Quote from: Bill;607732I finally got home and was able to read the dmg sections about detect evil and know alignment.

Essentially reading this reminded me why I started ignoring detect evil years ago.

Detect evil either fails vs a somewhat 'normal' evil person, or detects demons; evil priests, etc.. fairly accurately.

Know alignment gives the exact alignment.

In any of those situations, it's either useless or ruins the fun of ferreting out evil.

I am quite content to ignore alignment and alignment detection except for extraordinary situations.

Think of it this way:

Dracula being evil and undead would set off a detect evil spell, but Renfield or one of the Count's henchmen would not unless they were exceptionally evil and/or powerful. That's why Dracula uses these flunkies to do much of his work.

Quote from: Bill;607587I will read it when I get home. Probably have not read the spell description in over 10 years.

I generally just remove that spell from the setting.

You remove something from the game without reading it?

Quote from: Elfdart;609653Think of it this way:

Dracula being evil and undead would set off a detect evil spell, but Renfield or one of the Count's henchmen would not unless they were exceptionally evil and/or powerful. That's why Dracula uses these flunkies to do much of his work.

Renfield = Chaotic Stupid?

Quote from: TristramEvans;607623I have a hard time believing in an evil person who sees themselves as evil. I tend to prefer, at least for sentient humanoids, complex believable motivations, even if they clearly are evil outside of that creature's self-absorbed rational. Of course, "evil" here doesn't necessarily correspond to our culture's protestant baseline standards of morality.

The only "true evil" I go with are demons and otherdimensional creatures of that sort. Although, even then I prefer the Lovecraftian (their motivations are simply incomprehensible).

I just find EVIL-evil too cartoony.

It takes all kinds, really. There's evil, which is just some petty thug or bully willing to do bad things if necessary to get what they want. Then there's Evil, which is someone who is truly malicious and eager to do bad things to get their way. Then there is EVIL (pronounced "EE-ville" by Peter Cushing, Alec Guinness and others), where someone does bad things for their own sake or for the fun of it -whether they benefit from it or not. In some cases, they're so hell bent on doing wrong that they'll do it even if they risk causing themselves harm.

I use them all. Alignment is like any other stat: There's no reason not to alter or delete it as you see fit.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;609626If that was the case, then the only way alignment could change would be from magic.

I don't recall the specifics from other editions, but 1e AD&D talks about the need to track character behavior and changing alignment to match.

Alignment reflects what you do, at least in 1e.

It's the same in 2e as well.

IIRC, screw around too much and the big punishment is your alignment changes from your IC results. Slows level progression as you have to raise a level in your current new alignment to "learn your new code of living." Only then can you re-start gaining XP for class levels in your new alignment.

So given that's 1e and 2e in the same boat that leaves WotC D&D and BECMI/Moldvay/Basic/"BMX"/etc. to chime in.

Quote from: TristramEvans;609655Renfield = Chaotic Stupid?

For 2e:
It's more Detect Evil checks for an overwhelming aura. You must radiate evil, and most human/oids just aren't so exceptional and don't commit so strongly to a doctrine. And even then, those that do only trigger it during actions essentially in progress. That's why I typed up the 2e clauses that state human/oids don't show up except in extreme and specialized circumstances.

Know Alignment works on creatures and items (not areas). However it doesn't state character or give character's an exception clause. This could be left up to the DM to interpret that creatures mean non-human/oids. Considering how both (character v. creature) are terms used differently often through the PHB (like saving throws) it'd not be an unusual judgment call.

But more importantly, Know Alignment has a save v. spell. Still DM prerogative, but usually that means an instinctual act of self-preservation and resistance -- which in turn likely informs the target. This means that casting Know Alignment and getting caught is often considered magical assault, which will likely start a fight. And often magical assault is considered actionable in civilization. (/mage-trollface "Hey, why so mad?" Well, how the hell would they know it wasn't a mind-altering spell?).

