Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MatthiasKaiser 02-28-07, 01:24 PM	I recently moved and joined a new gaming group composed of one old friend and gaming buddy, and a bunch of people I don't really know well. There are a couple disagreements about core issues that came up, and I was hoping for a broader group's opinion. Some of us, myself and my buddy, believe that alignment is about values. If you're Good, you firmly believe in doing right by the people around you. If you're Evil, you're looking out for Number One, and you don't care who you hurt if you can get away with it. If you're Lawful, you want to uphold the legal system, and if you're Chaotic, you don't mind ducking the law when necessary to achieve your goals. There are individual variations within them, and nothing is absolute, but that's the basics of it: alignment is a person's moral and personal attitudes. Several other members of the group believe that alignment is... something else, but I don't know what. They believe that if you don't commit evil acts, you're not evil, and therefore, if you come up hot on detect evil, you're going down, and that's all there is to it. Their definition of "evil acts" is fairly narrow, too, so when evil is detected, we're fairly sure it's something Very Bad. I know this because the paladin is offensive and demeaning all the time, to many people, and the NG cleric sees nothing wrong with bullying the mage or roughing up helpless prisoners - as long as they don't die, because that, apparently, would be wrong. But these "aren't evil acts," and so there is no consequence in game. In my opinion, their approach is very hard on roleplaying. It's hard to remain in character when clerics and paladins behave this way, and I believe that if any in-character logic was applied, their deities would be appalled at their actions and strip them of their divine powers sooner than later. What do you guys think? Is this really the way alignment is supposed to work in DnD?
Singer_of_the_Song 02-28-07, 01:43 PM	I recently moved and joined a new gaming group composed of one old friend and gaming buddy, and a bunch of people I don't really know well. There are a couple disagreements about core issues that came up, and I was hoping for a broader group's opinion. Some of us, myself and my buddy, believe that alignment is about values. If you're Good, you firmly believe in doing right by the people around you. If you're Evil, you're looking out for Number One, and you don't care who you hurt if you can get away with it. If you're Lawful, you want to uphold the legal system, and if you're Chaotic, you don't mind ducking the law when necessary to achieve your goals. There are individual variations within them, and nothing is absolute, but that's the basics of it: alignment is a person's moral and personal attitudes. Several other members of the group believe that alignment is... something else, but I don't know what. They believe that if you don't commit evil acts, you're not evil, and therefore, if you come up hot on detect evil, you're going down, and that's all there is to it. Their definition of "evil acts" is fairly narrow, too, so when evil is detected, we're fairly sure it's something Very Bad. I know this because the paladin is offensive and demeaning all the time, to many people, and the NG cleric sees nothing wrong with bullying the mage or roughing up helpless prisoners - as long as they don't die, because that, apparently, would be wrong. But these "aren't evil acts," and so there is no consequence in game. In my opinion, their approach is very hard on roleplaying. It's hard to remain in character when clerics and paladins behave this way, and I believe that if any in-character logic was applied, their deities would be appalled at their actions and strip them of their divine powers sooner than later. What do you guys think? Is this really the way alignment is supposed to work in DnD? Just because someone is evil doesn't mean a good character can attack them. They have to actually do something evil first. Mistreating captives in any way is not a Good act. It doesn't matter if they are killed or not.
MatthiasKaiser 02-28-07, 01:48 PM	Just because someone is evil doesn't mean a good character can attack them. They have to actually do something evil first. Mistreating captives in any way is not a Good act. It doesn't matter if they are killed or not. Thank you. That's what I thought, and what I argued. But I was willing to accept the possibility that I was mixing my pre-law college courses in with my DnD mechanics. :)
ollieollie34 02-28-07, 02:12 PM	There is much grey area in the aspects of alignment and its up to your dm to properly define these aspects. As a dm i have a basic rule of thumb: Good people dont commit murder. Evil people do. Lawful people always try to tell the truth. Chaotic people dont. Good people help other people Evil people dont Lawful people run their life by a basic set of rules (Whos rules these are are dependant on that individual) Chaotic people change the rules to suit their purpose. Chaotic people would serve beer to underage minors Lawful people would not. Examples of alignments: Lawful Good: Superman, Aragorn Neutral Good: Batman, Gimli Chaotic Good: Frank Miller's version of Batman, Han Solo Neutral: Treebeard Chaotic Neutral: Punisher (Hes out for revenge not committing acts of good) Lawful Evil: Doctor Doom, Darth Vader Neutral Evil: Kingpin, Saromon Chaotic Evil: Joker, Bullseye
MatthiasKaiser 02-28-07, 02:22 PM	See, that sort of "extreme example" thing is present in the PHB, and I think it's part of the problem. We need more pedestrian, less iconic examples, so we know what more typical representatives of the alignments are like. If you cast detect evil, and someone comes up hot, and you're thinking that means they're Vader, Kingpin, or Bullseye, you've pretty muched skipped right past the possibility of interaction and jumped straight to the smiting.
swallowyersoul 02-28-07, 02:26 PM	within the context of the d&d rules, alignment is also something very concrete. evil isn't just what you do, it's what you are. detect evil will point out a lawful evil character, even if that character is at that moment rescuing kittens from a fire so he can give them to an orphanage. ditto for good, law, chaos. these are elemental forces of creation, like air earth fire and water.
MatthiasKaiser 02-28-07, 02:39 PM	within the context of the d&d rules, alignment is also something very concrete. evil isn't just what you do, it's what you are. detect evil will point out a lawful evil character, even if that character is at that moment rescuing kittens from a fire so he can give them to an orphanage. ditto for good, law, chaos. these are elemental forces of creation, like air earth fire and water. You might want to elaborate on this point to make it more directly relevent. I believe what you're saying is, it doesn't matter if a person has never committed an evil deed or committed a crime in his entire life, if his behavior is just a cover for his selfish, wanton nature, he can still be CE. Which is something I agree with. But you might be going someplace totally other with this, and if so, please go on.
blackjackg 02-28-07, 02:40 PM	Rather than try to tell you what alignment is, since there are more definitions in the world than there are pages of published d20 material (and that's a lot of pages), I'll just remind that the DM has the final word on this. Get him or her to intercede and tell your players "In this campaign, THIS is what defines alignment, and THIS is what constitutes and evil act." Then, if they (or you) don't conform to that ruling, consequences will be suffered.
