Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ezell Pike 07-23-06, 03:40 PM	How do you feel about alignments in general? Do they help or hinder? What are your opinions of alignment requirements in classes? Are they a necessary part of spellcasting or could some other instrument be used, like penalties? Pike Edit: Would personality traits be more useful? Eg. merciful and stoic.
CryoSilver 07-23-06, 03:58 PM	Alignments are pretty useless, IMO. I much prefer things like Sanity or Taint for my games. I think that the biggest problem is when people start letting their alignment determine what their character does, rather than the other way around.
Chicharron 07-24-06, 01:02 AM	I've said it once and I'll say it again... The alignment system is the single most useless mechanic in D&D.
Squirrelloid 07-24-06, 02:07 AM	Alignment is and always has been the worst aspect of D+D. It might help if alignment received clear definition somewhere, but it never does. We get nonsense such as 'Ember is a L because she follows her discipline, while mialee is (N? C? can't remember) because she's dedicated to her art'. How is that not the exact same thing? Then we get general alignment descriptors that totally fail to draw a line between L and C. And the whole idea of monolithic evil, while great when you're five, is ridiculous by the time you're 20. Then we have things like undead are inherently evil (because theyre animated by negative energy?), but the negative plane and negative energy itself is neutrally aligned. Huh? What does it mean that a skeleton, a mindless automaton that deserves the Construct type as much as it does the Undead type, is N/E? How does that even makes sense? I don't know, i didnt do it. Ultimately its a system where no one knows what alignment means, everyone justifies their alignment choices however they care to, and yet the mechanics make us look at that little blank on our character sheet to determine what happens for a variety of spell effects. And then we have class requirements, which are totally pointless. Monks required to be L? Silly. Bards can't be L... why? Must we be stuck with a Mercedes Lackey version of Bard as the only acceptable vision of their RP nature? Barbarians can't be L? - Totally flies in the face of every story about the 'noble savage'. Alignment restrictions only serve to bar character concepts, and are thus a waste of mechanics. Paladin's being L/G is legacy mechanics, and not even necessary. Force Paladin's to swear an oath to some noble purpose and hold them to that rather than some arcane formulation of 'alignment'. I mean, its not like being L/G stops the paladin from going and stabbing some guy in the face in 99% of games, so long as that guy was evil - or heck - so long as that guy was doing something opposed to the Paladin's idea of good. D+D is not complicated enough to implement anything resembling a real moral or ethical framework in mechanics, and it shouldnt try. Let the players and DMs set the tone of their campaigns.
Thurbane 07-24-06, 04:18 AM	While the alignment system is fairly well entrenched in D&D, I personally think it is often more of a hindrance than anything else - particularly when players or DMs use alignment as a blanket test for "what would the charatcer do?" instead of trying to develop some kind of coherent personality for the character. Saying that every free willed creature into the world falls into one of nine rigidly defined "personality types" is, at best, hard to swallow. In the "real world" I can be quite organised and lawful one day, and totally chaotic the next. Whenever I DM, I only ever use PC and NPC alignments as the broadest of guidelines for how an individual will behave, with the possible exception of paladins, clerics and extraplanar beings...
Azezel 07-24-06, 04:40 AM	In DnD alignment is black and white, abosolute, and the final arbiter od what is good or evil or lawful or chaotic is the Dngeon Master. It's that simple, if you want to know whether an act is evil, there is a guy sitting right next to you who can tell you. Alignment is both a necessary and useful system, most people who dislike it seem to impliment it badly. Alignment describes what your character has done, not what your character should do. Deeds lead Alignment, not the other way around. 90% of the time Alignment should never come up. Then suddenly there is a Protection from Good spell cast, and Alignment is important. Mostly this is all it is needed for. Alignment is critical for adjudication the effects of spells such as Protection, or for weapon special abilities. I'd like to know hoe one could have a Sword which is especially potent against evildoers (a fairly standard fantasy idea) if there were no alignment. There are a couple of fallacies about Alignment that are fairly commonly beleived. If a spell has the Evil descriptor, then casting it does NOT make the caster evil, not even a little bit. All the Evil Descriptor does is prohibit a serveant of a Good god from casting that spell, and sometimes not even that. The other is the idea that Alignment restrictions on classes are merely a way for the evil Hasbro to limit your creativity. Firtstly, the restrictions are a ballence ellement (almost everything in the game is, to a greater or lesser extent). The Palladin, for example is a really rather pottent class, but this is amelierated by a heavy alignment restriction. More importantly, Alignment serves the same purpose as things like Class and Cross Class skils and favoured classes for races. It is a factor of the nature of the people drawn to that class. Like the Barbarian - he may be noble, he almost certainly respects his tribe's elders and traditons, but at heart, he is wild, chaotic. This is the source of his mighty rage. He is untameable. He is chaotic. Now, some are utter wildmen, (chaotic) and some are more restrained (Neutral) but the barbarian's power cannot be reconciled with a truely lawful nature. It makes sence to me. Same goes for the Monk - the Monk needs utter dedication to acheive her abilities. A strongly lawful state. Now - one can argue that not every member of every class is like this - and I'd agree. Fortunately you have that guy at the end of your table, the one with the little card screen in front of him. He's a human, with a creative human brain and he will bend the rules if you give him a compelling backstory that explains how your chaotic wildman came to find the patience and dedication needed to master kung-fu.
