Subjective Alignment: Is it viable?

[nc-edsl]

I had an idea regarding making DnD alignments subjective, and was wondering what the people here thought. Is it decent (or even feasible), or will it just screw everything up?

Basically, at the beginning of the game each player would give the DM a short description (preferably written) describing what their character considers good/evil/lawful/chaotic. In that game, any spells with effects relating to alignment (detect <blah>, protection from <blah>, etc.) use definition of the caster to determine their effects. Enchantments would follow similar rules, using the definitions of the person who enchanted them.

Other people have probably come up with similar schemes before (the game's been around for a long time, after all), but I haven't come across anything like this yet.

Any questions or comments?

(Also, should this be in the Homebrew subsection? It seems to deal more with classes, feats, and other numerical things, but I wasn't sure.)

[Minchandre]

This could work very, very well, or very, very poorly. Basically, it increases the power and responsibility of the GM, so the standard applies: a good GM will cause this rule to be t3h awesome, whereas a bad one will make it suck (moreso than normal alignment issues).

That said, there's also the issue that, in a lot of DnD settings, good and evil aren't subjective; they are actual, definite, objective quantities as defined by the gods &c. Using this sort of rule would definitely change the tone quite a bit.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

This could work very, very well, or very, very poorly. Basically, it increases the power and responsibility of the GM, so the standard applies: a good GM will cause this rule to be t3h awesome, whereas a bad one will make it suck (moreso than normal alignment issues).

This. Though normal alignment is so dependent on the DM and sucks anyways, so it doesn't matter.

[nc-edsl]

That said, there's also the issue that, in a lot of DnD settings, good and evil aren't subjective; they are actual, definite, objective quantities as defined by the gods &c. Using this sort of rule would definitely change the tone quite a bit.

It could still work in a setting like that, but with the values defined by whatever god a Divine caster worships. (Arcane casters make their own spells, so they'd still get to make their own choices.)

[Nerd-o-rama]

I think this could work well, as long as it's laid out beforehand. Can give a definite cynical or gray-morality scale to a campaign where Alignment-based spells are used often.

Frankly though, I'd just torpedo the whole mess, ditch alignment-based spells, and just ban Paladins or let them Smite Anything.

[Blue Ghost]

I think that getting rid of the alignment system altogether would be a much more viable change than working out a system of good and evil that varies from character to character. Rule that effects such as Holy Smite, Protection from Evil, and Smite Evil work on any character that the character using the effect considers an enemy, instead of characters of opposite alignment (and rename the effects accordingly).

That said, I much prefer the standard alignment system to any system of subjective alignment or no alignment. Probably largely because I'm a strong believer in objective morality IRL.

[Killersquid]

Be prepared to use an iron glove to prevent munchkinry, but that's stating the obvious. It is doable, but it will be difficult. I agree with other posters, you will want to set down a codified set of rules for this.

[Nerd-o-rama]

That said, I much prefer the standard alignment system to any system of subjective alignment or no alignment. Probably largely because I'm a strong believer in objective morality IRL.

I think there's such a thing as objective morality (a subject for another thread, since it's about real life rather than gaming), it's just that it's never been handled well in game terms by D&D, nor will it probably ever be.

[Starsinger]

Frankly though, I'd just torpedo the whole mess, ditch alignment-based spells, and just ban Paladins or let them Smite Anything.

I second this motion.

[Kris Strife]

The biggest problem with subjective morality in just about anything, is that who considers themselves evil in the first place?

[Captain Six]

It sounds like a really good system for a group of friends. Alignment actually works pretty well for me most of the time, I bet it does for most people. The problem with alignment is discussing it with large groups of people over a forum in attempt to reach a conclusion. Your system is too abstract to have rules hammered out, and it can easily be abused to the players advantage. These points could easily become an endless debate on both mechanics and ethics. The true question would be can you trust your players not to abuse it? In that answer you will find the answer to your original post.

[Fishy]

In effect, you replace Detect Good and Detect Evil with Detect Ally and Detect Enemy.

Which could work, but Magic Circle Against People I Don't Like seems like it might be a shade too powerful.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Pissed

A pissed weapon is imbued with power. This power makes the weapon aligned and thus bypasses the corresponding damage reduction. It deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against anyone who pisses you off. It bestows one negative level on any other creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. This negative level never results in actual level loss, but it cannot be overcome in any way (including restoration spells) while the weapon is wielded. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the holy power upon their ammunition.

Moderate evocation; CL 7th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, smite; Price +2 bonus.

That work?

[Mastikator]

The biggest problem with subjective morality in just about anything, is that who considers themselves evil in the first place?

