Post/Author/DateTime	Post
yrogerg 10-14-06, 02:42 PM	So, a number of recent threads have gotten me thinking and about some of the issues surrounding D&D alignment. In particular, alignment domains and spells with alignment descriptors are common issues that come up. The domain spells in particular bother me, though: The Good domain is terribly mislabeled. It is, in fact, the domain of Hurting Evil, and at later levels, Hurting Everything that's Not Good. Spells like Holy Word break the flavor of a good alignment, and, assuming a religion devoted to Hurting Evil, it never made sense to me that the Good followers would necessarily be the most enthusiastic or ruthless in trying to do so [...] The sad truth is, this is reflected in the dieties and religions who grant the Good domain: they're dieties that are devoted, not necessarily to promoting good, protecting the innocent, and so forth (they might be that, as well, but it's not the thematic thread), but to smiting evil and stamping it out wherever they find it. The fact that some clerics might take this too far, and become far too ruthless, but still be devoted to their religion despite this, and keep their spellcasting ability, makes a great deal of sense, to me. Granted, this issue does also touch on a deeper pet peeve of mine, which is that the Good and Evil domains (and the Law and Chaos domains) are largely mirror images of each other, even in cases (as with Holy Word or Protection from Good) where this stretches the flavor of the alignments in question. I always thought that asymmetric, but equivalent, domains, while harder to write and balance, could make for a better fit with the flavor of D&D's good and evil, and make them something more that couldn't easily be replaced with "White hats and Black Hats" or "Red Shirts and Blue Shirts", as folks in the Sacred Cows thread in General keep on pointing out. So, that said, I wondered first if anyone else felt this way, particular with regards to spells like Holy Word, and second, how people would make the Good domain feel more good, and the Evil domain feel more evil, rather than having them essentially be mirrors of each other. This seems particularly challenging because on the one hand, the goal would be assymetric -but well-balanced- domains, but on the other hand, it seems like we'd also want to avoid approaches that were a bit too hackneyed or cliched, like the BoXD approaches, or just giving Good all the protection spells, and Evil all the smitey ones. So, thoughts? Anyone?
Escef 10-14-06, 03:50 PM	Good does defend the innocent. And as any good tactician can tell you, the best defense is a good offense. (Pun not intended, but whole-heartedly employed.)
yrogerg 10-14-06, 04:02 PM	Good does defend the innocent. And as any good tactician can tell you, the best defense is a good offense. (Pun not intended, but whole-heartedly employed.) No, sure. But, neutral people are innocents, too, so Holy Word doesn't exactly scream "Protect the Innocent" so much as it screams "SMITE EVERYTHING!!!!!1". There has to be some way to replace it with an equally powerful, but less heavy-handed spell, and personally, I'd rather reflavor the entire domain lists so they're not mirrors of each other. (Gah, suddenly I think that maybe I should have posted this in Magic and Spells, instead.)
ArcTan 10-14-06, 04:12 PM	It was nice that KotOR did have the clear split between "Light Side Powers" and "Dark Side Powers". The logic didn't entirely make sense for all of them, sure, but from a Star Wars perspective it was nice to see that the Light Side of the Force allows you to do certain things much better (personal enhancement, subtle forms of alteration of the environment, etc. -- things that require internal peace and serenity) while the Dark Side of the Force lets you do other things much more easily (direct assault damage, disruption of other people's abilities -- things that require aggression and focus). Please note, though, that you can make an argument that the Light Side is as much Law as it is Good and the Dark Side is as much Chaos as it is Evil (indeed, the two poles are really LG and CE in Star Wars, and so someone like, to use KotOR again, Jolee Bindo who's clearly a very Good man when it comes right down to it is "gray" because he's CG rather than LG). I do like this better than the old-school SWRPG thing where the Dark Side powers are basically, well, very powerful powers you're not allowed to use without acquiring Dark Side points (so that the Emperor in SWRPG is objectively less powerful than Yoda but uses the magic you're not allowed to ues and pays the price for it). It's another way to do the concept, and one that makes more sense in a lot of ways, but does make it much harder to use the mechanics cleanly to create a mechanically balanced war between Light Side and Dark Side factions -- a Dark Side character is in many ways an objectively bad character for anything but an NPC major villain. In any case, taking a page from KotOR's approach to the Light Side/Dark Side business would work to make the Good/Evil distinction more interesting, if harder to balance.
