TheRPGSite

Do you want there to be things, creatures, and people in your world that are objectively black-and-white Evil? Not necessarily "stupid evil" but none of this "they're just misunderstood" crap?

Or are you one of those guys who likes to constantly wallow in "shades of grey", who loves anti-heroes and villains-who-can-be-redeemed?

RPGPundit

In general I like my evil to be evil and my good to be good.

That said it really depends on the game and setting.

I will say though that as a child of the 90's I absolutyl loathe the anti-hero in all it's forms.

While I want the vast majority of my gaming, either as a GM or Player, to play within the confines of the grey borders, I do want there to be both absolute good and evil that is hidden and layered with all the shades of grey.  I want there to be absolute good and evil in the framework of the world, but it would mostly reside in the construction layer of the work and out of sight of the players and setting itself.  On very rare instances, I would bring out absolute good or evil as a major campaign-changing event.

Yeah, I like Evil being Evil.  You know, bad.

Not good/bad, just bad.  And mean.

Anti-hero is a little worn out, if you ask me.

I definately love shades of grey.

Not fond of antiheroes at all, but I love redeemable villains.

Objective evil works well in fantasy and horror games. It's always nice to have the option, lending the group extra vigour in their endeavours, but that kind of evil needs to be at least in part otherworldly and hence mystical. You can sort of replace it with sheer animal ferocity, like the Aliens of Aliens fame, or bona fide psychopaths if you like. In other game types it strains the suspension of disbelief somewhat.

I actually like both. Sometimes I want nasty, mean and clear cut villains. Other times I want things a bit more complex. Generally I never approach evil as something that is simply "misunderstood" but I see nothing bad about giving villains good qualities or making their motives more deep than a desire to cause harm. Once in a while a sympathetic villain is okay, but people way overdid that in the 90s and I am frankly still recovering. One thing I dont want to do though is lose sight of the fact that an explanation for evil isnt an excuse. You can explain a villain's behavior without justifying it.

I'm very tired of redeemable villans.  Something that should be very rare and yet becomes cliche is a flashing neon sign pointing to uncreativetown.

For my own campaign worlds I don't like objective evil at all. I prefer that 'evil' be completely subjective. Player characters are completely free to decide who they think is evil and who isn't. Some NPCs might agree with them, others might not. The world itself is impartial.

If the cosmology of the world supports absolute good and absolute evil, then yes, there can be irredeemable evil in the setting, even intelligent, irredeemably evil races.

If you're talking about a game without a magical or supernaturally religious cosmology (like our modern world or similar) then not absolute Evil with a capital E, but certainly psychologically broken.  There is no turning Hannibal Lecter into something other then a monster, however, Lecter isn't an unthinking monster, and doesn't always act like one.

For me, it's just part and parcel of world emulation.  If the world allows it, yes, if it doesn't, no.

Quote from: CRKrueger;607547If the cosmology of the world supports absolute good and absolute evil, then yes, there can be irredeemable evil in the setting, even intelligent, irredeemably evil races.

If you're talking about a game without a magical or supernaturally religious cosmology (like our modern world or similar) then not absolute Evil with a capital E, but certainly psychologically broken.  There is no turning Hannibal Lecter into something other then a monster, however, Lecter isn't an unthinking monster, and doesn't always act like one.

For me, it's just part and parcel of world emulation.  If the world allows it, yes, if it doesn't, no.

Hannibal Lecter is a great example. He really isnt all that sympathetic, nor is he redeemable by any stretch but he isn't stupid evil or boring evil. And he is a heck of a lot scarier than a weepy misunderstood villain.

But genre is imprtant here. If I am running a mafia game, everybody is pretty much evil, but they are also often reedemable and filled with shades of gray.

I think "shades of grey" has too many possible meanings to be the right term here. I hate the things you explicitly mention: anti-heroes, villains who can be redeemed, and "they're just misunderstood". But I like "shades of grey" in the sense of no clear-cut answers. Ogres are evil, but a charmed ogre who is carefully managed might appear good and actually do good, might even remain good when the charm wears off, so is it right or wrong for players to kill ogres instead of charming them? That's up to the players.

In my setting, all the "humanoids" other than orcs are corrupted humans, elves, and dwarves. Goblins steal babies and twist them into more goblins. So, the goblin menace is more like a disease than a misunderstood culture... but that leaves the question open: should you just wipe out the disease to prevent its spread, or should you try to undo the harm done? Is it even possible? Don't know yet, don't care. It's not my job to define what ought to be done; I just set stuff up and let players mess around.

I like shades of grey because I find "Its evil...kill it!" to be very, very boring.

I detest 'Detect Evil'

Also known as "Paladin stab here"


So boring.

Guess I'm boring by many definitions.  I like my evil...evil.

I prefer playing in hostile worlds, where most everybody preys on everyone else. Like Lankhmar, the Dying Earth, or the Old World of Warhammer Fantasy. It's not a good idea to assume anyone else is 'on your side.' However, there is evil in those worlds - entities so malevolent that nothing good can come of dealing with them.

Also, evil is as evil does. If I want to show a monster or NPC as evil, it takes more than black armor and an evil laugh; it needs to actually commit evil deeds. The monster in my worlds are not mischievous cattle-thieves - they eat people. And the evil NPCs do much worse.

Quote from: Bill;607554I detest 'Detect Evil'

Also known as "Paladin stab here"


So boring.

Yep. Does the inkeeper who is sellling you bad ale detect as evil? How about an inkeeper who beats the stable boy? Or one who lets a robber know which room you're staying in? And if he's evil, is it okay to stab him through the throat?

Quote from: Bill;607554I like shades of grey because I find "Its evil...kill it!" to be very, very boring.

I detest 'Detect Evil'

Also known as "Paladin stab here"


So boring.

If you're letting paladins get stabby for no other reason than they "Detected" evil, you should have less paladins and more fighters in your game.

The end.

Quote from: Bill;607554I detest 'Detect Evil'

Also known as "Paladin stab here"

The way it tends to work in my games is, "Yes, he is evil. The shopkeeper behind him is also evil. Three other people in the room, including Morto, who guided you to the catacombs for a handful of money, are also evil."

And then what? Stab a handful of random evil people? That paladin wouldn't be detecting evil much longer than that.

[edit] crosspost crosspost crosspost. But really. In one of my ongoing campaigns, most everyone is evil, or at least an ugly shade of gray. It is neither an excuse, nor a reliable way to identify a target.

Quote from: Blackhand;607563If you're letting paladins get stabby for no other reason than they "Detected" evil, you should have less paladins and more fighters in your game.

The end.

Well, in all fairness to Stabtastic the Paladin, if his god says its evil, its not a stretch that he should stab it.

85% extreme shades of grey.
15% objective.  The heavy use of undead cost me some shades.

Quote from: Bill;607567Well, in all fairness to Stabtastic the Paladin, if his god says its evil, its not a stretch that he should stab it.

Not sure what version of (A)D&D you're using, but the guidelines for that spell in the 1st edition DMG might be good to re-read.

Quote from: Bill;607567Well, in all fairness to Stabtastic the Paladin, if his god says its evil, its not a stretch that he should stab it.

This happened two sessions ago.

So a paladin of St. Cuthbert enters the Moathouse dungeon.  He's with the party, but the first evil he detects is Zert, a hireling from Hommlett.

Yes, Zert is Chaotic Evil.  I don't tell the paladin that, just that he "pings" as evil.

The player says something imperious to Zert, I'm not sure what it was now.  It required some sort of response from him, I think it was the party trying to use Zert as a form of ablative armor by making him go first.  

When Zert shrugs his shoulders, puts down the coins he had scrounged into the party's dungeon cart, the paladin player says "Great job Zert.  Keep making good decisions."

It's a stretch that they just draw a sword a stab people and no one would do anything about it.  It's a polytheistic society.

If the paladin had out and out ran Zert through with little other than him being able to shout out "But he's EVIIIILLL!!!" would have caused all sorts of mayhem around the town and with the other player characters.

In this case, he acted as the paladin SHOULD.  As a LAWFUL GOOD individual.

Oh, yeah, just remembered, the God of Peace in my campaign has followers who routinely cast detect evil on strangers, then lure them into ambushes where they kill them without hesitation. My players tend to refer to them as "those fuckers".

Quote from: EOTB;607574Not sure what version of (A)D&D you're using, but the guidelines for that spell in the 1st edition DMG might be good to re-read.

I 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.

I have no particular love or hate towards the so-called "anti-hero" but I do have a pet peeve against the term: it's a horrid misappropriation of the actual literary concept. "Dark hero" might be a better fit.

On principle, I prefer conflict to emerge out of actual, believable opposition on any number of grounds, I prefer my antagonists to be a bit more nuanced, I'm a sucker for a good redemption story, and I love it when players identify with their antagonists ("we're not so different, you and I") or better still, when they persuade a long-standing foe into a temporary alliance against a greater evil. Blame it on the Marvel greats, Doctor Doom and Magneto are two of my favorite villains, and took part in many a scene like this.

In practice, "irredeemable evil" is an easy hook, and a godsend for the time-pressed GM (which I am). There's plenty of good reason for PCs to face off against serial killers, organic-life-hating robots, Cthulhu cultists and fervent Nazis.

Quote from: Melan;607585Oh, yeah, just remembered, the God of Peace in my campaign has followers who routinely cast detect evil on strangers, then lure them into ambushes where they kill them without hesitation. My players tend to refer to them as "those fuckers".

see..not that I've used alignment for years...but anyone who did that would gester to a 'detect evil' spell.

Quote from: Blackhand;607578This happened two sessions ago.

So a paladin of St. Cuthbert enters the Moathouse dungeon.  He's with the party, but the first evil he detects is Zert, a hireling from Hommlett.

Yes, Zert is Chaotic Evil.  I don't tell the paladin that, just that he "pings" as evil.

The player says something imperious to Zert, I'm not sure what it was now.  It required some sort of response from him, I think it was the party trying to use Zert as a form of ablative armor by making him go first.  

When Zert shrugs his shoulders, puts down the coins he had scrounged into the party's dungeon cart, the paladin player says "Great job Zert.  Keep making good decisions."

It's a stretch that they just draw a sword a stab people and no one would do anything about it.  It's a polytheistic society.

If the paladin had out and out ran Zert through with little other than him being able to shout out "But he's EVIIIILLL!!!" would have caused all sorts of mayhem around the town and with the other player characters.

In this case, he acted as the paladin SHOULD.  As a LAWFUL GOOD individual.

I play Paladins the way you describe. I don't cut off thieves hands; I set a better example. I spare the lives of my enemies. Etc...

But, many players use evil as an excuse to kill out of expediency.

Many dm's do the same.

I always have the setting react logically to character actions; so there are repercussions for playing 'stupid evil' in my games.

It's a complicated question.  I absolutely believe that you should know an evil creature by his actions.  Evil people do evil things, often irredeemable, terrible things.  But even the worst individual should have a more complicated motivation than 'kicking puppies is fun'.  

Vengeance is a complicated motive.  Skyfall Spoilers....

Spoiler

The villain in Skyfall blames M for his captivity and torture.  She made the decision that, based on some of his actions, it was fair to leave him to the capture and torture in exchange for other agents.  He has a pretty legitimate gripe - she made a decision that he disagrees with, and as a result of that decision he was tortured and failed to kill himself.  He's not particularly sympathetic, but at least his motivation makes sense.

So I like villains that are doing evil things for complicated reasons, but ultimately, it's pretty clear that they're deranged or off.  Some few might be redeemable, but that's the exception, not the rule.  

I guess you could say I like dark shades of gray.

Quote from: EOTB;607574Not sure what version of (A)D&D you're using, but the guidelines for that spell in the 1st edition DMG might be good to re-read.

Ok, I found the 1E spell description online.


Detect Evil (Divination) Reversible  
Level: 1     Components: V, S, M    Range: 12"     Casting Time: 1 round    Duration: 1 turn + ½ turn/level     Saving Throw: None    Area of Effect: 1" path  
Explanation/Description: This is a spell which discovers emanations of evil, or of good in the case of the reverse spell, from any creature or object. For example, evil alignment or an evilly cursed object will radiate evil, but a hidden trop or an unintelligent viper will not. The duration of a Detect Evil (or Detect Good) spell is 1 turn + ½ turn (5 rounds, or 5 minutes) per level of the cleric. Thus a cleric of 1st level of experience can cast a spell with a 1½ turn duration, at 2nd level a 2 turn duration, 2½ at 3rd, etc. The spell has a path of detection 1" wide in the direction in which the cleric is facing. It requires the use of the cleric's holy (or unholy) symbol as its material component, with the cleric holding it before him or her.  



What am I missing? It seems to be pretty basic.

Quote from: Melan;607585Oh, yeah, just remembered, the God of Peace in my campaign has followers who routinely cast detect evil on strangers, then lure them into ambushes where they kill them without hesitation. My players tend to refer to them as "those fuckers".

I love those guys, the logical descendent of detect-and-smith anyone Paladins.

Quote from: Blackhand;607578This happened two sessions ago.

So a paladin of St. Cuthbert enters the Moathouse dungeon.  He's with the party, but the first evil he detects is Zert, a hireling from Hommlett.

Yes, Zert is Chaotic Evil.  I don't tell the paladin that, just that he "pings" as evil.

The player says something imperious to Zert, I'm not sure what it was now.  It required some sort of response from him, I think it was the party trying to use Zert as a form of ablative armor by making him go first.  

When Zert shrugs his shoulders, puts down the coins he had scrounged into the party's dungeon cart, the paladin player says "Great job Zert.  Keep making good decisions."

I'm not sure I followed this: The Paladin extorted money from poor Zert because Zert was evil?

Quote from: Thalaba;607604I'm not sure I followed this: The Paladin extorted money from poor Zert because Zert was evil?

I think the Paladin was giving Zert positive reinforcement by treating him as an equal.

I don't much care for alignment and no matter what D&D I'm running, I always default to the D&D RC version of detect evil (which addresses threats in general, and does not mention alignment).

Quote from: Thalaba;607604I'm not sure I followed this: The Paladin extorted money from poor Zert because Zert was evil?

Sounds like classic Christianity to me.  :D

Seriously though, sounds more like Zert was holding out on the party by snagging stuff, and the Paladin got him to toss his loot into the communal cart to be split later.

Quote from: Bill;607599Ok, I found the 1E spell description online.


Detect Evil (Divination) Reversible  
Level: 1     Components: V, S, M    Range: 12"     Casting Time: 1 round    Duration: 1 turn + ½ turn/level     Saving Throw: None    Area of Effect: 1" path  
Explanation/Description: This is a spell which discovers emanations of evil, or of good in the case of the reverse spell, from any creature or object. For example, evil alignment or an evilly cursed object will radiate evil, but a hidden trop or an unintelligent viper will not. The duration of a Detect Evil (or Detect Good) spell is 1 turn + ½ turn (5 rounds, or 5 minutes) per level of the cleric. Thus a cleric of 1st level of experience can cast a spell with a 1½ turn duration, at 2nd level a 2 turn duration, 2½ at 3rd, etc. The spell has a path of detection 1" wide in the direction in which the cleric is facing. It requires the use of the cleric's holy (or unholy) symbol as its material component, with the cleric holding it before him or her.  



What am I missing? It seems to be pretty basic.

Uh, that's from the PHB, not the DMG.

Quote from: CRKrueger;607611Sounds like classic Christianity to me.  :D

Seriously though, sounds more like Zert was holding out on the party by snagging stuff, and the Paladin got him to toss his loot into the communal cart to be split later.

That's what it was...loose change and Chaotic Evil...you know.

Quote from: The Butcher;607610I don't much care for alignment and no matter what D&D I'm running, I always default to the D&D RC version of detect evil (which addresses threats in general, and does not mention alignment).

I stopped using alignment a long time ago. It pops up rarely with demons and angels and stuff like that, but I generally ignore it.

I feel actions define alignment, not the 'CN' on the sheet.

I 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.

Quote from: Bill;607613I stopped using alignment a long time ago. It pops up rarely with demons and angels and stuff like that, but I generally ignore it.

I feel actions define alignment, not the 'CN' on the sheet.

Ditching alignment ditches a lot of mechanical aspects of the game.  One has to throw out an assload of spells, magic items and conventions.

More trouble than it's worth, and if players know the game and expect to be able to perform certain actions it might get a little testy.

However, if you're not playing D&D it's not as much as issue.

Quote from: Blackhand;607624Ditching alignment ditches a lot of mechanical aspects of the game.  One has to throw out an assload of spells, magic items and conventions.

More trouble than it's worth, and if players know the game and expect to be able to perform certain actions it might get a little testy.

However, if you're not playing D&D it's not as much as issue.

I have run a ton of dnd campaigns with 1E/2E/3E/3.5E/Pathfinder, and ignoring alignment has never been an issue.

Quote from: Blackhand;607612Uh, that's from the PHB, not the DMG.

My lack of observation skills.

I don't have the book handy; I am at work.

Can you just paraphrase the dmg entry that supposedly makes detect evil useful in some way?

Quote from: Bill;607605I think the Paladin was giving Zert positive reinforcement by treating him as an equal.

Ah, that makes more sense. Then the Paladin, it seems, does believe that Evil is redeemable. He may be in for a surprise if the GM doesn't believe it.

I think most "villains" should be gray, but there also should be some things that are just plain evil.

Quote from: Bill;607631My lack of observation skills.

I don't have the book handy; I am at work.

Can you just paraphrase the dmg entry that supposedly makes detect evil useful in some way?

It's tiny enough.  I don't think they'll ban me or sue me for posting the paragraph in it's entirety, verbatim.

Spell Explanations, p. 41

Detect Evil:  Basically, the degree of evil (faint, moderate, strong, overwhelming) and it's general nature (expectant, malignant, gloating, etc.) can be noted.  If the evil is overwhelming, the general bent (lawful, neutral, chaotic) has a 10% chance per level of the clereic of being detectable.

Based on the description given, I judged Zert to be faintly evil, and expectant (meaning he might commit some faint evil). His description says he can go either way on the party (accompany or murder), and wants to get rich.

This doesn't make the spell more or less useful, just shows you how to adjudicate the spell.

It doesn't put a target over a evil beings' head with the psychic impulse to kill the person / creature out of hand.  It's not a free excuse for a lawful good character to commit what amounts to murder, just to make sure that they understand what they are dealing with.

Quote from: RPGPundit;607522Do you want there to be things, creatures, and people in your world that are objectively black-and-white Evil? Not necessarily "stupid evil" but none of this "they're just misunderstood" crap?

Or are you one of those guys who likes to constantly wallow in "shades of grey", who loves anti-heroes and villains-who-can-be-redeemed?

I think it depends alot on the setting and genre. In some, black-and-white objective evil works best, but in others, shades of grey make for a more interesting game.

I've run both kinds of games, and my preference is for the morally grey areas (because I think that's more interesting) moreso than the objective morality, but I can see room for the other.

For example, I once ran a pure evil campaign using the Book of Vile Darkness as inspiration; the players made completely irredeemably evil characters who were all members of the Cult of Orcus. It was a very entertaining game.

On the side issue of alignment, paladins, and Detect Evil: I don't use alignment as behavior or objective morality. I use it as, you know, *alignment*. Which side have you sworn allegiance to? For this reason, I stick to the older two-alignment system, but it doesn't really matter if I have 15 alignments with unique names; it would work the same.

For Detect Evil, I use the original spell description: it detects evil thought,  intent, or enchantment. Demons, undead and evil high priests show up as evil no matter what, but other living beings have to actually be planning to kill or maim. There are clearly evil actions, the way I run the game, and planning to do them will show up as "evil" to a paladin, but there's no "objective evil" in the sense of a person being evil regardless of their actions.

There's a mechanical aspect to alignment in terms of weapons or artifacts that are also aligned and which harm those not of its alignment. Those things can sit there and be evil, all by their lonesome, but that's because they were enchanted with evil intent. The evil in them is really the echo of someone else's evil.

Quote from: RPGPundit;607522Or are you one of those guys who likes to constantly wallow in "shades of grey", who loves anti-heroes and villains-who-can-be-redeemed?

That's me, baby. Basically, if there's 0% chance the player character might ask the villain out for a date then I don't consider them written to their full potential.

Incidentally that's why I prefer humanocentric settings instead of monster zoo.

Quote from: Bill;607631My lack of observation skills.

I don't have the book handy; I am at work.

Can you just paraphrase the dmg entry that supposedly makes detect evil useful in some way?

Quote from: Blackhand;607641It's tiny enough.  I don't think they'll ban me or sue me for posting the paragraph in it's entirety, verbatim.