On the upside, nobody would have any authority to demonize goblins anymore since it's subjective and they know it. You're no better than they are. And thus you have to have a real reason to kill them, "it says they're evil in the monster manual" is no longer valid.

I second Nerd-o-Rama's motion about torpedo:ing the whole thing.

[Nerd-o-rama]

On the upside, nobody would have any authority to demonize goblins anymore since it's subjective and they know it. You're no better than they are. And thus you have to have a real reason to kill them, "it says they're evil in the monster manual" is no longer valid.

Let's be fair. That was never valid except in games that are pure kick-in-the-door-slash-and-hack-the-monsters anyway.

[TakeV]

There is an alternative, that gives a better feel of greyness to the alignment system, I think. In our latest game, my group has decided to try a new way of handling alignment, where the players don't actually know what their own alignment is, and the GM decides what it is based on the player's actions.

So far, it's been working out pretty well, I think. Two of the players act like their original character and alignment pitch, and two have been acting a bit off and adjusted accordingly. (The Lawful Neutral pitch turned out to be more lawful good, and the lawful good pitch turned out to be more true neutral, if anyone is curious).

I think my players have been happy with this so far, so I recommend giving it a shot.

[Ascension]

I generally do something like this in the games I DM... toss alignment and alignment restrictions entirely and make most alignment-based effects dependent on the beliefs of those who utilize them. The only exceptions are Always-X Outsiders, who generally retain their listed alignments.

Throwing out the alignment of the gods is a huge step towards a more morally grey campaign setting, I think. When your players can't count on Heironeous to be good or assume that a cult of Nerull is necessarily evil they should be forced to think a bit more about their actions.

[Tokiko Mima]

This is pretty much how Law/Chaos axis of alignment already works (i.e. it's not the action, it's how you explain the motivation.) The big change would be to Good/Evil.

I would make sure the definition was set in stone once stated, preferably on paper where you can refer to them. Players, even good and honest players, naturally shift things around to favor their playstyle; sometimes unintentionally! You need to have some ability to keep that impulse in check.

Be careful of the player that adds dynamic conditions to their morality. "Everyone that doesn't agree with me is evil" sounds great on paper, but a player that really believed that is going to be the only good person in a world where no one agrees with them completely and everyone else is therefore evil (For an example, see Miko.) Making friends and adventuring together would be nigh impossible.

[nc-edsl]

The biggest problem with subjective morality in just about anything, is that who considers themselves evil in the first place?

Very few people, which is kind of the point. If one wants their villains to have more depth than Snidely Whiplash then they probably consider themselves good (or at least neutral). For example, someone may want to overthrow the king in order to institute a democracy, rather than to seize power for themselves. Both sides of that conflict would consider themselves 'good' and the other guys 'evil' and, assuming the king isn't a tyrant, both arguments would have some validity.

Of course, there will always be some villains like Snidely who consider themselves evil, but are selfish and just don't care.

Obviously, this would only work if the players were willing to give honest and fair definitions of what they consider good/evil.

It's a bit different, though, than simply redefining 'good' as 'allies' and 'evil' as 'enemies'. Your allies might not fit your definition of good, and your enemies wouldn't necessarily be evil; they might just disagree with the current administration.

[Mastikator]

Let's be fair. That was never valid except in games that are pure kick-in-the-door-slash-and-hack-the-monsters anyway.

True, but I meant it as an exaggerated example :P

Subjective alignment (or no alignment at all) removes the problems of "why is poison evil", "why are assassins evil".

You can still say that it's dishonorable and that you don't want to associate if you don't want to. I mean, you can for the most part defend the position that poison is evil without it having to be so objectively since it can be so practically.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Subjective Alignments pervert the whole purpose of the D&D Alignment system.

Think about it - what does "Protection from Evil" or "Protection from Good" mean if people generally say that, that which they oppose is "Evil" and that which they support is "Good?" This turns the spells into "Protection from things that want to hurt me" and "Protection from my friends." It's pretty silly, no?

The point of the alignment system is to depict the Balance Between Good and Evil that much Fantasy literature embodies. It allows you to craft objects of Shiny Goodness that blind and smite the Wicked; conversely, there can be objects of Lovecraftian Evil which draw wicked worshipers, and drive good men insane. Moral relativity wrings the flavor out of such a struggle.

If you feel that Subjective Alignments are for you, then go for a non-Alignment game. Paladins are warriors of their gods and can use that power to smite their foes. Remove all the alignment-detecting spells, or turn them into basic "danger-sense" abilities (is he hostile or friendly?). If you would like to have characters still think about morality, then have them write out a little statement of their philosophy beforehand.