Escef 10-14-06, 04:28 PM	No, sure. But, neutral people are innocents, too, so Holy Word doesn't exactly scream "Protect the Innocent" so much as it screams "SMITE EVERYTHING!!!!!1". Hey, you can't make an omelette with breaking a few eggs. The damage to neutrals is mostly there to ensure that you nail the amoral (as opposed to immoral, i.e. evil) underlings as well. Or you could consider it holy wrath the likes of which that even the neutrals take some of the fallout. The point being, if they are neutral and in the AoE than they are working with evil or you shouldn't have cast the spell until the bystanders were clear. Dropping a nuke like that indescriminately once (and only once) is forgivable, the character just didn't realize the scope of what he was doing. The next time he prays for the spell just have his deity (or an emissary thereof) contact him and let him know that he can't do that again. And if he does anyway it becomes time to strip his spellcasting from him. Yes, it is a a deadly, semi-descriminatory spell, and as such should be used carefully. But we can say the same about lower level spells like Flame Strike and Fireball. You have to learn when and where to whip out the big guns.
yrogerg 10-14-06, 05:11 PM	Hey, you can't make an omelette with breaking a few eggs. The damage to neutrals is mostly there to ensure that you nail the amoral (as opposed to immoral, i.e. evil) underlings as well. Or you could consider it holy wrath the likes of which that even the neutrals take some of the fallout. The point being, if they are neutral and in the AoE than they are working with evil And yet, that really doesn't sound like any portrayal of a Good philosophy I've ever heard. Well, actually, it does, it's just that it's the prevailing tone in BoED, where Good is defined by its willingness to fight Evil, and not a whole lot else. Which is, in fact, my point.
Escef 10-14-06, 05:24 PM	And yet, that really doesn't sound like any portrayal of a Good philosophy I've ever heard. Well, actually, it does, it's just that it's the prevailing tone in BoED, where Good is defined by its willingness to fight Evil, and not a whole lot else. Which is, in fact, my point. And yet you cut out the most important part of my post. If you are going to hurt innocents with the spell you shouldn't cast it. Holy Word is a very potent tool for destroying the evil and their amoral underlings, but it has the potential to deal damage to those who aren't evil but haven't been good people either. No one would argue that a wizard that drops a fireball with the full knowledge that he's about to roast the hostages isn't doing the wrong thing, but because a good cleric casts a Holy Word and does the same thing it's perfectly ok because he cast a spell with the word "Holy" in the name? I don't think so. Just because you were granted the spell does not give you license to cast it without considering the consequences. This is how people shift alignments. Furthermore, what good is the spell against non-moral enemies if it doesn't damage neutrals? Oops, I wasted a spell-slot on something that won't harm elementals, dinosaurs(animals), giant vermin, and most magical beasts, heh, heh.
MerlintheTuna 10-14-06, 05:49 PM	"Good" does not mean "hypersensitive pacifist." Sometimes you need to bust skulls. If you don't like that, you grab the Healing domain, not the Good Domain. Part of it is mechanical, as well. Domains need to be specialized. If the Good domain included what it does with healing spells interspersed within, it would be without a doubt superior to things like the Healing domain. And, as Sonic would say, that's no good.
a_psh 10-14-06, 07:39 PM	Given that D&D religion paints the Good deities as deeply connected to society and the vast majority of the Evil ones as degenerate, antisocial beings (with Hextor pretty much the only exception), isn't it kind of silly that dropping a Holy Word is the equivalent of a big and undiscriminate nuke? My own preference is for religious magic to be amoral, a tool that acquires meaning only when you use it, but this is blatantly *not* how D&D magic works. If you're really going to go in that direction (and I did), you're basically breaking down the arcane/divine split and getting rid of the whole idea of praying for spells. Working with the existing system, if gods are real and are granting all these powers to their servants directly, then they should actually reflect the deity's agenda and methods.
Seeker95 10-14-06, 07:40 PM	And yet, that really doesn't sound like any portrayal of a Good philosophy I've ever heard.The spell may indeed harm neutrals, but it is the wisdom of the caster to know when neutrals are aiding evil, and therfore choosing when to cast it.