Spell Explanations, p. 41

Detect Evil:  Basically, the degree of evil (faint, moderate, strong, overwhelming) and it's general nature (expectant, malignant, gloating, etc.) can be noted.  If the evil is overwhelming, the general bent (lawful, neutral, chaotic) has a 10% chance per level of the clereic of being detectable.

Based on the description given, I judged Zert to be faintly evil, and expectant (meaning he might commit some faint evil). His description says he can go either way on the party (accompany or murder), and wants to get rich.

This doesn't make the spell more or less useful, just shows you how to adjudicate the spell.

It doesn't put a target over a evil beings' head with the psychic impulse to kill the person / creature out of hand.  It's not a free excuse for a lawful good character to commit what amounts to murder, just to make sure that they understand what they are dealing with.

My bad - the part I was thinking of is actually on page 60 under the heading of "Detection of Evil and/or Good".  It makes clear that, as regards to people, it is really a "detect immediate evil intent" spell.

Quote from: DMG Pg. 60It is important to make a distinction between character alignment and some powerful force of evil or good when this detection function is considered. In general, only a know alignment spell will determine the evil or good a character holds within. It must be a great evil or a strong good to be detected. Characters who ore very strongly aligned, do not stray from their faith, and who are of relatively high level (at least 8th or higher) might radiate evil or good if they are intent upon appropriate actions. Powerful monsters such as demons, devils, ki-rin and the like will send forth emanations of their evil or good. Aligned undead must radiate evil, far it is this power and negative force which enables them to continue existing. Note that none of these emonations are noticeable without magical detection.

In like fashion, powerful magic items which have some purpose as respects alignment will radiate evil or good - unless they are aligned with neutrality, which is neither, of course. Most other magic items will most certainly not, even though their effect might be for evil or good. Likewise, items which are not magical but which have powerful effects will probably not give any evil or good aura. Poison is a prime example. It is perfectly neutral and has no oura whatsoever. Unholy water will emanate evil, lust as holy water will radiate good. Places sanctified to some deity of evil or good will certainly give off an appropriate aura.

Thus, a trap, for example, is neutral and gives no evil or good reading. If the same trap leads victims to the lair of Juiblex, for instance, there will be an aura of evil about it; while if it brings victims into the realm of Bahamut, it will send out an aura of good. Using these guidelines, you should hove little difficulty in adjudicating the attempts of characters empowered to detect evil or good to do so. As a side note, be sure to remember that all such detection requires not less than one round of stillness and concentration whether the power is from some inner source (paladins, for example), or by some external means (spells, swords, etc.). Therefore, the character must stop, have quiet, and intently seek to detect the aura.

Quote from: RPGPundit;607522Do you want there to be things, creatures, and people in your world that are objectively black-and-white Evil? Not necessarily "stupid evil" but none of this "they're just misunderstood" crap?

Or are you one of those guys who likes to constantly wallow in "shades of grey", who loves anti-heroes and villains-who-can-be-redeemed?

RPGPundit

I do not belive in "evil vs good", often it is really evil calling themselves good and everything that opposes them evil, while the actual good seem to go more for the "misunderstood" or perhaps shades of grey.
I go for neither:
I go for colours, not greyscales.
What i mean, is that opinions often equals morals, and in some cases, several different morals may be correct even if they are more or less opposing in several cases, they might also be opposing in only a few cases.

However, in some cases, only one certain colour is good and correct, and in another case, another colour may be the right one.
Then there is the spectrum of false/right asumptions and conclusions as well.
A false assumption/conclusion often may seem like a specific colour, because it may propagate the wrong colour in some cases.
Does that makes them evil?
No, but it may lead to cruelty, and mentalities like "the end justifies the means" and "It's for your own good".

Really bad offenders are often victims themselves ... ok there may exist people that should be dropped dead on the spot, but they are really far fewer than some obviously belive, and it is really hard to tell them apart.

To me, villains normally has, for them, good reasons to do what they do.
Ok, the players may not aggree on those reasons, but still.

For me, it depends on the campaign setting - alignment to me always seemed like an extension of the campaign setting rather than rules that should be strictly enforced in all games.

In a FR type universe, demons, devils, etc are real, and evil is actively at work collecting converts. These things and their counterparts are for the most part pure representations of alignment. Their acts and the acts of their divinely enabled mortal servants give ample proof of their relevance.

The question of alignment by action (or inaction) or even by thought is of the realm of mortals who understand their actions will have consequences in the afterlife.

There is a lot of fun in that type of universe, like personalizing the divine minion(s) who deliver clerical spells and only appear to the cleric.

But for a setting like Ravenloft, the horror is that understanding consequences is just beyond your ability, especially on the path to salvation.

Really depends on the genre and the setting.

In my OD&D game, Dwarves and Elves are locked in a genocidal war. They don't like humans and consider them inferior, but occasionally useful. I use the Lawful / Neutral / Chaotic alignment chart and I definitely prefer that to Good vs. Evil for my OD&D.

In that campaign, there are Evil forces. There are demons lurking in the shadows along with their mortal acolytes and they are Capital E-Evil. But there are plenty of people who are Lower Case e-evil who are just assholes who want to take your shit and be a douche.

Some of them are even PCs.

As for "redeemable evil", I only use those guys in Superhero games. That's a fine genre trope that the players enjoy and I certainly haven't overused it.

Have only read the OP for now, but my initial response is that it depends on a variety of factors including time invested in the game, structure of the group, the game itself, and the mood I'm in. I can get behind a much more realistic "shades of gray" style game, but that's not appropriate for every system nor every group. Occasionally I like having free reign to just run free and kill the evil guys who are evil because they're evil without having to concern myself with deeper moralistic problems.

This is how I often prefer games like D&D or Rifts. Moral issues enter more into games like Vampire. Though the two can flip flop as well.

Quote from: Blackhand;607624Ditching alignment ditches a lot of mechanical aspects of the game.  One has to throw out an assload of spells, magic items and conventions.

More trouble than it's worth, and if players know the game and expect to be able to perform certain actions it might get a little testy.

Massive overstatement made from a position of ignorance. In reality, ditching alignment altogether is surpassingly quick and easy. And I base that on actual experience with the issue, which I reckon you don't have.

QuoteDo you want there to be things, creatures, and people in your world that are objectively black-and-white Evil? Not necessarily "stupid evil" but none of this "they're just misunderstood" crap?

Or are you one of those guys who likes to constantly wallow in "shades of grey", who loves anti-heroes and villains-who-can-be-redeemed?

False dichotomy, these two options are not complementary.

You don't need "objective Evil" in the D&D sense of inherently Evil races, spells, cosmological forces, etc.. In fact, your campaign world can be infinitely more interesting without it. Consider the quick passage of just a few centuries in real history: Romans fuck up the Britons, everyone else on the continent fucks up the Romans so they withdraw and leave the Britons alone, Saxons fuck up the Romanised Britons, Danes fuck up the Saxons. None of them are Objectively Evil Races in the D&D sense. And yet, contrarily to your claims, it's not just shades of grey, either. I'm pretty sure there were quite a few downright horrid irredeemable fuckers on each and every side, just like how there were decent, honourable fellows as well. And all in all, it's an infintely more interesting background with much more varied chances for adventuring than "Evil orcs are threatening the village again".

Quote from: Premier;607680Massive overstatement made from a position of ignorance. In reality, ditching alignment altogether is surpassingly quick and easy. And I base that on actual experience with the issue, which I reckon you don't have.

You don't have any fucking idea.  There's been more than one essay written about this from the game designers themselves, not to mention from various independent sources.  Why don't you look something up before you tell the next person how you think it is.

What you say is only true if you don't use half the published materials you probably don't even own.  You basically just ignore all questions of alignment, high level spells and planar interactions (which are based on alignment).

I'll wager the vast majority of your "experience" is with PC's of levels 1 through 5 at best.

The only way you can do this is if you say "well you just REMOVE that and CHANGE this" until there's a huge chunk of material just missing.  Also, how do you actually use a paladin in that scenario?  The answer is, you REMOVE a bunch of stuff.

As in you don't use it.  Which is EXACTLY what I was saying about it having mechanical ramifications, to which (if they are experienced) your players may or may not prefer.

If you REPLACE the alignment system with a morality system (or something similar) to mitigate this approach, one has to ask why you would be bothered to do it at all when you could just play a different game.

Keeping alignment is fun for me. It's a multifaceted tool. It can be grossly broad brushed upon a race and social era, and still retain precise variation down to the individual level. The magic of alignment is its capacity for a GM to interpret it through their setting; it's a quick shorthand like so many GM tools!
:)

About high or low contrast evil... depends on my campaign dials. I can retain roughly the same setting across tables, but from different campaigns across those same tables I can adjust the contrast dial. In one I may focus on petty individual evil, with "shades of grey" and potential redemption et al. While just down the (setting) road, perhaps in a different social class or neighborhood, there can be a tyrant of unmitigated evil.

And the good thing is that both interpretations of (gonna use color theory terms!) Alignment Intensity/Saturation satisfies part of my desires of play. I like to paint with different colors!

It's why I think the much-maligned alignment system was a stroke of genius: it reduces complex theo/philosophy down to a primary color wheel. It's not there to do the painting for you. It's there to give you a palette with which to adjust accordingly to your painting's (setting's) context. You as GM choose the value and intensity of a given hue-shorthand. It's not there to replace true theo/philosophical complexity -- it's there to save you time and prevent head-explodey

Sometimes I feel like stark contrast between good/evil, law/chaos. Sometimes I feel like examining the "value" within an alignment, looking at various "tints and shades" within the same "hue." And sometimes, I like to look at the similarities between hues during lowered intensity/saturation. Very easy, useful tool for me.

That said, if you are going to make a game module, I prefer taking a strong viewpoint nowadays, just for clarity's sake. Paint with bold primary colors and let the GM adjust tone and brightness (intensity and value) as they see fit. Constantly painting in muddied tones gets old after a while. Further they also complicate discerning contrasting borders when trying to readjust for your own table.

I find alignment disassociative, always have. I can find no correlation to it in "reality", so I've always ignored it. the only setting where it made sense was Planescape, which was one of the masterstrokes of that setting: creating a rational for the D&D alignment system.

Anyways, its easy enough to ignore, despite claims.

I want evil to be evil but I also want the grey stuff. So take a typical opponent for D&D, a tribe of goblinoids. I am quite happy for them to basically be just a group with interesting dietary tastes that are just trying to do the best for their cubs.
ON the other hand I am totally happy for the maniacally evil Prince to be a sadistic psycho who tortures political prisoners and is irredeemibly evil.

On the side of good I am again happy for there to be absolute good, peaceful, calm, loving heal all and forgive all trespasses good. I am also happy to have pure the world with fire good where the belief is the justification for action even if the action may appear Evil.
 
I don't want the PCs thinking they are good if they gleefully kill inteligent creatures they meet and take their stuff with no rationale for that action other than more coin to spend on better kit and training or your eyes will help me cast better spells.

As an aside on the Evil side I am thinking of changing the material/somatic components of some cleric spells from holy Symbols to live Sacrifice.
If you are a Priest of Merga the Goddess of Death through unbearable suffering it seems reasonable that the material components for an Astral Gate is a sacrificed virgin.

Well, hell, in Game of Thrones it's not like the White Walkers look like they're entertaining very many moral quandaries. There's all kinds of room for Objective Evil in morally grey campaign worlds.

Probably the more restrictive question is, "Do you like objective Good in your campaigns?" That's a bit harder. I've come around to liking forces for Good in a campaign - though they may be very few in number or relatively powerless or infrequently encountered - as long as they have to think about what they're doing. If the forces of good have to strategize instead of just ride around on white horses that makes goodness more fun to play. Sort of the opposite of "Evil will always win because Good is dumb." :D

I've always found alignment easy to remove.  Super-easy.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;607719I've always found alignment easy to remove.  Super-easy.

A lot depends on edition used and rules subsystems in play.

There's basically three and a half places where alignment interacts with other rules:

(1) Acting in Character: Alignment has very little influence on this in OD&D, but it's a little stronger in the Basic branch and has a formalized point rating system in AD&D. Not sure about 3e and later, but I think they started scaling alignment back to the informal Basic approach. If this is being used, GMs may adjust experience awards based on whether the player's behavior seems to match the standards of the chosen character alignment.

(1.5) NPC Reactions: Related to alignment-as-behavior. It works about the same across all editions. At the very least, an NPC of an alignment opposed to a PC will have a negative reaction, and in some versions evil alignments get a flat penalty in any negotiation. Can be dropped from any edition without consequence.

(2) Spells: Only a few are relevant to alignment issues. Detect Evil and Protection from Evil, as I mentioned, work different in OD&D and really don't depend on the alignment concept, but later editions tie them closer to alignment. The other factor is that certain cleric spells are not usable by Law or Good.

(3) Magic Items: All swords and some other items have an alignment and will refuse to work or only work partially for those of an opposing alignment.

Some GMs ignore the magic item alignment part, which doesn't affect game play much in any edition. In OD&D, removing the cleric spell restriction means clerics can cause damage just like magic-users, which changes game play; in later editions, this has already been eroded with crap like Spiritual Hammer, so dropping the cleric restriction isn't a big deal. However, eliminating alignment in late-edition D&D also means you have to roll back Protection from Evil to the original rules.  Dropping the experience and behavior rules is probably not a big deal, especially since I consider the tracking method described in the 1e DMG to be ridiculous and useless.

So, it's easy to drop alignment in any edition, but it *will* affect game play, in different ways for different editions.

Quote from: RPGPundit;607522Do you want there to be things, creatures, and people in your world that are objectively black-and-white Evil? Not necessarily "stupid evil" but none of this "they're just misunderstood" crap?

Or are you one of those guys who likes to constantly wallow in "shades of grey", who loves anti-heroes and villains-who-can-be-redeemed?

RPGPundit

BOTH.

In my games there are definitely EVIL individuals that are often the NPCs.

Sometimes there are also 'Shades of Gray" characters that can be persuaded by player characters to do the 'right thing' or at least something small to help out the good guys.


- Ed C.

I prefer my villains in all shades of gray, but usually not redeemable. Sympathetic might be a better term. You might sorry for the guy, but that shouldn't stop you from cutting off his head clean off his shoulders when the time comes.

I'm in the 'shades of gray' club... but that covers everything I can think of. I can't bring myself to suspend disbelief in objective good and evil... it's all just perspective of victim and perpetrator. Not that the perspectives of some villains can ever be known or understood... so for most purposes they certainly appear to be pure 'EVIL'... Hannibal Lector, Cthulhu, the thing in the cave, etc.

Quote from: RPGPundit;607522Do you want there to be things, creatures, and people in your world that are objectively black-and-white Evil? Not necessarily "stupid evil" but none of this "they're just misunderstood" crap?

Or are you one of those guys who likes to constantly wallow in "shades of grey", who loves anti-heroes and villains-who-can-be-redeemed?

RPGPundit

Depends on the game.

In D&D, for instance, I'm cool with Evil and Good being tangible things that can be detected with spells...but I'm also having a blast running Necessary Evil, which is built on the assumption that evil beings can be redeemed in the face of greater evil.

I think there's a time and place for both.

Quote from: RPGPundit;607522Do you want there to be things, creatures, and people in your world that are objectively black-and-white Evil? Not necessarily "stupid evil" but none of this "they're just misunderstood" crap?

Or are you one of those guys who likes to constantly wallow in "shades of grey", who loves anti-heroes and villains-who-can-be-redeemed?

RPGPundit

Black and white evil bothers me, because people tend to badly mishandle it. Because we're not perfect and we are limited, we cannot handle such things perfectly, and since we can't handle them perfectly it's best to treat people as fallible and able to change for the better.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;607593...'kicking puppies is fun'...

And sometimes kicking puppies is fun (psychopathology qv.)

Quote from: Blackhand;607641It's tiny enough.  I don't think they'll ban me or sue me for posting the paragraph in it's entirety, verbatim.

Spell Explanations, p. 41

Detect Evil:  Basically, the degree of evil (faint, moderate, strong, overwhelming) and it's general nature (expectant, malignant, gloating, etc.) can be noted.  If the evil is overwhelming, the general bent (lawful, neutral, chaotic) has a 10% chance per level of the clereic of being detectable.

Based on the description given, I judged Zert to be faintly evil, and expectant (meaning he might commit some faint evil). His description says he can go either way on the party (accompany or murder), and wants to get rich.

This doesn't make the spell more or less useful, just shows you how to adjudicate the spell.

It doesn't put a target over a evil beings' head with the psychic impulse to kill the person / creature out of hand.  It's not a free excuse for a lawful good character to commit what amounts to murder, just to make sure that they understand what they are dealing with.

I 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.

Quote from: Thalaba;607544For my own campaign worlds I don't like objective evil at all. I prefer that 'evil' be completely subjective. Player characters are completely free to decide who they think is evil and who isn't. Some NPCs might agree with them, others might not. The world itself is impartial.

But you, as creator, are not- when you introduce an antagonist and his goal, you have decided that. Stephen Colbert made that point much better than I can ever hope to, in an interview with an HBO show creator who was giving the same answer.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;607727Depends on the game.

In D&D, for instance, I'm cool with Evil and Good being tangible things that can be detected with spells...but I'm also having a blast running Necessary Evil, which is built on the assumption that evil beings can be redeemed in the face of greater evil.

I think there's a time and place for both.

Yeah, this.

I like playing around with shades of grey in Good/Evil and having NPCs that are Evil with Good Intentions. However, the concept that Evil is only misunderstood is so naive in my estimation that I tend to use it as an IQ test on my Players, if they fall for the "I'm just misunderstood" Evil being act being pulled on them - then I slam them hard.

Quote from: Settembrini;607735But you, as creator, are not- when you introduce an antagonist and his goal, you have decided that. Stephen Colbert made that point much better than I can ever hope to, in an interview with an HBO show creator who was giving the same answer.

I'd like you to elaborate a bit here, because i'm not sure what your point is.

I take care to give my villains reasons for what they do, i'll give you some examples:
* I'm not afraid of "reducing" unspeakable ones to the simple wants and needs of Feeding, Vengeance ... and finding horrified people entertaining.
* I made a scientist that experiments on people very cruelly, and several do not survive said experiments or the aftereffects, and he does so with no remorse.
However, he does it because he is trying to amass an army of mutants that will later defend the world against a "greater evil" .... and to him, he has no time to be gentle.
* I made a gruesome cannibal that was the result of an experiment, he had no choise but to eat any bodies thrown to him (survival instinct can be powerful sometimes), he's really a victim, but might easily be seen as a massmurderer. He also absorbed the memories of those he ate ... and some personalities.

Then there are the more common motives: Power, Greed, and so on ... but those are only the surface reasons, and just because one don't know what the actual reason is, there might still be a different reason.

Quote from: jeff37923;607738Yeah, this.

I like playing around with shades of grey in Good/Evil and having NPCs that are Evil with Good Intentions. However, the concept that Evil is only misunderstood is so naive in my estimation that I tend to use it as an IQ test on my Players, if they fall for the "I'm just misunderstood" Evil being act being pulled on them - then I slam them hard.

Have you thought of the idea that the act might be true?
The character may still be messed up enough to hit hard right back, but to redeem the "Evil one" in that case would take far more effort than a simple hug and pity and some help ....
It may take more effort than the characters are capable of, and "rough love" comes to mind ... ;D

I don't mind supernatural pure evil, but I like humans to fall within shades of grey.

But to me, shades of grey doesn't necessarily mean redeemable.  People don't often change.  People are selfish and are prone to think they're right.  Sometimes pursuing things you think are right with too much zeal can turn you into an asshole over years and years and there's no easy road back.  Put a couple of decades of blood, sweat, and tears into something you believe and you're not going to renounce it because some random stranger told you you were wrong.  You might just follow your convictions to the bitter end.

That's assuming a motivated individual, though.  Some people are just lazy, cheap, and selfish, and not much else.  They just become shitty human beings who will take the easiest route through life, even if it means inconveniencing or totally fucking over other people in the process.

Quote from: RPGPundit;607522Do you want there to be things, creatures, and people in your world that are objectively black-and-white Evil? Not necessarily "stupid evil" but none of this "they're just misunderstood" crap?

Or are you one of those guys who likes to constantly wallow in "shades of grey", who loves anti-heroes and villains-who-can-be-redeemed?