MatthiasKaiser 02-28-07, 02:51 PM	Rather than try to tell you what alignment is, since there are more definitions in the world than there are pages of published d20 material (and that's a lot of pages), I'll just remind that the DM has the final word on this. Get him or her to intercede and tell your players "In this campaign, THIS is what defines alignment, and THIS is what constitutes and evil act." Then, if they (or you) don't conform to that ruling, consequences will be suffered. This is more a question of whether or not I'm going to stay with the group. I want to talk this out, and see if my problems with it are totally off base. If they are, I'll sit down and shut up, but I feel that the players' behavior, and the DM's sanctioning of it, makes it REALLY hard to roleplay. If other people manage to roleplay actual characters in this sort of environment, I'll try it longer, but if, as I suspect, this group's gaming practices are incompatible with my own, I'm not going to play with them for long. Without roleplaying, the game becomes essentially math class.
blackjackg 02-28-07, 02:53 PM	Cheerfully withdrawn. :)
Sudnji_cas 02-28-07, 03:03 PM	I know this because the paladin is offensive and demeaning all the time, to many people, and the NG cleric sees nothing wrong with bullying the mage or roughing up helpless prisoners - as long as they don't die, because that, apparently, would be wrong. But these "aren't evil acts," and so there is no consequence in game. No one expects the Spanish inquisition!!!
swallowyersoul 02-28-07, 03:12 PM	You might want to elaborate on this point to make it more directly relevent. I believe what you're saying is, it doesn't matter if a person has never committed an evil deed or committed a crime in his entire life, if his behavior is just a cover for his selfish, wanton nature, he can still be CE. Which is something I agree with. But you might be going someplace totally other with this, and if so, please go on. my point is that alignment interacts with the game mechanics in ways that aren't necessarily logical in terms of how we view ethics and behavior. i find it helps to remember that before i get my knickers all atwist about the alignment system. it's kind of like hit points that way: an unrealistic abstraction to make an element of play easy to handle within the game rules.
MatthiasKaiser 02-28-07, 03:25 PM	my point is that alignment interacts with the game mechanics in ways that aren't necessarily logical in terms of how we view ethics and behavior. i find it helps to remember that before i get my knickers all atwist about the alignment system. it's kind of like hit points that way: an unrealistic abstraction to make an element of play easy to handle within the game rules. Alright, then. So, what does that make your opinion on paladins bullying and demeaning the weak for fun, and clerics (of Pelor, if it helps) abusing people and assaulting the helpless? Is that permissible, do you think? Would the gods allow this to happen without thinking twice about it? In my opinion, alignment itself is one of the things that relies least on mechanics to operate, and more on judgement. It is very much a "spirit of the law" sort of thing. To my knowledge, there is no set list of good, evil, lawful, or chaotic acts to track alignment. It relies on DMs to say "I don't think your deity would approve of this action," rather than to check a list - otherwise I could get a specific page number to answer my questions. Sure, alignment interacts with other mechanics in some odd ways from time to time, and it's pretty vague, but it seems clear to me that someone who mistreats others for fun is not Lawful Good.
swallowyersoul 02-28-07, 03:49 PM	that's just exactly what i'm talking about. the 'good' as defined by the 'detect good' and 'DR 5/good' is in many ways a different 'good' from the 'good' as defined by 'loving kittens and sunlight and helping little old ladies' the first good is a clearly defined aspect of game mechanics. if i cast detect good on somebody, the only thing that matters is the alignment listed on his character sheet. he could be cutting an orphaned kitten's throat in the churc, but if his charsheet says NG, he pings as good. the second good is a mess of gray, widely interpreted and highly subjective ideas that cause as many arguments as they do create fun game experiences. prisoner dillemmas can grind a game to a halt faster than you can say 'fallen paladin'. i find it's best to separate the two as much as possible. clerics and paladins, as you mentioned, are problematic because they force them to interact. hence the sort of confusion that started this thread and others. thus the fact that alignment remains one of the most confusing and controversial aspects of the game. in my current game, we don't use alignment at all. we use a more detailed description of each character's values, allegiances and fears. all the spells and abilities that are tied to alignment simply don't exist. some are gone (protection from good, etc). some have been replaced (DR/ good is more flavorful and on a case by case basis)
MatthiasKaiser 02-28-07, 04:19 PM	That's funny. The DMG says that characters who don't act anything like their alignment get their character sheets changed, and an XP penalty. Kinda hard to reconcile that with the idea that being good and having a character sheet marked "good" are two seperate things. Of course, I'm getting into specific problems with alignment, not the fundamental ones. It really would be better to do away with it altogether and handle such matters as whether or not a paladin falls in-character, but I'm not running the game currently.
swallowyersoul 02-28-07, 04:56 PM	That's funny. The DMG says that characters who don't act anything like their alignment get their character sheets changed, and an XP penalty. Kinda hard to reconcile that with the idea that being good and having a character sheet marked "good" are two seperate things. Hence the problem and confusion. If I'm your DM, I may have very different ideas of what constitutes 'good' behavior than you do. Example: an orc is about to kill a baby. Your paladin is behind it, in the dark. You can't reach it in time and can only save the baby by shooting the orc with your bow right now. From behind. Without warning. You go ahead and make orckabobs since saving the baby is important. As your GM, I decide it's an 'evil' (maybe 'chaotic') act to ambush somebody like that. Despite your solid thinking, I ding you for EPs and take away your paladin powers. This would, understandably, hurt your feelings and perhaps cause an argument. The book of exalted deeds sheds a little light on the subject, but I disagree with many of its definitions of good. It gives too little credit for intent and focuses not nearly enough on long-term consequences. But again, that's another example of what I'm talking about: any time a clearly defined, objective measurement has to interact with something as subjective as ethics, you're looking for trouble.
johnhansen 02-28-07, 05:21 PM	Alignment is hard so it is no wonder many players and DMs remove it from game play, either by saying it does not exits or by playing it badly as the players mentioned and DM did in the OPs game. In the D&D RAW Good and Evil and even Neutral are more that moral concepts. In the real world a person was once considered evil if they murdered people. Now I like to think of myself as a good person but it is not like I have saved people from devils or clerics of a evil deity or even a pack of rabid wolves so perhaps in a D&D world I would be a commoner with a neutral alignment or perhaps if I was placed in a world with Evil in the flesh I would stand up take a sword in hand and destroy that evil so that the commoners of all the Good races could live in peace and free from the masters of Evil who would enslave them, torture them and kill them to hear the screams of their despair. In our world there is hunger from poverty and in almost any D&D world there is hunger from poverty. Magic and miracles do not solve all problems any more than money does in our world. So if D&D worlds like the real world have so much gray morals why have alignment at all. Because alignment is the tool in D&D that allows for black and white morals, yes Good and Evil. If you want a more realalistic game get rid of alignment but in so doing the devil is just a product of his up bring the cleric is just of a odd religion that breaks the law and the wolves are just ill.
