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.