RPGPundit

The campaign I'm currently running definitely isn't black-and-white good v. evil, and it's a bit more complicated than most of the "shades of grey" campaigns I've run in the past. The core conflict in the game is basically one of irreconcilable differences, rather than a clear-cut matter of right v. wrong. Both sides have made mistakes and committed illegal, possibly "evil" acts. The PCs took forever to make up their minds and choose a side. Once they finally did, they were all in, and they've recruited both heroes and villains alike to help their (hopeless) cause, not always knowing which ones were which, or caring whether they were "redeemable." And sometimes the PCs seem like the villains. It's been one mad, desperate scramble after another, with thousands of lives on the line, and they've had to make some tough choices.

The players tell me they've never played anything like it. I call that "mission accomplished." :D

I think to 'choose' either side alone is naive.  There are things that are grossly, irredeemably evil in the real world, and there are many varying shades of grey.  But for grey to exist, there has to be something for grey to lie between -- true light and true darkness.  They can be as almost-unknowable as the infinite mysteries of the universe, but they are still there.

As such, I use both types.  Many villains are often the shades-of-grey type, and some few are even redeemable (now whether society accepts that redemption is another thing entirely).  There are, however, a few out there that are 'pure evil', so to speak, and by their deeds will you know them.

Quote from: Catelf;607744Have you thought of the idea that the act might be true?

Sure. You have read my conclusion.

Quote from: Catelf;607744The character may still be messed up enough to hit hard right back, but to redeem the "Evil one" in that case would take far more effort than a simple hug and pity and some help ....
It may take more effort than the characters are capable of, and "rough love" comes to mind ... ;D

Sorry, not interested. Does not sound fun from either a Player or GM perspective.

Quote from: Blackhand;607681You don't have any fucking idea.  There's been more than one essay written about this from the game designers themselves, not to mention from various independent sources.

Appeal to Authority fallacy. Of course, you conveniently fail to actually quote / link to these essays, making it impossible to check whether they really make the claims you attribute to them.

QuoteWhy don't you look something up before you tell the next person how you think it is.

I don't need to look up somebody's physics essay on why heavier-than-air flight is impossible, at least not when I've just stepped off a Boeing.

If someone wants to argue that removing alignment altogether makes the game different, let them; I'll be the first to agree. I someone says this different game is one they don't like, I'll accept that, since de gustibus non est disputandum. But when someone makes the blatantly false claim that it's impossible, they do not deserve any of the respect normally reserved for a debating opponent.

QuoteWhat you say is only true if you don't use half the published materials you probably don't even own.  You basically just ignore all questions of alignment, high level spells and planar interactions (which are based on alignment).

I'll wager the vast majority of your "experience" is with PC's of levels 1 through 5 at best.

Oh, I get it now. You're one of those poor bastards who were weaned by nuD&D and who eat, drink and breathe the Company credo of "You HAVE to buy all our books, you HAVE to use all our books, otherwise you're not playing the game AS INTENDED, and that makes your game WORSE". You have my honest symapthy. You're broken for life and there's no fixing you. You're not a bad guy, you're victim. Always remember that.


For your hypothetical edification (but who am I kidding, really?):

- All your "questions of alignment" are question that do not need to be asked in the first place. "How does HP work?", "What damage does this weapon do?", "What spell system is there?" These are question that need to be asked or else there's no game. "Why does this single specific spell need to be in the game?", "How do I explain gothic armour in my Dark Ages campaign?", and "How do I deal with the dullness and inconvenience of the alignment system?" are NOT questions that need to be asked. You don't need to justify removing you don't like, a piece of equipment that's anachronistic for your game, or a cosmological detail that doesn't fit your vision. You just remove them.

- Most high level spells have nothing to do with alignment, and like I just said, you're free to to just dump the few that do. You don't need them.

- Planar stuff? The vast majority of D&D material about planes is trite, and its shackling to the alignment system is actually one of the reasons. Get rid of the damn thing and good riddance. Take a clue from BECMI cosmology or just make up you own, you'd be hard pressed to make something worse than what's in place. (With some exceptions, admittedly.)

QuoteThe only way you can do this is if you say "well you just REMOVE that and CHANGE this" until there's a huge chunk of material just missing.

Well, exactly. A huge chunk of BAD material will be just missing. And guess what? Removing bad material increases the quality of your game.

QuoteAlso, how do you actually use a paladin in that scenario?  The answer is, you EMOVE a bunch of stuff.

Why would I want to use a paladin in a setting that's entirely built on not having a schoolchildren's simplistic alignment system?

This is the point you're fundamentally incapable of grasping: D&D is still perfectly D&D without the paladin. Without the assassin or the monk. Without the Detect Evil spell. Without Fighter Kit X or Prestige Class Y. Without Planescape. And yes, without alignment in general.

In regards with redemption...

Quote from: jeff37923;607806Sorry, not interested. Does not sound fun from either a Player or GM perspective.

It can be fun, but like horror there's player buy-in required.

Redemption is actually a prominent demonic theme in In Nomine SJG. It's also crazy difficult because you need to survive a) other evils wanting you dead for betrayal, b) other evils wanting you to trip up and fail, cuz, heh, how deliciously fun, c) find anyone who can help willing to believe your sincerity, and d) actually change your ways and mean it. Finally you have to have intercession from an aspect of the divine (Archangel) -- and you still run the risk of being soul killed and your energies dissipated because your evil make-up cannot withstand the transition. For most a pipe dream, but a dream worth pursuing nonetheless.

And then there's the false flag demonic foils trying to trick the good guys with false attempts at redemption.

It makes for great RPG fodder for both GM and players alike.

But your table has to be interested in the possibility, and the game has to have some sort of support for the concept.

Quote from: CerilianSeeming;607754I think to 'choose' either side alone is naive.  There are things that are grossly, irredeemably evil in the real world, and there are many varying shades of grey.  But for grey to exist, there has to be something for grey to lie between -- true light and true darkness.  They can be as almost-unknowable as the infinite mysteries of the universe, but they are still there.

For gaming purposes though I'd view objective good and evil as tools to an end, used to create certain effects, feelings and environments in games. The philosophical ramifications are less interesting than the reactions they can get out of players, like everything in RPGs I suppose.

Quote from: Settembrini;607735But you, as creator, are not- when you introduce an antagonist and his goal, you have decided that. Stephen Colbert made that point much better than I can ever hope to, in an interview with an HBO show creator who was giving the same answer.

I, as the creator, am not what?
I've decided what?

Are you saying that I've decided an NPC is evil? Actually, I haven't because I don't believe in 'evil'. An NPC might have motives opposed to the PCs and they are free to consider him evil but, you know, that's their bag. Even enemy NPCs have mothers that love them.

Quote from: Premier;607809*Paraphrased*

DERP DERP DERP You don't know anything you only play new games not the real games from long long ago and you never actually played those games you just pretended to you have no education and and and DERP DERP DERP

You know I thought about answering you point for point, but then I thought - why?  I don't really care how you game, and you made my point for me.

Do a quick internet search if you give a shit, if not then continue to play your game how you want.  Nobody gives two shits or a fuck.

I'll leave it with:  I appreciate the mechanical aspects of alignment (which isn't the subject of the thread), don't ban magic items or spells or classes in my campaign, and have used Deities & Demigods + Manual of the Planes to great effect.  I've had a lot of fun with alignment, I think it works very well and I see no reason to modify it in my own game.  

Right now, that's AD&D 1e RaW.  I guess that's nuD&D to you.

Quote from: RPGPundit;607522Do you want there to be things, creatures, and people in your world that are objectively black-and-white Evil? Not necessarily "stupid evil" but none of this "they're just misunderstood" crap?

Or are you one of those guys who likes to constantly wallow in "shades of grey", who loves anti-heroes and villains-who-can-be-redeemed?

In the Majestic Wilderlands I have both. Demons and their ilk are a force of true evil at war with creation itself in a desire to control it for themselves regardless of the cost.

For everything else it depends on how you look at it including some of the gods. The "evil" gods have philosophies that are unpleasant or unappealing.

Set the God of War and Order is viewed as Tyrannical and very much follows the credo of the ends justify the means. His believes only that absolute obedience and order will allow the races of the Wilderland to fight demons. The goddess Mitra the war goddess of honor and justice is considered a misguided fool and sometimes enemy by Set.

Hamakhis is a death god, lord of the death, who in his desire to fight the demons bonded with the shadow. A nihilistic force that in a faustian bargain he has to feed souls too. Souls provided by the human sacrifices of his religion. Or so they claim, as there are older records of when the religion was about the worship Hamakhis in his aspect as judges and human sacrifice was very infrequent.


Kalis was a nature goddess raped by the Demon and afterwards consumed by revenge. She turned to the breeding of monsters and blood magic to give her the power to overthrow the Demons and throw them back in the Abyss. Of the ten main gods she has no religion with her at the focus, the largest groups of followers are organized into cults.

The other religions of the Wilderland revolve around the other seven main gods in various aspects.  The main ones are

The pantheon of the Sylvan cultures i.e. a group of cultures influenced by the elves.

The henothestic worship of Mitra by the Ghinorians who believe they are her chosen people.

The southern pantheon of Mantriv the Sky God of War, Dannu the Earth Mother, and Thoth the wise Ibis Sage. Originally confined to the nomads of the Ament Tundra but spread in the wake of their conquest of the Ghinorian Homeland and the rest of the southern regions of the Wilderlands.

The Desert Lands worship of Daysha the Goddess of Fate, Pleasure and Wealth.
\

Phil Zimbardo talks at TED about the true nature of real evil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg).  You should all watch this if you haven't seen it.

This is the guy who headed the Stanford Prison Experiments.

Well, I and the people I game with are adults, and we like immersion and verisimilitude in our gaming.  I generally prefer D&D variants that only use the law-neutrality-chaos axis as per OD&D because that lets my players map their own morality (and that which they choose for their PCs) onto how they deal with the setting.  The issue with AD&D 9 point alignment is that DMs need to define what they feel good is.  While a D&D campaign is indeed mediated by the DM and the players are exploring his or her setting, I prefer settings where morality more resembles the complex situations in real life.  Also, using a Law-Nuetrality-Chaos axis lets me use deities and themes similar to what is found in Moorcock's writing, which is one of my preferred fantasy authors.  Also, sword and sorcery genre writers (Howard, Lieber et al) as opposed to High Fantasy writers (Tolkien, Lewis, etc) had a more murky and flexible position on issues of morality that I enjoy working with.

Back when I used to run AD&D, I generally allowed Paladins be of any alignment, with minor tweaking of their abilities, but enforced strict adherence to the ethos of their religion and mandated a personal relationship with their god.

I have worked out the best summary of my position.

I have no issue with individuals beeing irredeemibly evil. I have an issue with a whole population or class of creature (aside from the divine/demionic but even then I am too steeped in Lucifer and other Vertigo comics to draw a tight line here) being irredeemibly evil.

Quote from: Blackhand;607848Phil Zimbardo talks at TED about the true nature of real evil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg).  You should all watch this if you haven't seen it.

This is the guy who headed the Standford Prison Experiments.

There are alternate interpretations of that experiment, and follow up experiments along the same line have drawn different conclusions.

Then there's the tendency we have of being willing to do things for our buddies we wouldn't do for a stranger.

Quote from: jibbajibba;607873I have no issue with individuals beeing irredeemibly evil. I have an issue with a whole population or class of creature (aside from the divine/demionic but even then I am too steeped in Lucifer and other Vertigo comics to draw a tight line here) being irredeemibly evil.

Very interesting point that goes hand in hand with definitions of good and evil and cultural right and wrong.

Blackhand's post of the Phil Lombardo video (which I just watched) makes an interesting point of the abuse of power and social systems that allow easy abuse of power.

Most feudal societies then would appear to be lawful evil, and most participating members of the society of a compatible spectrum, depending on how much kool-aid they drink.

Quote from: Blackhand;607824Do a quick internet search if you give a shit, if not then continue to play your game how you want.

Translate: "No, I cannot actually name the articles, guess you called my bluff."

QuoteI'll leave it with:  I appreciate the mechanical aspects of alignment (which isn't the subject of the thread), don't ban magic items or spells or classes in my campaign, and have used Deities & Demigods + Manual of the Planes to great effect.  I've had a lot of fun with alignment, I think it works very well and I see no reason to modify it in my own game.

Which is significant backpedaling from your starting position of "ditching alignment is more trouble than it's worth", i.e. a sweeping statement about an allegedly objective fact that's true for the entirety of D&D, and had to backpedal from there. But I guess it's still an improvement, and had you actually started with this, it would have been a wholly respectable position; so let's just leave it at that.

Quote from: Premier;607983Translate: "DERP"

For real?

I'm really not sure how you perceive it to be backpedaling.  I'm trying not to take the trollbait, but making sure everyone knows why I said what I said by clarifying my position.  I absolutely stand by everything I said, that's why I play the game the way I do.  I think the error is on your part, by thinking everything you read on this forum is someone making a "sweeping" announcement that covers the "entirety" of your hobby.

I even like area alignment, and understand how alignment can be applied to societies.

I really couldn't point to all the articles I've read on the subject.  It could have been ten or more years ago.  I'm not searching them all up just so you can bitch about it.  I've read pieces in Dragon, but here's some fairly recent pieces (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/8386-All-About-Alignment) by the Escapist's Alexander Macriss. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/8436-All-About-Alignment-Part-II)

The fact remains that RaW, Alignment is mechanically part of the game.  Therefore, at my table, when we play D&D, we use Alignment.

Anyone who showed up at my table and complained the system didn't give him freedom of expression...well...

I would say I considered that false, and that the system reflects the game's universe.  Therefore, he would be required not only to select an alignment, but also to use it in play.

Quote from: Premier;607983Translate: "No, I cannot actually name the articles, guess you called my bluff."

I'm sorry to hear your fingers are broken. Do you have trouble feeding yourself? Do you have trouble getting dressed in the morning? How is the voice recognition of your computer working?

It's easy to ditch alignment and I often have. To say otherwise indicates a game where RAW is king and deviation from it is near unimaginable. Fair enough but I don't game that way thank god and nor do a great many others.

And interesting variant is to make good and evil wholly subjective at either an individual or societal level. That way you can have a paladin who's anti 'evil' powers come into play against those defined by his faith. Maybe another creed, another race or even just 95% of the world.

Paladins can be real fuckers that way :-)

I go for a bell curve. Most people are somewhere in the middle in the "shades of grey" region. People who are objectively "good" or objectively "evil" are rare.

An objectively good character might be a healer who goes to give aid and comfort to people dying of a plague, despite knowing that they themselves will almost certainly be infected as a result, or an anti-slavery crusader who keeps up their campaign despite all the trouble the slavers throw at them - someone who goes out there and does the right thing, even if they know it's futile and even if they know it'll probably mean their deaths.

An objectively evil character might be someone who, no matter how many chances you give them, always finds some way to pursue their particular agenda - and that agenda involves needless and excessive harm to innocents. The Nazis are a good example of that: every time people tried to talk things out with them it ended badly because the Nazis were experts at using other people's good intentions against them, and I think it's fairly clear from history that going to war with them was necessary because they'd have never backed down voluntarily.

Such characters at either extend of the bell curve should be rare, and where they do become major figures in a campaign it ought to be because they've won a bunch of followers who are somewhat more complex than they are. The followers of an objectively good person might not do the right thing al the time, but if they're sincere they'll be doing their best. Not every German was a psychotic, hate-filled fascist in the Nazi era, but enough were vicious, stupid, or weak enough to go along with the Nazis to give Hitler the momentum he needed.

Quote from: Blackhand;607996Anyone who showed up at my table and complained the system didn't give him freedom of expression...well...

I would say I considered that false, and that the system reflects the game's universe.  Therefore, he would be required not only to select an alignment, but also to use it in play.

If I'm playing with an unfamiliar DM and alignment is enforced, I usually create a character without alignment restrictions (i.e. no paladins or monks) and ask the DM to assign me an alignment. In my experience, this averts at least some drama. Guessing the DM's interpretation of Law/Chaos and Good/Evil is not a part of the game I particularly care for.

It is not alignment itself that creates problem.

Rather, it is dissagreement about the definition of a particular alignment.



Many games do not use alignment at all, others need it to some degree.

The Elric setting needs Law and Chaos in my opinion.



What I never do, is tell a player "You can't give anyone a nice birthday gift because you are evil"   or "You can't kill that prisoner because you are Good"

Quote from: Bill;608065It is not alignment itself that creates problem.

Rather, it is dissagreement about the definition of a particular alignment.



Many games do not use alignment at all, others need it to some degree.

The Elric setting needs Law and Chaos in my opinion.



What I never do, is tell a player "You can't give anyone a nice birthday gift because you are evil"   or "You can't kill that prisoner because you are Good"

This all goes back to my rule one.  AMke sure the setting and the ruleset are a good match, because eventually, the setting and game will match the system.

Moorcock's stuff is a perfect example of an alignment system being needed in the ruleset because the physics engine better represents the setting that way.

Honor and reknown systems are similar to alignment systems, in that if these are large portions of the game play and setting, their inclusion in the rules supports the setting, and synergized gameplay with said mileau.  

The opposite also holds true.  9-fold alignment works in certain games/setting matches, not in others.  And this is part of the reasons that despite cries from others, I personally think the D&D ruleset fits (like most rulesets, I think this aplies to most) a narrow band of settings and gamestyles.

(then again, I also think that wide-open toolkit games rarely add flavor and synergize with a setting, creating a blander, beige gaming experience...so understand I personally think this match is critical and in most cases requires tons of houseruling or complate game design..so maybe I am a bit extreme)

Quote from: Bill;608065It is not alignment itself that creates problem.

Rather, it is dissagreement about the definition of a particular alignment.

Yeah, I'm sure folks could argue a specific action based on a specific alignment, but if you have to argue it you're probably already losing said argument.

I have a wide definition of alignment, and I understand that a wide range of action is possible within any given alignment, even Lawful Good.  People who are playing stab happy Lawful Good, in my opinion, are doing it wrong and need to reread the descriptions of it in every edition.

Quote from: Bill;608065Many games do not use alignment at all, others need it to some degree.

The Elric setting needs Law and Chaos in my opinion.

I feel this way about most D&D settings, especially Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Al Qadim and Ravenloft.

Quote from: Bill;608065What I never do, is tell a player "You can't give anyone a nice birthday gift because you are evil"   or "You can't kill that prisoner because you are Good"

There are guidelines for this sort of thing in the 2nd Ed DMG on the section for changing alignment.  More can be found in 3e, but basically I just note the change in character and if it persists we'll have a talk about changing alignment and the penalties therein.

Quote from: LordVreeg;608079This all goes back to my rule one.  AMke sure the setting and the ruleset are a good match, because eventually, the setting and game will match the system.

Moorcock's stuff is a perfect example of an alignment system being needed in the ruleset because the physics engine better represents the setting that way.

I'm not sure how folks can decide it's essential to Elric and not to D&D.  I mean, I see that Law and Chaos in Moorcock's work are real and tangible forces, but they are also present in the D&D milieus as well as the Good / Evil axis.  It is mechanically part of the game, so this is sort of a double standard.

Quote from: LordVreeg;608079Honor and reknown systems are similar to alignment systems, in that if these are large portions of the game play and setting, their inclusion in the rules supports the setting, and synergized gameplay with said mileau.

Agreed.

Quote from: LordVreeg;608079The opposite also holds true.  9-fold alignment works in certain games/setting matches, not in others.  And this is part of the reasons that despite cries from others, I personally think the D&D ruleset fits (like most rulesets, I think this aplies to most) a narrow band of settings and gamestyles.

My gamestyle must be in that "narrow" band.

Quote from: LordVreeg;608079(then again, I also think that wide-open toolkit games rarely add flavor and synergize with a setting, creating a blander, beige gaming experience...so understand I personally think this match is critical and in most cases requires tons of houseruling or complate game design..so maybe I am a bit extreme)

Agreed.  In a black and white world, it's tough being grey.

Games like World of Darkness don't need an alignment system.  While D&D might not NEED the system it has, it IS part of the game through and through.  People playing without the alignment system are missing out on a part of the mythos by attempting the "shades of grey" thing in world where grey is replaced by red.

Quote from: Bill;608065It is not alignment itself that creates problem.

Rather, it is dissagreement about the definition of a particular alignment.
"

Which is a problem with alignment itself. Alignment is vague enough to make such disagreements not only possible, but the norm. For something that has mechanical game consequences, this is a problem.

Part of the problem is the multiple axes. I think if they went with just good and evil or just law and chaos, it's easier to interpret. But as the second axis makes things more complex and nuanced, there's alot more fuzzy areas where precisely something fits.

