Quote from: Koltar;609293In 'real life' often people don't have "depth'.

People are surprisingly complex, actually, else there would be no place in society for psychologists, therapists, economists, or sociologists.

Quote from: Koltar;609293There is a reason some people are called shallow.

People are called 'shallow' when they choose to judge you by your surface qualities, rather than by your beliefs.

Quote from: Koltar;609293There are plenty of folks who choose to do evil things because they want to, or enjoy it in some fashion (heck, a few 'get off' on doing evil)

To slough someone off as 'evil' because they enjoy doing bad things without ever asking why they enjoy doing those things could probably be described as being 'shallow'.

To say 'The orcs kill people because they are evil' is rather like saying 'Because a wizard did it' when explaining why your fantasy world is the way it is.

Instead I prefer: 'The humans say the orcs are evil because they kill people'.
It begs the question 'why do the orcs kill people?' There could be all kinds of good answers, like 'It was bred into them' (Tolkien) or 'Because humans have been killing them for years' (the Orc point of view) or 'Because they've always killed us' (Human point of view) or 'Their priesthood has convinced them that humans are irredeemably evil and need to be killed on sight' (Sociologists point of view). Presenting the players with multiple points of view and allowing them to come to their own conclusions is one of the great things that elevates roleplaying above other forms of gaming, in my opinion, and makes it the ultimate in tactical gaming.

EDIT: BTW, I totally get why some people don't want to do things this way. Escapism is a big part of RPing, and I can see the appeal of escaping from a complex real life and into world where things are more cut-and-dry.

Discussions about the nature of evil tend not to go well on these kinds of forums, but I would just say that I think whether person is Evil or Good (regardless of the specifics of what is determined to be good or evil---frankly another discussion entirely) is a final judgment of the entirity of their personality and behavior. You can have an evil dictator who murders millions of innocent people, but has a soft spot for orphaned children and donates large sums of money to improve their lives (ironically many of them were probably orphaned by his mass killings). This doesn't make him a good guy. It makes him an evil guy who does nice things for orphans. A lot of people have a dark side, have negative qualities and lapses in judgment. I don't think most people regard that as evil. Evil is a much more egregious transgression. Once you get there, simply doing good things, doesn't take away the stain.

Quote from: Thalaba;609345People are surprisingly complex, actually, else there would be no place in society for psychologists, therapists, economists, or sociologists.

Not 'Everyone' is that complex.
Just as there is a hiuge vartiety amongst people there is also a huge variety in the levels of 'complexity' to people.

Some people are scarily so 'simple' that they get off on doing evil. No psychologist or therapist will be able to change or help them.

There is quite often a VERY good reason why the town guard have swords or the police have guns - there are nasty evil folks in the would who can only be stopped by such weapons used for good.

QuotePeople are called 'shallow' when they choose to judge you by your surface qualities, rather than by your beliefs.

Again, NO. There are a few out there who have NOTHING going on in their sousl or even have a lack of soul.

Evil does exist both in the fictional and Real world.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;609361Not 'Everyone' is that complex.
Just as there is a hiuge vartiety amongst people there is also a huge variety in the levels of 'complexity' to people.

Some people are scarily so 'simple' that they get off on doing evil. No psychologist or therapist will be able to change or help them.

There is quite often a VERY good reason why the town guard have swords or the police have guns - there are nasty evil folks in the would who can only be stopped by such weapons used for good.

That, however, is not the reason guardsmen have swords and policemen have guns. Its called "state-sanctioned violence". Its about societal control, not some childish fight between good and evil.

QuoteAgain, NO. There are a few out there who have NOTHING going on in their sousl or even have a lack of soul.

Evil does exist both in the fictional and Real world.


- Ed C.

Thats a fantasy.  Even sociopaths in our society are capable of being "good people".

Quote from: TristramEvans;609365Thats a fantasy.  Even sociopaths in our society are capable of being "good people".

Capable does not necessarily mean actually in practise.