Considering DMG recommends that most people get pissed when you ask them about their alignment, and doubly so when you try to cast spells on them without their consent, casting Know Alignment doesn't sound like it simplifies much in game. Besides, now you know a character's alignment, so what, they can still do acts that surprise you. Having a different attitude about life doesn't warrant a crime in most setting civilizations until you do something actionable about it.

Useful, but risky and not very predictive outside a general sense. I don't see the spell being that big of an issue.

Quote from: RPGPundit;609623In Arrows of Indra there are three alignments: Holy (someone who has the favor of the gods), neutral (the majority of people), and Unholy (someone who has the disfavor of the gods due to extreme violation of religious laws/taboos).  
The Virakshatriya (holy warrior, the closest equivalent to a paladin) has the power to detect if someone is Unholy.  This does in fact tell him something very important in the context of the game's setting.

RPGPundit

That is close to how I handle planar beings in dnd. My issues with alignment are more in regards to beings that are more mundane.

Quote from: Elfdart;609654You remove something from the game without reading it?

No. I have read it in the past, many years ago. Had to refresh my memory of the text.

I have run countless dnd campaigns without having to consult the rulebook in regards to alignment. No player has ever questioned the manner in which I handle alignment. Simply never been an issue once I got past my first few years as a gm 25 years ago.

I can recall some old debates about what each alignment actually means, but those things went away a long time ago.

Quote from: Elfdart;609653Think of it this way:

Dracula being evil and undead would set off a detect evil spell, but Renfield or one of the Count's henchmen would not unless they were exceptionally evil and/or powerful. That's why Dracula uses these flunkies to do much of his work.

Sure, that sounds correct.

But,

Dracula might be your ally vs a greater evil.

So the detection is useless, and for some players, provides a 'stab me now' mentality.

I prefer to use roleplay interaction with the entities in question instead of alignment detection to deduce motives and nature.

Quote from: Bill;609765Dracula might be your ally vs a greater evil.

So the detection is useless . . .

It's not useless - it just doesn't tell you everything you need to know. Which is the point I believe a number of us made throughout this thread.

Quote from: Bill;609765. . . and for some players, provides a 'stab me now' mentality.

That's a dickhead player problem and probably a referee problem as well, not a rules problem.

Quote from: Bill;609765I prefer to use roleplay interaction with the entities in question instead of alignment detection to deduce motives and nature.

Alignment only tells you about nature in a very general way, one which leaves great latitude for specifics, and almost nothing about motives.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;609776It's not useless - it just doesn't tell you everything you need to know. Which is the point I believe a number of us made throughout this thread.

....

Alignment only tells you about nature in a very general way, one which leaves great latitude for specifics, and almost nothing about motives.

Personally (and let me stress again that this is my personal interpretation and not intended to pressure anyone to adopt a change - just a discussion of merits), I find that motives are more interesting than a 'very general nature'.  Since detecting alignment requires the expenditure of resources, I'd rather it either be valuable or non-existent.  If it can give false or misleading information in all or most cases, than it really isn't that useful.  I'd like to encourage the players to choose a more useful option.  

Alignment is a useful shorthand.  If you have the time, it's better to prepare a complete sense of the character in question.  Alignment is a broad brush and doesn't encourage the subtle shading that 'real' people have...  From a 'simulationist' angle, I find that it can be used as a crutch that keeps an otherwise good DM from breathing life into an NPC.  

It can be frightening to make an 'evil' person show kindness or even goodness.  It can be difficult to show a 'good' person having an important and significant difference of opinion with another 'good' person.  If Good Versus Evil or Law Versus Chaos are major themes of the campaign, then alignment is a great tool.  If your campaign is firmly in the 'shades of gray' realm, it tends to be a distraction.  In a 'gritty' campaign, nobody can really claim to be 'good', at least, not in the ojective Capital GOOD sense...  The pile of conflicting motivations can result in 'good things' happening - and even heroic PCs - but removing the labels can make people have to think a lot harder about what they ought to do.  That certainly doesn't appeal to everyone.  In a casual game where killing orcs is a nice break from the stresses of the daily grind, that kind of ambiguity would be a bad thing - but in the types of campaigns I prefer it really helps set the mood.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;609776It's not useless - it just doesn't tell you everything you need to know. Which is the point I believe a number of us made throughout this thread.