I think part of the problem is that folks don't realize that a certain action is plausible under every alignment, and it isn't limited to any specific alignment.

I thought about making out a huge list of examples, but then I noticed the rationales can be much the same across the spectrum.

Want examples?  Fire away, I'm sure we can rationalize any act under any alignment, excepting of course things like rape and murder...which while objectively evil, a LG character could come to rationalize under certain pretenses (Prima Nocta, anyone?).

Why would a CE character contribute alms to the poor, help old ladies across the street, or whatever?  Because they are flush with cash and what the hell, and maybe because he was going that way anyway and she could have been carrying something nice?

As a player, part of the fun is playing the alignment.  Surprising folks using alignment as a tool for roleplay is actually quite fun.

Its not a double standard because:

Moorcocks setting is a specific setting, and dnd is essentially homebrewed into thousands of settings.

When I dm dnd I rarely feel alignment is needed.

However, I use alignment much more when I do a planar dnd game.

For me, there is no argument on alignment. Alignment is adjudicated, like everything else in the game's setting, by the GM. You as a player can state your case. You as a player can ask for setting appropriate clarifications. You as a player however do not dictate the functional reality of the GM's world.

It's like arguing the nature of "physics" as you shift through planes. The rules that apply will only come from one source. Put your assumptions away and ask that source more questions instead.

Very clear to me. Never had a problem.

Quote from: Opaopajr;608113For me, there is no argument on alignment. Alignment is adjudicated, like everything else in the game's setting, by the GM. You as a player can state your case. You as a player can ask for setting appropriate clarifications. You as a player however do not dictate the functional reality of the GM's world.

It's like arguing the nature of "physics" as you shift through planes. The rules that apply will only come from one source. Put your assumptions away and ask that source more questions instead.

Very clear to me. Never had a problem.

A player that has a different concept of what alignment is from the gm will not be happy.

Also, if the gm defines lawful good, for example, in a way a player finds ridiculous, the player has essentially been told they can't be a paladin.

Alignment conflicts between gm and player may be rare, but I find that alignment is more trouble than it is worth.

Quote from: Bill;608114A player that has a different concept of what alignment is from the gm will not be happy.

Also, if the gm defines lawful good, for example, in a way a player finds ridiculous, the player has essentially been told they can't be a paladin.

Alignment conflicts between gm and player may be rare, but I find that alignment is more trouble than it is worth.

+1.  I generally ignore Alignment, the source of innumerable screeching childish arguements for my 30+ years of gaming.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;608120+1.  I generally ignore Alignment, the source of innumerable screeching childish arguements for my 30+ years of gaming.

Damn right.

In general I find that removing explicit system-imposed alignment from D&D changes surprisingly little. Know Alignment ceases to be useful. Detect Good and Detect Evil become more matters of discerning benevolent or malign intent. You're good to go. You can still have characters who are IC objectively good or objectively evil, but you don't have to give them a special tag to do that.

I prefer my players - and myself - to be asking "What would be appropriate for this character to do, given what we know abou tthem?" rather than "What is appropriate for this alignment?"

Quote from: Warthur;608124Damn right.

In general I find that removing explicit system-imposed alignment from D&D changes surprisingly little. Know Alignment ceases to be useful. Detect Good and Detect Evil become more matters of discerning benevolent or malign intent. You're good to go. You can still have characters who are IC objectively good or objectively evil, but you don't have to give them a special tag to do that.

I prefer my players - and myself - to be asking "What would be appropriate for this character to do, given what we know abou tthem?" rather than "What is appropriate for this alignment?"

There's also the issue of magic effects that focus on Alignment (the Protection spells), but restricting their effects to other planar beings seems to be the best solution.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;608128There's also the issue of magic effects that focus on Alignment (the Protection spells), but restricting their effects to other planar beings seems to be the best solution.

For the Infamous, and very handy Protection from Evil; I just handle it as a protective ward that always gives you the +2 AC and +2 Saves.

The 'keep out evil/summoned creatures' aspect works fine if you just make it planar/summoned.

Never really been a problem.

By the same token, I have never had anyone argue at me for a ruling on alignment.

In fact, I have never had any argument with anyone ever over alignment.

So while you guys don't have a problem taking it out, many of us don't have a problem leaving it in.

I'd never give someone grief for including alignment in their game.  Personally, I prefer to skip it.  But if it is included, I don't have any problem 'playing my alignment' - even if I don't have it on my character sheet, I have ideas about what my character considers appropriate actions in a variety of circumstances.  Removing it simply makes it easier to explain actions.  The good person who does a bad thing (for example, torturing a prisoner to death after he killed and raped your spouse) is easily understandable based on the circumstances.  

A character that is usually good but then reacts to a 'bad thing' is more interesting, in my opinion, than someone limiting their reactions to remain within their defined alignment.  Dealing with the consequences of one's actions (for good or evil) opens up some interesting role-playing.

Quote from: Bill;607732Detect 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.

Yeah, yeah, and teleport ruins the fun of forcing your players through a gauntlet, and true seeing ruins using shapeshifters as opponents.

Or maybe you could just stop leaning on tired challenges and creatively deal with the player characters' powers and abilities instead of nerfing them?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;608182Yeah, yeah, and teleport ruins the fun of forcing your players through a gauntlet, and true seeing ruins using shapeshifters as opponents.

Or maybe you could just stop leaning on tired challenges and creatively deal with the player characters' powers and abilities instead of nerfing them?

Are you talking about how YOU run games?

Sure not mine.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;608182Yeah, yeah, and teleport ruins the fun of forcing your players through a gauntlet, and true seeing ruins using shapeshifters as opponents.

Or maybe you could just stop leaning on tired challenges and creatively deal with the player characters' powers and abilities instead of nerfing them?

I absolutely believe that there are spells that make the game less fun and interesting.  While as a player I understand their benefit, I prefer to exist in a world where they don't exist in the same way.  

For example, I like the idea that 10' of stone prevents teleportation.  That provides a great justification for the existence of dungeons (being located at least 10' through solid rock makes people teleport to the entrance, not the BBEG lair).  I also don't like the idea that a person just radiates good or evil - further, I like some of the villains to be good or neutral.  

But often, players use it as a simple crutch to bypass interesting play.  That's not fun for me as a DM or a player.  

But I also don't have a problem with letting them exist as written.  I've done both, and I can manage.  I just prefer consistency.  What I don't do is make up excuses why it doesn't work NOW, when it would actually be useful.  It's all or nothing.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;608184I absolutely believe that there are spells that make the game less fun and interesting.  While as a player I understand their benefit, I prefer to exist in a world where they don't exist in the same way.  

For example, I like the idea that 10' of stone prevents teleportation.  That provides a great justification for the existence of dungeons (being located at least 10' through solid rock makes people teleport to the entrance, not the BBEG lair).  I also don't like the idea that a person just radiates good or evil - further, I like some of the villains to be good or neutral.  

But often, players use it as a simple crutch to bypass interesting play.  That's not fun for me as a DM or a player.  

But I also don't have a problem with letting them exist as written.  I've done both, and I can manage.  I just prefer consistency.  What I don't do is make up excuses why it doesn't work NOW, when it would actually be useful.  It's all or nothing.

Well said.

Quote from: mythusmage;608004I'm sorry to hear your fingers are broken. Do you have trouble feeding yourself? Do you have trouble getting dressed in the morning? How is the voice recognition of your computer working?

That's bullshit - you don't make a claim, and then expect others to research its veracity. Put up, or shut the fuck up.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;608182Yeah, yeah, and teleport ruins the fun of forcing your players through a gauntlet, and true seeing ruins using shapeshifters as opponents.

Or maybe you could just stop leaning on tired challenges and creatively deal with the player characters' powers and abilities instead of nerfing them?

Ok, I should know better than to get angry over a post on a message board.

I don't use tired challenges, and creativity is one of my strongest attributes as a gm.

And I don't do gauntlets or railroading.

You are making a lot of assumptions that are flat out incorrect.

Quote from: Bill;608183Are you talking about how YOU run games?

Sure not mine.

You do know that everyone can see exactly what you wrote upthread, right? About how alignment "ruins the fun of ferreting out evil?"

If the only way you can make "ferreting out evil" fun is removing alignment, then you must really, really suck at this.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;608184I absolutely believe that there are spells that make the game less fun and interesting.  While as a player I understand their benefit, I prefer to exist in a world where they don't exist in the same way.

I'm not at all surprised that you believe that.  

Quote from: deadDMwalking;608184For example, I like the idea that 10' of stone prevents teleportation.  That provides a great justification for the existence of dungeons (being located at least 10' through solid rock makes people teleport to the entrance, not the BBEG lair).

Of course you do, because otherwise you can't come up with a fun adventure. Really, I understand - pretty much every suck-ass referee with whom I've played expresses something similar.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;608184I also don't like the idea that a person just radiates good or evil . . .

Try reading the quoted description of how detect evil works upthread. Go ahead, I'll wait 'til you get back.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;608184. . . further, I like some of the villains to be good or neutral.

Which alignment as written in no way, shape, or form prevents.

Like the bitter struggle between a lawful good cleric of the goddess of agriculture and a neutral good druid over clearing a forest in my 3e campaign. Like dozens of cagey, self-serving neutral characters of every ethos in every D&D game I ever ran, and most I played in.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;608184But often, players use it as a simple crutch to bypass interesting play.

As opposed to referees who nerf it because otherwise they haven't a hope in hell of offering "interesting play."

Seriously, the least imaginative, most stale games I played in featured referees who felt the need to take away the adventurers' abilities to run an 'interesting' game.

I have played in Bill's games. He is a fine GM and more than clever enough to keep things interesting when the players are creative. Just because someone disagrees with you or takes a playstyle position you don't like, it doesn't mean they are bad players or gms.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;608193You do know that everyone can see exactly what you wrote upthread, right? About how alignment "ruins the fun of ferreting out evil?"

If the only way you can make "ferreting out evil" fun is removing alignment, then you must really, really suck at this.

Ok, what I said above was that dectection of alignment ruins the fun, not that alignment ruins fun.

Those are not the same thing.

I have largely ignored alignment as a game mechanic for about 25 years of gaming. Obviosly entities in the game act in manners that could be tagged with alignments based on a persons definition of such.

I have had no trouble at all running games based on intrigue, demon hunting, politics, whatever.

You say I must really suck at this but you have no clue what you are talking about.

Quote from: Bill;608198You say I must really suck at this but you have no clue what you are talking about.

When you write that you remove alignment because detecting alignment "ruins the fun," then yes, I have a pretty good clue of what I'm talking about.

I don't doubt that you can run an entertaining game - Brendan's attested to that, and I have no reason not to take him at his word - but you do it by stripping away something that you've decided is simply too hard to think your way around. It is the way of nerfers throughout the hobby.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;608212When you write that you remove alignment because detecting alignment "ruins the fun," then yes, I have a pretty good clue of what I'm talking about.

I don't doubt that you can run an entertaining game - Brendan's attested to that, and I have no reason not to take him at his word - but you do it by stripping away something that you've decided is simply too hard to think your way around. It is the way of nerfers throughout the hobby.

Wrong.

I never said it was hard. It is trivial.

No clue at all.


Edited for afterthought:

By the way, my dm style leans toward generous and accomadating.

Nerfing is far from what I do.

Quote from: Bill;608217Wrong.

I never said it was hard. It is trivial.

You said you threw out alignment because detection spells "ruin the fun."

Did I quote somebody else by mistake? Or are you just backpedaling at this point?

Let's try this again: why do you ignore alignment in your D&D campaigns?

Quote from: Bill;608217By the way, my dm style leans toward generous and accomadating.

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;608223You said you threw out alignment because detection spells "ruin the fun."

Did I quote somebody else by mistake? Or are you just backpedaling at this point?

Let's try this again: why do you ignore alignment in your D&D campaigns?


That doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Backpedal?

I was quite clear.

You seem to want to put words in my mouth that involve 'difficulty'

I ignore alignment because all that matters is what characters do, what motivates them, and how the environment and npc's respond.

The alignment labels add nothing and can reduce  the fun of the game.



And I happen to be proud that I accomadate the desires of my players to make the game fun for them.

Don't you do the same?

Quote from: mythusmage;608004I'm sorry to hear your fingers are broken. Do you have trouble feeding yourself? Do you have trouble getting dressed in the morning? How is the voice recognition of your computer working?

Rather than providing actual evidence to support your claim, sending someone off on a wild goose chase... err.. research assignment to attempt to prove YOUR point FOR you is never a valid debate tactic. It's pure obfuscation. Burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. It is not the responsibility of others to prove or disprove the claim for them. That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. QED.

The 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?

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.

Same here. I don't really play D&D much anymore, but RC/BECMI is my preferred version, and alignment doesn't really add much to the game and mostly gets ignored anyways. I haven't stopped using them, but they're definitely downplayed. I don't really see what value they add beyond the Cosmic Team Jersey, as you say.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;608212I don't doubt that you can run an entertaining game - Brendan's attested to that, and I have no reason not to take him at his word - but you do it by stripping away something that you've decided is simply too hard to think your way around. It is the way of nerfers throughout the hobby.

Nerfing's fine, who cares?

Quote from: Imp;608297Nerfing's fine, who cares?

For infants.

Quote from: Bill;608227You seem to want to put words in my mouth that involve 'difficulty'

I'm not putting any words in your mouth - in my experience, when a referee nerfs something like detect evil and know alignment, or teleportation, or true seeing, it's because that referee feels like it's too hard, or too much work, to actually come up with clever ways to challenge the adventurers.

Though you appear to be running away from it now, you said you threw out alignment because detection spells "ruin the fun." To me, that's just excuse-making.

Quote from: Bill;608227And I happen to be proud that I accomadate the desires of my players to make the game fun for them.

Don't you do the same?

I give them a world full of potential adventures. The rest is on them.

Quote from: Imp;608297Nerfing's fine, who cares?

Oh, I dunno, people who like to play the game using the rules and don't care for weak-sauce referees too stupid to come up with a better solution than, 'You can't do that!'?

We're definitely wandering off-topic, but I definitely like games where the rules are modified to suit the campaign.  For example, one of my favorite campaigns was based on Icelandic pseudo-history.  It was a low-magic setting, so there were massive changes to spell availability.  In that kind of campaign, teleport wouldn't have fit in anymore than a samurai would have.  

As far as nerfing things because the DM can't handle them - that's clearly a sign of a DM with problems, and I see where you're coming from.  I mostly agree.  But changing spells and rules to suit the campaign just makes sense.  As a player, I don't like alignment.  Therefore, I don't mind that detect good gets replaced with a different ability.  Perhaps it detects malicious intent - that doesn't 'nerf' the spell - it just changes what context it is useful in.  Obviously a change that makes a spell work 'less effectively' is a nerf, but that's not necessarily a problem.

When I DM, I try to make Martial classes more effective.  Sometimes we work on making casters less effective.  Parity is important to me, and 3.x doesn't provide it by default.  

But as long as everyone is having fun, they're doing it right.  

Now, if you want to go power-gaming and your DM won't let you, it might be a problem with the DM.  Or it might be a problem with you.  It depends on whether the campaign goals were communicated clearly.  I like making effective characters, but I don't like 'breaking' the game.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;608307I'm not putting any words in your mouth - in my experience, when a referee nerfs something like detect evil and know alignment, or teleportation, or true seeing, it's because that referee feels like it's too hard, or too much work, to actually come up with clever ways to challenge the adventurers.

Though you appear to be running away from it now, you said you threw out alignment because detection spells "ruin the fun." To me, that's just excuse-making.


I give them a world full of potential adventures. The rest is on them.

Your experience does not apply to me; I am not that type of gm.

Running away? No. You keep incorrectly interpreting my statements.
Nowhere did I say anything about difficulty.

Excusemaking? Hardly.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;608320We're definitely wandering off-topic, but I definitely like games where the rules are modified to suit the campaign.  For example, one of my favorite campaigns was based on Icelandic pseudo-history.  It was a low-magic setting, so there were massive changes to spell availability.  In that kind of campaign, teleport wouldn't have fit in anymore than a samurai would have.  

As far as nerfing things because the DM can't handle them - that's clearly a sign of a DM with problems, and I see where you're coming from.  I mostly agree.  But changing spells and rules to suit the campaign just makes sense.  As a player, I don't like alignment.  Therefore, I don't mind that detect good gets replaced with a different ability.  Perhaps it detects malicious intent - that doesn't 'nerf' the spell - it just changes what context it is useful in.  Obviously a change that makes a spell work 'less effectively' is a nerf, but that's not necessarily a problem.

When I DM, I try to make Martial classes more effective.  Sometimes we work on making casters less effective.  Parity is important to me, and 3.x doesn't provide it by default.  

But as long as everyone is having fun, they're doing it right.  

Now, if you want to go power-gaming and your DM won't let you, it might be a problem with the DM.  Or it might be a problem with you.  It depends on whether the campaign goals were communicated clearly.  I like making effective characters, but I don't like 'breaking' the game.

That all sounds reasonable to me.

I always adjust the rules for the particular campaign. Surprises me that anyone would not do that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;607522Do you want there to be things, creatures, and people in your world that are objectively black-and-white Evil? Not necessarily "stupid evil" but none of this "they're just misunderstood" crap?

Or are you one of those guys who likes to constantly wallow in "shades of grey", who loves anti-heroes and villains-who-can-be-redeemed?

RPGPundit

yes?

Really, it depends on the group and the game.  In my Rolemaster campaign I had a slaver who was part of a brotherhood of murderers who was keeping a naked teenage girl in his cabin on the ship docked in troll country, not for sex but because he was waiting for the sweet young thing soup market to peak.  Live elves lightly roasted served as snacks at the troll king's wedding.  A band of men who burn villages to the ground and murder women and children without raping and pillaging for the sake of offending their gods.  Sick stuff...

On the other hand I've run games where the evil plot was to pin the good druid of the wood down and take his beard captive.

It takes all kinds...

Quote from: deadDMwalking;608320We're definitely wandering off-topic, but I definitely like games where the rules are modified to suit the campaign.  For example, one of my favorite campaigns was based on Icelandic pseudo-history.  It was a low-magic setting, so there were massive changes to spell availability.  In that kind of campaign, teleport wouldn't have fit in anymore than a samurai would have.  

As far as nerfing things because the DM can't handle them - that's clearly a sign of a DM with problems, and I see where you're coming from.  I mostly agree.  But changing spells and rules to suit the campaign just makes sense.  As a player, I don't like alignment.  Therefore, I don't mind that detect good gets replaced with a different ability.  Perhaps it detects malicious intent - that doesn't 'nerf' the spell - it just changes what context it is useful in.  Obviously a change that makes a spell work 'less effectively' is a nerf, but that's not necessarily a problem.

When I DM, I try to make Martial classes more effective.  Sometimes we work on making casters less effective.  Parity is important to me, and 3.x doesn't provide it by default.  

But as long as everyone is having fun, they're doing it right.  

Now, if you want to go power-gaming and your DM won't let you, it might be a problem with the DM.  Or it might be a problem with you.  It depends on whether the campaign goals were communicated clearly.  I like making effective characters, but I don't like 'breaking' the game.

yes and yes.  
The rule support the setting, or they are the wrong rules.

Someone asked when Alignement rules make sense:, and the answer is the same.
Law and chaos, and the overt manifestation of same, make sense in an Moorcockian game.  or the like.  Many pul games would fit here as well; where the magic and the cosmic forces are built around this axis.

Similarly; many games where the undead are a large player would be better built around the idea of having evil being a palpable force, similarly if demonic forces regularly intrude.

If an alignment system forms the proper foundation to a setting wher these and other manifestatrons of the alignment system are the fundamental underpinnings of the universe, alignment is the rule supporting the settting...and is perfect.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;608320We're definitely wandering off-topic, but I definitely like games where the rules are modified to suit the campaign.  For example, one of my favorite campaigns was based on Icelandic pseudo-history.  It was a low-magic setting, so there were massive changes to spell availability.  In that kind of campaign, teleport wouldn't have fit in anymore than a samurai would have.

There is a significant difference between, 'I've tailored the spell list to reflect the setting,' and, 'If the paladin can detect evil, then I can't run my sooper-kewel power-behind-the-throne adventure!'

Quote from: deadDMwalking;608320As far as nerfing things because the DM can't handle them - that's clearly a sign of a DM with problems, and I see where you're coming from.

Yes it is.

I mean, there's definitely stupid ways to nerf things – the ol' lead-lined anti-magic-zone dungeons everywhere business as an extreme example, and as with anything you can take it too far, but if a GM doesn't want to deal with a particular aspect of magic in their setting and wants to direct their efforts elsewhere, go for it, I'd say.

