Quote from: Benoist;609412Actually, 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...).

I agree with all of that. I question the need for the spell. The reputation and or roleplay of the npc will provide a jersey as well.

I think we are probably handling alignment in a similar fashion, but you are comfortable with the know alignment and I am not.

My failing, not yours.

Quote from: Bill;609415I agree with all of that. I question the need for the spell. The reputation and or roleplay of the npc will provide a jersey as well.

I think we are probably handling alignment in a similar fashion, but you are comfortable with the know alignment and I am not.

My failing, not yours.

If you agree, then the reason you just gave me for not liking know alignment doesn't make sense, because you still can have all the depth of role play and situations you want with the spell in play, which is what you basically just agreed with. The spell doesn't wreck adventures, and isn't useless either. Which then prompts the same question on my part, albeit reworded: if you agree with what I just said, why are you not comfortable with the spell? Please elaborate.

Holy dudes get the superpower to see the moral core of someone's soul, it seems appropriate to me.

Or, of course, you can take detecting evil as a chance to mess with the players.  The old lady giving food to the poor radiates evil but the food is safe, it's just that she hates the social order that creates the poverty to the extent that she's about to snap.  When she does the local lord just has her beaten and hanged.  But he doesn't radiate evil at all.

I mean, who gets to define evil here?  The gods of the churches that support the current social order right?  So if the lord is beating and hanging charitable old ladies for mouthing of and lobbing turds that his horse left lying in the street at him is serving the role defined for him by the gods he gets to be good and she's evil for resisting the will of the gods.

It's a rather specific example but to a large extent these things are really us verses them anyhow.

Quote from: Benoist;609416If you agree, then the reason you just gave me for not liking know alignment doesn't make sense, because you still can have all the depth of role play and situations you want with the spell in play, which is what you basically just agreed with. The spell doesn't wreck adventures, and isn't useless either. Which then prompts the same question on my part, albeit reworded: if you agree with what I just said, why are you not comfortable with the spell? Please elaborate.

You CAN do it with the spell, but the spell is not needed.

Why do you need the spell at all, would be my question.


By the way, I never said the spell wrecks adventures. It makes them less fun for me.

The spell is effectively useless when you consider that an npc's alignment can be estimated from their actual actions, and that an 'evil' person might not do anyhting evil despite the spells detection.

Quote from: David Johansen;609421Or, of course, you can take detecting evil as a chance to mess with the players.  The old lady giving food to the poor radiates evil but the food is safe, it's just that she hates the social order that creates the poverty to the extent that she's about to snap.  When she does the local lord just has her beaten and hanged.  But he doesn't radiate evil at all.

I mean, who gets to define evil here?  The gods of the churches that support the current social order right?  So if the lord is beating and hanging charitable old ladies for mouthing of and lobbing turds that his horse left lying in the street at him is serving the role defined for him by the gods he gets to be good and she's evil for resisting the will of the gods.

It's a rather specific example but to a large extent these things are really us verses them anyhow.

It is a good example of why I don't see any need for the spell.

A clever player will realize that detect alignment does not really tell them anything.

Quote from: Planet Algol;609418Holy dudes get the superpower to see the moral core of someone's soul, it seems appropriate to me.

That works for me with demons, angels, and perhaps paladins, some clerics.

But not so much for the thief stealing gold.

Quote from: Benoist;609412Actually, 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.

This is part of my larger issue with alignment, but it is often said that killing evil creatures is a good act.  Since they're part of cosmic team evil (regardless of their actual thoughts, plans, etc), killing them is a good thing.  Not just relatively good (it's better to kill evil than good), but objectively good.  Murdering orcs on sight is a moral imperative.  

Detect Alignment can encourage that behavior.  

Judging whether someone deserves to live or die based on your interaction is more interesting.  Further, developing a relationship with an NPC (especially a likable one) and then finding out that they're evil is more interesting than having that information up front.  Now, since I don't use alignment, it doesn't come up, anymore.  But I like that it helps encourage more 'dynamic' characters.  Alignment is something of a behavioral/moral short hand.  Actually developing motivations results in more interesting characters - time well spent.

Killing anything, evil or not, without provocation and going just on the results of a Know Alignment or Detect Evil is NOT a good act.

In almost every example given in every rulebook, the good character takes the monsters prisoner but argues against killing surrendering monsters.

Quote from: Blackhand;609490Killing anything, evil or not, without provocation and going just on the results of a Know Alignment or Detect Evil is NOT a good act.

In almost every example given in every rulebook, the good character takes the monsters prisoner but argues against killing surrendering monsters.

Look, I agree with you.  That might be the worst thing about 3rd edition.  To avoid any orc-baby issues, they said that killing an evil creature was an objectively good act.  Good is good because they kill evil.  Evil is evil because it kills good.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;609491Look, I agree with you.  That might be the worst thing about 3rd edition.  To avoid any orc-baby issues, they said that killing an evil creature was an objectively good act.  Good is good because they kill evil.  Evil is evil because it kills good.