Quote from: jeff37923;609386Capable does not necessarily mean actually in practise.

No, but it also doesn't mean that they are Snidely Whiplash's twirling their handlebar mustaches and constantly plotting "Evil!" They mostly go about their day like anyone else on the planet, are usually described as polite and kind by neighbours, and the majority never commit a crime in their life.

Quote from: The Butcher;608271The arguments against keeping alignment are legion, and I'm all too familiar with them. I myself downplay alignment immensely; I mostly play BECMI/RC and keep the Law-Chaos axis mostly out of flavor, as a "cosmic team jersey" rather than a hard-and-fast descriptor of behavior.

I'd like to hear arguments for keeping alignment. What does the pro-alignment crowd feels it brings to the game table? What interesting things have happened because of it?

I use the 9-pronged alignment system in my AD&D and AS&SH games. I have never had an argument as a player or DM about alignment at the game table. Like. Ever. It's always been understood amongst my crew as something both of a role playing guideline, and a cosmic team jersey all wrapped into one.

I've rarely heard good reasons to get rid of alignments in a campaign. A valid reason mentioned in this thread several times is the question of setting emulation, when your campaign world and cosmology just benefits from a change or adaptation or elimination of the alignment system. It makes sense to me from that standpoint.

The lame ass reasons turning around "but I want real role playing" and others "alignment ruins the fun" and "this or that spell ruins my games so I nuked it!" just don't resonate with me at all. It smacks of flawed and unimaginative DMing to me.

Now as far as good things and moments that came out of actually using alignments in the game, man... there are so many I could hardly speak to you of them all. From role playing moments like Tol the CN MU and Markhab the LG Paladin finishing all their adventures together by trying to kill each other to the hobbit cleric registering as non evil who kept the loot of the group and turned out to in fact be a NE thief all along with protections against alignment detection, the paladins, their quests, their holy avengers and all the glorious and ridiculous moments that came out of those... it's all been a great ride and will keep on being one. I think people tend to be too... I don't know, serious? Cynical? About those things. It's been great role playing fun for me over the years and I like that about the game.

Quote from: Benoist;609391I use the 9-pronged alignment system in my AD&D and AS&SH games. I have never had an argument as a player or DM about alignment at the game table. Like. Ever. It's always been understood amongst my crew as something both of a role playing guideline, and a cosmic team jersey all wrapped into one.

I've rarely heard good reasons to get rid of alignments in a campaign. A valid reason mentioned in this thread several times is the question of setting emulation, when your campaign world and cosmology just benefits from a change or adaptation or elimination of the alignment system. It makes sense to me from that standpoint.

The lame ass reasons turning around "but I want real role playing" and others "alignment ruins the fun" and "this or that spell ruins my games so I nuked it!" just don't resonate with me at all. It smacks of flawed and unimaginative DMing to me.

Now as far as good things and moments that came out of actually using alignments in the game, man... there are so many I could hardly speak to you of them all. From role playing moments like Tol the CN MU and Markhab the LG Paladin finishing all their adventures together by trying to kill each other to the hobbit cleric registering as non evil who kept the loot of the group and turned out to in fact be a NE thief all along with protections against alignment detection, the paladins, their quests, their holy avengers and all the glorious and ridiculous moments that came out of those... it's all been a great ride and will keep on being one. I think people tend to be too... I don't know, serious? Cynical? About those things. It's been great role playing fun for me over the years and I like that about the game.

I am able to houserule spells without being an unimaginative gm, thanks.

Quote from: Bill;609392I am able to houserule spells without being an unimaginative gm, thanks.

I think that if you are coming up with an idea like running a power-behind-the-throne political type adventure, or a murder mystery and the like, and that your first reaction as a DM is to take off the table Detect Evil, Know Alignment, Find the Path, Speak With Dead spells because they're "problematic", kind of like always creating high level dungeons starting by positing that Teleport spells don't work, that you can't Plane Shift, that Crystal Balls and divination spells backfire automatically and the like, then yeah, there's something not terribly imaginative, and likely to be very frustrating to your players, going on with the way you choose to conceive and run your scenarios, in my book.