VrecknidjX 07-24-06, 08:11 AM	How do you feel about alignments in general? Do they help or hinder? What are your opinions of alignment requirements in classes? Are they a necessary part of spellcasting or could some other instrument be used, like penalties? Edit: Would personality traits be more useful? Eg. merciful and stoic.1) By "in general" do you mean their usefulness to players, or as guides for how to roleplay an NPC, or something else? I see alignments as only the most general guidelines for PCs and NPCs. 2) I think that alignments help because the game assumes a very different sort of world than the one we live in, it assumes that powerfully good or evil beings have auras, etc., and that spells can manipulate or focus on those auras. If we wanted more of a Middle-Earth feel, or more of a real world medieval period feel, I'd drop alignments. 3) They could be replaced by some other instruments for spells, but I prefer not to rework things if I don't have to. 4) I find personality traits VERY helpful when role playing. I use the Myers-Briggs system. Dave
Morbid 07-24-06, 08:18 AM	I'm with Azezel... As it seems I always am.
WayneTheGame 07-24-06, 08:50 AM	Utterly hate alignment, and I think it's one of those things along with rolling for stats that should have died with 2nd edition AD&D. Alignment does nothing but shoehorn a character type into a stereotype and try to impose a straitjacket on roleplaying. Besides all that, even, is the fact that alignment isn't even consistent, and of course there is the utter ridiculousness of D&D being black and white, so that anything that's evil is utterly depraved and can be killed with no repercussions. It's like an old Western or movie serial; you know that the guy wearing the black hat is evil long before he shoots the sherrif or ties the damsel to the railroad tracks. Alignment is a ridiculous concept and has no purpose being in the game. It should have been done away with in favour of d20 Modern's allegiance system. Change Detect Evil to be Detect Evil Intent, get rid of the other ones, and change the Protection From/Magic Circle Against spells to be more generic like Bless. You and/or your allies gain the bonus regardless of what you face. You get the picture. But lame stereotypes and cut-and-dried, illogical nonsense (i.e. the Alignment system as a whole) only hinders the game and bogs it down. It helps nothing, and it's utter nonsense to consider it a type of "balancing factor" in any way, shape or form.
Sarella Starshine 07-24-06, 09:31 AM	Alignments should be a tool, not a hinderance. In the D&D world, a world that has supperfical connections to reality, good, evil, law, chaos are absolutes. Which works great, if you are not caring about reality entering your game. However, it will (and does quite frequently) break down to gibberish if you try to apply real world moraility to it. How that tool works however, is a subject of much heated debates (almost as heated, if not more so than any of the 'are alignments good or bad' or any thread with the word 'paladin' in it). Two strong camps are deeply intrenched in thier views of alignments (weither alignments are based off what your character has done or if your character does things based off alignment). And since this a topic about if alignments are a tool or a hinderance, any debates beyond 'they are a hinderance, and here's why' or 'they are a great tool and here's why' should be stiffled (aka the 'my way is better because' style arguements).
Azezel 07-24-06, 11:27 AM	Utterly hate alignment, and I think it's one of those things along with rolling for stats that should have died with 2nd edition AD&D. I quite like rolling for stats. That's not the point though. On topic, Alignment is a tool - like most tools ut is quite worthless when used incorectly, as Wayne can well atest. As evidence of Wayne's failure to understand Alignment I offer his suggestion for an alternative - d20 Modern's Allegiancees. A system which is just dandy, but is in no way a replacement for Alignment because it was never intended to be. Alignment is a tool for adjudication the effect of various magics upon a given character, based on what they have done with their lives up till that point. The fact that no two people agree on what Good or Chaos is don't enter in to it that's why we have Dungeon Masters. In no way does Alignment limit possbile characters, because (Bolded for emphasis) Alignment does not dictate Action, Action dictates Alignment. One ought not think, Hm, Ember is Lawful, so she will do X. Instead on thinks, Hm, I will do Y, and the DM says, 'okay, you do Y - you are now a bit closer to Neutral - if you do Y a few more times you will become Neutral and no-longer be abel to gain levels in Monk.' Besides which, if Alignment limits possible characters to nine than that means White Wolf's Virtue/Vice setup limits possible characters to 49 and d20 Modern limits possible characters to how ever many allegences the GM can make up. So even if you get rid of Alignment, you are hardly better off.
Edymnion 07-24-06, 11:30 AM	Firtstly, the restrictions are a ballence ellementNot always though. The Warlock has alignment restrictions to it which are in no shape, form, or fashion a balancing agent. They have to be Evil or Chaotic, exactly the two alignments who would go for the "Just blow 'em up and don't worry about it" method of thinking. So, there's no balance element there, as the alignments it restricts two are the alignments that would not put restrictions on their activities in the first place. The only reason the Warlock has those restrictions is for some pretty crappy background flavor reasons.Alignment does nothing but shoehorn a character type into a stereotype and try to impose a straitjacket on roleplaying.Congratulations, you just proved that you have no clue as to how alignment is supposed to work. Alignment is a thermometer, not a straightjacket. Alignment never restricts anything a character does, ever. It is a thermometer, it simply reflects changes in the character as they occur. Just like a real life thermometer does not make it hot or cold outside, neither does alignment force a character to do certain things. But, as long as it is hot outside, the thermometer will read that it is hot. And as long as the character acts and behaves in a way that is consistant with Good, they will be of the Good alignment. If they start doing bad things, they may or may not have their alignment shift towards Evil. Anyone that thinks they are restricted in what they can do by alignment does not know how alignment works in the first place. Any DM that says you can't do something because of your alignment (other than things like entering a circle of protection) is a bad DM that doesn't know what he is doing. Alignment is a background mechanic. It is not something that is supposed to come up in every game, but in certain circumstances it is important to have and know. So please people, actually go back and *READ* the section on alignment. Don't skim it, don't assume you know how it works (because we've already had people in this thread that prove that they don't know), but actually read the section and get to know how all of this works.