One of the burdens of being Good, is Mercy.

To me, a Paladin spares the lives of his enemies when at all possible, and yes, one of those enemies is likely to knife him in the back down the road.

It's not easy to be Good.

Quote from: Bill;609493One of the burdens of being Good, is Mercy.

To me, a Paladin spares the lives of his enemies when at all possible, and yes, one of those enemies is likely to knife him in the back down the road.

It's not easy to be Good.

I agree 100%. IMO a LG, and especially a Paladin, should be extremely reluctant to kill unless facing the chamions of evil (undead, demons, etc..) I guess framed in Christian terms I'd say they'd be reluctant to kill any being with "free will". My paladin only killed in defense of others and/or himself.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;609491Look, I agree with you.  That might be the worst thing about 3rd edition.  To avoid any orc-baby issues, they said that killing an evil creature was an objectively good act.  Good is good because they kill evil.  Evil is evil because it kills good.

I'm going to be blunt, and I apologize in advance. There are some messages which, after trying to deliver them a good dozen times on a variety of topics ranging from players charming Giants to setting up your Dragon's lair to ditching the XP system to bitching about how wizards suck to alignment, you need I think to bring together and into sharp forcus for everyone to see. Sometimes, that means kicking the door and dropping the niceties.

SO. I'm sorry. I know you've made it a habit of blaming the game for your own inadequacies as a player and DM, but that doesn't make it a fact or objective "problem" everyone experiences, or must deal with for you. It's really your problem at your game table if you interpret Good and Evil in those terms, and if just slaughtering Evil at every turn in every single circumstance is clearly the Good Thing To Do for a character, with no negative consequences whatsoever ever arising from such choices during the game and campaign, no choices in the balance, no Greater Good to consider when making a decision about a particular individual, no complications ever coming into the picture ever, and that slaughtering mindlessly is itself somehow a Good act "because team jersey". (note that some people play alignment like this and don't have a problem with it whatsoever, which is totally cool for them, but that's not your case apparently, since you bitch about it now)

It's a problem with your and your players interpretation of alignment, and not a problem with alignment itself. Stop blaming the game for your inadequacies, for your laziness or lack of imagination and adaptability to the game's assumptions, and please. Pretty please. Stop wanting the game's designers change it just because they ought to catter to those same inadequacies.

It's like the nerfing of Teleport because you can't deal or plan around the consequences of a party able to Teleport here and there. Try to learn and become a better DM, and play along with the game's assumptions instead of nerfing them at every turn, for God's sakes. Sometimes, a lot of times, when you work with a set of conditions instead of fighting endlessly against them, you learn, you become better, because you deal with these elements and become thereby more adaptable, and competent in the end. Come on, try it. It could do you some good.

I know. I'm blunt. I just hope against all previous experiences that you'll think about it seriously at some point.

Quote from: Sigmund;609516I agree 100%. IMO a LG, and especially a Paladin, should be extremely reluctant to kill unless facing the chamions of evil (undead, demons, etc..) I guess framed in Christian terms I'd say they'd be reluctant to kill any being with "free will". My paladin only killed in defense of others and/or himself.

And you have a better fundamental grasp of morality than 3.x designers.  But they do have a point.  In an objective system of morality, the 'cosmic jersey' version, eliminating anyone on the other teams would represent a 'victory' for your side.  And if Gods actually receive power from their worshippers, killing the worshippers of evil gods would legitimately cripple the deities they serve.  Thus, killing evil creatures can become something distasteful but considered 'necessary'.  An evil orc would be akin to a rabid wolf - it's not your fault that they need to be put down, but someone has to do it.  

Anyways, the way 'real alignments' can influence setting logic and justify that type of behavior is what I really object to.  Removing alignments means that there are no 'sides'.  Everyone can stake out a position that might appear somewhat inconsistent, even hypocritical - and that's okay.  That's like the real world.  It's okay that some people profess that they should 'remove the plank from their own eye before the sliver from their neighbor's eye' and still harass women entering a family planning clinic.

And while several people have avoided conflict at the table regarding alignment, I think it's pretty clear that just about any...personality... can be justified by any alignment.  Others have pointed out that in the 3.x Player's Handbook the description for the monk (lawful) and the wizard (chaotic) are virtually the same regarding their dedication to their craft.  If the labels mean nothing, they're unnecesary.  If the labels do mean something, but it makes the game more interesting to remove them, they're unnecessary.

Quote from: Benoist;609519I know you've made it a habit of blaming the game for your own inadequacies as a player and DM, but that doesn't make it a fact or objective "problem" everyone experiences, or must deal with for you. It's really your problem at your game table . . . . Stop blaming the game for your inadequacies, for your laziness or lack of imagination and adaptability to the game's assumptions . . . .

Hey, Pundit, this should be the site's masthead.