Arrowhen 02-28-07, 05:26 PM	I recently moved and joined a new gaming group composed of one old friend and gaming buddy, and a bunch of people I don't really know well. There are a couple disagreements about core issues that came up, and I was hoping for a broader group's opinion. Nothing wrong with looking for opinions, but in all honestly they're probably not going to help you much. How a group approaches alignment is really just a playstyle preference. Just because people agree with the way you like to handle it doesn't mean the other players in your group are suddenly going to change your mind, any more than people on the boards disagreeing with you is suddenly going to make you decide that their way is more fun after all. Some of us, myself and my buddy, believe that alignment is about values. If you're Good, you firmly believe in doing right by the people around you. If you're Evil, you're looking out for Number One, and you don't care who you hurt if you can get away with it. If you're Lawful, you want to uphold the legal system, and if you're Chaotic, you don't mind ducking the law when necessary to achieve your goals. There are individual variations within them, and nothing is absolute, but that's the basics of it: alignment is a person's moral and personal attitudes. The trouble with "alignment is just attitude" is that attitudes by themselves don't mean much. What good is a spell like detect evil if it's going to detect everyone with an "evil" attitude? I guarantee that under an "alignment is just attitude" system, I'd register on a detect evil on any given day, so long as the spell was cast between the time I first woke up and the time I got my first cup of coffee in me. Detect evil would really be nothing more than detect jerk, and what's the use in that? Same goes for good. What's the use of having good attitudes if you're not willing to put them into action? If I have a lawful good attitude, but I stand by and do nothing while someone's getting mugged, am I really lawful good? Good attitudes don't make the world a better place; for attitudes to mean anything, they have to lead to actions. Several other members of the group believe that alignment is... something else, but I don't know what. They believe that if you don't commit evil acts, you're not evil, and therefore, if you come up hot on detect evil, you're going down, and that's all there is to it. The trouble with "alignment is just behavior" is that it makes it difficult if not impossible to determine what an individual's alignment is. How many good acts makes you Good? How many chaotic acts can a neutral person commit and still remain neutral? If I'm a scrupulously law abiding citizen but I cheat on my taxes every year, does that mean I instantly switch to Chaotic every April 15th? What if I give to charity, help little old ladies across the street, and rescue orphans from burning buildings on a regular basis? How many "free" murders do I get before I flip over to the dark side? Surely if you add up all the good acts I commit over the course of my life, I should be able to get away with at least one murder. If not, where's the hope for redemption? And what about motive? Say I'm a timid anarchist who believes that all laws are an affront to the sanctity of the individual and should all be abolished. I vociferously proclaim these beliefs to everyone I meet, attend (legally permitted) anarchist rallies, and publish (legally protected) anarchist manifestos. But I'm scared to death of going to prison, so I won't actually break any laws. If alignments are just actions, I couldn't possibly be chaotic. And where does this leave Neutral. How exactly do you define a "neutral act"? You can follow the law or break it, help people or harm them, but the only way to "act neutral" is to not act at all. You can say that it's not single actions that determine alignment but the sum total of them, but then we get back to "how many nice things do I have to do to make up for murder?" For alignment to mean anything, you have to not only look at what a character does, but why. IMHO, "alignment is just attitude" and "alignment is just actions" are both insufficient. But then, I think alignment is a flawed concept anyway. It's up to each group to decide how best to deal with those flaws, though, and if the group you're with has a different way of dealing with them, it's up to you to decide if the rest of the game is fun enough to make up for it. If not, there's not much you can do about it other than trying to find someone else to play with.
KJW 02-28-07, 05:53 PM	Alignment is a nice tool for revealing how the DM views his campaign world and the morality underneath it. Players need to find DMs who have a viewpoint they can mesh with and understand, otherwise there is likely to be unhappy times. The truth is that many DMs can't grasp alignment, mainly because they don't understand ethical and morality systems beyond their own beliefs. D&D alignment is made up, there really is no such things as law, chaos, good, and evil, but it is a holisitic morality that is a systemic part of the mechanics. DMs need to either be able to use alignment effectively or perhaps just drop it. The need to assign what is good behavior and what is evil behavior and hopefully in a way that is logical to the players. So for a DM who thinks there is nothing wrong with killing, or that all evil should be destroyed, and a player who thinks killing is wrong there will be conflict in how alignment plays out. I have played with groups whose ethics I couldn't stand (this is regardless of alignment), played under DMs who assume good means naive and evil means cool, had players who just have no morals yet didn't want to be evil, and so forth. The lesson I learned is to move on when this is a problem. If a player and DM can't understand each other on the moral spectrum then it is best to find another DM or ditch the player.
Lord_Inan_Highcrest 02-28-07, 06:44 PM	I'm not going to quote anyone here but I must say. Alignment is mostly in the nature of the charecter. how ever " starting to ramble sorry" I had a chaotic neutrel theif that I ran as chaotic neutrel till her lawful evil assassin husband was killed. losing him was the turning point in her alignment and she became chaotic evil. I believe that alignment is dependent on what the character perseeves him/herself as. Actions do not make the character evil or good it is what you believe you are.