an_idol_mind 07-24-06, 12:16 PM	I guess I'm in the minority here as someone who sees alignment as something useful in the game. I see alignment as a useful way to guage where the PCs fit in with the rest of the world. I don't straightjacket them with it, and there are no penalties for shifting alignment in my game. However, on rare occasions, a PC's alignment will change due to their actions. This means that clerics can lose their faith (or find a new faith), certain magical items might stop working, or the PC's relationship with important NPCs (such as henchment and members of the same church or paladin order) might become strained. None of those shifts are arbitrary, and are usually only accomplished through long periods of role-playing. Is alignment necessary to the system? Not really. However, I find it useful at times.
Laucian The Black Hearted 07-24-06, 12:37 PM	Alignment is not restrictive, and if you find it is you're implementing it in your game wrong. As already stated, alignment dictates what you have done, not what you will do. When writing a backstory for your character this 2-word phrase should describe your actions in signifigant moments in your life. Most of the time it does not come up. Regarding classes and alignment restrictions, isn't that the class being restrictive and not the alignment? In Unearthed Arcana, they present different types of Paladins so that people can play more than just one type of holy warrior. If you find problems with what the class dictates, change it. You can create a variant of the class, expand the alignments allowed etc. However, there needs to be a reason for this. For example, if there is religious fanaticism in your world, then the variant Paladins are great because they allow for characters that have the strongest conviction all across the board, not just in LG.
Ezell Pike 07-24-06, 02:37 PM	Great answers everyone you really have me thinking. If you will, please indulge me a few more questions. Is alignment an obstacle to some because of the explanations of the nature of each alignment? Or Is alignment considered an obstacle because there are no hard mechanics for it? Such as X is an evil act if you do this you will move x amount towards evil. To those who view alignment as a tool, some consider it as a mountain range. (please forgive the Kung-Fu like metaphor. :) ) Something that is the result of tectonic(sp) activity, not the cause of it. To you I pose this question. I am playing with a DM that uses alignments. How can I avoid falling into the trap of "My character is CG so he would not do this."? If I have overlooked anyone I mean nothing by it, my mind is just travelling in this direction. Pike
Azezel 07-24-06, 03:47 PM	Great answers everyone you really have me thinking. If you will, please indulge me a few more questions. Is alignment an obstacle to some because of the explanations of the nature of each alignment? I think that lot's of people never read, or have forgotten, or have willfully misinterpreted the descriptions - and they are very short anyway. So this is a factor. Or Is alignment considered an obstacle because there are no hard mechanics for it? Such as X is an evil act if you do this you will move x amount towards evil. This is a good question. There is of course an ultimate judge, the DM - but lot's of people seem unable to grasp this. To those who view alignment as a tool, some consider it as a mountain range. (please forgive the Kung-Fu like metaphor. :) ) Something that is the result of tectonic(sp) activity, not the cause of it. To you I pose this question. I am playing with a DM that uses alignments. How can I avoid falling into the trap of "My character is CG so he would not do this."? If I have overlooked anyone I mean nothing by it, my mind is just travelling in this direction. Pike You can avoid that by ignoring Alignment entirely. Just play your character. If you play in such a way as to loose your CG alignment, well, that's character developement. If you do not loose your CG, then there's no problem. alignment really should not enter in to four games out of five - but on that fifth game, it is dashed useful.
Sarella Starshine 07-24-06, 04:52 PM	To you I pose this question. I am playing with a DM that uses alignments. How can I avoid falling into the trap of "My character is CG so he would not do this."? Pike easy, think of what a CG character would do under various situations, and follow those tendencies. like some of the people on this thread, alignment does derrive from your actions, but i go further and say that's because how your character thinks. if your character is a CG person, when presented with a choice, he would chose the one that he will take will fit his general outlook, not because he is 'forced' to by his alignment, but because that choice will go best with his thought process which, based on his prior actions, is CG. But also as stated, if he starts doing things away from a CG standpoint, means he has changed his thought process towards and may have changed towards another alignment, which will occur if he continues to do things not in conjunction with a CG nature.
a_psh 07-24-06, 07:07 PM	Alignment is critical for adjudication the effects of spells such as Protection, or for weapon special abilities.Alignment may have its utility, but this isn't it. This issue can trivially be solved by removing the dozen spells and special abilities in question, or by removing 10% of them and changing the rest to affect any target (kicking them up a level if they seem "too powerful" after the change). Is the Smite Anything ability really all that different from a Smite Evil special ability in the hands of a paladin sworn to be merciful, defend the weak, &c., &c.? Firtstly, the restrictions are a ballence ellement (almost everything in the game is, to a greater or lesser extent). The Palladin, for example is a really rather pottent class, but this is amelierated by a heavy alignment restriction.Roleplaying requirements are not a form of game balance. Ever. The incorrect assumption that they are has produced such abominations as the BoED.