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but a "subjective alignment system" which still allows alignment-based effects just misses the point.

[elliott20]

it can't work. subjective alignment system just means people make up their own moral code, and then still benefit from alignment based spells. might as well just ditch it and go alignment-less.

[nc-edsl]

Think about it - what does "Protection from Evil" or "Protection from Good" mean if people generally say that, that which they oppose is "Evil" and that which they support is "Good?" This turns the spells into "Protection from things that want to hurt me" and "Protection from my friends." It's pretty silly, no?

Isn't that pretty much what they already do?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Isn't that pretty much what they already do?

Not at all!

LONG

Spoiler

Show

Firstly, you have the split between Good and Evil. A Good site will have many things warded against the Forces of Evil, and an Evil site will have things warded against the Forces of Good. Arguably this is just semantics ("Protection From Good" and "Protection From Evil" are really the same thing - "Protection from Enemies") but in a very real sense these splits allow you to have distinctive factions aligned by universal philosophies. In a world where such philosophies are absent, it becomes very hard to "brand" magic in this sense - what do you do about people who do not exactly match one's conception of "Evil" when they wander into a "Protection from Evil" zone? How exact must the definitions be?

Secondly, and more importantly, D&D alignments recognize the existence of Neutrals. These are people who are not strongly aligned on a particular axis, and as such they are not greatly affected by wards and boons designed for that conflict. A CN Fighter may be able to pass through an arch that is warded against Evil people, even if he plans to steal an artifact for personal gain. Likewise, a LN Cleric can walk into an Evil stronghold, planning to do battle with the cultists who assaulted his town. A straight "bane to my enemies, boon to my friends" situation would create universal barriers depending on current, subjective intent - there is little "alignment" to be considered here.

The flip side, of course, is that the most powerful weapons of an Aligned side can only be safely used by those who are similarly aligned. Word of Chaos can harm your neutral allies if used causally, and an Axiomatic Blade may singe non-lawful wielders. In a world of subjective alignment, these sorts of spells either become universally useful (they never hurt your friends and always hurt your enemies) or universally useless (nobody except you can use your Axiomatic Blade, because nobody else has your exact same conception of Law).

Summary
In D&D, there are universal (and opposing) philosophies of Good & Evil, and Law & Chaos. One aligned with any of these philosophies has access to weapons and defenses that work against their opposites (in terms of spells, enchantments, and magic items), and is threatened by similar tools wielded by their enemies. These coalitions are have well-defined boundaries, are broadly inclusive, and allow people to opt out - the neutrals. Neutrals may be caught in the cross-fire, but they neither suffer the worst of these alignment weapons, nor can they get maximum benefit from the alignment boons.

In Subjective Alignment, there are no universal philosophies. Everyone will have a slightly different conception of what is Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic; it is meaningless to think of any sort of "force for good" or "scourge of the wicked" if nobody can agree what is good and what is wicked. If you have alignment weapons & defenses, you are stuck with two choices:

1) "alignments" are defined entirely personally - someone is "good" if they help you, "evil" if they mean you harm, "lawful" if they follow your rules and "chaotic" if they do not. In such a system, the "alignment" spells just become another offensive/defensive tool - they just cannot be linked to a larger cause. Nobody uses "lawful-hurting" weapons or "evil-helping" boons, so the distinctions boil down to "friend" and "enemy" and therefore become meaningless.

2) "alignments" are treated as personal philosophies, with any shades of gray being called "neutral." In such a system, since no two people are likely to be completely in agreement on their personal conceptions of Good or Evil, virtually everyone is treated as "neutral" by alignment-based spells. It becomes very hard to figure out how "evil" is evil, or how "good" is good, if someone is grading on a completely different axis than you are. Here, alignment becomes meaningless because pretty much everyone is "neutral."

The lack of objective alignments makes any attempt to use "alignment" weapons a farce. Either it is strictly utilitarian or so vague as to be meaningless. D&D, at least, has defined sides (and the unaligned!) who wage war against their opposites with weapons honed for the purpose.

[Aquillion]

I had an idea regarding making DnD alignments subjective, and was wondering what the people here thought. Is it decent (or even feasible), or will it just screw everything up?

Basically, at the beginning of the game each player would give the DM a short description (preferably written) describing what their character considers good/evil/lawful/chaotic. In that game, any spells with effects relating to alignment (detect <blah>, protection from <blah>, etc.) use definition of the caster to determine their effects. Enchantments would follow similar rules, using the definitions of the person who enchanted them.)

