they can get their follower back into their weave)... done right, it would be a very funny story arch, done wrong and you'd really need that "book of vile fantasy"

as to deformations being vile, they make as much sense as abstinence being inherently good... both are based off of actual middle ages beliefs that have no bearing on most game worlds what so ever.

-------------

re: Serving an Evil god...

At that point, its all fluff which never really translates well to my home brew worlds. I rarely run games with PCs at a high enough level that death isn't an obstacle of some sort and the idea of Evil gods (particularly gods of treachery and such) following through on their promises makes as much sense as people selling their souls to devils.

Whatever fluff best fits your setting is the right fluff. If you don't see it, make it. If you don't like it, change it. This is how I usually run games, and so far without complaint form my players (quiet the oposite on fluff matters... mechanics I sometimes get complaints about, but thats because I consider everything outside the PHB optional for players and half my group considers anything in a book from which I've approved any single item to be fair play

[Eldan]

Well... as far as I see it, the evil afterlife actually does have much to offer for evil people. If you read some planescape material, then the evil gods actually have promising afterlives for their people. Also, some people might actually want to become devils or demons. Demon? Strong. Devil? Powerful. Do some evil people want that? Check.

[Theodoric]

The way I use the morality system is the 4E way but heavily inspired by the Mass-Effect style of morality.
'Good' means that you use restriction, care about the living (not killing them and using bone fragments for toothpicks), and delay 'easy' rewards so you can get more potent rewards later.
'Evil', on the other hand, means that you have no or less restrictions, and would gladly sacrifice lives, in every meaning of the word: with a preference to gaining rewards quickly and now instead of later-on.
Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil are their respective extremes

The whole 'rewards now/later' thing requires some tweaks to implement effectively in D&D. The way I'm trying it out ATM is that doing Good things resolves in a more positive attitude (diplomacy bonus) the adventurers by everyone else, favours by the local rulers and slight discounts, while doing Evil things results in higher monetary rewards and local Intimidate bonuses.

For Example, one sub-quest in a city setting I ran involved protecting a temple from burglars (well, more like pillagers, but still) in the middle of the night. Most people in the party were Lawful Good (Paladins and clerics are popular here) so they decided to capture the burglars and deliver them to the local law enforcement for bounties, which also helped them with the quest advancement.

Other possible endings I had prepared in advance (before they created the party) were G:Killing the burglars instead of capturing them, lowering the reward at the law enforcement office, but more loot; E: cooperate with the burglars and get some help from the thieves' guild instead of the police; or CE: kill everyone, ransack the place and burn down the builing; which would have given them a good reward, but made it mostly impossible to advance the quest as I had set it up.

Thank Bahamut for Lawful Good characters.

[Sam]

Except that is intelligent self interest, NOT good. After all, good is what you do when no one is watching, so to speak. What you are tlaking about is long term vs short term planning- like the decision to smoke or to save for retirement. These are not issues of morality as much as farsightedness- wouldn't they be covered under Int/wisdom?

The "eat souls" was partly in jest- after all, given you get xp for killing things, it was a good bet that was where xp comes from! It breaks down with story playing xp, xp for winning and not killing and other sources. Still, the idea that everyone, not just the villians, gains power from killing things... it holds a bizarre appeal. The "We are not so differant" one.

Of course, that is probably me reading into the rules too much.

[Vexxation]

The "eat souls" was partly in jest- after all, given you get xp for killing things, it was a good bet that was where xp comes from! *snip* Still, the idea that everyone, not just the villians, gains power from killing things... it holds a bizarre appeal.

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!

Spoiler

Show

[SuperPanda]

Vexxation... I think you just made this discussion 10 times more enjoyable...

I had already planned to work Ramierez (Sean Connery's character) into my Oriental Adventures game (well, references only, last time around I had them fight 4 kappa and a Nezumi... they still talk with glee, or tears, about killing the Ninja Turtles).

Also, that must be where my Samurai player got all his ranks in knowledge History.

[Sam]

Organ legging (in responce to questions) is the killing of another creature and using their body parts. Specifically "The Jigsaw Man" gives a nice and creepy description.

Of course, with magic you can expand it to more than life extension. Kill someone and take their limbs for extra strength. Kill a bunch of people and have a collection of eyes that you can switch around. And for the classic cases of "that body with that face"... well, there is a reason it is called evil. Not surprisingly, polymorph spells make this entirely redundant.

It partially depends on the magic level of the world I guess. With just a little magic, but not alot, these things could happen, but after enough magic there are much easier methods. Needless to say, such actions are obviously vile and extremely evil, which is why they'd fit in the book of vile darkness.

As for why I hate vows (including the vow of nonviolence), imagine that the vow was to eat no spicy food. Why the heck should it give you a bonus? The fact is that the reason sex is choosen is because it is taboo in our society. However, being taboo has nothing to do with morality. The vow of poverty makes slightly more sense- after all, you are giving the money away, but being dirt poor is not a good thing. There should NOT be bonuses for eschewing possessions- after all, that defeats the entire point.