Verelor 07-24-06, 08:21 PM	New flash....Alignment is not a restriction or straitjacket!! It is a way to categorize the moral and ethical leanings of characters and creatures, as well as tendencies of certain personality types, and can also be a source of empowerment for divine characters! Actions determine alignment, not the reverse! Alignment is fun if used well and is a drag if used incorrectly, like nearly all other elements of the game! Alignment will always be as much a part of the authentic Dungeons & Dragons experience as ability scores, beholders, d20's, half-orcs, and +1 swords! Copy this into your sig...like I care!!!!!
Squirrelloid 07-24-06, 10:29 PM	I quite like rolling for stats. That's not the point though. On topic, Alignment is a tool - like most tools ut is quite worthless when used incorectly, as Wayne can well atest. As evidence of Wayne's failure to understand Alignment I offer his suggestion for an alternative - d20 Modern's Allegiancees. A system which is just dandy, but is in no way a replacement for Alignment because it was never intended to be. Alignment is a tool for adjudication the effect of various magics upon a given character, based on what they have done with their lives up till that point. The fact that no two people agree on what Good or Chaos is don't enter in to it that's why we have Dungeon Masters. In no way does Alignment limit possbile characters, because (Bolded for emphasis) Alignment does not dictate Action, Action dictates Alignment. One ought not think, Hm, Ember is Lawful, so she will do X. Instead on thinks, Hm, I will do Y, and the DM says, 'okay, you do Y - you are now a bit closer to Neutral - if you do Y a few more times you will become Neutral and no-longer be abel to gain levels in Monk.' Besides which, if Alignment limits possible characters to nine than that means White Wolf's Virtue/Vice setup limits possible characters to 49 and d20 Modern limits possible characters to how ever many allegences the GM can make up. So even if you get rid of Alignment, you are hardly better off. So, it doesnt matter if we agree on what alignment means, the DM will just adjudicate it. And you don't get to know how your actions will fall out of the alignment assignment, because you don't even know what "Lawful" is, and aren't acting from a conviction to Lawfulness, the DM decides after the fact. And then suddenly you, playing a monk, find you can no longer gain monk levels because you're now N/G instead of L/G. Tell me how alignment restrictions make sense from the standpoint that your actions determine alignment, not your alignment determines actions. While we're at it, tell me how in a world where classes have alignment restrictions its at all fair for the players not to know exactly what is G, E, L, and C so they can avoid having a large metal rod shoved you-know-where and be stuck spinning.
savant_warlord13 07-24-06, 10:33 PM	If it wasn't for alignment-based effects, which I like, I would do away with alignment.
Edymnion 07-24-06, 10:37 PM	Just play your character.Which is of course the correct answer. You should never be playing an alignment. You should play the character however you want, and then pick whatever alignment is closest to the way you play your character. If the way you play them changes over time, then their alignment may change over time as well, but its not something you should worry about while playing. Just do whatever you want, as long as you think its something that character would do, and don't worry about mechanics and alignments.
Verelor 07-24-06, 10:45 PM	:) Just in case noone noticed: New flash....Alignment is not a restriction or straitjacket!! It is a way to categorize the moral and ethical leanings of characters and creatures, as well as tendencies of certain personality types, and can also be a source of empowerment for divine characters! Actions determine alignment, not the reverse! Alignment is fun if used well and is a drag if used incorrectly, like nearly all other elements of the game! Alignment will always be as much a part of the authentic Dungeons & Dragons experience as ability scores, beholders, d20's, half-orcs, and +1 swords! Copy this into your sig...like I care!!!!! Just play your character. How true. Just roleplay your character's personality and alignment is applied accordingly. The exception is an examplar/divine character, that champions ideals as part of their personality and characteristics. The alignment system is the single most useless mechanic in D&D. Except for the fact that it is not, because the entire cosmology and divine realm of the setting is based on alignment, it helps to classify personality traits, and it is one of the hallmarks of what makes D&D..D&D.
Titan W 07-25-06, 01:49 AM	Well I have seen the alignment system act as both an annoyance from personal experiences and as such I would say that it greatly depends on the application and the group. As an example for how I found it a hindrance I had a fighter (My first ever character actually) who always took the option to deal non-lethal damage and I even talked to the DM about modifying his weapon using padding so that I would only suffer a -2 penalty on attacks to do so. The one restriction on this was when his life was in danger or the lives of those he was traveling with or others who were in unnecessary danger. The reason was that simply killing someone who was weaker would be a waste of someone who could learn and grow stronger. He only ever actually felt the need to kill once or twice. He was a bit rough around the edges but still not a bad guy per-se. (The cleric in the party played a pacifist who maybe hit something once and the DM was annoyed and gave him a mace from his diety so that he would attack things, ironicly he still stayed a pacifist NG cleric of pelor and we were still fine in combat he just backed us up with buffs and stuff but I digress...) Overall he was generally a TN leaning LN or NG in his tertiary actions, however after about 4 sessions (I was planning on moving towards lawful to pick up a few levels of a PRC forget which) when he said, "You've been causing enemies undue suffering by not killing them outright and because you tried to negotiate with a goblin horde and create an alliance and not drive them out of their homes you are now NE." which thoroughly messed up my character as the NG cleric of pelor NPC and the paladin were now hunting down my character, The other cleric of pelor tried to help with the convincing of the NG cleric and the paladin that I wasn'tany worse than him... Regarding classes, I generally wave any alignment restriction on classes with the exception of the paladin, which I remove the "Cannot conspire with X" and change it to "Dislikes conspiring with X and generally avoids it" as that's the line that's probably cause for more headaches than anything else in my games. In my games I also am beginning to think of just leaving it as a "Tendency from birth" as the mental ability scores are with spells, as it would make everything a lot simpler to just say "He has a naturally evil aura" however could generally be a good person it just means that they aren't as adept at it from the start.