I'm not mincing words about nerfing because

QuoteThere is a significant difference between, 'I've tailored the spell list to reflect the setting,' and, 'If the paladin can detect evil, then I can't run my sooper-kewel power-behind-the-throne adventure!'

this sort of thing is a matter of interpretation: imagine a reasonable GM saying the first thing and Lord Mistborn replying with the second thing.

Quote from: Bill;608114A player that has a different concept of what alignment is from the gm will not be happy.

Also, if the gm defines lawful good, for example, in a way a player finds ridiculous, the player has essentially been told they can't be a paladin.

Alignment conflicts between gm and player may be rare, but I find that alignment is more trouble than it is worth.

So what. People disagree. In the end there's only one who adjudicates setting.

Accept the made-up setting, with made-up ethos and physics, or vote with your feet. Done.

The conflict only exists when you try as a player to add your "authorial stance" outside the realm of your character's actions. You want setting clarity, ask. You want to state your case, gather previous GM in-setting rulings and setting evidence to state your case. You want to bicker instead, insist that your modern world view must be accounted for as the true interpretation of belief in a made-up world created from someone else's head.

This is only as hard as people decide on making it. To me it is similar to most other RPG problems. You either want to talk about it and get clarity or fight over "the speaking stick."

I don't bother with tables having to bicker and fight over "the speaking stick." Design by committee has, in my experience, sucked ass. It's not an rpg experience I want, so I vote with my feet. Like I said, never been a problem for me.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;608352There is a significant difference between, 'I've tailored the spell list to reflect the setting,' and, 'If the paladin can detect evil, then I can't run my sooper-kewel power-behind-the-throne adventure!'

Well, OK, then what's wrong with designing a setting with an eye to supporting power-behind-the-throne adventures, and as part of that process deciding that detect alignment spells aren't part of that setting?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;608352There is a significant difference between, 'I've tailored the spell list to reflect the setting,' and, 'If the paladin can detect evil, then I can't run my sooper-kewel power-behind-the-throne adventure!'


Yes it is.

Definately agree with that.

And, if a GM is trying to run a sooper-kewel-power-behind-the-throne adventure he is begging for trouble.

Quote from: Warthur;608423Well, OK, then what's wrong with designing a setting with an eye to supporting power-behind-the-throne adventures, and as part of that process deciding that detect alignment spells aren't part of that setting?

Because a referee with two neurons to rub together and a pulse should be able to run that same scenario with the alignment rules and the spell lists intact.

I'm all for modifying the game to suit the particulars of a campaign - I do it for every campaign I run (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/08/frankengame.html). At the same time, if I sit down to play a particular game, then I expect to play that game, which means in the case of D&D I expect alignment and divination spells to be part of the setting. If you can't run intrigues with alignment and detect evil, are you also going to nerf augury? What about divination? Or commune? Or speak with dead?

At what point do you ask yourself, if this is the kind of campaign I want to run but all these spells are problematic, why the hell am I playing D&D at all?

I would much rather a referee say that divination magic is not part of the setting than nerf particular spells to make a scenario work, but, in my experience, both of those are inferior solutions to playing the ball where it lies and working with the implied setting of the rules.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;608479I would much rather a referee say that divination magic is not part of the setting than nerf particular spells to make a scenario work, but, in my experience, both of those are inferior solutions to playing the ball where it lies and working with the implied setting of the rules.

So if you're dealing with a published game you look down on people who don't work with the implied setting of the rules, am I right?

Well, by that logic, if someone has a homebrewed system which they built themselves from scratch, and they run a game in the implied setting of those rules - which is often the specific, explicit setting they were designed for - then provided that the referee lets you look over their system before you commit to their game so you know what you're sitting down to play that's also cool, right?

Now, supposing someone had a homebrewed variant of D&D - say, close enough to D&D that you can recognise that they took some edition of it as a starting point, but at the same time homebrewed enough that the implied setting has noticeably drifted. Would that also be OK - again, assuming the referee gave you a chance to look over their homebrew first so you know what you're getting into?

If it is OK, what's wrong with a homebrewed version of D&D where the implied setting doesn't include alignment and/or alignment detection spells, or indeed any other subset of the spell list?

If it isn't OK, why isn't it OK and where exactly is the line drawn?

Quote from: Warthur;608502*snipped*

You really expect me to waste my time answering this nonsense?

In the Ravenloft setting, where there is a lot of monster hunting going on, they tweaked the effects of detect alignment and of certain other spells to help maintain the mood. They didn't chuck alignment altogether, they simply made it detect just detect law, chaos and neutrality. For certain types of games, I think adjusting that stuff can work and help with the setting. In a more standard D&D game it gets much harder to do so IMO.

I have noticed though that alignment is one of those things that divides a lot of folks. I never really had an issue accepting that the alignments are constructs for a fictional setting, so you can embrace the rulebook definition of lawful good, chaotic neutral or chaotic evil, without worrying if it intrudes on your own realworld morality. I don't think alignment is something fantasy RPGs have to have though.

Quote from: Warthur;608502So if you're dealing with a published game you look down on people who don't work with the implied setting of the rules, am I right?

Uh, what?  Do I look down on you if you don't play D&D in Greyhawk?

No.

Quote from: Warthur;608502Well, by that logic, if someone has a homebrewed system which they built themselves from scratch, and they run a game in the implied setting of those rules - which is often the specific, explicit setting they were designed for - then provided that the referee lets you look over their system before you commit to their game so you know what you're sitting down to play that's also cool, right?

I don't play "homebrewed" games.  No one runs a homebrew here, and I won't run one either.

Quote from: Warthur;608502Now, supposing someone had a homebrewed variant of D&D - say, close enough to D&D that you can recognise that they took some edition of it as a starting point, but at the same time homebrewed enough that the implied setting has noticeably drifted. Would that also be OK - again, assuming the referee gave you a chance to look over their homebrew first so you know what you're getting into?

You mean homebrewed SETTING, not RULESET...but this isn't really implied in your question.

I'm good with homebrew settings, but not rulesets.

Quote from: Warthur;608502If it is OK, what's wrong with a homebrewed version of D&D where the implied setting doesn't include alignment and/or alignment detection spells, or indeed any other subset of the spell list?

If it isn't OK, why isn't it OK and where exactly is the line drawn?

The setting doesn't really matter, it comes down to the game you are playing.  You know, whether or not there's a spot for "Alignment" on my character sheet.

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?

Anyone? Bueller?

Quote from: The Butcher;608573Anyone? Bueller?

For me, it is a clear demarcation that can be referenced to illustrate acceptable behavior for a particular campaign/game.

Quote from: The Butcher;608573Anyone? Bueller?

I think one area where it is handy, is when you have weapons or items that are only supposed to be used by good or evil characters. For stuff like that, I did feel alignment added mechanical support to an important flavor aspect of the game.

Just because I don't really use alignment does not mean I can't make an argument for using it.



Alignment is useful for new roleplayers to help describe a character.

It is quicker to tag something with an alignment than to deduce approximate alignment by in depth analysis.

Useful tool for clarity in game mechanics; what works with or against what.

Tons and tons of existing dnd material use it.

Many players like Alignment.






Evilest female name ever....

Celene



CE LE NE

Back in Challenge Magazine they had a parody Star Trek the Next Generation rpg.  In addition to the Irritate Everyone skill, the Obnoxoid (Betazoid) race had the State The Obvious skill.

That's how I look at Detect Evil.  For the most part though I don't think run of the mill humans should read for any alignment except perhaps selfish and confused.

Evil can be pleasant. Good can be a dick.

Quote from: Blackhand;608538Uh, what?  Do I look down on you if you don't play D&D in Greyhawk?

I was specifically responding to Vulmea, whose position in this thread I find truly difficult to understand, but there you go.

That said, this is interesting:

QuoteI don't play "homebrewed" games.  No one runs a homebrew here, and I won't run one either.

What exactly is the objection to homebrew rulesets where you are?

As an old-schooler, I kinda have to have the evil be objective.

I mean, otherwise there's the whole "we're sneaking into creature's homes, killing them, and taking their stuff" issue that gets to be problematic if the creatures are not objectively things that "need to be killed."

The certainty of an reduces some morality questions, to be sure, but it's just more fun if nobody has to worry about baby orcs growing up to to do nice things.

Quote from: Doom;608699As an old-schooler, I kinda have to have the evil be objective.

I mean, otherwise there's the whole "we're sneaking into creature's homes, killing them, and taking their stuff" issue that gets to be problematic if the creatures are not objectively things that "need to be killed."

The certainty of an reduces some morality questions, to be sure, but it's just more fun if nobody has to worry about baby orcs growing up to to do nice things.

A rabid dog isn't evil. Neither is a cockroach. Both need to be killed.

Quote from: Warthur;608694I was specifically responding to Vulmea, whose position in this thread I find truly difficult to understand, but there you go.

That said, this is interesting:


What exactly is the objection to homebrew rulesets where you are?

It's funny, I have an objection to the generic at my table.  To each their own, but I consider home brew settings and rules that match them the pinnacle of the hobby.

Quote from: TristramEvans;608701A rabid dog isn't evil. Neither is a cockroach. Both need to be killed.

What treasure types do they have?

Quote from: The Butcher;608271I'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?

When I first ran an AD&D campaign, it certainly gave my players a framework for what their characters would or would not do, and conversely they selected character classes with alignment restrictions in mind. Racial alignments also allows PCs to set their characters apart from their tribe.

It provides an interesting, optional mechanic, and also an interesting framework for a multi-polar cosmology. But I also think its something a GM should feel free to alter depending on the campaign setting.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;608715What treasure types do they have?

Indeed. You also don't see teams of guys armoring up, going out into the caves, looking under rocks...just for the purpose of finding a cockroach to smash.

Quote from: The Butcher;608573Anyone? Bueller?

Well I thought I answered it for me. But that was several posts ago, so you might have overlooked it already.

Like I've said many a time on this board, I play In Nomine SJG as one of my favorite go-to games. Exploring the nuances of alignment and motivation is just (in the immortal words of Maria from the 'Sound of Music') 'one of a few of my favorite things'. So yes, good can be a prick sometimes, and evil can be thoughtful and generous at others, but it's a perspective-over-time v. flashes-of-humanity-at-the-moment thing.

Alignment helps give shorthand to my main NPCs' anima (animusesesezz). They are like that DMG personality adjective chart, except more so. It provides the long view to motivation, as well as short view. It shows where one's current public face, or personality adjectives, accentuates or rubs against one's Modus Operandi. It helps me make them more real, in other words.

And I don't limit this shorthand usage to just individuals. As a broad brush it works to give me a nice wash over larger groups, like people, races, nations, etc. However, (back to color theory!) for every initial broad wash you use, the smaller washes layered atop (also known as, "glazes") causes a value and tone shift between the two hues.

Think about how awesomely technicolor and complex-looking that is! And all you needed was more than one coat of broad brushed strokes. Some colors complement each other and seem to cancel each other out, some seem to work so well together. Thus this shorthand helped flesh out this dynamism between NPC factors and provide world-in-motion drives.

Now imagine doing all these washes and glazes down to your prime NPC actors. Several covered layers of color underneath creates their own special one atop. Suddenly this shorthand helped flesh out internal drives and conflicts of a singular prime NPC as well.

It's fun stuff for world building! I guess in a way one can make the analogy that it's "how to create a dungeon" out of social dynamics. Saves time and still produces interesting results. What more do I want out of a shorthand tool?

Quote from: David Johansen;608585For the most part though I don't think run of the mill humans should read for any alignment except perhaps selfish and confused.

Huh, had to go compare 3.5e Detect Evil v. 2e Detect Evil because I'm pretty familiar that 2e doesn't let you read off of characters (human/humanoid/demi-humanoid?) unless in extreme circumstances.

2e Detect Evil (wizard spell)
"This spell discovers emanations of evil (or good in the case of the reverse spell) from any creature, object, or area. Character alignment is not revealed under most circumstances: characters who are strongly aligned, do not stray from their faith, and who are at least 9th level might radiate good or evil if they are intent upon appropriate actions."

2e Detect Evil (cleric spell)
"This spell discovers emanations of evil, or of good in the case of the reverse spell, from any creature, object, or area. Character alignment, however, is revealed only under unusual circumstances: characters who are strongly aligned, who do not stray from their faith, and who are of at least 9th level might radiate good or evil if intent upon appropriate actions."

3.5e Detect Evil talks about "creature, objects, or spells" and how auras can leave "lingering auras in areas." Tragically the General Guidelines and Glossary has this:

"creature: A living or otherwise active being, not an object. The
terms “creature” and “character” are sometimes used interchange-
ably."

Along with undead, outsiders (a being not native to that current plane), and evil clerics which warrant their own place on the Detect Evil chart, I don't see anything that prevents regular human/oid characters from being sussed out by Detect Evil.

That's rather too bad... Sucks a lot of the cloak and dagger guesswork out, doesn't it?

Honestly, I like both and everything in between. It depends, to me, on the setting, the genre, and the gaming group. I can enjoy any variation of this TBH. This does not mean it doesn't matter to me. Frex, I think in High Fantasy, absolutes often work better than "shades of grey", but in S&S, the opposite is true. Note I wrote "often", not always, and of course this is all IMO, and YMMV. In Space Opera, frex, I prefer absolutes, but in PA, I prefer SoG. Then, of course, in stuff like Urban Fantasy, I think what works best is a mix of both. You want the SoG to be able to include moral dilemmas, but you want absolute evils to be able to smite with extreme prejudice and not have to quibble over the "morality". See the show Supernatural for how I view this genre. Just my views on this.

Quote from: Bill;608114A player that has a different concept of what alignment is from the gm will not be happy.

Also, if the gm defines lawful good, for example, in a way a player finds ridiculous, the player has essentially been told they can't be a paladin.

Alignment conflicts between gm and player may be rare, but I find that alignment is more trouble than it is worth.

I would argue that if the conditions you describe exist, the player and GM should game with other people more inclined to view things more similarly. I can honestly say that I have never had a problem with the way an individual GM has interpreted alignment in their settings, any more than I have had a problem with any other individual facet of their GMing style, if I in fact enjoyed their game at all. I am in the camp that enjoys alignment, and find it adds to the game when used. I would not use alignment when playing RQ, or Dragonquest, or Traveller, However, when playing D&D I enjoy using alignment, and will defer to the DM without complaint on how alignment is interpreted. I have usually found, however, that alignment is one area where many DMs are perfectly willing to compromise on the broad strokes of an alignment, and will only put their foot down when it comes to edge cases and extreme examples. I also agree very strongly with Blackhand's Paladin example. Any paladin I play will be very reluctant to kill anything except evil planar creatures and undead. I played one paladin you would actually cry over and perform last rites on any sentient being he was ultimately forced to kill, and would usually attempt subdual on even orcs and goblins rather than deadly force, unless he was protecting innocents from being harmed by the being. He would use his LoH on his enemies after defeating them, and would often encourage enemies to flee rather than fight to the death while defeating them. At the same time, he was a fearsome warrior, and when facing undead or demons/devils/efreet/etc. would attack immediately and with extreme prejudice. He also faced down the rest of the party over an evil magic sword and ultimately had it destroyed by the clerics of a good-aligned temple, but in return gave up all chance at selecting magic items from the rest of the loot for a good long time after, except for his lowly +1 bastard sword and +1 shield. He was great fun to play, and was nothing like the stab-everything "evil", rigid, unrepentant self-righteous paladins I often read about online. He agonized over the choices he made and prayed for guidance and the strength to do the next right thing all the time. He was such a likable guy that even when he did have to become uncompromising (like with the evil sword), the other players/characters couldn't help but back him up anyway. Paladins have high Cha for a reason. If they are played in such a way that they are annoying or trouble-makers, IMO they are being played wrong by definition, assuming they are the raw or near-raw paladins with high cha requirements anyway.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;608715What treasure types do they have?

Well, if you're Roman, you can read the future in the dog's guts. Roaches just give you a satisfying "crunch" sound, and are edible, if one is so inclined.

I don't mind good being good, and evil being evil, I also don't mind scoundrels with a heart of gold, or scoundrels who are thought of as having a heart of gold when in fact they're just assholes.  

What I can't stand is the whole "he's evil because of social conditions/he's just misunderstood/he's evil but its not his fault".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;609221What I can't stand is the whole "he's evil because of social conditions/he's just misunderstood/he's evil but its not his fault".

Here, here.

Quote from: RPGPundit;609221What I can't stand is the whole "he's evil because of social conditions...

What's your preferred reason for someone acting evil? The Devil made him do it? He was born evil? The Contessa's dog bit him? Something else?

Quote from: Thalaba;609245What's your preferred reason for someone acting evil? The Devil made him do it? He was born evil? The Contessa's dog bit him? Something else?

How about he's just fucking mean.  That's my preferred reason.

Because.

Quote from: Thalaba;609245What's your preferred reason for someone acting evil? The Devil made him do it? He was born evil? The Contessa's dog bit him? Something else?

This will end well.

:popcorn:

Quote from: Blackhand;609249How about he's just fucking mean.  That's my preferred reason.

Because.

And I guess he's mean because he's nasty and he's nasty because he's evil.

I think this changes the question from 'How do you like your evil' to 'Do you want you NPCs to have depth'. Personally, I like characters in all media to have a certain amount of depth, but I acknowledge that that might not be for everyone.

Quote from: The Butcher;609251This will end well.

:popcorn:

Why is this controversial? It's a relatively straightforward question. I'm hard-pressed at the moment to think of a reason for someone to be evil other than social constraints or GM fiat, but if there are some good ones I'd like to add them to my toolbox.

Note that I'm not questioning Pundit's distaste for people making excuses for someone behaving badly. I'm not interested in excuses either, but I am interested in reasons because I think that nothing brings a setting alive more than NPCs with depth.

For myself, I believe that we are personally responsible for our actions.  While we might understand what drove someone to 'evil', that doesn't excuse it.  So, no 'justification', but I do like an 'explanation'.  Maybe someone was just 'born evil', but usually, they have a better motivation than that in my games.  Usually the worst villains are the ones that ultimately have a lofty or even worthwhile objective, but the methods are far too horrendous.  

The druid that dreams of all people living in peace and harmony with each other and the natural world and decides that the best way to achieve that is to cut the current population by 80% is a great villain.  It's easy to agree with his object, but not his method.  This also helps explain why he has lackeys.  Some of them support the ideal but don't realize how far he'll go to achieve it, others will look forward to the advantages that they might personally enjoy in a more 'limited' society.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;609259For myself, I believe that we are personally responsible for our actions.  While we might understand what drove someone to 'evil', that doesn't excuse it.  So, no 'justification', but I do like an 'explanation'.  Maybe someone was just 'born evil', but usually, they have a better motivation than that in my games.  Usually the worst villains are the ones that ultimately have a lofty or even worthwhile objective, but the methods are far too horrendous.  

The druid that dreams of all people living in peace and harmony with each other and the natural world and decides that the best way to achieve that is to cut the current population by 80% is a great villain.  It's easy to agree with his object, but not his method.  This also helps explain why he has lackeys.  Some of them support the ideal but don't realize how far he'll go to achieve it, others will look forward to the advantages that they might personally enjoy in a more 'limited' society.

I agree with this. A explanation doesn't have to justify an act. And while a villain may be a product of his environment to a degree, in the context of a game or even in fictionwhat makes a villain a villain, is how they choose to deal with that situation, what they choose to become.

Quote from: Thalaba;609256Why is this controversial? It's a relatively straightforward question. I'm hard-pressed at the moment to think of a reason for someone to be evil other than social constraints or GM fiat, but if there are some good ones I'd like to add them to my toolbox.

Note that I'm not questioning Pundit's distaste for people making excuses for someone behaving badly. I'm not interested in excuses either, but I am interested in reasons because I think that nothing brings a setting alive more than NPCs with depth.

Because it opens up the ages-old "nature vs. nurture" can of worms.

I dislike the idea that people are not in control of their choices, and that they exist and behave merely at the whim of a multitude of unseen, impersonal factors. I do not deny that circumstances, social and otherwise, play a huge role in human behavior, and in real life I constnatly try and frame people's actions, however seemingly stupid, against the context of the lives they've led, under circumstances not always of their choice. In-game, I actually enjoy it when PCs are left wondering whether they themselves could have taken the same path as the antagonist they're up against.