Squirrelloid 02-28-07, 07:08 PM	To the OP: Keep in mind the following: Not all acts are good or evil. In fact, most acts are neutral. Killing prisoners is certainly evil, but roughing them up a little is at worst a neutral act, and puts the Cleric in no danger of changing alignment. If the cleric needs to get vital information out of those prisoners, and can only do so by roughing them up, it is arguably a good act (where the 'bombs' are located, for instance, to save innocent lives), even if it involves somewhat brutal treatment of prisoners. (It might not be a *Lawful* act, but your N/G cleric doesn't care about that). Paladins follow a code *and* are L/G. Honestly, if he's not violating the code, and he's not being actively evil, he's probably ok. Otherwise you box all Paladins into the alignment I can only describe as "Awful Good", which is the worst thing ever to enter a game - because the character is as wooden as a 4x4 and twice as moronic. Nothing requires Paladins to be at the farthest extreme of L/G either - every act they commit does not have to be both L and G. Honestly, I recommend ignoring alignment for the most part - let the players develop their character's personality as they see fit. In the case of Paladins, as long as he adheres to his code (which has nothing to do with being L or G), and doesn't commit obviously evil acts, its not worth subjecting it to any sort of longterm scrutiny. Paladins are supposed to make the right choices when it matters, not be angels 24 hours/day. Also remember Paladins have deities - if his deity is a god who's all about beating people up (I know Greyhawk has one that Paladins can follow...), bullying people around is even *in character*.
Bruunwald 02-28-07, 07:24 PM	I think you can easily distill your differences with these people by saying that while you believe that it is in the thinking and philosophizing that one becomes evil, they believe it is through one's actions. Personally, I believe alignment is determined by what you are thinking while you are acting. A person helping someone for his own gain may not necessarily be good. A person helping someone out of charity, is. A person killing his best friend to take his money is evil. A person killing his best friend because it's the only way to stop the demon dragon thing inside him from emerging and destroying the entire kingdom in the next few seconds, is not. Really, though, you guys are arguing about nothing. Holding good concepts in your heart represents intent, just as much as acting on them does, though the former creates no effect in the world. It sounds like you guys just like to argue and disagree. My advice is to stop splitting hairs. Ask the DM what he considers alignment to be. Advise everyone there that you all should abide by his ruling, even if you disagree with it. Do this, and you will have a happier game, since you will not all the time be arguing the unsolvable just for the joy of being contrary. Simpler still, be content with playing alignment the way you like, and let them do the same.
not Yoda 02-28-07, 09:58 PM	Several other members of the group believe that alignment is... something else, but I don't know what. They believe that if you don't commit evil acts, you're not evil, and therefore, if you come up hot on detect evil, you're going down, and that's all there is to it. In my opinion, their approach is very hard on roleplaying. It's hard to remain in character when clerics and paladins behave this way, and I believe that if any in-character logic was applied, their deities would be appalled at their actions and strip them of their divine powers sooner than later. What do you guys think? Is this really the way alignment is supposed to work in DnD? I can't say that that is the way alignment should work, but I must admit that your group has refreshingly simple motives. That can thus be circumvented.
MatthiasKaiser 02-28-07, 10:53 PM	I suppose I should explain further. The specific issues that caused me to post are these: The cleric and the paladin make a habit of rather cruelly taunting, manhandling, and otherwise humiliating one of the other PCs. He's a halfling. Good aligned. No reason for them to pick on him other than his size, but they do. In my eyes, this sort of blatant disrespect is not only wrong, but entirely counter to the description of "good" in the PHB, and should at the very least cause the paladin's abilities to go bye-bye, and possibly the cleric's, too. This sort of juvenile behavior is really not appropriate for the mortal agents of divine will - at least for the relevent gods. That's the major issue. The second issue is a bit less troubling, but it is very disturbing to me that a paladin will cut down anyone, anywhere, for coming up hot on detect evil, even if they are not a threat or haven't even done anything wrong. He'll jump down the throat of the halfling, mentioned earlier, for almost killing a man in self-defense, but for himself, if it's evil, he's supposed to smite it. That's how the world works, in his mind. I don't agree. In my opinion, you don't have to have done anything evil to have an evil alignment, and regardless, he should be trying to convert the unoffending or capture the harmless.
swallowyersoul 03-01-07, 12:39 AM	your specifics are sort of my point from earlier in your thread. my opinion (different from yours, not better, just mine) of your first example is that the paladin and cleric aren't being evil. they're just being a**holes. a**hole does not = evil, though the ven diagrams do tend to intersect. now your opinion is no less valid than mine, but there we go into the land of trying to apply subjective judgments on objective measurement. ditto for your second example. your opinion is that evil=okay to kill shouldn't fly with a paladin. obviously the player behind the paladin disagrees. probably the dm does, too (since the player still has a paladin). like i said earlier. the rules say what happens when somebody is good. they're less clear on what it means to be good. it looks like your playing group disagrees with your definitions. it's probably time to either a) lighten up about the whole thing or b) find a new gang to play with.
pres_man 03-01-07, 01:27 AM	First off, as a player, what is good and evil, and how they are defined, shouldn't be your main worry. Let the DM worry about that. Not that I am suggesting players shouldn't have a say, but you worry about how to play your character that should be your focus. Don't worry if something is good or evil, lawful or chaotic, worry instead if your character sees it as "right" or "wrong". The cleric and the paladin make a habit of rather cruelly taunting, manhandling, and otherwise humiliating one of the other PCs. He's a halfling. Good aligned. No reason for them to pick on him other than his size, but they do. In my eyes, this sort of blatant disrespect is not only wrong, but entirely counter to the description of "good" in the PHB, and should at the very least cause the paladin's abilities to go bye-bye, and possibly the cleric's, too. This sort of juvenile behavior is really not appropriate for the mortal agents of divine will - at least for the relevent gods. This is what I mean. If your character views the P+C's behaviour as inappropriate, as "wrong", then he should speak up. Stand up for what he believes. They pick on the halfling, your character should get in their face. "You mess with peck, you mess with me." Who in the fraking planes cares if their deities are ok with their behaviour, your character isn't so your character should deal with them. "Can the juvenile behaviour, or haven't you started your pubs yet?" Heck, I almost had a character come to blows with a party member because of this. We were attacked, ambushed. When we had beaten several of them, I called for the remaining to surrender. A couple of them did, and I tied them up. Another player, a mystic theurge, had taken a lot of the hits (looking squishy), and wanted some payback on our prisoners. I told her, "You'll get to them over my dead body." And drew my sword. They were in my custody and I damn well wasn't going to let some immature character harm them. Play the character, let those that worry about universal aspects deal with alignment. That's the major issue. The second issue is a bit less troubling, but it is very disturbing to me that a paladin will cut down anyone, anywhere, for coming up hot on detect evil, even if they are not a threat or haven't even done anything wrong. He'll jump down the throat of the halfling, mentioned earlier, for almost killing a man in self-defense, but for himself, if it's evil, he's supposed to smite it. That's how the world works, in his mind. I don't agree. In my opinion, you don't have to have done anything evil to have an evil alignment, and regardless, he should be trying to convert the unoffending or capture the harmless. Well, I will say the idea of an "innocent" evil person is just mind-boggling to me. If they are evil, they probably deserve to be smited in most games. Now if evil means just mean and not EVIL then it would be inappropriate. But even in a game where evil means fiendish in mortal form (usually), just straight out smiting seems to be pretty short sighted. Often it is better to follow or gather information before that. Also if you think the other players are doing such a bad job, then have your charater lead by example. Take over watching prisoners, tell them that you will not allow them to abuse prisoners. If a paladin attacks an unarmed foe, unprovoked because the person detected as evil, give the character a hard time about his "honorable" behaviour, "Wow, that spoon was pretty dangerous looking, good thing you had your hackmaster +20 to take him out. You sure are a big tough guy aren't you. Don't let some defenseless person stop you."