Weaponbreaker 07-25-06, 02:50 AM	<SNIP> As a very experienced player who has been playing since the late 1980s the alignment system works because it does, thats how high fantasy works. If you need proof look at all of the high fantasy you read there are good guys, bad guys and neutral guys. Sure you have tragic heroes, but they are still good guys, think of them as white hats with spots of mud on them. If you prefer a non-align system play something other that D&D there are plenty of games written more to your styles of play find one and go away please.
Titan W 07-25-06, 03:02 AM	TO THOSE THAT CONTINUE TO TROLL THESE BOARDS WITH POINTLESS CONVERSATIONS LIKE THIS ONE PLEASE STOP. THE ALIGNMENT SYSTEM EXISTS GET OVER IT! I KNOW YOU ARE SIXTEEN (physicaly or mentally) AND SEE THE WORLD SO CLEARLY THAT IT IS SHADES OF GRAY AND YOUR MOM AND DAD ARE SO WRONG AND YOU HAVE THE BEST IDEA EVER CREATE SHADES OF GRAY OR MAKE IT SUBJECTIVE TO POV...BLAH...BLAH...BLAH. As a very experienced player who has been playing since the late 1980s the alignment system works because it does, thats how high fantasy works. If you need proof look at all of the high fantasy you read there are good guys, bad guys and neutral guys. Sure you have tragic heroes, but they are still good guys, think of them as white hats with spots of mud on them. If you prefer a non-align system play something other that D&D there are plenty of games written more to your styles of play find one and go away please. That was a rather uncallled for and imature post. The truth of the matter is that while alignment does have it's uses it also has some currently crippling problems, and FYI if there's only one system in a game you don't like, I'm personally not one to throw the whole game out and try another one, and to request that is generally rude and actually as you have made no benefit to this discussion very trollish. Sometimes by the DnD deffinition of evil somone actually wants to play somone who fits that deffinition but truly wants to go and work for good, and there have been many probems caused by alignment, however that also does not make it a bad system either, the problem arises when people's morals conflict with the DnD system morals, or they use it as a device for balance when all it does is annoy other player's character concepts (Paladin almost excusively) As such to increase detail in my opinion as previously stated, I think that alignment would be better if it were fine-tuned more and far more linient in terms of actual mechanical use, as in 3.5 alignment governs far too much in reguards to classes and certain abilities. That said it would be a simple fix to simply remove all alignment restriction from all classes and have the paladin be more of a "Write your own code and stick to it" sort of character.
Thurbane 07-25-06, 04:26 AM	I quite like rolling for stats. That's not the point though. On topic, Alignment is a tool - like most tools ut is quite worthless when used incorectly, as Wayne can well atest. As evidence of Wayne's failure to understand Alignment I offer his suggestion for an alternative - d20 Modern's Allegiancees. A system which is just dandy, but is in no way a replacement for Alignment because it was never intended to be. Alignment is a tool for adjudication the effect of various magics upon a given character, based on what they have done with their lives up till that point. The fact that no two people agree on what Good or Chaos is don't enter in to it that's why we have Dungeon Masters. In no way does Alignment limit possbile characters, because (Bolded for emphasis) Alignment does not dictate Action, Action dictates Alignment. One ought not think, Hm, Ember is Lawful, so she will do X. Instead on thinks, Hm, I will do Y, and the DM says, 'okay, you do Y - you are now a bit closer to Neutral - if you do Y a few more times you will become Neutral and no-longer be abel to gain levels in Monk.' Besides which, if Alignment limits possible characters to nine than that means White Wolf's Virtue/Vice setup limits possible characters to 49 and d20 Modern limits possible characters to how ever many allegences the GM can make up. So even if you get rid of Alignment, you are hardly better off. It's quite conceited to assume that people who don't like the alignment system "don't get it" or "don't use it properly". I don't know what I need to offer as credentials, but I have played D&D intesively for just on 20 years. I think I may have some grasp of how alignment is "supposed" to be used and implemented, and I still don't think it's a particularly great part of the game. Sure, some people implement it more successfully than others - but it doesn't mean I have to like it. Fact is, I don't. but guess what? That's an opinion, just like yours. ;)
a_psh 07-25-06, 10:28 AM	As a very experienced player who has been playing since the late 1980s the alignment system works because it does, thats how high fantasy works.As an experienced user of the Internet who has been using the Internet since the mid-1990s, I can tell you that typing things in GIANT RED CAPITAL LETTERS inevitably and unavoidably makes you look like a twit. If you prefer a non-align system play something other that D&D there are plenty of games written more to your styles of play find one and go away please.Umm, is it not easier and wiser to remove one rule you don't like from a game than to go look for a whole new system you like that doesn't have that rule? This applies to warlocks, the Natural Spell feat, Divine Metamagic, monk/paladin multiclassing restrictions, plane shift, and the Deck of Many Things -- why shouldn't it also apply to alignment? As a game mechanic, it's certainly a sacred cow, but it's hardly fundamental. d20's modularity makes every player and GM a mini-game-designer, and re-evaluating sacred cows to make sure that they aren't just pointless bloat is an important aspect of good design. Meh, I don't really hate alignment or anything. But I am about to remove it because of its irrelevance to a low-magic game... Actually, wait, you know what's wrong with alignment? All the abilities that use it. The ability to detect alignment means that sneaky enemies have to have tons of magical loot specifically to block it. The ability to detect alignment frees paladins from having to actually judge and consider whether they believe someone is good or evil. Holy word and friends have serious brokenness issues. Forbiddance just plain doesn't make a lot of sense because it is too grounded in the assumption that allies have the same alignment as you and enemies have the opposite alignment, but simultaneously realizes this is not the case and adds all kinds of other tricks (the password and whatnot) to try to fix it. None of these things really help you weave more interesting stories, offer exciting wargame-y challenges, or mesh well with the rest of the spell rules. And having to give the bad guys expensive swag just to make them clever is really, really dumb. There we go: alignment is a problem because most of the game mechanics that actually reference it are crap.