ArcTan 10-15-06, 04:07 AM	You honestly want to know what I think? I don't have a problem with Holy Word *as a concept within the game*, as long as you view divine spells with the idea that they're not entirely created by human beings and therefore don't work according to human convenience. Holy Word, Dictum, Chaos Hammer and Blasphemy aren't spells calculated to have a certain effect created as weapons to be used by priests -- they're just things that exist that you can use. You utter a, well, holy word and it releases this big huge flood of energy that you can't control. It's pure Goodness. A Good person might not *want* to harm Neutral people as well as Evil people -- hell, he might not want to harm the Evil people at all. It doesn't change the fact that such a thing as pure Goodness exists, and that exposure to it is harmful, even fatal, for all but the most Good people. If you believe in the alignment poles as fundamental concepts of the universe (as Planescape depicts them), then the way they function makes a lot of sense. It even resonates with existing mythology. It was a fundamental part of Jewish myth and lore, for instance, that God's presence and things directly associated with it were *so* holy, *so* pure, that despite the fact that God has infinite love for all his creation and wishes all beings to strive to come closer to him, God in his pure form and anything associated with God in his pure form is so utterly glorious that it destroys anything exposed to it that is less than perfect. To see God's face is to be incinerated. To hear the true name of God pronounced in the language of the angels is to court madness. And it is for *this reason* that in order to give mankind a chance to develop in life and be worthy of him that God removes his presence from the world and speaks to humans only through intermediaries and indirectly. So yes, the idea of a Holy Word that destroys almost all ordinary people, except the few saints who have purified themselves and made themselves worthy to hear it, because it is *so Good* rather than so Evil, makes a lot of sense. The stuff about Law and Chaos -- which are morally Neutral and therefore by design don't care about whether they're helping or harming people per se -- also makes sense, almost more sense. (Things like the Amber series and Michael Moorcock -- Law and Chaos being fundamental forces that battle and cause great destruction for ordinary people trying to ultimately either freeze the universe into static conformity or disperse it into mindless insanity, etc.) So no. I don't think any of these is a fundamentally unthematic idea. Treat Holy Word as though it were the Tetragrammaton from the Qabbalah, Blasphemy as though it were the secret language of Cthulhu's spawn from Lovecraft, and Law and Chaos as though they were touching the Pattern and the Logres, respectively, in Amber, and it all makes sense. Of course, making sense isn't the same as being a well-balanced, satisfying or useful game mechanic from a metagame perspective. But that really is another discussion -- there are systems that feel better and make, perhaps, *more* sense, but taken in isolation I don't actually have a huge problem with these spells as what they are. Certainly a Good-aligned Cleric has *access* to Holy Word and considers the contemplation and meditation on what this Word represents to be a great blessing, but knows very well that to speak the Word aloud in public without thought for the consequences would be gravely irresponsible (which is why, in Qabbalistic magic, so many of the Names of God are *secret* Names of God and you don't reveal them to the poor less-enlightened less-holy masses for fear of what it would do to them).
ArcTan 10-15-06, 04:13 AM	Given that D&D religion paints the Good deities as deeply connected to society and the vast majority of the Evil ones as degenerate, antisocial beings (with Hextor pretty much the only exception), isn't it kind of silly that dropping a Holy Word is the equivalent of a big and undiscriminate nuke? I actually do think it makes sense that at the highest level, the nature of what divine magic *is* is that it allows you to expose people to deific power at its purest -- and the nature of pure contact with the divine is that you're in contact with something so big, so powerful and that *outscales* you so much that it simply destroys you if you aren't something like it, if you don't fit into it. Viewing the countenance of a god directly would, in a world that wanted to emphasize such a thing, have the equivalent of a Holy Word effect on anyone who did it. This is true regardless of the nature of the god, because what all gods have in common is that they are very big and very scary and therefore gods. A Good-aligned deity knows that he is just so Good that someone imperfect who stands near him will be overwhelmed by his Goodness -- their own identity consumed and subsumed by the force of his nature -- and so remove themselves from the as-yet-unworthy so they will have time to independently change their natures and come to the light as a matter of choice, just as God has veiled his face from the world for our benefit. Evil deities, on the other hand, might revel in the idea of blasting away everyone who's not them or like them by exposing them directly to their own horrific nature. But in a world where they have limited power, they might also try to restrict the degree to which they do this in favor of subtler means that corrupt people slowly and completely rather than shocking them with evil that simply destroys them outright, the reason that cults in Lovecraft keep their dark knowledge secret and only slowly use it to corrupt the world. Either way, it still makes sense that deities-as-a-whole do have the power to directly "nuke" anyone who's different from them and simply make the world fit their set of values by blasting away anything that doesn't fit it with raw power. They *don't* do this, partly because this would lead to a direct and bloody war of attrition between different deities, and partly because to do so would go against many of their natures (whatever their natures are, and not necessarily for nice reasons). But it *does* make sense that this power should be available in the form of a spell if a Cleric should ever need to make use of it, and that the Clerics who meditate the most on the fundamental nature of their deity's value system (the alignment domain in and of itself) should get easier access to it, and that nonetheless they will use it sparingly because of the danger it poses.