Squirrelloid 03-01-07, 02:59 AM	That's the major issue. The second issue is a bit less troubling, but it is very disturbing to me that a paladin will cut down anyone, anywhere, for coming up hot on detect evil, even if they are not a threat or haven't even done anything wrong. He'll jump down the throat of the halfling, mentioned earlier, for almost killing a man in self-defense, but for himself, if it's evil, he's supposed to smite it. That's how the world works, in his mind. I don't agree. In my opinion, you don't have to have done anything evil to have an evil alignment, and regardless, he should be trying to convert the unoffending or capture the harmless. Why the heck are they detecting as evil? The game very specifically references good and evil acts - partially because just thinking naughty thoughts is no reason to condemn someone, just like thinking about giving to charity is no reason to commend someone - and partially because the DM can't know what the players or their characters are thinking, and so can only arbitrate alignment based on actions. Thus any evil character has by definition committed evil acts at some point. Frankly, in my games the only things that detect evil are the following: (a) things that are [Evil], (b) priests of Evil deities, antipaladins, and others with direct connections to evil powers *regardless* of the characters actual alignment, (c) evil undead (as opposed to mindless undead, who should be N and are in my game), (d) any character in the process of committing an evil act. Having L/E written on your character sheet? - doesn't ever detect. But that's how I handle it, ymmv.
HappyGhoul 03-01-07, 04:07 AM	From pages 103 to 106 of the Player's Handbook, it details alignments. First, make sure everyone involved has read this section, comprehended all it contains, and understood that it is not simply a summary of alignments for people who had to look up the word "evil" in a dictionary. Alignment in D&D is a system, just like combat, and a person who thinks D&D alignments use whatever defenitions they hold in reality ("Killing children is much worse than killing adults") is as bad as one who thinks D&D uses their opinions on melee weapons ("Yeah, you can get in two or three dagger thrusts in the time it takes to swing a lonsword") for combat. Some notable highlights of said system include the following: Alignment is Attitude, not Action Alignment is a measure of your general attitude, not necessarily your actions. This is fairly confusing, since we tend to use it the opposite way- the rogue is evil because he keeps killing people. The best analogy would be watching someone drop a colored ball down a pipe. The way you figure out what color he dropped in is by watching what color comes out- if a red ball comes out, you know he dropped a red ball in, just as if someone starts killing people for money, you know he's evil. But that's actually backwards: He's killing people for money because he's evil, just like a red ball came out because he put a red ball in. This is particularly relevant because it means that an individual needn't have ever actually done anything wrong to be evil. If you don't respect human life, you're probably evil; it doesn't matter whether you've actually had a chance to act on that impulse or not. For instance, someone can feel that it's perfectly acceptable to kill someone for stepping on their shoes, but never have actually done so. Maybe nobody's stepped on their shoes, maybe they've never felt it worth the effort of killing someone for said infraction, or maybe they've never felt confident that they'd win against anyone who's stepped on their shoes thus far. Regardless, they obviously don't consider human life to be worth much, and would therefore likely be evil. Killing Evil is not Good This is probably one of the worst, and sadly, most common, misconceptions about how alignment works. Killing evil creatures is not good. Not even if you know they did something bad. Frankly, the alignment of a foe never directly affects the alignment of your interaction with them- if it did, half the Abyss would be Lawful Good simply from stabbing CE creatures in the back at their convenience. So where does the Good from stopping Evil come from? From stopping the evil acts. Saying "I'm going to kill all of those orcs" is generally evil. Saying "I'm going to kill all of those orcs for attacking the village" is also generally evil, or perhaps neutral. Saying "I'm going to stop those orcs from attacking the village, but valorous combat is the only real way to do it," is quite possibly good. Being a contact sport, of course, valorous combat just might result in the death or serious injury of some of those orcs. But the express intent was never to kill them. That's why negotiating with them to get them to stop is still good and CDGing them after you've defeated them is still evil. You're "saving the village", not "slaying whatever's threatening the village." The Ends do not justify The Means Another common one. Simply put, killing an innocent to save another innocent is evil, because you're killing an innocent. Same with killing an innocent to save a thousand innocents. Chaotic or Lawful examples perhaps display this easier. It's not chaotic to strictly follow the rules in order to put a lawful person in jail, for instance. Nor is it lawful to flagrantly break all the rules to get at a chaotic person. The basic principle behind this is that alignments are paths, not goals- you're not trying to save the village because the village's existence is somehow Good, you're trying to save the village because saving the village is a Good act. Doing Evil to save the village defeats the whole purpose. Hope that helps. I'm sure they won't take this information lying down, however. ;)
Geogoose 03-01-07, 04:27 AM	MatthiasKaiser: First off, I'd like to clarify something. In your first paragraph you link a Lawful Alignment to the Legal System. This is not always true. Adhering to the local laws is just one of many ways a Lawful alignment may manifest itself in the game, it is not necessary to be always be "legal" if you are Lawful in alignment. A Lawful person may instead support a different ruleset, code, or behavioral pattern. The key is that Lawful people value order, discipline, structure, tradition, etc. A Lawful Evil Thief Guild Master might have very strict rules for his followers, yet the Guild's primary functions deal in illegal acts. Secondly, DnD alignment system does not weigh heavily intentions or thoughts. A townsperson who thinks nice things but never actually helps out a neighbor in need cannot really be considered Good. Likewise thinking dirty thoughts all the time does not automatically place you as Evil. Both of these examples are Neutral characters. They are the type of Neutral alignment person who leans one way or the other but never really commits or cannot muster up enough energy to completely care one way or the other. So let's address your comments on the behavior of the NG and LG party members. I'm still a little fuzzy on the exact level of mistreatment involved here. Do they makes jokes at the expense of the Halfling or do they Attack Him occasionally? Do they ridicule him or do they take his treasure share and only allow him to sleep in the stable? You see where I'm going here? Jokes and stuff while certainly not Good are merely Neutral acts. On the other hand, if the "joke" was allowing the Halfling to fight the wolves solo while the faster party members ran and laughed, then yeah that certainly would constitute loosing Paladin powers. The example of mistreating prisoners, but not killing, is a little vague for me to judge but in most cases would be wrong for the Paladin for sure while the NG would be OK so long as it was not routine or common behavior. Oh yeah, and finally there exist many levels and extremes within the alignments. The Paladin's code, for example, represents Extreme Good and Highly Lawful behavior. The "average" Lawful Good character on the other hand is a little less over the top in his Good deeds and virtue. This also goes for Evil types as well. Sure there might be a few psychopathic CE attack everything he see's types running amok in the world, but most CE's can restrain themselves from obviously self destructive behavior and not every LE NPC has plans for world domination and tyranny.