"Yes, yes, my cleric considers everyone who is not her immediate ally to be non-evil, including constructs and animals. Her allies are always considered evil. What? No, I just have the PHB open to Blasphemy purely by chance, really..."

[nc-edsl]

A straight "bane to my enemies, boon to my friends" situation would create universal barriers depending on current, subjective intent - there is little "alignment" to be considered here.

This wouldn't work, though. The players wouldn't be allowed to just say "I consider that guy evil now, just because it's useful to me". They'd have predefined definitions, which could change over time, and it would be up to the DM to tell off anyone who tried to define 'evil' as "anyone I don't like". It's more of an issue of whether or not they consider things like "the ends justify the means" or "for the greater good" to be legitimate arguments, or whether they consider individual freedoms and safety to outweigh written laws. For any definition, enemy factions with similar ideologies wouldn't be affected by protective spells.

In a world of subjective alignment, these sorts of spells either become universally useful (they never hurt your friends and always hurt your enemies) or universally useless (nobody except you can use your Axiomatic Blade, because nobody else has your exact same conception of Law).

Such artifacts could still exist, as their prerequisites would be set by their creator. Even if you disagree with their creator's definitions, it's still possible to fulfill them.

[elliott20]

except this means every single time your player uses an alignment based mechanic, you have to then check against the supposed victims own moral code. Have fun spend eons cross referencing belief systems to make sure things match. And don't even get me started on what happens when it's not a complete and utter conflict of beliefs but just a number of key issues. i.e. a person's stance on any number of political issues. they might be different from yours, drastically. Does that make the other person subjected to the power of the alignment mechanic?

[nc-edsl]

"Yes, yes, my cleric considers everyone who is not her immediate ally to be non-evil, including constructs and animals. Her allies are always considered evil. What? No, I just have the PHB open to Blasphemy purely by chance, really..."

"If your cleric thinks the only evil thing in the world is themselves and people who like them then they must have some deep psychological problems. They end up lying in bed all day, too depressed to do anything. Roll up a new character; your old one is in therapy."

[Oracle_Hunter]

This wouldn't work, though. The players wouldn't be allowed to just say "I consider that guy evil now, just because it's useful to me". They'd have predefined definitions, which could change over time, and it would be up to the DM to tell off anyone who tried to define 'evil' as "anyone I don't like". It's more of an issue of whether or not they consider things like "the ends justify the means" or "for the greater good" to be legitimate arguments, or whether they consider individual freedoms and safety to outweigh written laws. For any definition, enemy factions with similar ideologies wouldn't be affected by protective spells.

OK, but how opposed to that definition would someone have to be to be affected? Where do you draw the line? And does the character even know what they think is "good" or "evil" if the DM is allowed to shift the definitions at will? Or can the PCs shift their definitions at will too?

An easy example is this: someone believes that they are CG, meaning that they "don't like cities but do like people." He arrives at a temple that believed itself to be LN, meaning that they "dedicated themselves to strengthening communities and personal ties."

Is the CG Guy affected by the LN's Ward against Chaos? On one hand, the Guy doesn't seem to like cities or collections of people, but he probably is honest in his dealings - that is, he respects personal ties. Does the Guy show up as "neutral" then, even if he thinks of himself as chaotic? When the Priest put the ward up, would he have wanted to keep out all those who don't like living in communities, or just does that actively try to break down communities?

If your response is "I need more information" then you see the problem already. You will either requires pages of philosophical dissertation to cover all the nuances of a given "alignment structure" or you'll just decide, ad hoc, that "well, he thinks he's chaotic, so he triggers the ward." Neither is an improvement over a fixed alignment system, and can make any attempt to use alignment-based magic a farce.

Such artifacts could still exist, as their prerequisites would be set by their creator. Even if you disagree with their creator's definitions, it's still possible to fulfill them.

But what are the prerequisites? If you're thinking of standard Intelligent Weapon design, then I submit those are not "aligned" weapons either. Is it morally relevant whether someone things "Elves are Evil" or "Orcs are Evil?" when they're designing a weapon? And if you draw these "prerequisites" narrowly, how can you, as the DM, be sure how a given player fits the prerequisites without practice?

Example: A Sword of Justice declares that "the strong shall never prey on the weak" as the measure of a Good person. A LG Fighter shows up and says "I think it's wrong for creatures to prey on those who cannot defend themselves." Sounds good, yes? But what happens when the Fighter uses the Sword to slay goblins that, while they could defend themselves, they didn't stand a chance against the Fighter. And what if the Fighter killed them for the reward given by the town mayor, because they had been stealing chickens?

It is quite possible that the Sword will suddenly reject the Fighter even though the Fighter thinks he is doing Good (and is doing good by his own lights).