Lina_Inverse 10-15-06, 04:21 AM	No, sure. But, neutral people are innocents, too, so Holy Word doesn't exactly scream "Protect the Innocent" so much as it screams "SMITE EVERYTHING!!!!!1". There has to be some way to replace it with an equally powerful, but less heavy-handed spell, and personally, I'd rather reflavor the entire domain lists so they're not mirrors of each other. (Gah, suddenly I think that maybe I should have posted this in Magic and Spells, instead.) Neutrals arent innocent. To be neutral they are inherantly and objectively not good people. They may not be evil, but they sure arent good
a_psh 10-15-06, 04:35 AM	So yes, the idea of a Holy Word that destroys almost all ordinary people, except the few saints who have purified themselves and made themselves worthy to hear it, because it is *so Good* rather than so Evil, makes a lot of sense.I'm convinced.
Jhaelen 10-15-06, 01:44 PM	This seems particularly challenging because on the one hand, the goal would be assymetric -but well-balanced- domains, but on the other hand, it seems like we'd also want to avoid approaches that were a bit too hackneyed or cliched, like the BoXD approaches, or just giving Good all the protection spells, and Evil all the smitey ones.Well, that's problem and my question to you: What spells should be in the Good domain in your opinion? Healing spells, e.g. are not inherently good or evil since they can be used to heal both the good guys and the bad guys. I think you'd have to redo all spells to have different effects depending on the receiver's alignment to really achieve what you'd like to do. So Holy Word in a way is already on the right track.
ArcTan 10-15-06, 04:00 PM	Yeah, if you wanted to conceptually redo the basis of divine magic so that one particular kind of action -- whether used for good or ill -- can only be invoked by someone with a Good mindset and another only invoked by someone with an Evil mindset, I wouldn't directly object to that. It would, in many ways, though, be a different system. I mean, the way the Jedi powers in Star Wars ended up working in games like KotOR are a good example of this. There are many times when a Light Side Jedi would *love* to be able to send blasts of Force Lightning through a whole crowd of Sith Warriors rather than risk his life fighting them one-on-one with a lightsaber. But he *can't* do that, because even when his life and the whole future of the Galaxy depends on it, he can't bring himself to muster that much hatred for living things, which is what you have to do in order to create an effect like Force Lightning. Just as Dark Jedi would love to be able to channel healing effects through the Force and bring themselves back up to full strength from their wounds, but they *can't*. To heal requires a kind of peace, serenity and joy -- a real desire simply to live and love living and be part of the world -- that they can't muster. They are constantly *distracted* by their anger, their hatred, the things they want and they can't have, the painful memories they wish they could erase -- suffering is such an innate part of who they are that pain and wounds and disease weigh too heavily on their minds, they can't push them away. This is a weakness of being Dark Side, just as the inability to use nukes on bad guys even when it's necessary is a weakness of being Light Side. But this doesn't fit D&D, where divine power is a sort of pure power that can be used by gods on either side for very similar purposes. If you really wanted to represent this, in the end, I'd almost suggest you just drop the Good and Evil domains, and just keep other domains very strictly relegated to certain alignment sides. Don't let non-Lawful deities grant the Tyranny domain. Don't let Evil deities grant the Healing domain. Make sure Chaotic deities have access to the Liberation domain. Whatever. If you wanted to take this really far, you could strictly relegate domains to specific alignments -- which flies right in the face of D&D's concept that some gods can be gods of the same thing but from different value perspectives, but would fit this theme better. It'd be interesting if valued domains like War were *always* associated with Evil deities, Fire was *always* Chaotic -- and maybe a domain like Magic was always Neutral.