However, in real life as well as in most of my games, I feel that the acts of individuals are not entirely shaped by these vast, faceless forces. I think that ascribing important choices to outside factors, in detriment of one's own moral compass, dilutes responsibility (and in-game, cheapens the idea of personal agency, and robs both sides of any given conflict of its pathos). Personal agency is a big deal in most of the games I run. I like exploring free will, and choices, and consequences, and what-ifs. I like my villains to have a shot at redemption, and my heroes to be corruptible.

While I enjoy a little fatalism in my fiction, and occasionally even in my games (even though I find the idea of a preset "destiny" is horribly difficult to emulate in-game), generally speaking, I feel the very best sessions and the very best NPCs arise out of the interplay between the circumstances dictated by the game world, and the character's (PC or NPC) personality and set of choices.

Here's hoping (1) that this made some sense, (2) didn't offend anyone (apologies if it does) and (3) doesn't derail this thread into a gaming-irrelevant wankfest. :)

I don't often look for "reasons" for npcs or monsters being evil, because most of the time knowledge of the "reasons" for individuals being evil would be irrelevant. Main villains have more depth of course, but I don't think that's unusual for anyone. To try to rationalize why the vast majority of antagonists are evil in any more depth than a general "just because" is a waste of time IMO. The detail will only be useful if the information would become available and have some sort of utility for the player characters. Especially for FRPGs, adding "moral dilemmas" to every potential violent encounter is tiresome and counter-productive. It would cheapen the tool and become very boring IMO. All the PCs need to know is that the orcs (or whatever) will try to kill them on sight, so killing them back is just a good idea. Occasionally I'll throw an exception at them and it becomes meaningful because it's the exception rather than the rule.

Quote from: Thalaba;609256Why is this controversial? It's a relatively straightforward question. I'm hard-pressed at the moment to think of a reason for someone to be evil other than social constraints or GM fiat, but if there are some good ones I'd like to add them to my toolbox.

Note that I'm not questioning Pundit's distaste for people making excuses for someone behaving badly. I'm not interested in excuses either, but I am interested in reasons because I think that nothing brings a setting alive more than NPCs with depth.

Well, there I ajm in agreement.  I also despise racial evil.  Cultural forms are also pretty silly, though what is evil to one culture may be normal to another.

Quote from: LordVreeg;609268Well, there I ajm in agreement.  I also despise racial evil.  Cultural forms are also pretty silly, though what is evil to one culture may be normal to another.

This links back to pundits thread on slavery. It is odious by definition but in a society where it is the norm is owning a slave evil? The answer is usually that the good guys treat their slaves well whereas the bad guys abuse them, but what about a good guy that is harsh with their slaves until they are trained like you would be to a horse or a dog? Can you objectify a sentient creature like that and still be good? Note i said sentient creature, its common to kill orcs without hestitation would it be possible to regard all lizardmen as a slave race, or all halflings?

I have often wondered how intelligent an alien race would need to be before we wouldn't consider eating them.... As smart as a dog? A whale? A chimp?  Would breeding aliens as smart as dogs for food be evil? How would it look if you were a third alien race smarter than us?

So evil is tricky on the margins. I believe that evil can only be a conscious thought. So you have to at some point had a choice and chosen the 'evil' path. Now you can be violent, savage, canibalistic, insane even without being evil. You can be irredeemibly savage as well but i don't think you can be truly evil without making a conscious choice.

Quote from: Thalaba;609255And I guess he's mean because he's nasty and he's nasty because he's evil.

I think this changes the question from 'How do you like your evil' to 'Do you want you NPCs to have depth'. Personally, I like characters in all media to have a certain amount of depth, but I acknowledge that that might not be for everyone.

Why?

 In 'real life' often people don't have "depth'.
There is a reason some people are called shallow.

There 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)

Even on a small scale there are plenty of men and women who enjoy spreading divisive rumors about those in their circle of aquaintances just to watch the after-effects. Take that type of personality and turn the dial on their style up to 10 or '11' - and you get sociopathic and psychopathic killers with no remorse to them.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;609293Why?

 In 'real life' often people don't have "depth'.
There is a reason some people are called shallow.

There 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)

Even on a small scale there are plenty of men and women who enjoy spreading divisive rumors about those in their circle of aquaintances just to watch the after-effects. Take that type of personality and turn the dial on their style up to 10 or '11' - and you get sociopathic and psychopathic killers with no remorse to them.

- Ed C.

But ed a true sociopath has no concept of good or evil. So almost by definition can't be evil any more than an autistic kid that kills a cat because it is making too much noise is evil.
So really evil people can't just be insane they need to have deliberately selected evil and they can't just be selfish that would be a weak definition that includes everyone driving SUVs and not sharing their appartments with the homeless.

Real people's alignment fluctuates moment to moment.

Quote from: Bill;609315Real people's alignment fluctuates moment to moment.

I actually thinknif you sometimes do evil you are basically evil..... Now maybe you can seek redemption and stop being evil but if you cut back to say only being evil on mondays you are probably still evil.
Likewise if someone believes in rules and order or freedom and lacknof order they probably always do even if the freedom guy tends to obey the parking rules to save on getting his car towed and the law and order guy occassionally does photocopying at work

Quote from: jibbajibba;609331I actually thinknif you sometimes do evil you are basically evil..... Now maybe you can seek redemption and stop being evil but if you cut back to say only being evil on mondays you are probably still evil.
Likewise if someone believes in rules and order or freedom and lacknof order they probably always do even if the freedom guy tends to obey the parking rules to save on getting his car towed and the law and order guy occassionally does photocopying at work

Are you good if you sometimes do good?

What if you do both?

Also, not sure where to draw the line. Is selfish evil?

Is an asshole an evil person?

Quote from: Bill;609334Are you good if you sometimes do good?

What if you do both?

Also, not sure where to draw the line. Is selfish evil?

Is an asshole an evil person?

I've read essays that claim the essence of moral evil is selfishness.  Therefore, a truly selfish person is evil.

You can be an asshole and be a good person, however.  You're just a dick about it.  I'm pretty sure I fall into this camp.

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...).

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.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;609522Hey, Pundit, this should be the site's masthead.

Concur.


And in this case: Please don't impose your judea-christian values on my possible-worlds paladin. Especially in a game where wizards can shoot fireballs from their asses.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;609524Especially in a game where wizards can shoot fireballs from their asses.

I never thought of the somatic component in quite that way, but I suppose it works . . .

(https://www.neatoshop.com/images/product/24/6024/Mooning-Gnome-Salt-Pepper-Shakers_29134-l.jpg?v=29134)

Quote from: Benoist;609519I'm going to be blunt, and I apologize in advance.

There's no apology needed for being blunt.  But perhaps you should apologize for being obtuse.  I'm not getting your message in the below.  But let me break it out.

Quote from: Benoist;609519There 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.

I have a lot of opinions on what makes a game fun.  I enjoy discussing gaming, and that's why I'm here.  On some issues, I seem to be in a distressingly small minority, but that's okay.  In some issues I'm on the side of the majority.  Either way, there's value in discussing these differences.  The threads that say 'what do you like' that turn into a simple list with no discussion - talk about innane.  So, in general, I think it's more productive to discuss areas where we are not in agreement - and why.  In this thread, I explained that I enjoy 'dark shades of gray'.  Removing alignment helps facilitate that.  In my games, killing orc babies is bad.  Why?  Orcs aren't 'evil' because there is no alignment.  'Good' characters then have an obligation to judge orcs based on their actions.  Other people have said that 'good' characters face that burden.  I find it easier to encourage that behavior when we remove the labels.  

Orcs are dangerous, orcs are uncivilized, orcs are likely to kill even defenseless humans - but they're more complex than simply being evil in my games.  They exist on marginal lands (forced from more fertile areas by better organized races [ie, humans]) and disdain farm work.  Their society encourages bravery and the 'warrior cult'.  Orcs that seek to advance within their society must bring wealth, food, and prestige to their tribe.  This forces them into conflict with wealthy farmers.  Now, the players don't have to care why the conflicts exist - they can kill the bad orcs that burned a farmstead, and that's fine.  Or they can explore the pathos of the orc point of view - living in hungry squalor, despised if they try to travel among 'civilized' peoples.  American frontiersmen never bothered to ask if maybe they were in the wrong to displace a hunter/gatherer society, and they were quick to point out that Native Americans were wrong to raid and pillage.  I think there is blame to go around, and the game is richer with complex motivations.  In this thread, I'm trying to explain why.  And if you don't agree, that's fine.  We don't have to agree. But this...?

Quote from: Benoist;609519SO. 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.

My posts are here for everyone to look at, but if you've taken it that I'm 'blaming the game' for my 'inadequacies as a player and a DM', you're sadly mistaken.  Firstly, as others have said here many times, 'play the game, not the rules'.  The 'game' isn't broken, but sometimes the rules are.  And if everyone 'changes the rules' in the same place or under the same conditions, that'd be a pretty compelling argument that the rules themselves are broken.  So, if you don't play RAW, you're really already agreeing that the rules as written don't work at least in some times and some places.  If you are playing RAW, then we should discuss whether you have similar issues as I do when I play RAW.  

So, if you want to summarize my position, I think this would do:
In an ideal world, the rules as written would support the wide variety of game-styles that exist with no modification.  

Quote from: Benoist;609519It'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)

Again, that's not my problem.  I don't interpret good and evil that way.  I was pointing out that the 3.x PHB and DMG DO interpret evil that way.  I hate it because you could arbitrarily flip good and evil and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.  If you're going to bother with alignment, you have to have a good reason why 'good' people don't make a habit of torturing 'evil' people.  3.x justifies murder-hoboism by explaining that the people you're killing (even if they haven't done anything bad) deserve it because they're objectively evil.  Personally, I find that a cop-out, and would love to explore whether anyone actually uses the alignment rules as presented in 3.x and whether that did cause any problems...  The LG paladin might be able to justify the suffering of an objectively evil creature if greater good will come of it - but I like to hold my paladins to a higher standard.  Rather than an 'alignment' or a 'cosmic jersey', if I have a player that's interested in that type of character, we'll work out what, exactly, that means.  A 'code of conduct' grounded in the character's faith becomes a much more interesting role-play tool than the shorthand of 'LG'.  

Quote from: Benoist;609519It's a problem with your and your players interpretation of alignment, and not a problem with alignment itself.

Again, since I really want to stress this - I'm using the interpretation in the PHB and DMG 3.x edition.  This is not my interpretation of alignment.  

Quote from: Benoist;609519Stop blaming the game for your inadequacies, for your laziness or lack of imagination and adaptability to the game's assumptions,

I enjoy playing RPGs.  I am not lazy.  I have no lack of imagination.  I have fun, so I must be doing it right.  I'm happy to talk about what I do differently to make it even more fun.  

Quote from: Benoist;609519and please. Pretty please. Stop wanting the game's designers change it just because they ought to catter to those same inadequacies.

So, what?  I'm supposed to let you tell the designers of 5th edition how they should make it so they can cater to your inadequacies?  I just don't understand why it's a problem to try to tell a producer of a product what you'd really like.  Especially when and if they ask for feedback.  But this forum isn't really about talking to the 'game's designers'.  This is about having conversation with gaming enthusiasts about the games we're enthusiastic about.  And if I bring up something that another enthusiast hadn't really thought about, but it creates a positive change in their game, how is that a bad thing?  And if I bring up a suggested change that would be a negative change in their game, how am I obligating them to adapt it?  

It doesn't, by the way.  

Here's what I think.  There are people that disagree with me.  They disagree on such a fundamental level that they lose all sense of reason or perspective when I bring up a point.  Instead of engaging in a friendly discussion, they're forced to stay awake at night trying to figure out how to 'put me in my place'.  If that's the case, that's their problem, not mine.  I'm content to disagree and try to establish my perspective online.  That's what everyone else is doing, and it's okay if we don't agree.  I try to explain why I think differently than others, and I'm happy to have those reasons evaluated while I evalute the reasons of the opposing side.  It's even possible that the opposing side's reason are perfectly valid for them.  You know, valuing different aspects of the game differently.  

Quote from: Benoist;609519It'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.

Again, it seems like you're mischaracterizing me.  Black Vulmea has an issue with DMs that nerf EVERYTHING.  I agree with him.  That's the sign of a bad DM.  I don't think I've ever nerfed teleport in a game I've run.  Not once.  Not one single time.  As a player, I've played in games where teleport works differently, and I prefer that version.  I don't care much for 'scry and die', and changing teleport makes that a less viable tactic.  Since it's important for me to do what my character would do (and often that means choosing to be effective), I prefer having options taken off the table that are effective but less fun than more 'traditional' aspects.  It's really a problem of having too much creativity and proble-solving ability.  

Quote from: Benoist;609519Try 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.

And you're going to point out at least one thing that I said that I nerf in my games?  If anything, I try to go the other way, and make things more effective.  But you don't have to take my word for it here - you can look at my 3.x houserules posted more than 5 months ago here:

http://dndarchive.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=5&id=30455&Itemid=50

Quote from: Benoist;609519I know. I'm blunt. I just hope against all previous experiences that you'll think about it seriously at some point.

I think about everything that's posted here, especially if I disagree with it.  Unlike some people here, I never put anyone on 'ignore'.  I like to consider opinions that are different from mine, even when they seem spurious or drawn from an incorrect premise.  

I don't really want to have a discussion in an 'echo chamber'.  What's the fun of that?

Quote from: bryce0lynch;609524Concur.


And in this case: Please don't impose your judea-christian values on my possible-worlds paladin. Especially in a game where wizards can shoot fireballs from their asses.

I have no particular affection for judeo christian anything.

I figure each gm should decide what Paladins are like in their game world.





Fire Assball Wizards exising or not, would have no effect on how I handle Paladins.

I hate alignment, because people don't act that way. So I ignore it, change cosmology on the fly, and I don't play 3E+ so I don't have to deal with "Protection vs Law" type spells.

How I handle this in my current campaign world:

a. Almost everyone is a total douchebag.  My players have never bothered trying to "detect evil".  Possibly because some of their characters would light up the place like 100 watt bulbs.

b. The job of clerics and paladins is to obey the gods, whatever stupid cruel petty and thoughtless act they command.  Outside of that, the gods don't care what a character does (and as an aside, there's enough petty rivalries between the gods that disobedience just means a rival deity starts doing business with a PC)

c. When it gets to villains, they are cartoonishly evil.  They all want to conquer or destroy the world.  It's probably something in the water.  A person's evil may often be measured by sheer physical grotesqueness - extra eyes, arms, turning into a giant floating head, etc

I understand a ton of people dig alignment and play with it, but it's definitely not my bag.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;609531I have fun, so I must be doing it right.  I'm happy to talk about what I do differently to make it even more fun.  

Of course you're doing it right. For yourself and your table. And there are thousands of role playing games that don't have alignment that do their things right too. And numerous DMs at their own game tables who houserule the shit out of it and just take it as their responsibility to fit the game to their own expectations. Which is great. It's not a question of telling you that you're doing it wrong for yourself, and you can and indeed must do whatever you feel fits your game style and players.

BUT.

And that's an important but. It's one thing to say "hey I don't use alignments in my game and I have a lot of fun that way" versus "alignments are a PROBLEM with the game", "that's why alignments are problematic" and so on.

You are stepping from one thing, which is to tailor your game to your and your players expectations to get the most out of it, which by all means you are required to do as the true referee at the game table (as opposed to the rules or game designers or some dude on forums or whoever else), to another, which is to say that the game does it wrong, that people who play with the game and enjoy it how it is are somehow wrong, that alignment is objectively "problematic" and "needs fixing". That's where you are stepping over the line.

And THAT's where I'm telling you: stop projecting. Look at your own GMing. If you have more fun the way you do it and it's awesome then... where the fuck is the problem, here? IF however you bitch about alignments and say "they're problematic", then that means that somewhere somehow you're not satisfied with some thing, and there I tell you: try to work with the game's assumptions. Flex that muscle inside your head that controls your imagination and use the game's assumptions to come up with cool games and campaigns and situations. You'll become more adaptable. You'll become better, and in the end, you'll have a lot more fun with the game, rather than feeling frustrated, nerfing and axing stuff just to create other problems you did not anticipate, and bitching about them on forums like these experiences speak for everyone that plays the game you're actually not playing by your own choice. They don't.

All of this failing, if you still feel frustrated after trying to work with the assumptions of this particular role playing game in a way that makes your GMing a chore, it might be time to either select a different game system to run your game with (and game systems in same broad fantasy genre that do not use alignment are legion, including d20 variants using most of the other rules of the D&D game, I might add), or to create your own role playing game system the way Lord Vreeg and others have done here.

It STILL doesn't mean that the designers of the D&D game must somehow bend over backwards, wreck thousands of perfectly fine campaigns out there with a game change that invalidates whatever they do at their own game tables, split the fanbase ever further into oblivion and nuke alignment for everyone because of your own inadequacies using them. This also goes for Wizard versus Fighter, for Experience Points, and for the shitloads of other things we've talked about in the past.

Quote from: PatW;609544I hate alignment, because people don't act that way.

This is the most fundamental flaw in thinking about alignment.

You don't 'act like your alignment.' Your alignment reflects what you do.

I think some gamers might benefit from not choosing an alignment until after they play their characters for awhile. Get a sense of who the character is, then choose the alignment that is the best fit.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;609552This is the most fundamental flaw in thinking about alignment.

You don't 'act like your alignment.' Your alignment reflects what you do.

I think some gamers might benefit from not choosing an alignment until after they play their characters for awhile. Get a sense of who the character is, then choose the alignment that is the best fit.

Well said. Alignment is a result of ones intent and actions.

That is how I see alignment anyway.

Alignments are bullshit and always have been.

Thats why I prefer a system where an 'alignment' isn't built into things. The character has choices to do Good or Evil.

I thought Pundit's question and thread title was about 'Evil', not alignments.


- Ed C.

Alignments are just one of the many ways in which role playing games can bake the notions of "objective/cosmic Good and Evil" into the physics of the world. Given the importance of the D&D game and its popularity, it's natural that, when the question pops up in a general way about role playing games, it comes back to the game that started it all, somewhere, somehow, sooner or later.

Quote from: Koltar;609558Alignments are bullshit and always have been.

Thats why I prefer a system where an 'alignment' isn't built into things. The character has choices to do Good or Evil.

I thought Pundit's question and thread title was about 'Evil', not alignments.


- Ed C.

The thread did drift a bit.

Back to Objectivity of Evil?


I prefer shades of Grey, but pure evil has its place as well. For me, Pure evil would mostly be some planar entities.

 


50 Shades of Grey is the best evil

Quote from: Black Vulmea;609552This is the most fundamental flaw in thinking about alignment.

You don't 'act like your alignment.' Your alignment reflects what you do.

I think some gamers might benefit from not choosing an alignment until after they play their characters for awhile. Get a sense of who the character is, then choose the alignment that is the best fit.

Absolutely right.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;609521And 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.

I would argue it would only be "objective" if were actually real. Since these are merely games, and further games based on ideas and conditions which do not exist, they can mean, and function, any way we want them to when playing the game. this means that when I post about this stuff, it is and should be a given that everything I'm posting is IMO only. I always assumed in games I have both played in, and ran, that alignment being a "team jersey" is only and strictly in a meta-game/game-aid sense and should not be taken as more than that. In that spirit, alignment detection would function perfectly in the ways described in this thread and in the earlier editions rules, and at least in the games in which I've both played and run, alignment should not be used to "justify" anything because the characters themselves, whether "god" or "mortal" would not ever think in terms of "CE" or "LG". They would think only of their goals, principles, spheres (in the case of gods and their followers) of influence/power, and beliefs. The alignments were and are tools for the players used to provide a very general guide to how the characters will act/react and what their goals might be. This means that whether they are seen as "team jerseys" or not, my characters, both PC and NPC, think more in terms of what the alignments describe than in alignments themselves. Frex, my paladin was both lawful, and good. He valued the sanctity of life and the justice and safety of order above all else. He championed those values for all beings, even the ones others might consider undeserving of his efforts. His concern was to "save" others, in both a temporal and spiritual sense, so any being capable of change in his opinion deserved all the chance they could get to be allowed to do so. Only if the being willfully and directly threatened the life or safety of another being would he use direct and deadly force, and even then would be heart-broken about it. To me (the operative phrase IMO), this best represented both his own values and the values of the deity of peace, healing, and renewal that he championed. The way I read the D&D alignments, a more "Judge Dredd" style of champion would be better modelled (which is all alignments are meant to do) by the LN alignment. I have never witnessed it at the actual table, but the stories I read online about these avenging paladins that smite first and ask questions later are run by players that are forgetting or ignoring that the LG alignment has two components, both lawful and good. All, this, of course, is just IMO and if anyone likes to play the Dredd style of paladin, then rock on.