As for nonviolence... this is D&D. Obviously, not killing everything is a reasonable and good approach, but not killing anything is bizarre. We are talking about a world where creatures that are literal sociopaths are common.

Obviously, I think talking a creature into becoming good is ridiculous most of the time.

As for highlander... why is it that ANYTHING that has Scots or Brits added to it automatically becomes 100% more awesome? I mean we had that appear in the Dominic Deegan thread, in the "hysteria" thread on destroyer (technically steam punk)...

[Xenogears]

The only part of DnD morality I don't like is the fact that it seems like every player out there thinks that LG is more good than CG and that CE is more evil than LE. It gets really really annoying. Personally if I had to pick I would actually say the opposite but they are more or less equal.

Lawful good that is like the police force. Staunch defenders of what is good but if you break a law (even for a good reason) you will earn their ire. Chaotic good is like Robin Hood or Batman. Willling to break the rules for the greater good. Chaotic Evil is more interested in destruction and killing. Like the Joker or a a mass murderer. Pretty evil. Lawful Evil is still worse. Lawful evil is all about bending the world to it's knees beneath your iron fist. Like say Darkseid or Hitler.

One isn't better or worse than the other. Police force is needed to maintain Law&Order but sometimes are forced to enforce unjust laws. Vigilantes are needed to dispense justice when police can't but A) can become evil easier or B) if everyone was allowed to dispense justice there would be anarchy. Mass Murderers are very very evil. They kill and enjoy killing and do it personally. Tyrants have goons kill people but end up killing a lot more than the mass murderers and making many times that number suffer horribly.

The Vows seem okay to me. Except stuff like Vow of chastity and abstinence. Most players don't really care if their characters are getting drunk and enjoying a womens "company." Or a mans for that matter. Some people (in real life too) believe that nothing justifies killing and that includes insects and other mindless or evil creatures. So it has a basis in reality and can make for an interesting role-play. The vows just make it so they don't have to make their character's useless.

Also the vow of non-violence still lets you knock people out and turn them over to the guards (who may or may not execute them. Even the other PC's could as long as you don't know about it.). You can even kill constructs and undead as well. Technically anything without a con score is not considered living and is fair game for even a creature with a vow of non-violence.

[The Extinguisher]

I'm glad to see this addressed. In the real world, the idea of the devil tempting people to give up their souls for some passing pleasure makes sense, because we know that in this world the afterlife is uncertain -- and how is this "Scratch" guy planning on collecting, anyway? -- but in the 3.x D&D world, where anyone with a decent INT score knows (with remarkable precision) how the afterlife works, where powerful magic can travel to the various afterlife locations and check out the real estate, where everyone should know by now that it's more than possible to collect someone's soul... it's hard to rationalise anyone actually pledging himself to a devil or demon just 'cause they promised him fleeting power. It just makes anyone who does so look like a chump, rather than a dangerous man trafficking in dangerous power.

No see, the way I see it, people do these things in the D&D world because they assume that evil and power will be rewarded. The kind of people that sell souls for power are vain and arrogant enough to think they are a special case.

But as the saying goes, sure you spent your life to spreading evil and destruction, but what have you done for Asmodeus lately?

[Tempest Fennac]

Thanks for explaining about Organ Legging (wouldn't limbs lost while Polymorphed end up matching up to the person's original body afer they turned back, though? Also, don't forget that growing back limbs needs relatively powerful magic/psionics). I know what you mean about alignments as well, Xenogears. I remember looking through the Book of Exhaulted Deeds and thinking that a lot of the advice was Good Stupid rather then being practical (eg: in OotS, itf they had just killed Nale and Thog before destroying their remains, it would have saved over 400 innocent people, and they should have known that the low-level Warriors who made up the town guards would have no chance of stopping Nale or Thog if they escaped).

[Sam]

Oh... I didn't realize polymorph damage carries over. It depends on how common heal and replace limb spells are- if they are rare, than other people are your most valuable resource...

Come to think of it, it depends on how rare other kinds of magic is- heal makes basic surgery ridiculously easy... well, on other people if you have paralyzing magic.

However, people strong enough to do this have better ways and so it is pretty useless. In our own world it is a problem, but extremely minor due to incompatibility.

I'm trying to think of a situation like in Windows of the World (it is a scifi story in the man-kzin series) would work in a fantasy setting, if only because it fits so... perfectly for a villian.

As for not killing the supervillians... I blame that on cardboard prisons. Of course, if the Order of the Stick knew that, than the party shares some blame and is more lawful than good.

[EvilElitest]

i love those books more than most D&d books, i think they are the most important books in non setting specific D&D. That being said, i bloody hate ravages. Ok, i don't agree, but if you say poison is evil, fine i can dig it. But when you say that its ok if you use poison under a different name, bloody inconsistent
from
EE

[Tempest Fennac]

In a high magic game, would surgery really be necessary? I'm guessing it would depend on what kind of Cleris operated in the area (eg: a Theocracy of Pelor or Ehlonna would probably have free Remove Negative Condition spells for the general public, which a LE dictator prbably wouldn;t care that much about ordinary peasants becoming ill). There is a level 5 Egoist Psion power which allows limbs and organs to be re-grown, so it would be easier in a world with Psionics. I know what you mean about prisons (to be fair, the people who act as Town Guards probably don't have the resources to completely nullify the abilities of every class in the game, so they are always at a disadvantage unless the ton is rich enough to get things like anti-magic and psionic prison cells). Incidentally, if eveil creatures are likely to be executed anyway, why would not killing them on-the-spot really class as good?