Quote from: Benoist;609394

I think that if you are coming up with an idea like running a power-behind-the-throne political type adventure, or a murder mystery and the like, and that your first reaction as a DM is to take off the table Detect Evil, Know Alignment, Find the Path, Speak With Dead spells because they're "problematic", kind of like always creating high level dungeons starting by positing that teleport spells don't work, that you can't plane shift and the like, then yeah, there's something not terribly imaginative, and likely to be very frustrating to your players, going on with the way you choose to conceive and run your scenarios, in my book.

Fortunately I do not do all of that.

Know alignment I generally do not use, and detect evil I limit to demons and the like.

I find the game to be more rewarding without specific alignment detection.


It has nothing to do with creating a scenario.


I love speak with dead. Great spell.

I guess it must have been someone else who posted that detect alignment ruined the fun of his games, then.

I'm sorry, Bill. You sound like a pretty smart, reasonable fellow to me. I'm sure you're a pretty cool dude to game with and everything, but the kind of split personalities thing you got going here to avoid dealing with the implications of what you said earlier just doesn't work for me right now.

Quote from: Benoist;609402I guess it must have been someone else who posted that detect alignment ruined the fun of his games, then. I'm sorry, Bill. You sound like a pretty smart, reasonable fellow to me, most of the time, I'm sure you're a pretty cool dude to game with and everything, but the kind of split personalities thing you got going here to avoid dealing with the implications of what you said earlier just doesn't work for me right now.

No offense taken or intended.

I am not avoiding anything I have said.

Perhaps you are drawing incorrect conclusions?

Detect alignment does ruin fun for me.

You are making a lot of assumptions.

Consider; entities in my game all have alignments that can be estimated by interacting with them.

Its the detection of specific alignment (and evil) that I find to be less fun.

Quote from: Bill;609403Detect alignment does ruin fun for me.

Why? Please elaborate.

Quote from: Benoist;609404Why? Please elaborate.

I want the npc's motives, nature, etc.. to be revealed by roleplay, not a quick spell.

Ultimately it is what the npc's actually DO that matters.

Detect CE on an npc may mean nothing. That evil person might have a good reason NOT to go all CE on you.

So the spell is either bypassing roleplay, OR utterly useless.

Either way, that is why I feel it adds nothing to the fun factor of a game.


Now, I am quite willing to be proven wrong, just explain why and I will consider it.

I am a reasonable person.

Quote from: Bill;609407I want the npc's motives, nature, etc.. to be revealed by roleplay, not a quick spell.

Ultimately it is what the npc's actually DO that matters.

Detect CE on an npc may mean nothing. That evil person might have a good reason NOT to go all CE on you.

So the spell is either bypassing roleplay, OR utterly useless.

Actually, it does neither.

What the spell does is give you an idea of the team jersey of the person you're talking to. It does not reveal motives, reasons, actual thoughts, plans, contingencies, consequences in killing the person or not, and the like. Which at the same time does not mean the spell is completely useless - that's building a sort of all or nothing, excluded middle argument. What the spell does is give you a clue as to the person's general psychology or "cosmic team". It doesn't do anything else, but it does help to know whether something's off with a person, if she might have ulterior motives of some kind because she seems all nice and everything but radiates Evil, or is acting against this 'team jersey' in a seemingly genuine way, which then prompts more questions, like why? Is she blackmailed? Is the person under some kind of charm or domination? Is there someone behind that person? Etc etc.

What it is is a clue giver, and a situation starter/changer, basically (e.g. our bearer is Evil. What do we do about it? Do we trust him to lead us to the treasure, even though that might be a trap, or do we get rid of him in some way, even though we could miss on some great treasure he'd like to get his hands on himself, so maybe we could actually double cross him at the last moment? Role play role play...).