This is basically how I see even "team jersey" alignments then. It's a tool for the players... basically a short-hand for the complex components of a real person's morality, just like all other rules and mechanics in a RPG. It's meant to be abstract and meta-game only, just like AC, HPs, levels and attributes. Don't like it? By all means, toss it, and rock on. Like it? Then don that team jersey and rock on. Hope that helps clarify my position.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;609552This is the most fundamental flaw in thinking about alignment.

You don't 'act like your alignment.' Your alignment reflects what you do.

I think some gamers might benefit from not choosing an alignment until after they play their characters for awhile. Get a sense of who the character is, then choose the alignment that is the best fit.

If that were the case, then I would agree that alignment reflects what you do. As it stands in most editions of D&d, it does not reflect what you do and the rules clearly imply that it is a model for behaviour than the other way around.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;609552This is the most fundamental flaw in thinking about alignment.

You don't 'act like your alignment.' Your alignment reflects what you do.

I think some gamers might benefit from not choosing an alignment until after they play their characters for awhile. Get a sense of who the character is, then choose the alignment that is the best fit.

I actually played, once upon a time, in a game where the players did not choose their alignments at all. The Dm assigned the character an alignment in his notes about the character based on how the character was played, and alignments in general were never mentioned even when using detect alignment spells. The DM would just describe what the target was thinking/feeling and their "alignment" (in other words their values/beliefs/goals) would be interpreted and evaluated from that. The alignments were reserved in that game for the DM's use only as a short-hand for different character's general behavior and who/what hey might or might not get along or agree with.

Quote from: TristramEvans;609569If that were the case, then I would agree that alignment reflects what you do. As it stands in most editions of D&d, it does not reflect what you do and the rules clearly imply that it is a model for behaviour than the other way around.

I would call it a model for behavior in the context of a handy guideline for the gm or player.

However, an entities actual alignment is based on what they do, and the rules support that.

Quote from: Benoist;609545Of course you're doing it right. For yourself and your table. And there are thousands of role playing games that don't have alignment that do their things right too. And numerous DMs at their own game tables who houserule the shit out of it and just take it as their responsibility to fit the game to their own expectations. Which is great. It's not a question of telling you that you're doing it wrong for yourself, and you can and indeed must do whatever you feel fits your game style and players.

BUT.

And that's an important but. It's one thing to say "hey I don't use alignments in my game and I have a lot of fun that way" versus "alignments are a PROBLEM with the game", "that's why alignments are problematic" and so on.

You must be confusing me with someone else here.  I didn't say that alignments are a problem.  Go look through my posts.  Here's my first word on the topic:

Quote from: deadDMwalking;608177I'd never give someone grief for including alignment in their game.  Personally, I prefer to skip it.  But if it is included, I don't have any problem 'playing my alignment' - even if I don't have it on my character sheet, I have ideas about what my character considers appropriate actions in a variety of circumstances.  Removing it simply makes it easier to explain actions.  The good person who does a bad thing (for example, torturing a prisoner to death after he killed and raped your spouse) is easily understandable based on the circumstances.  

A character that is usually good but then reacts to a 'bad thing' is more interesting, in my opinion, than someone limiting their reactions to remain within their defined alignment.  Dealing with the consequences of one's actions (for good or evil) opens up some interesting role-playing.

Now, when Blackhand said that removing alignment was difficult, or involved unforseen issues with other rules, I said:

Quote from: deadDMwalking;607719I've always found alignment easy to remove.  Super-easy.

I'm not advocating for removing alignment here - I'm just indicating my disagreement with Blackhand.  

Quote from: Benoist;609545You are stepping from one thing, which is to tailor your game to your and your players expectations to get the most out of it, which by all means you are required to do as the true referee at the game table (as opposed to the rules or game designers or some dude on forums or whoever else), to another, which is to say that the game does it wrong, that people who play with the game and enjoy it how it is are somehow wrong, that alignment is objectively "problematic" and "needs fixing". That's where you are stepping over the line.

Again, I think you have me confused with someone else.  Where do I say that the alignment rules are a 'problem' or 'problematic'.  Everything I've said can be seen in this thred.  I just read over all my posts, and I didn't say that.  So either you have me confused with someone else or you're misinterpreting what I said.  

Quote from: Benoist;609545And THAT's where I'm telling you: stop projecting.

And maybe that's what I should be telling you.  When I specifically discuss how inane the alignment rules are in 3.x (which do state that killing every orc you see just because they 'pling' evil with a Detect Alignment spell is a good act), I'm still not saying that they're problematic.  That decision does have consequences.  It reinforces 'murder-hoboism', which I don't care for much.  

Quote from: Benoist;609545it might be time to either select a different game system to run your game with (and game systems in same broad fantasy genre that do not use alignment are legion, including d20 variants using most of the other rules of the D&D game, I might add), or to create your own role playing game system the way Lord Vreeg and others have done here.

I've done that.  I do play with my own rules.  I'm biased when I say they're superior, but, they're superior to 3.x.  In part because I've developed my own system that makes the game better, I have opinions about possible changes to 3.x that would make the game better.  Some are a matter of scale.  But of all the published games, I think 3.x comes closest to what I want.  So I absolutely will talk about that game using the 'rules as written', even if I don't usually play that way, anymore.  It's only by playing it 'as written' that I discovered issues that arise if you don't adjust the rules to suit the campaign.  

Quote from: Benoist;609545It STILL doesn't mean that the designers of the D&D game must somehow bend over backwards, wreck thousands of perfectly fine campaigns out there with a game change that invalidates whatever they do at their own game tables, split the fanbase ever further into oblivion and nuke alignment for everyone because of your own inadequacies using them. This also goes for Wizard versus Fighter, for Experience Points, and for the shitloads of other things we've talked about in the past.

This is why I'm thinking you might be crazy.  What version of D&D do you play?  How does the release of a new version change that in any way, shape, or form?  WotC has announced a new release of the game.  It could be a game you like - it could be a game I like.  If there was 'consensus' among gamers, they'd likely be able to make a game that appeals to all of us.  Now, I don't think D&D Next will appeal to me (maybe 6th edition will be the one for me?), but that's okay, too.  I'm having fun gaming with my system.  But that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have opinions on what the ideal game or even the ideal version of D&D would look like.  And if my arguments aren't compelling, they won't make that version.  But if my arguments are compelling, maybe they'll be likely to apply those changes.

Yes. I was talking about someone else and must be crazy. That must be it.

Quote from: Benoist;609584Yes. I was talking about someone else and must be crazy. That must be it.

Since that sounds sarcastic, perhaps you can quote me where I say that alignment is problematic?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;609585Since that sounds sarcastic, perhaps you can quote me where I say that alignment is problematic?

Sure.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;609483This 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.

Here you are clearly making the point that alignment is problematic by talking about general issues you perceive about its implementation and game play. That it has problems because it often creates a behavior you deem not fun or less fun that using alignment would, that then the detect alignment spell emphasize. All the while neglecting the fact that your interpretation of alignment and its consequences in game is purely yours, the function of your interpretation and lack of consideration. "It plays that way very often. It's got nothing to do with me or my buddies, it's a problem with the alignment concept itself. Not blocking on this particular interpretation and scenario I just made up to instead play with alignment and come up with interesting situations to play in the game is too hard, so I have issues with it". Exactly like the examples you kept giving about how wizards were broken in your games, fighters "can't contribute," that giants stole the show. Exactly like how the change of the system of experience actually creates side effects and expectations which then prompts question of absolute game balance because the PCs all advance at the same time arbitrarily instead of growing organically through their interactions with the campaign, etc etc etc.

But yeah. Right. I must be totally talking about someone else, and I'm crazy. My bad.

Talk about repeatedly missing the point.

Quote from: Benoist;609587Here you are clearly making the point that alignment is problematic by talking about general issues you perceive about its implementation and game play. That it has problems because it often creates a behavior you deem not fun or less fun that using alignment would, that then the detect alignment spell emphasize. All the while neglecting the fact that your interpretation of alignment and its consequences in game is purely yours, the function of your interpretation and lack of consideration.

Actually, I was specifically talking about alignment by RAW in 3.x.  I made that clear several times, but it's not that clear from the post.  

"but it is often said that killing evil creatures is a good act"

That part refers specifically to 3.x alignment rules.  That interpretation of alignment doesn't support 'showing mercy is a good act'.  If you'd like, I'll be happy to quote the 3.5 PHB and/or DMG when I get home tonight.  

So specifically, I reject that interpretation of alignment.  Since it was the 'official' interpretation in 3.x, I think it's easier to get rid of it then try to explain to a teenager why a Paladin shouldn't murder orc babies - especially if they want to say 'the rules say I can'.  

But I don't 'reject' alignment.  Just that specific interpretation.

Maybe you should just ditch 3.5 and play AD&D like everybody else. ;)

We always viewed alignment in terms of the cosmology of the setting, the Planes.  Alignments are really Outer Plane concepts expressed in the reality of the Middle Plane.  Any outsider (Demon, Devil, Solar) will detect as it's alignment because as a creature from that plane it is infused with it's energy, and is a type of avatar of the Planes principles.

We never used Detect Alignment spells as ESP.  What the Detect Alignment spells did was detect emanations from the Outer Planes, so a non-sentient sword could detect as evil.  A human being however, would generally not detect as evil, however, high level priests, or mages who summoned and made pacts with outsiders would.

Now some heinous acts would detect as evil, but that really requires a cosmology where a man committing evil (like a BTK type killer) is not doing so because he's fucked in the head, he's doing it because he's been influenced by an outsider or spirits.

Most people don't think about the cosmology of their world enough to really decide the interaction between spirits and human souls.  Instead we get a Western Social Sciences view with magic slapped on because Tolkien.

There is a point at which, the selfish uncaring bastard crosses the line to something else.  His soul becomes debased to the point where he becomes a beacon to evil spirits who infuence him even further and make him a monster who rules orcs and goblins, summons and deals with demons, and Detects as evil.

Games with a strong spirit world focus like Werewolf: The Apocalypse do this kind of thing better then D&D, but in the games we played Alignment was a lot more complex and nuanced then "Team Jersey".

Quote from: Thalaba;609245What's your preferred reason for someone acting evil? The Devil made him do it? He was born evil? The Contessa's dog bit him? Something else?

There are lots of good reasons, and potentially deep villains, that have nothing to do with "its society's fault".

My personal favorite reasons are typically ambition, lust for power/control, narcissism/megalomania, or religious fanaticism.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;609610There are lots of good reasons, and potentially deep villains, that have nothing to do with "its society's fault".

My personal favorite reasons are typically ambition, lust for power/control, narcissism/megalomania, or religious fanaticism.

RPGPundit

When writing about the morality of demons in Heaven's Shadow, I operated largely on the assumption that they would have a religious devotion to rebellion itself.  

To them, conventional Heavenly morality is a structure of oppression, and so they violate it with relish because they see it as the ultimate act of freedom from an oppressive deity.

Quote from: J Arcane;609614When writing about the morality of demons in Heaven's Shadow, I operated largely on the assumption that they would have a religious devotion to rebellion itself.  

To them, conventional Heavenly morality is a structure of oppression, and so they violate it with relish because they see it as the ultimate act of freedom from an oppressive deity.

Thats very similar to Clive Barker's take on the matter in re: to th Hellraiser franchise, but reversed: Hell is order, and heaven is chaos essentially.

Quote from: Bill;609315Real people's alignment fluctuates moment to moment.

That would depend on how much of a well-considered moral code they have.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Bill;609423It 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.

In 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

Quote from: TristramEvans;609569As it stands in most editions of D&d, it does not reflect what you do and the rules clearly imply that it is a model for behaviour than the other way around.

If 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.

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.

This is an important point, I think.  Back in the mid-80s when we played 1e AD&D the DM tracked character alignment and enforced any changes as a result of character actions.  A good cleric slaughtering orc babies willy-nilly would find a cold, empty reception in the morning when he prayed for his spells.  As a player, you had to live with that kind of stuff and you just dealt and moved on with the game and character.  Now, it wouldn't be a complete blindside in our groups at least since the DM usually gave out warning hints which usually came in the form of a question like "are you sure you are going to take that action?"  These days it seems like players would shit their pants if you, as a GM, told them that their character has shifted alignment and must atone to regain status and favor in the god's, or church's, eye.

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.

Quote from: CRKrueger;609601We always viewed alignment in terms of the cosmology of the setting, the Planes.  Alignments are really Outer Plane concepts expressed in the reality of the Middle Plane.  Any outsider (Demon, Devil, Solar) will detect as it's alignment because as a creature from that plane it is infused with it's energy, and is a type of avatar of the Planes principles.

We never used Detect Alignment spells as ESP.  What the Detect Alignment spells did was detect emanations from the Outer Planes, so a non-sentient sword could detect as evil.  A human being however, would generally not detect as evil, however, high level priests, or mages who summoned and made pacts with outsiders would.

Now some heinous acts would detect as evil, but that really requires a cosmology where a man committing evil (like a BTK type killer) is not doing so because he's fucked in the head, he's doing it because he's been influenced by an outsider or spirits.

Most people don't think about the cosmology of their world enough to really decide the interaction between spirits and human souls.  Instead we get a Western Social Sciences view with magic slapped on because Tolkien.

There is a point at which, the selfish uncaring bastard crosses the line to something else.  His soul becomes debased to the point where he becomes a beacon to evil spirits who influence him even further and make him a monster who rules orcs and goblins, summons and deals with demons, and Detects as evil.

Games with a strong spirit world focus like Werewolf: The Apocalypse do this kind of thing better then D&D, but in the games we played Alignment was a lot more complex and nuanced then "Team Jersey".

This right here is how I use alignments in any D&D games I run these days. I hopefully will be running a one-shot for my eldest step-son and his buddy right after Christmas and will be using either ACKs or S&W Complete and this is exactly how I will interpret alignment for that game. Humans and other sentient Prime Plane beings are too complex for detection spells to nail down their "team", but extra planar critters are so infused with the alignment's "essence" that the detect spells will "ping", so to speak. Kinda like a radiation detector. In that game, Paladin's (I bring them up again due to the detection issue) will be created by their deity specifically for combating extra planar and undead critters. I've been watching Supernatural so Paladins, and to a lesser extent good clerics being "monster hunters" is an idea that is appealing to me at the moment :) Really, alignment and the inclusion of "objective evil" is a tool, and like any other it can be embraced, or discarded depending on the aims/goals/desires of the players. I am living proof that it can even be embraced for certain styles of game, and discarded for others, even using the same system.

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

Awesome!

Quote from: Drohem;609627This is an important point, I think.  Back in the mid-80s when we played 1e AD&D the DM tracked character alignment and enforced any changes as a result of character actions.  A good cleric slaughtering orc babies willy-nilly would find a cold, empty reception in the morning when he prayed for his spells.  As a player, you had to live with that kind of stuff and you just dealt and moved on with the game and character.  Now, it wouldn't be a complete blindside in our groups at least since the DM usually gave out warning hints which usually came in the form of a question like "are you sure you are going to take that action?"  These days it seems like players would shit their pants if you, as a GM, told them that their character has shifted alignment and must atone to regain status and favor in the god's, or church's, eye.

Very much this.

Quote from: Bill;609762That is close to how I handle planar beings in dnd. My issues with alignment are more in regards to beings that are more mundane.

Just to preface Bill, you can run your games the way you want, there is no "right way", and if this works for you rock on brother. However, I think you might be throwing out the baby with the bath water re: alignment. There's a world of usefulness between "alignment is absolute and everyone has to belong to and be recognized as a member of one of the "teams"" and "I'm throwing alignment out completely". It's a tool like any other in your arsenal and can be tailored to work how you want it, as I've described in my various posts in this thread. I personally find it useful as a short-hand, and I think if you step back and take a look at how it might be useful in that context I'm thinking you might find a use for it as well. Still, if it really irks you, I'll not say you're wrong :D Keep on rolling dice brother :D

Quote from: Sigmund;609796Just to preface Bill, you can run your games the way you want, there is no "right way", and if this works for you rock on brother. However, I think you might be throwing out the baby with the bath water re: alignment. There's a world of usefulness between "alignment is absolute and everyone has to belong to and be recognized as a member of one of the "teams"" and "I'm throwing alignment out completely". It's a tool like any other in your arsenal and can be tailored to work how you want it, as I've described in my various posts in this thread. I personally find it useful as a short-hand, and I think if you step back and take a look at how it might be useful in that context I'm thinking you might find a use for it as well. Still, if it really irks you, I'll not say you're wrong :D Keep on rolling dice brother :D

I have played for years both ways. I have come to prefer less alignment detection.

I do use it as a shorthand.

I have tailored it to how I want it :)

I appreciate the advice though; it is always good to have other peoples ideas as a reality check.

Quote from: Bill;609781I 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.

In my games it can be used to reveal whether a given entity is or might be "possessed", an extra-planar or undead critter in disguise (ala shape-shifting or illusion), or otherwise infused somehow with negative or extra-planar evil energy. It also is a tool to reveal one possible facet of the nature of magic items or magically energized places.

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

I don't find it to be entirely useless, just one among many tools.

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.

Very much this too :D This is exactly how I like to use it. To relate it to the OP, I usually use a mix of both relative and absolute evil, depending on the nature of the critter/being in question and so like many many other tools in the PC's arsenal, it's usefulness via detection magic varies greatly, which is what makes it so fun for me. The players in my games know that while it might provide some useful info, it rarely tells the whole story. It's one piece of the puzzle.

Quote from: Lynn;609786This 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.

Absolutely. I played a LE knight in my last birthright campaign as a player, and he was very much like a feudal samurai. He valued the social hierarchy, and respected his station and the station of others, but had no respect for the sanctity or welfare of those beneath his station. He also had loads of ambition related to advancing his station, and was not above using less savory means of accomplishing that, to a point. In his mind, there were rules to the game, and he never broke those rules, but would bend them and use them to his advantage. He was also very loyal to those he viewed as his peers and to those he viewed as hit "lords". Since he was landless, basically a ronin, his "lord" was the leader of the PC party, and anyone who paid them to accomplish a goal. He was also fearless and would not hesitate to put himself in harm's way to help or save his friends. In other words, he was very much like man of the knights in Game of Thrones/SoIaF. He would gleefully kill CE creatures and felt good about doing so, and of course vastly preferred hanging out with LG or even NG or CG characters... who wouldn't really? He'd argue with and have little respect for CG characters, but he'd still rather spend time with them than NE or CE folks. He viewed himself as a good guy.

Quote from: Bill;609797I have played for years both ways. I have come to prefer less alignment detection.

I do use it as a shorthand.

I have tailored it to how I want it :)

I appreciate the advice though; it is always good to have other peoples ideas as a reality check.

Rock on brother :D

Closely related to this, and the question of alignment is insanity. If a character "goes insane" by means other than a temporary spell effect and commits an evil act as a result of the special moment, are they evil?

Quote from: Lynn;609818Closely related to this, and the question of alignment is insanity. If a character "goes insane" by means other than a temporary spell effect and commits an evil act as a result of the special moment, are they evil?

No, but they lose all their Karma points.

Quote from: Lynn;609818Closely related to this, and the question of alignment is insanity. If a character "goes insane" by means other than a temporary spell effect and commits an evil act as a result of the special moment, are they evil?

Depends on the particular context, on a case by case basis. A paladin going insane might do some awful things and could feel guilt, and thus seek redemption. A thief dominated into giving his gold to the Church doesn't make him good. And so on.

I think that in general, people try to think of alignments way too much in general terms, with clear cut actions - boundaries and the like, rather than just relaxing and judging/refereeing situations as they come up in actual play.

Quote from: Bill;609781Explain to me the usefulness it has, compared to interacting with the npc with roleplay.

It would help if you stop thinking of as either/or. Divination magic doesn't replace investigation and in-character interaction - it's simply another tool used by the players.

Btw, 'roleplaying' isn't 'talking in-character.' Everything you choose for your character to do is roleplaying, including casting spells, swinging a sword, sneaking through shadows, or jumping out of a window into a moat.

Quote from: Bill;609781I am essentially asking how use of the spell enhances game play when roleplay can do the same.

In-character interaction and investigation can't automatically "do the same," unless the referee's a complete crapsack who can't misdirect his players for shit.

Using magic to peer into men's minds and souls isn't exactly unheard of in FANTASY, which begs the question, why the hell are you playing D&D when it seems you'd rather be playing GUMSHOE?