[chiasaur11]

In a high magic game, would surgery really be necessary? I'm guessing it would depend on what kind of Cleris operated in the area (eg: a Theocracy of Pelor or Ehlonna would probably have free Remove Negative Condition spells for the general public, which a LE dictator prbably wouldn;t care that much about ordinary peasants becoming ill). There is a level 5 Egoist Psion power which allows limbs and organs to be re-grown, so it would be easier in a world with Psionics. I know what you mean about prisons (to be fair, the people who act as Town Guards probably don't have the resources to completely nullify the abilities of every class in the game, so they are always at a disadvantage unless the ton is rich enough to get things like anti-magic and psionic prison cells). Incidentally, if eveil creatures are likely to be executed anyway, why would not killing them on-the-spot really class as good?

Possible reformation?
General "They haven't technically done anything yet"?
Vetinari level grand plans?

[Tempest Fennac]

I'm assuming that the evil characters in question would have already done something wrong (attacking people because they are a "usually evil" race would class as evil to me). I'm cynical, so I tend to think that trying to reform enemy characters in a D&D game is a waste of time; Crowns of Opposite Alignment would be perfect for this, but they could be seen as unethical, and they are expensive, I think). What did you mean by "Vetinari level grand plans?"

[Sam]

Their justification for why posion is bad is because it slowly and painfully kills you... apparently people don't die from infected arrow wounds in D&D. It is simply an arbitrary way to prevent the good guys from doing quick kills in 2nd edition that they kept on.

"Vetinari level grand plans"

Read Going Postal or Making Money. The dictator has... uses for criminals, particularly those who have useful skills- he has a con man reform the post office and mint. After all, who better to get the public to trust the government?

[Kaihaku]

Good ideas if you want to clean up the current alignment system. I generally either replace or mostly ignore the current one. I think alignment is the most butchered aspect of the game roleplay-wise. Good and Evil are handled poorly enough in most sourcebooks but then the whole "Law" and "Chaos"...eh.

[Tempest Fennac]

Thanks for the advice, Sam. (Considering what te term "going postal" means, I'm guessing things didn't rurn out well, right?)

[Xenogears]

I personally think that the alignment system is okay. It's the players who are at fault. They let themselves get pigeonholed by the alignment they pick. CE doesn't need to be a massmurdering psychopath. He could be a normal thief. That covers both the chaotic (subverting the law) and the evil(stealing duh.) LG doesn't have to always enforce laws even if they are not good. He might be a LG person that leans more towards good than Lawful. So he loves the law and thinks it is necessary but understands that not all laws are for the greater good. I could give an example for all of them if I wanted to. The alingment system just makes it easier from a mechanical perspective (like who smite moves work on or detection magic) but they aren't supposed to limit your roleplaying. A lot of people seem to think that if they are LG (not counting Paladins) They have to uphold the law no matter what (which really is more LN anyway.)

[TheCountAlucard]

Their justification for why posion is bad is because it slowly and painfully kills you...

Technically, unless the poison does CON damage or the like, it can't kill you. Taking five hundred Dexterity damage just makes moving around really highly unlikely. Drow poison just knocks people out; it's a tranquilizer.

[hamishspence]

"it causes gratuitous injury in the process of killing or incapaciting its target"

It may be a holdover from real-world codes of conduct: you are not supposed to use poison or disease as a weapon of war. While people certainly did so in the past, it was considered dubious, and by (very) recent times, poison as a weapon was banned.

Same principle applies to attacking non-combatants who happen to be members of the opposing faction, or combatants who surrender. By Exalted Deeds rules, slaughtering non-combatants and surrendering combatants is Evil, and this may be the reason: because its banned in modern military codes.

[sonofzeal]

-The good/evil spectrum should have benevolent and vile. Benevolent are people who go out of their way, looking for ways to help. Vile individuals are psychopaths- evil individuals are callus towards the value of some people's live, but vile people are callous towards EVERYONE. Individuals on the extreme ends gain greater power in their respective spells, but the evil ones are more vulerable to good magic.

Heee! Did you read my post on the subject two days ago?

As for crunch, I'd make most alignment-affecting things either less powerful or extreme-form only and more powerful. For example, Paladins would get Detect Vile, not "at will", but always on unless they consciously supress it. Smite Evil would become Smite Vile and get a +1 to attack and damage. In general, I'd use the intermediate forms more for restrictions (Monks can be axiomatic, but can also be merely lawful; Bards can be any non-axiomatic), and most effects that attack or defend those of particular alignments only work for the extremes.