MojoMonkeyMan 07-25-06, 10:54 AM	I found some early modules from 1st edition - B1 and B2. They are considered starting modules (for those who aren't familiar), and they contain information for the dungeon master and players about how to make characters and run the game. Some very basic but useful information. Anyway, these modules state that players should not choose their characters' alignment at first level. The alignment will be determined by the DM based on the player's actions. So - regarding classes with alignment restrictions - You may start as a paladin, and if you act in a manner generally consistent with the DM's concept of lawful good, you may continue to advance as a paladin. This seems to make the most sense to me. It allows the DM to inform players during the initial few game sessions about his or her feelings regarding their actions. A good DM, therefore, must communicate with players about how his or her actions will affect their alignment. Players are also free to try to influence the DM's ultimate decision with coherent arguments regarding their character's actions.
Brand_X 07-25-06, 11:10 AM	I do not think alignment is an issue or that it is not useful. Alignment at character creation like stats and classes is the framework you choose to give you a springboard to RP from. If you do not like the LG Paladin ask your DM if you can play a LN Paladin. Since 1st edition I have believed that Paladins have to follow the alignment and dogma of their god. Tempus is an example. Your Paladin should roughly fit into the concept of someone who glories for war. Someone who believes in personal battles and fighting rather than say intrigue and backstabbing. A Bard can be lawful if he is a Skald type Bard but if he is the whymsical, never sitting still adventurer then he is more than likely not going to follow the laws of the land. If I create a Monk I have already in my mind created a Lawful character with devotion and purpose in his life. Being Lawful from there is easy. Alignments are not a constraint but a framework of the kernel concept for your character. Afterwards it is a benchmark of how the character is doing. If the Monk is a Human and continues to attack Elves all the time due to a prejudice against Elves he will eventually be Evil but can still be lawful. If he attacks short men for no reason but does it on an erratic basis he then slips to a Chaotic if not Chaotic Evil definition. This does not mean that he cannot straighten out and again follow the path of Lawful Good it just means that at that time he is acting in an alignment type that is not what he started as. A Barbarian is a free spirit not constrained to a set definition or path. He follows where the wind takes him so to speak. All in all I like the definitions of alignment that Palladium uses better than D&D. Also in a world where the general concept is of Heros vs Villians such as we see in the movies I think real world attitudes about alignment are wrong to bring into molding the alignments. Bottom line... if you are the DM and do not like alignments then don't use them. If you play a game with a DM who uses alignments and you do not like them then find another DM. Brand X Generic GM
Titan W 07-25-06, 12:13 PM	I found some early modules from 1st edition - B1 and B2. They are considered starting modules (for those who aren't familiar), and they contain information for the dungeon master and players about how to make characters and run the game. Some very basic but useful information. Anyway, these modules state that players should not choose their characters' alignment at first level. The alignment will be determined by the DM based on the player's actions. So - regarding classes with alignment restrictions - You may start as a paladin, and if you act in a manner generally consistent with the DM's concept of lawful good, you may continue to advance as a paladin. The problem with this is that in the 3E system that makes certain cahracters unplayable as somone wouldn't want to play a paladin if they knew that their DM could say "You really play more NG than LG (or LN than LG) in my opinion so that's going to be your starting alignment," at 2nd level, as that's basicly causing the player to completely change play style or give up a full character level and their concept. It allows the DM to inform players during the initial few game sessions about his or her feelings regarding their actions. A good DM, therefore, must communicate with players about how his or her actions will affect their alignment. Players are also free to try to influence the DM's ultimate decision with coherent arguments regarding their character's actions. Not all DMs listen to those arguments and not every DM is a good DM and if you look at the way the alignments are layed out to be sure of your position in an alignment you may need for a character you have to play a very cookie-cutter style with that method. That's my observation anyway. A critical gaming element based on a DM opinion and weather they are a good DM isn't all that well thought out, it's harder to debate morality than it is to point to paragraph 3 of page 26 and say "This is the rule are you going to change it or can I have my class's ability now?". Actually, wait, you know what's wrong with alignment? All the abilities that use it. I agree with this statement. There we go: alignment is a problem because most of the game mechanics that actually reference it are crap. I also agree with this however if 90% of those game mechanics didn't exist there would be no reason to even have alignment and as such it would just be better to have columns on the character sheet "morals," "Personality," and "ethics." as well as maybe a "Code of Honor" in which the player could fill in what they wanted in those coumns. Alignment at character creation like stats and classes is the framework you choose to give you a springboard to RP from. If you do not like the LG Paladin ask your DM if you can play a LN Paladin. The problem arises when the DM says "No because paladins detedct and dislike evil on sight and as such they cannot be neutral as they are barred from acting in a non-good way by their code." Some DMs may be willing to bend rules however as I have played with several RAW DMs I found myself playing in an environment where you need to play as the rules state, and by saying "If you don't like a feature you can change it so alignment is fine because you can just change what you don't like," isn't really a valuable argument, cery much true but not helpful in the discussion of "As alighnment is by RAW is it more of a help or a hinderance, and thus should, and if so how should, it be changed to be a better system." Alignments are not a constraint but a framework of the kernel concept for your character. Afterwards it is a benchmark of how the character is doing. However if your character seems to be Chaotic in several ways however you want certain monklike attributes and at the same time as beign generally good there are certain evil acts he wouldn't think twice about doin in certain situations, making that work at1st level by the current system is extremely difficult. Also in a world where the general concept is of Heros vs Villians such as we see in the movies I think real world attitudes about alignment are wrong to bring into molding the alignments. The problems begin to arise when the roleplayig become more complex and the players want their characters to become more than just the hero that saves the day. Not everyone plays good Vs. evil games as they are in the movies and even in many movies you can see that not all of the protagonists are really good people. For face-value games alignment works fine however once characters begin to develop complex personalities and begin to act in many alignments simultaneously it becomes difficult to apply the system as is. If you play a game with a DM who uses alignments and you do not like them then find another DM. Not everyone has that option and as a DM and player I strongly dislike this as an argument or reccomendation as a great many areas (such as mine) don't have that many DnD games or groups where you would just leave because of this.