Geogoose 03-01-07, 04:45 AM	HappyGhoul: You post appeared before I finished mine, and I'd like to comment on it. I agree with the second and third points. But disagree slightly with the first. From the SRD: A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil. Your Attitudes are represented by your alignment. Not: Your alignment is represented by your attitudes. This is the Key. To ever earn the alignment, you must go forth and commit an act! Do you donate time to helping out a Neighbor to plow his field? Do you oppress others weaker than you? A character who has done nothing but Neutral stuff is, well, Neutral. Be careful and do not read what I'm saying as, "you are what you last performed". One good deed does not erase a lifetime of Evil.
pres_man 03-01-07, 10:54 AM	Ghouly, I agreed with most of what you said, but this caught my attention: That's why negotiating with them to get them to stop is still good and CDGing them after you've defeated them is still evil. You're "saving the village", not "slaying whatever's threatening the village." I have to disagree that CDGing someone is always evil. For one thing, there is not one thing in the texts that suggests it. Also in some situations it is hard to see it as an evil act, perhaps a little chaotic, but not evil. The party mage casts hold person on the BBEG the paladin is fighting. Are you saying the paladin can't then CDG them? See, I think that is just silly. Giant Red Wyrm that has been destroying villages and murdering villagers is caught asleep, it is evil for the paladin to attempt to drop it in one hit? Part of the problem I think is the idea of "redemption". If there is a chance that the foe might be redeemed then just out and out killing them (putting the danger down) seems unjustified. But in some games there is no "redemption" of some foes. The red dragon above might be one that it is stupid to think of as redeemable, stopping its evil then is the right thing to do (though not necessarily a good action). A character who has done nothing but Neutral stuff is, well, Neutral. Be careful and do not read what I'm saying as, "you are what you last performed". One good deed does not erase a lifetime of Evil. I think I know what Ghouly is getting at. Let me try to relate it to some RL religions (I am not trying to suggest one is better just using as analogies). In some RL religions there is the belief that one can go to eternal paradise if one performs certain actions (helping others, killing others, sacrificing a 100 cattle, etc). In other religions there is the belief that you can't earn your way to paradise, you can only be given the chance by some celestial being. In the second type you don't save yourself by doing certain acts, does this mean you don't do them? No, the belief is that if you have truly accepted following this celestial being then the state of your soul will motivate you to do certain acts, not because you are trying to prove you deserve to be in paradise, but because you are going there you are filled with joy and want to do those acts. How does this relate to D&D alignment? Well some believe that the acts are merely a shadow of the attitude. If someone never does a single evil act (I think having others do it for you counts as you doing it), then they are not truly filled with the "spirit" of evil and thus not evil. To really be evil then need to be filled with the desire to do evil and to be so filled that they can not resist not doing it on some occasions, though not necessarily all the time.
KJW 03-01-07, 12:39 PM	As for CDG being evil or really any particular action being evil, or good, this is for the DM to decide. The D&D alignment system is one of the few areas left in 3.5 that the DM still has to make judgment calls. This makes sense as alignment is very specific to every group. It is quite fashionable for us all to argue alignment issues, but it is vague because we all do things differently.
Leo 03-01-07, 02:02 PM	If a character is evil, it's because it has commited evil acts. If you find an orc, chances are there is plenty of inocent blood in his hands. And thus you must kill him, because otherwise he'll just live to perform more evil acts.
Arrowhen 03-01-07, 02:25 PM	If a character is evil, it's because it has commited evil acts. How many? If you find an orc, chances are there is plenty of inocent blood in his hands. How much is plenty? And thus you must kill him, because otherwise he'll just live to perform more evil acts. What about redemption?
pres_man 03-01-07, 03:12 PM	As for CDG being evil or really any particular action being evil, or good, this is for the DM to decide. The D&D alignment system is one of the few areas left in 3.5 that the DM still has to make judgment calls. This makes sense as alignment is very specific to every group. It is quite fashionable for us all to argue alignment issues, but it is vague because we all do things differently. Exactly, it depends greatly on the rules in the individual setting. If redemption is possible, and possibly not that difficult, and there are easy ways to secure individuals and hold them, then the idea of executing foes maybe thought of as evil. Without those things, I think it is a bit of stretch to say it is. What about redemption? Good question, what about it? Where in the PHB or DMG does even mention redemption? How does one redeem someone? Diplomacy checks? There are some rules in the BoED, should those be used? I don't think they work for evil outsiders (demons, devils), can those be redeemed? Are their organizations in the world that actively work on holding and redeeming evil doers (good churches, etc)? See a concept like redemption just can't be tossed out into the game without some kind of support and thought put in. Heck, who even says that good deities support redemption efforts. They could be more "righteous wrath of god" types. That when someone does something (or several somethings) that cause them to detect as evil, they have forfeited their right to redemption. It might be possible on their own to redeemed (turn away from their evil and try to make ammends), but that a good doer is expected to punish (usually with lethal force) anyone that has turned to evil (detected as evil). As KJW points out, much of this is totally dependent on the setting. That is why I say if you want to play your idea of a good person, play it. If your DM says that it is neutral and not good, so what. Sure that might mean you need to be ranger instead of a paladin, so what, describe it how you want. Take the leadership feat for a special mount. Play the character how you want, let the DM worry about if his actions are good or evil or lawful or chaotic.