I dissagree that it is usefull. Explain to me the usefulness it has, compared to interacting with the npc with roleplay. I am essentially asking how use of the spell enhances game play when roleplay can do the same.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;609776That's a dickhead player problem and probably a referee problem as well, not a rules problem..

Yes, but I see no reason to encourage such with a spell I find useless.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;609776Alignment only tells you about nature in a very general way, one which leaves great latitude for specifics, and almost nothing about motives.

Exactly. It's useless.
I prefer to have the motives and nature of npc's revealed through roleplay.

Uh, having a general preconception of someone and then having to live through interactions with said person tends to create dynamic social challenges.

To know someone's alignment and see them do something that you interpret to be out-of-character causes cognitive dissonance. It could be a genuine break from one's alignment. It could be a ploy to... XYZ (entrap, keep guessing, etc.). Or it could also mean there's unknown factors, perhaps ones that make such choices "make sense" from that alignment. You know something's up, but you don't know what.

The fun is the half-knowing. It's a detective game, while also being cloak and dagger. The knowledge is useful because it gives contextual outlines to possible future motives, but it doesn't give a good picture of a singular event. The joy is that it gives PCs pause to doubt the NPC's actions and their own PC's assumptions at the same time.

I thought it encouraged a more fleshed out world myself. Now you know someone's alignment, you can guess some of their behavior. But you'll be stumped occasionally. Do you a) doubt your opinion of them, b) doubt their motives, c) doubt your knowledge of the situation?

Sounds like fun stuff to me, but whatever.

Quote from: Opaopajr;609783Uh, having a general preconception of someone and then having to live through interactions with said person tends to create dynamic social challenges.

To know someone's alignment and see them do something that you interpret to be out-of-character causes cognitive dissonance. It could be a genuine break from one's alignment. It could be a ploy to... XYZ (entrap, keep guessing, etc.). Or it could also mean there's unknown factors, perhaps ones that make such choices "make sense" from that alignment. You know something's up, but you don't know what.

The fun is the half-knowing. It's a detective game, while also being cloak and dagger. The knowledge is useful because it gives contextual outlines to possible future motives, but it doesn't give a good picture of a singular event. The joy is that it gives PCs pause to doubt the NPC's actions and their own PC's assumptions at the same time.

I thought it encouraged a more fleshed out world myself. Now you know someone's alignment, you can guess some of their behavior. But you'll be stumped occasionally. Do you a) doubt your opinion of them, b) doubt their motives, c) doubt your knowledge of the situation?

Sounds like fun stuff to me, but whatever.

You can do that without the detection spell.
I prefer that the alignment and motivations of the entity be discovered through roleplay, not by a detection spell.

Per your example above; roleplay with the npc to get an initial feel for what their alignment might be.
Roleplay more to find out they may have agendas, motives, etc..that conflict with the alignment.

The spell serves no purpose.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;609780It can be frightening to make an 'evil' person show kindness or even goodness.  It can be difficult to show a 'good' person having an important and significant difference of opinion with another 'good' person.

This is one (very interesting) reason why people don't go entirely nuts when they detect a different alignment.

Evil people can do acts that appear good or right or just.

A Lawful character can be predictable and trustworthy. Something worthy of consideration: Would a Lawful Good character rather travel with a Lawful Evil character than a Chaotic Good character? Or even better, would a Lawful Evil character prefer the company of a Lawful Good character over a Chaotic Evil or even Neutral Evil character?

Truly good people have little or no capacity for doing really dirty, evil deeds - or maybe they have extremely strong wills that allow them to resist what evil thoughts they have. Evil people can for the most part appear and be good, but they carry around one or more evil character flaws. No matter how good everything else, those evil character flaws can end up sinking them.

I do think its easy to show differences in "good" opinions. Character culture can really come to play there. That's where you get those elf vs dwarf conflicts.