Drammattex 07-25-06, 12:45 PM	As DM, I let them play their characters the way their characters naturally act under whatever their given circumstances are. I privately mark down their alignment, based on the way their character behaves. Since human beings are complex individuals, it would be difficult (in my game) to give ALL of them an abstract code of ideals to adhere to. If I was playing the game with new players, I would have them choose their alignment so that they understood that it was a device to help them flesh out their character.
Squirrelloid 07-25-06, 02:56 PM	I asked some serious questions of the pro-alignment crowd. So glad to see they were totally ignored.
Ezell Pike 07-25-06, 04:50 PM	I asked some serious questions of the pro-alignment crowd. So glad to see they were totally ignored. Sorry, I thought that was a rant. I felt that you had a valid point when it came to the unintelligent undead. It can not make a decision based on morals so thusly can not be evil. But I do not have an answer as to why or how they have come to the conclusion that Animate dead is Evil. Unless it goes along the lines of desecrating a corpse and is taboo or evil.
a_psh 07-25-06, 05:48 PM	Edit: Would personality traits be more useful? Eg. merciful and stoic.Depends on what you want. I think traits with strong game-mechanical effects would be a poor idea, as they would simply encourage roleplaying whatever characteristics fit a min/max build. The last thing you want is a player going "Well, being Honorable gives me +2 to Will saves and I can get bonus damage if I'm Determined, so I guess my guy's Honorable and Determined..." I kind of like an idea proposed in a (non-d20) roleplaying game called The Riddle of Steel: in addition to their standard ability scores, characters have "spiritual attributes". These are usually "Passions" or "Drives" or "Destinies" related to accomplishing a specific goal; a few special ones like "Faith", "Conscience", and "Luck" (a wildcard -- the rest of the stuff I describe in this section doesn't apply to Luck) are also present. Unlike more typical roleplaying-game attributes like Strength or Perception, you choose a subset of these that your character has -- not every character will have "Faith" or "Drive to avenge brother's death", for instance... oh, that's what they're like, by the way: specific goals or desires that connect you to the game world (you can have more than one "Passion" or "Destiny" or whatever - kinda like Weapon Focus ;) ). Doing things in pursuit or your "SAs" means that you get a numerical bonus to your normal actions based on how many points you have in that ability, the general idea being that characters are better when they really put their heart and soul into accomplishing something they believe in. For example, a swordsman with three points in "Conscience" might fight better when trying to protect a peasant from a cruel overlord than when waling on a band of trolls he just happens to meet on the road (I'm not sure if that's actually a "Conscience" situation, as I haven't played the game, but you get the idea, I hope). The game website (http://www.theriddleofsteel.net/) and Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Riddle_of_Steel) explain it a lot better than I can. Anyway, this is an interesting approach for getting players to really think about their characters' motivations and for giving the game a more cinematic feel, but it may not play nicely with the D&D ruleset. The mechanic can be pretty nicely approximated by giving PCs morale bonuses or a sort of "always on action points" while they're doing things particularly important to their characters. d20 Modern and Star Wars d20 both propose Allegiances, which are a pretty decent mechanic as long as your plots are intrigue-focused or your characters are in a more-or-less interconnected world. Where this would be a bad idea is in a wilderness-y game where the PCs can go to Nation B, which is geographically and culturally isolated from Nation A, and find that all of their Nation-A-specific roleplaying hooks are absolutely meaningless for months on end.