Leo 03-01-07, 04:04 PM	How many? How much is plenty? What about redemption? 1-Something along twice the number of good deeds he has done. If he performed 0 good deeds, yet performs evil deeds in a regular basis, he's evil 2-Not how much. How significant. A guy who steals for a living isn't really a good guy, but hey, as long he is stealing from people who are richer than him. Stealing a farmer that will probably starve to death if he sees his meager wage stealed is definetely evil. Stealing a rich lord when you yourself are starving is somehwta evil-neutral, and neutral or even good if said lord is evil. Killing one inocent knowingly=evil, definetly Slapping a thousand people in the face because you like to do it=a little evil, but not enough to drop below neutral ifyou already are there. 3-If you manage to hold him/grapple him or otherwise incapacitate him then try to redempt him. But it's somewhat troublesome to get hold of a tribe of vicious orcs, especially when they are trying to slaughter you. Like the best blackguards are ex paladins, a villain who sees his mistakes and chooses the path of light is a mighty ally.
MatthiasKaiser 03-01-07, 04:42 PM	1-Something along twice the number of good deeds he has done. If he performed 0 good deeds, yet performs evil deeds in a regular basis, he's evil 2-Not how much. How significant. A guy who steals for a living isn't really a good guy, but hey, as long he is stealing from people who are richer than him. Stealing a farmer that will probably starve to death if he sees his meager wage stealed is definetely evil. Stealing a rich lord when you yourself are starving is somehwta evil-neutral, and neutral or even good if said lord is evil. Killing one inocent knowingly=evil, definetly Slapping a thousand people in the face because you like to do it=a little evil, but not enough to drop below neutral ifyou already are there. 3-If you manage to hold him/grapple him or otherwise incapacitate him then try to redempt him. But it's somewhat troublesome to get hold of a tribe of vicious orcs, especially when they are trying to slaughter you. Like the best blackguards are ex paladins, a villain who sees his mistakes and chooses the path of light is a mighty ally. That's some impressive ruling. Where is that specified in the books? And if it's house ruling, what is it meant to reflect? Ever hear of the BTK killer? The initials mean "Bind, Torture, Kill" He was caught recently, pretty close to where I live. He spent a ridiculous portion of his time doing good deeds, working with children, and otherwise being "good." But years ago, he was an active and very brutal serial killer. The years of good deeds didn't change him, any more than the good deeds he performed during the years he was a murderer made him any less evil. They were just him hiding. He got caught when he got bored and wanted to start up again. In DnD terms, he was evil inside, and no amount of good works would redeem him. I find this whole system of yours arbitrary and strange. Where in the PHB or DMG does even mention redemption? On page 134 of the DMG.
Geogoose 03-02-07, 02:25 AM	I like the example of the BTK killer. He would be considered Evil if translated to DnD. He performed a series of extemely Evil acts. The "Good" acts you mention, though, aren't nearly enough to redeem him nor can many be considered Good. They were his method of hiding his Evil nature. In other words he performed a service ("good" deed) for payment (reputation/hide from investigators). These would not always be Good acts in DnD. The line of thinking I'm trying to present here is that your actions determine your alignment, and your attitudes generally represent your current alignment. For me, the motive behind an action plays a part in determining whether the action is Good or Evil, but it does not play a majority part. Saving someone from danger is a Good act, but if tempered with the Rescuer desiring and requesting payment of some kind in return is enough to make the actual outcome a Neutral act. If this still does not seem clear, take the example of Orcs or a Farmer. Orcs may not have each killed X innocents to be Evil. They may instead abuse, demean, take delight in other's misery, and otherwise do and take stuff only for themselves. A good aligned Farmer need not have saved X orphans from a burning house or dethroned an Evil tyrant to be Good. The Farmer may instead share his time and meager wealth with neighbors, and otherwise help out in many ways for no better reason than because his help was needed by someone. If that Farmer merely spent his life doing only for himself, but thinking HAPPY THOUGHTS to his neighbors, he is still only Neutral. To use a modern Cinematic example: John Constantine. He spent his career expecting to buy his way into Heaven by destroying Demons. It wasn't until he actually sacrificed something of himself to help out another person did he earn his way into the light.