In this case, does it even make sense to think about this interaction as being "alignment" based? If so, why?

EDIT:

"If your cleric thinks the only evil thing in the world is themselves and people who like them then they must have some deep psychological problems. They end up lying in bed all day, too depressed to do anything. Roll up a new character; your old one is in therapy."

Why would you say that? Clearly the cleric sees the world as one of Others and Self. It is "good" to be selfless and expend all your energies to helping others, but such a path is self-defeating. "Evil" is just the choice of your own well being over that of others; you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

This sounds like a reasonable conception of "Good" and "Evil" under a subjective alignment system and I don't find it depressing. Heck, it's a highly motivating philosophy if you ask me.

It sounds like you are imposing your own constructions of "good" and "evil" upon his personal definitions. Naughty, naughty

[nc-edsl]

OK, but how opposed to that definition would someone have to be to be affected? Where do you draw the line? And does the character even know what they think is "good" or "evil" if the DM is allowed to shift the definitions at will? Or can the PCs shift their definitions at will too?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. The definitions wouldn't be shifting often, and would likely only change slowly over time or in the case of something dramatically affecting their outlook on life.

An easy example is this: someone believes that they are CG, meaning that they "don't like cities but do like people." He arrives at a temple that believed itself to be LN, meaning that they "dedicated themselves to strengthening communities and personal ties."

Is the CG Guy affected by the LN's Ward against Chaos? On one hand, the Guy doesn't seem to like cities or collections of people, but he probably is honest in his dealings - that is, he respects personal ties. Does the Guy show up as "neutral" then, even if he thinks of himself as chaotic? When the Priest put the ward up, would he have wanted to keep out all those who don't like living in communities, or just does that actively try to break down communities?

If your response is "I need more information" then you see the problem already. You will either requires pages of philosophical dissertation to cover all the nuances of a given "alignment structure" or you'll just decide, ad hoc, that "well, he thinks he's chaotic, so he triggers the ward." Neither is an improvement over a fixed alignment system, and can make any attempt to use alignment-based magic a farce.

By my ruling, he wouldn't trigger the ward. By the temple's definition, he would be neutral (he doesn't oppose communities and personal ties, he just doesn't like the impersonal city structure) and they cast the spell, so their definition determines it's effects. Those ideas are rather vague, though. Ideally each character would write a paragraph (or a few) outlining their definition of each of good, evil, law, and chaos, rather than having a single vague phrase summing up their whole philosophy.

But what are the prerequisites? If you're thinking of standard Intelligent Weapon design, then I submit those are not "aligned" weapons either. Is it morally relevant whether someone things "Elves are Evil" or "Orcs are Evil?" when they're designing a weapon? And if you draw these "prerequisites" narrowly, how can you, as the DM, be sure how a given player fits the prerequisites without practice?

Example: A Sword of Justice declares that "the strong shall never prey on the weak" as the measure of a Good person. A LG Fighter shows up and says "I think it's wrong for creatures to prey on those who cannot defend themselves." Sounds good, yes? But what happens when the Fighter uses the Sword to slay goblins that, while they could defend themselves, they didn't stand a chance against the Fighter. And what if the Fighter killed them for the reward given by the town mayor, because they had been stealing chickens?

It is quite possible that the Sword will suddenly reject the Fighter even though the Fighter thinks he is doing Good (and is doing good by his own lights).

In this case, does it even make sense to think about this interaction as being "alignment" based? If so, why?

I agree that the sword would reject the fighter, but the fighter wouldn't be following his own code here either. The goblins could try to defend themselves, but they couldn't actually defend themselves from him. However, this is more due to the simplicity of the fighter's viewpoint than anything.

I agree this would require more work than the standard alignment system, but I think it could still work if everyone were willing to cooperate.

Why would you say that? Clearly the cleric sees the world as one of Others and Self. It is "good" to be selfless and expend all your energies to helping others, but such a path is self-defeating. "Evil" is just the choice of your own well being over that of others; you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

This sounds like a reasonable conception of "Good" and "Evil" under a subjective alignment system and I don't find it depressing. Heck, it's a highly motivating philosophy if you ask me.

It sounds like you are imposing your own constructions of "good" and "evil" upon his personal definitions. Naughty, naughty.

It wasn't so much that he thought of himself as evil, it was that he defined evil as himself, rather than the other way around. If he said "I consider <definition> to be evil. I fall within <definition>. Therefore, I consider myself evil." then that would be fine. But if someone asks "Hey, what is a list of everything in the world you think is bad" and he responds "Me. Oh, and people who like me." then he's got some issues.