I'm amused by the idea of characters going around casting Detect Evil/Good or Know Alignment on total strangers -as if anyone would just submit to it. Casting any spell on a conscious, sentient creature without their permission would almost always be taken as a hostile act, and responded to accordingly. It's not like they know what spell they're about to receive.

Quote from: Elfdart;609876I'm amused by the idea of characters going around casting Detect Evil/Good or Know Alignment on total strangers -as if anyone would just submit to it. Casting any spell on a conscious, sentient creature without their permission would almost always be taken as a hostile act, and responded to accordingly. It's not like they know what spell they're about to receive.

Even if they do know what spell is being cast, folks will react negatively. Worse than going through someone's emails because you dont trust them.

Quote from: Lynn;609818Closely related to this, and the question of alignment is insanity. If a character "goes insane" by means other than a temporary spell effect and commits an evil act as a result of the special moment, are they evil?

Define. This is too vague. All I have is "besides a temporary spell" clause.

How long is the insanity?

How deep is the insanity?

What is the response to the criminality/cruelty afterwards?

Part of alignment is cognizance, which separates Characters from Creatures like unaligned animals. Cognizance involves choice, thinking beyond instinct. If there is no thinking about choice, even obviating your own personality "auto-pilot" (a.k.a alignment), then there is no alignment to the action.

(Edit Clarifying Note: I view the idea of Free Choice to be available but not always consciously used. Life's extremely complicated and busy, the time for choices nigh-infinite. And frankly we just don't have the time to really think of all of our options each and every time.

Thankfully we have a remarkable ability to self-program automated responses so as to free up brain power to work on other things. We do this for motor coordination, social circle modulation of language, etc. One of these automated programs is World View -- and our (moral) response to the World from that View. I like to call this automated program: Alignment.

However, we do have Free Choice in crafting our automated programs. And further, we can adjust our automated programs as we continue to live. So even though we subconsciously revert to automated programs during common moments of choice, a conscious embrace of such judgment empowered the automated response. Thus our alignment is a cognizant act -- Free Choice -- regardless if we consciously use it or subconsciously fall back upon it.

Unconsciousness however is notably different than consciousness and subconsciousness. Insanity or true magical enslavement would qualify in my mind as unconscious.)

Further, a breach of code in a moment of passion may be excused. Particularly so if the situation was not consciously self-set up to trigger one's own loss of control (putting yourself deliberately in harm's or temptation's way). Heck, even a regular lapse or two in your alignment doesn't change your outlook on life immediately.

What does matter is what you do afterwards when you regain cognizance, with regards to knowing your aftermath. Lack of contrition for lapses, or even for lapses during blackouts, speaks of a developing shift of one's internal world view. That is something that involves cognizance and thus can be "measured" along the alignment graph.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;609856It would help if you stop thinking of as either/or. Divination magic doesn't replace investigation and in-character interaction - it's simply another tool used by the players.

I don't think of it as either or. Divination either does replace invesigation if the spellks actually work, or, if the divination spells are very limited provide clues that you can get without spells.
 
Btw, 'roleplaying' isn't 'talking in-character.' Everything you choose for your character to do is roleplaying, including casting spells, swinging a sword, sneaking through shadows, or jumping out of a window into a moat.

I never said roleplay was talking in character. I consider roleplay to be everything the characters do and percieve in the setting.

In-character interaction and investigation can't automatically "do the same," unless the referee's a complete crapsack who can't misdirect his players for shit.

Never said it would be automatic.
I am a master at misdirecting players. That comes easily to me.I can do that with or without detect alignment spells. I just find the detect alignment to be useless and offer nothing to the fun factor of the game.


Using magic to peer into men's minds and souls isn't exactly unheard of in FANTASY, which begs the question, why the hell are you playing D&D when it seems you'd rather be playing GUMSHOE?

I enjoy spells like ESP, charm person, etc...that certainly give glimpses into mens minds. But they are very different animals than an alignment label spell.
No clue why you would think I like Gumshoe. The one shot I played of it convinced me it was some odd type of railroady game concept. Don't know much about it though.

I have played and gmed most versions of dnd for over 30 years and had  a blast. I must be doing something right.

Quote from: Elfdart;609876I'm amused by the idea of characters going around casting Detect Evil/Good or Know Alignment on total strangers -as if anyone would just submit to it. Casting any spell on a conscious, sentient creature without their permission would almost always be taken as a hostile act, and responded to accordingly. It's not like they know what spell they're about to receive.

I have not seen many players try this in the open, but quite a few that 'duck out of sight'....cast....duck back into sight if the spell has a duration.

not quite as bad but still seems silly to me.

Quote from: Bill;609958I have not seen many players try this in the open, but quite a few that 'duck out of sight'....cast....duck back into sight if the spell has a duration.

not quite as bad but still seems silly to me.

That technique is not applicable to 2e Know Alignment.

Range is 10 yards. Range, as clarified, requires "spells are centered on a point visible to the caster and within the range of the spell." Further "spells can be cast through narrow openings only if both the caster's vision and the spell energy can be directed simultaneously through the opening." Then gives the comparison: arrow slit is OK, peephole is not. (2e PHB, p.129)

Also, Casting time is 1 round. Spell directly states caster "must remain stationary and concentrate on the subject for a full round." Which in 2e a round equals 1 minute. (2e PHB, p.206)

There'd have to be special circumstances to a) fulfill range req. b) fulfill casting time req. and c) have the target remain within those parameters until cast. Possible, but generally used under a discreet or empowered situation (confessional, job interview, espionage, interrogation, etc.). It's for playing a very different style of D&D many people are used to.

For example, in Birthright or Lankhmar it might be downright critical.

Besides 'know alignment', there are also various detect spells; detect good, detect evil, etc.  I've known PCs to scan the crowd with a variety of detects.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;609967Besides 'know alignment', there are also various detect spells; detect good, detect evil, etc.  I've known PCs to scan the crowd with a variety of detects.

Detect Evil doesn't work that way on regular human/oids in 2e (and seemingly 1e as well), as we've already established.

Quote from: Bill;609957I enjoy spells like ESP, charm person, etc...that certainly give glimpses into mens minds. But they are very different animals than an alignment label spell.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Opaopajr;609966That technique is not applicable to 2e Know Alignment.

Range is 10 yards. Range, as clarified, requires "spells are centered on a point visible to the caster and within the range of the spell." Further "spells can be cast through narrow openings only if both the caster's vision and the spell energy can be directed simultaneously through the opening." Then gives the comparison: arrow slit is OK, peephole is not. (2e PHB, p.129)

Also, Casting time is 1 round. Spell directly states caster "must remain stationary and concentrate on the subject for a full round." Which in 2e a round equals 1 minute. (2e PHB, p.206)

There'd have to be special circumstances to a) fulfill range req. b) fulfill casting time req. and c) have the target remain within those parameters until cast. Possible, but generally used under a discreet or empowered situation (confessional, job interview, espionage, interrogation, etc.). It's for playing a very different style of D&D many people are used to.

For example, in Birthright or Lankhmar it might be downright critical.

Invisibility, audibel glamor, illusions, etc..can sometimes make casting in plain site easier.

Quote from: Bill;609974Invisibility, audibel glamor, illusions, etc..can sometimes make casting in plain site easier.

One step closer to the spherical cow and the Thunderdome!

"Casting a detect alignment spell in a town can be taken as invasive and offensive."
"Well, invisibility!"
"Casting while invisible makes you visible."
"But... greater invisibility!"
"Ok what level is this guy and what spells has he got memorized?"
"Well he would obviously have greater invisibility memorized, everyone does"
"Maybe not, that depends on the situation, doesn't it?"
"What you want to try it? THUNDERDOME!"

Quote from: Benoist;609985One step closer to the spherical cow and the Thunderdome!

"Casting a detect alignment spell in a town can be taken as invasive and offensive."
"Well, invisibility!"
"Casting while invisible makes you visible."
"But... greater invisibility!"
"Ok what level is this guy and what spells has he got memorized?"
"Well he would obviously have greater invisibility memorized, everyone does"
"Maybe not, that depends on the situation, doesn't it?"
"What you want to try it? THUNDERDOME!"

Thunderdome I get, but

What is 'spherical cow?'

Quote from: Bill;609989Thunderdome I get, but

What is 'spherical cow?'

Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow

The Alexandrian using the concept in an RPG-related context: http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2434/roleplaying-games/on-the-importance-of-spherical-cows

QuoteAmong the favorite games of the Armchair Theorists is the Extremely Implausible Hypothetical Scenario. The most common form is, “If we analyze one encounter in isolation from the context of the game and hypothesize that the wizard always has the perfect set of spells prepared for that encounter, then we can demonstrate that the wizard is totally busted.”

Let’s call it the Spherical Cow Fallacy: “First, we assume a spherical cow. Next, we conclude that cows will always roll down hills and can never reach the top of them. Finally, we conclude that adventures should never include hills.”

Quote from: Benoist;609990Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow

The Alexandrian using the concept in an RPG-related context: http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2434/roleplaying-games/on-the-importance-of-spherical-cows

Hmmm....point being that much of what we beat to death on the internet is not actually a probelm in actual play?

Quote from: Bill;609994Hmmm....point being that much of what we beat to death on the internet is not actually a probelm in actual play?

Yes. Basically, the more discussions about anything in a role playing game being BROKEN or a problem or whatnot start going into hyper-specific theoretical scenarios that somehow "prove" this or that is busted, the more likely you are in fact in total la-la-land talking about spherical cows. Like all the discussions I've seen ever about the "fighter versus wizard" thing, most discussions about "holy game balance", and so on, so forth.

This discussion here, when you start piling up the conditions, e.g. "he casts detect alignment, but he's got invisibility cast too (and nobody noticed him casting that either). In fact no, greater invisibility! And... he's level 8! And ... etc etc", maybe in fact you're just shooting for the spherical cows and detect alignment isn't such a "problem" for games when you're using it in actual role playing situations.

Or you could have a different type of game, Bill, where roleplaying sets up the circumstance needed to cast the spell more 'safely.'

For example, in a city cloak and dagger campaign, one player talks to the mark in the pub across a shared table. Meanwhile the Know Alignment caster is sitting with the rest of the party and stranger NPCs at a table across from the mark, facing his back. Cast surreptitiously as your party stirs up the room. If save succeeds and mark looks behind, try to look innocuous and play it off... etc.

A lot of effort, yes, but still powerful. Roleplaying other ways, as you say, can help. But a lot of it involves taking an NPC at their word, which can lead you into problems. Or it involves a lot more doubting and espionage, which can take much more time. Spells like Know Alignment are just one happy shortcut solution for parties that have it.

Not that how you play is wrong. It just shows how I (we) play is also not useless. A tool for one may not be right for another perhaps, but a tool generally has value in its own milieu.

Quote from: Opaopajr;610000Or you could have a different type of game, Bill, where roleplaying sets up the circumstance needed to cast the spell more 'safely.'

For example, in a city cloak and dagger campaign, one player talks to the mark in the pub across a shared table. Meanwhile the Know Alignment caster is sitting with the rest of the party and stranger NPCs at a table across from the mark, facing his back. Cast surreptitiously as your party stirs up the room. If save succeeds and mark looks behind, try to look innocuous and play it off... etc.

A lot of effort, yes, but still powerful. Roleplaying other ways, as you say, can help. But a lot of it involves taking an NPC at their word, which can lead you into problems. Or it involves a lot more doubting and espionage, which can take much more time. Spells like Know Alignment are just one happy shortcut solution for parties that have it.

Not that how you play is wrong. It just shows how I (we) play is also not useless. A tool for one may not be right for another perhaps, but a tool generally has value in its own milieu.

Might be some miscommunication here.

I have played for years and years, with or without detection of alignment.
Quite capable of using it or discarding it.

I have no issues with the act of casting a spell.

I do intrigue, investigation, etc.. all the time.

I dissagree about the usefullness of detecting alignment and evil, and I dissagree about if the presence of such spells actually makeing the game more fun.

Its a shortcut that detracts from roleplay, in my opinion. I prefer interacting with things over the quick label tag. Key word there is prefer.

I am not saying you personally can't have fun with detecting alignment.

I am not saying how you play dnd is useless. If what you do is fun, there is no problem.

I do freely admit I am not a RAW guy.

When I do 1E dnd I houserule Initiative, Weapon vs armor type, Spell components, Psionics, probably other stuff as well.

I do not consider any rpg I have seen, to be perfect as written or somehow inviolate.

I make changes that make sense to me.

Quote from: Sigmund;609794Awesome!

Glad you like it!

RPGPundit

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.

The rules contradict this in a number of places though, most specifically in alignment restrictions on races and classes.

Quote from: TristramEvans;612702The rules contradict this in a number of places though, most specifically in alignment restrictions on races and classes.

Is it a contradiction though? Or is it just an injunction in character creation (and in a few cases, like Clerics and Paladins, on the access of powers should alignment change)?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;612928Is it a contradiction though? Or is it just an injunction in character creation (and in a few cases, like Clerics and Paladins, on the access of powers should alignment change)?

RPGPundit

Racial alignment....deserves a ream of posts on its own.  Especially idiotic when a race you meet as an 'encounter' is so one-dimensional.

Quote from: TristramEvans;612702The rules contradict this in a number of places though, most specifically in alignment restrictions on races and classes.

No, alignment still reflects what you character does; alignment restrictions mean there are certain behaviors which are expected of that character in accordance with the class.

Quote from: LordVreeg;612950Racial alignment....deserves a ream of posts on its own.  Especially idiotic when a race you meet as an 'encounter' is so one-dimensional.

Or it means that other races are not like humans.

Quote from: RPGPundit;612928Is it a contradiction though? Or is it just an injunction in character creation (and in a few cases, like Clerics and Paladins, on the access of powers should alignment change)?

RPGPundit

well, I at least certainly have an abrasive reaction to such injunctions in character creation. alignment as a guide for behaviour? I'm fine with that. But as such, but in that case it should be something the player choses without being restricted by their species or profession IMO. Its there that it suggests behaviours are not the defining element of alignment, rather it is impossible to engage in certain behaviours if one is of an alignment, or species, or class.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;612965No, alignment still reflects what you character does; alignment restrictions mean there are certain behaviors which are expected of that character in accordance with the class.

Which is where it becomes disassociated to me, or blurs the line between alignment as an expression of behaviour vs alignment as a deeper motivation.

I would assume that a Dwarf being branded LG by race, uses that as a starting point. That dwarf, pc or npc, is free to do non LG actions until his alignment changes.

Quote from: Bill;613178I would assume that a Dwarf being branded LG by race, uses that as a starting point. That dwarf, pc or npc, is free to do non LG actions until his alignment changes.

So how do you describe a 'bad egg' that was born that way?  Does he stay LG until he commits his first double homicide?

If alignment doesn't predict behavior, at least in general terms, what value does it have?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;613195So how do you describe a 'bad egg' that was born that way?  Does he stay LG until he commits his first double homicide?

If alignment doesn't predict behavior, at least in general terms, what value does it have?

Signifying which team you're playing on in the cosmic battle.

But to the overall thread, sometimes I alternate.  I have no problem with "shades of grey" stuff, but the D&D system isn't really meant to support it.  Evil people are just plain evil a lot of the time.  In practice, most of the bad guys in my games are sick sons of bitches who are a threat to everyone around them.

Mind you, I do offer better incentives to go after villains than "they're orcs!" or "treasure!"  Like that crazy necromancer who's blighting the fields with undead to take revenge against some slight from the King; he's an asshole, you can't appeal to his better nature, and there's a good reason to take him down.

Quote from: LordVreeg;612950Racial alignment....deserves a ream of posts on its own.  Especially idiotic when a race you meet as an 'encounter' is so one-dimensional.

It depends on the race, doesn't it? I mean, if Elves and Dwarves are being portrayed as mostly human in attitudes and behaviours, I would find it a bit disconcerting if they couldn't be any human alignment that they wanted.

But if you have really alien beings (beholders, mind flayers, aboleth, pretty much any extra-planar being, and even more mundane things but with very alien attitudes like Drow), I would think that this is more a characteristic of how inhuman they are, that for them its likely that certain notions or philosophical ways of understanding the world that humans use would be simply incomprehensible.
I have no problem with a tentacled monstrosity from the outer planes not only being ineligible to be Lawful Good, but being absolutely unable to comprehend the very concept of "good".

RPGPundit

Quote from: deadDMwalking;613195So how do you describe a 'bad egg' that was born that way?  Does he stay LG until he commits his first double homicide?

If alignment doesn't predict behavior, at least in general terms, what value does it have?

I discussed how I used it before, already more than once, and how it has no real conflict for me.

An individual character PC/NPC can be anywhere on the 9-alignments. They are an individual, have sentience and conscience, and thus have free will. This can be influenced by racial outlooks and national/cultural outlooks. But unless there's fear of reprisal or something, an individual will express their alignment (their world view, outlook) when they can, overriding race and culture.

A nation or culture alignment will often group towards the racial alignment on the average, but is open to more deviation of expression upon the 9-alignment axes. It, like the racial alignment, is a deliberate broad brush. But the collection of laws and mores will give it a generally assumable outlook. It is also naturally influenced by racial outlooks. However, unless under extreme duress, a culture will express its alignment (viewpoint, outlook) freely against its baser attitudes.

Racial outlooks are given in general a singular alignment out of sheer necessity. It's the simplest first coating of the broad brush. The mental framework leading to the 'hows' and 'whys' of language, tool usage, social organization, etc. is judged here. It often deals with the "lizard brain" lowest common denominator. However, even though it is foundational it can be -- and often is -- overridden by a national/cultural outlook, and naturally an individual outlook as well.

Overall, it's quite easy in my view. I just never found this to be an overly complicated process myself. I think the big challenge for most people is when they think of things as exclusive conditions. But more than one thing can be held as true within a given population at the same time. Just as people can confuse the individual for the statistic, people can confuse the statistic for the individual. Sometimes it can all be represented and thus be correct.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;613195So how do you describe a 'bad egg' that was born that way?  Does he stay LG until he commits his first double homicide?

If alignment doesn't predict behavior, at least in general terms, what value does it have?

If he was 'born that way' it just means he drifted from LG at a birth.

I am firmly in the camp of actions and intent dictate alignment for most sentient beings.

Innate allignment works to a degree with dnd planar cosmology, but I still think a demon or celectial could drift.


Value?

Handy notation; that's about it.

So what motivations do we in fact like in our villains?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;613681So what motivations do we in fact like in our villains?

RPGPundit

*blink* This is vague, please define.

Are we assuming villains who are of evil alignment?

Are we assuming villains who are of chaotic alignment?

What are the setting assumptions that give context?

Quote from: RPGPundit;613681So what motivations do we in fact like in our villains?

RPGPundit

I like motivations that are good intentions gone wrong.

Example: Villain in one of my games was a reputable Butcher.
His town was slowly starving to death because of gnolls running unchecked in the region, pillaging the farms.

He started secretly collecting rats and any animals he could find, and made sausages.
Saving his community from hunger was of course a noble task.

When the rats ran out, he started secretly collecting very fresh human bodies for his sausages.

By the time he had the local immigrant halflings in a cage in his basement, he had crossed the line into evil, but his intentions were to save the people he cared for most from a slow horrid death by hunger.

I like a mixture of motives. Sometimes I want the good intentions gone bad as Bill describes but I also want villains who choose to do bad things for more insidious reasons. One thing I like doing is having shades of evil in an adventure. Some of my bad guys are just regular folk who make questionable choices and are in a bad place as a result. Others are guided by a deeper need to harm. The key thing for me is to mix it up. And having several shades of evil within an single adventure can be very interesting for the players to sort out.

Whatever their motives I do like villains that can be reasoned with and are not just mindlessly bent on slaughter----though psychos and killing machines do have their place.

The specifics of the immediate motives dont need to be all that grand or unusual (could be something as simple as wanting to set up a business deal with some merchants in the neighboring town). The big thing that seperates the villain is what he is willing to do to achieve that. For deeper motives, internal thoughts and personal history the players might not see, it is important for me to know what makes the character tick. It is sort of the old saying of how others see them, how they see themselves and how they truly are. It is a fine line though. You can weaken a villain's power if you slip too far from explanation to justification.

Villains that can be reasoned with to some degree are just more interesting to me than flat out killer villains.

However, a variety of villanous types would seem to be desireable.

The only type of "good intentions" villains I really like are the kind that believe that they will be bringing order to the region/kingdom/world/universe under their autocratic rule.

RPGPundit

Tharizdun Wants to Destroy the Universe.

Premiering Sundays on HBO.