Leo 03-02-07, 07:10 AM	That's some impressive ruling. Where is that specified in the books? And if it's house ruling, what is it meant to reflect? Ever hear of the BTK killer? The initials mean "Bind, Torture, Kill" He was caught recently, pretty close to where I live. He spent a ridiculous portion of his time doing good deeds, working with children, and otherwise being "good." But years ago, he was an active and very brutal serial killer. The years of good deeds didn't change him, any more than the good deeds he performed during the years he was a murderer made him any less evil. They were just him hiding. He got caught when he got bored and wanted to start up again. In DnD terms, he was evil inside, and no amount of good works would redeem him. I find this whole system of yours arbitrary and strange. On page 134 of the DMG. So, by my system, he's evil. I clearly state that doing big irreversible damage and killing inocents knowilgnly are both pretty evil things and will turn you to the dark side no matter what(in my campaigns at last)
HappyGhoul 03-02-07, 04:21 PM	Do you donate time to helping out a Neighbor to plow his field? Do you oppress others weaker than you? I think we're talking about slightly different things here. I agree that verbally supporting an alignment isn't really supporting it; saying "I wish the orphans had food" doesn't change your alignment. Actually giving them food does. A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment Note the syntax carefully. If my mental stability is represented by a chart, it means the chart changes to match my mental stability. Also note that is says "attitudes", not "history of actions". So your alignment is determined by your moral and personal attitudes. Your actions are also based on your moral and personal attitudes, so for the most part they should synch up, but circumstances can alter this somewhat. The BTK killer is a good example. He was clearly evil in D&D terms: he killed quite a few people simply because it was fun. Given the option, however, he likely would have killed many more. The main reason he didn't was that it wasn't always feasible; he had to go to work, he had to sleep, he had to be careful to avoid getting caught, etc. His "moral and personal attitudes" weren't altered by having to go to work, it just put a limit on how much he could realistically indulge himself. If he had inherited a lot of money and so had more free time, it's likely he would have killed more people; if the cops had been combing the area at the time, it's likely he would have killed less. He wouldn't have been more or less evil- his moral and personal attitudes would have stayed the same- he just wouldn've expressed it more or less. Again, a person who states "It's fine to torture and kill people for fun" but never actually does anything about it, even when the rewards outweigh the risks (for instance, if he would find it fun and there's no chance of being caught) apparently isn't evil. But if he refrains from doing so simply because it's not convenient or practical at the time, such as when he's in danger of being caught or when he simply wouldn't enjoy it, that doesn't make him neutral, it just means his circumstances support or discourage specific courses of action. As an analogy, consider a dwarf who hates goblinoids, but truly loathes hobgoblins. If said dwarf's hatred amounts to telling people how much he hates them, but when push comes to shove he has no real interest in actually doing anything about it, he evidently doesn't hate goblinoids enough for it to really matter. If, on the other hand, there simply aren't that many hobgoblins around where he lives, but goblins are plentiful, he's likely to kill many more goblins than hobgoblins. This doesn't mean he hates goblins more, or doesn't hate hobgoblins more, or that he doesn't hate bugbears, it just means it's not necessarily feasible for him to act on those priorities at the moment. Again, part of the reason this is sort of difficult to explain is that player alignments are indeed based on their actions: If the rogue swears he's LG but keeps eating babies, it would seem he's mistaken. But this is mainly because it's the only sane way to do it; if asking players what their character's moral and personal attitudes were like would work, everyone's character sheet would match their actions anyway. It's sort of like how we divide combat into individual characters' turns, even though that's not the way it's "really" happening. I have to disagree that CDGing someone is always evil. I didn't mean to imply that CDGing someone was always evil; I was more referring to the specific example of CDGing someone after you've beaten them, since that's the difference between "I'm going to battle this orc to save the village" and "I'm going to kill whoever is threatening the village". It's the same difference between "We have to stop him or he'll ruin the plan" and "He has to die or he'll ruin the plan". Deciding that people need to die for getting in your way is evil; deciding that people need to be removed from your way through combat isn't necessarily so. If a character is evil, it's because it has commited evil acts. If you find an orc, chances are there is plenty of inocent blood in his hands. And thus you must kill him, because otherwise he'll just live to perform more evil acts. Something along twice the number of good deeds he has done. Well, let's examine this system for a minute. Essentially, a character's alignment is sort of a bank account- your actions accrue good or evil "currency", and your alignment is determined by your current bank balance. Also, killing evil things is a good act. a villain who sees his mistakes and chooses the path of light is a mighty ally. But wait- when said villain first realizes he's made terrible mistakes and starts acting like a good guy, he's still got that backlog of evil to work through, meaning not only will he show up on detect evil, but it's a good act to kill him. Assuming he works at the same rate, if he spends five years killing innocents, and then four years, eleven months, and 3 and a half weeks killing evil creatures, he's still evil, so killing him would still be a good act. If a character is evil, it's because it has commited evil acts. Then if you haven't had a chance to commit evil yet, you're not evil. So let's say there's a bloodthirsty young warrior orc. He has no concept of mercy or restraint, he loves the thought of assaulting defenseless villages for their wealth, and nothing makes him laugh harder than the notion that it's somehow wrong to murder things for no particular reason. But he's never actually been on a raid- it's not that he wouldn't like to kill an innocent, he just hasn't had the chance. But he still hasn't done anything, so he's Neutral, despite being bloodthirsty, cruel, and having no respect for the lives of others. On the other hand, consider a veteran orc who has just realized the error of his ways and is trying to think of ways to help people now. But he's been on plenty of raids and killed plenty of people, so he's quite Evil by now, even though he's remorseful and wants to make peoples' lives better. So now let's assume the young orc's band attacks the village where the veteran orc is. What do people do? Well, for starters, killing the veteran orc as he's handing out soup is Good. He still hasn't worked off that built-up evil, so killing him improves your alignment. Same with killing him while he's trying to defend the village against the other orcs. Second, killing the young orc doesn't help your alignment. Why? Because the orc isn't Evil, he's Neutral. So what does a truly Good-aligned individual do? Well, simple. He stands by while the young orc slaughters an innocent family, then kills him. Why? Because if he had killed the orc before the orc had done anything wrong, he would have been killing a Neutral creature- which is a Neutral act at best. If, on the other hand, he waits until the orc is nice and Evil, he gets an alignment boost from killing the orc. By this system, it seems to be more Goodly to avenge someone than to prevent their deaths to begin with.
Geogoose 03-02-07, 11:47 PM	Note the syntax carefully. If my mental stability is represented by a chart, it means the chart changes to match my mental stability. Also note that is says "attitudes", not "history of actions". So your alignment is determined by your moral and personal attitudes. Your actions are also based on your moral and personal attitudes, so for the most part they should synch up, but circumstances can alter this somewhat. Sorry for the quote there. I think I latched on to it late at night without putting it all together. Anyway it seems we are pretty much in agreement with everything, though. I still disagree with saying Alignment is all about Attitude, but for that matter I would Disagree with the inverse of that as well. They both matter when all put together. The groups I've played in all understood some basic theories about how DnD uses the Alignment system. To change your alignment, you need to want to change your way of thinking(attitudes) and then go forth and actually commit to the actions and behaviors of that alignment. DnD alignment system is special, in that a player chooses his alignment and THEN goes and roleplays the character. Since these are not real people, what you often get is a character played differently than his alignment would indicate, creating conflicts within the system. NPC's on the other hand, can pretty much be assumed in synch with how thier alignment reflects thier sum of actions and general attitudes towards life.