pres_man 07-25-06, 07:43 PM	How do you feel about alignments in general? I am generally fine with them. Do they help or hinder? They rarely come up as an issue. Though I do see the following: HELP: Useful for getting a very general worldview for an individual (especially NPCs that I DM) without having to spend hours detailing the entire life stories of individuals that might only be seen once. Hinder: Some players feel they HAVE to play their character in a certain fashion, not because this is the mindset of the character, but because they have two letters on their paper. What are your opinions of alignment requirements in classes? Generally I like them. Though as others say, occasionally I have been tempted to create alternative versions of paladins. When it comes to one of my players though I tend to ignore them. The player has a hard time getting out of their own mindset, and so tends to play all characters as CS (chaotic stupid). Frankly though, I don't think barbarians and bards need to be multiclassing with monks and paladins. Are they a necessary part of spellcasting or could some other instrument be used, like penalties? Well nothing is NECESSARY, though they are a nice system to have in place, and without a serious reason, I see no need to get rid of them. Would personality traits be more useful? Eg. merciful and stoic. I see no reason why the two should both be used. It is not a case of one or the other. Is alignment an obstacle to some because of the explanations of the nature of each alignment? I don't think so. Though most problems do come about by a DMing having one view and a player having another view. DMs should have a pretty clear idea about alignments and try to inform players of those ideas, examples of situations that are hallmarks of each type of alignment might be helpful. Is alignment considered an obstacle because there are no hard mechanics for it? Such as X is an evil act if you do this you will move x amount towards evil. Well the fact that it is almost entirely up to the DMs opinion, does lend itself to abuse by some DMs or players (see my example of a player that it just is not worth my time to keep in line). To those who view alignment as a tool, some consider it as a mountain range. (please forgive the Kung-Fu like metaphor. ) Something that is the result of tectonic(sp) activity, not the cause of it. Well, alignment should cause actions, generally this is true. At the same time, players do not have the same life experiences as the characters they play, occasionally a player may have a character act in a way that is more inline with their own view, and not that of the character's supposed worldview. In this case, alignment may be a reminder to the player as to how they had originally envisioned the character's mode of behaviour. I am playing with a DM that uses alignments. How can I avoid falling into the trap of "My character is CG so he would not do this."? First off, talk to your DM about what he thinks CG means. For my own games, I view CG to be a liberal minded individual who looks out for the good of others. This means occasionally he will accepted laws as a necessasity for the public good, but will also push for laws that protect individual freedoms. Also it should be noted that it is hard to prove that a character is not a particular alignment, because everyone acts outside of their alignment from time to time. A paladin that does a single evil act does not stop being LG, they just "fall from grace" and must seek atonement. Choosing a CN when there is no viable good choice, does not make CG become CN. It is repeatedly choosing to act in a CN fashion over choosing to act in a CG fashion (when there are CG viable choices) that indicate a shift.
Verelor 07-25-06, 08:02 PM	:clap: :bow: Three cheers for pres_man. You ahve crystalized all my beliefs about alignment. D&D is not subjective. It is not for emos. It is fun and alignment is fun.
pres_man 07-25-06, 08:10 PM	I asked some serious questions of the pro-alignment crowd. So glad to see they were totally ignored. As others have said, initially I viewed is a rant. That you weren't looking for serious replies. We get nonsense such as 'Ember is a L because she follows her discipline, while mialee is (N? C? can't remember) because she's dedicated to her art'. How is that not the exact same thing? Well, I could see it possible as the same thing, or at least similiar. It depends greatly on what we mean by "dedicated". I view individuals who are lawful as people who do a certain behaviour not because they necessarily want to do it but because they feel it is expected of them. A lawful male who thought men should hold the door open for women, would hold it open even if they were in a hurry and the women were walking slow and he was freezing his rump off. On the other hand a person who was neutral (on the L-C axis) might do it more on a situationaly basis. Then we get general alignment descriptors that totally fail to draw a line between L and C. I describe them to my players as conservative and liberal (not Rep or Dem). Lawful folks tend to be conservative in all of the actions, chaotic folk tend to be liberal in all of their actions. Neutral folks (on L-C axis) tend to be conservative in some of their actions and liberal in others, in my games. And the whole idea of monolithic evil, while great when you're five, is ridiculous by the time you're 20. I disagree, but each to his own. What does it mean that a skeleton, a mindless automaton that deserves the Construct type as much as it does the Undead type, is N/E? How does that even makes sense? In 3rd edition, they were actually TN. They made them NE in 3.5. I would guess that this was so that paladins (and good outsiders) could smite them as well as protection from evil and such would work on them. I personally believe it makes more sense to keep them TN, but give them the [evil] subtype. As to flavor-wise, why they "should" be "evil", well you could say that they are created using "evil" magics, and that some of that essense is still there, it is not the negative energy that powers them but the evil energy that created them. Monks required to be L? Well traditionally "asian" monks tended to be quite focused on certain behaviours and such to the point of sometimes foregoing many pleasures. It makes sense to me, that a monk should be displined. Bards can't be L... why? Must we be stuck with a Mercedes Lackey version of Bard as the only acceptable vision of their RP nature? I think the idea is that in order to be a bard, a person needs to be at least a little open-minded. Lawfuls tend to be more contained in their thinking. Barbarians can't be L? - Totally flies in the face of every story about the 'noble savage'. Barbarian class =/= savage. Yes savages are more likely to have levels in the barbarian class but just because someone is a savage (uncivilized) does not make one a barbarian. Those that follow a strict social structure are in fact lawful. Barbarians are individuals who throw personal control (at least in a roleplaying fashion) to the wind. So, it doesnt matter if we agree on what alignment means, the DM will just adjudicate it. Well one would hope that you could at least agree with how the DM decides within the game. If I was playing for a DM who thought it was evil to not kill individuals and instead try to redeem them, that would probably be a DM that I would not game with. And you don't get to know how your actions will fall out of the alignment assignment, because you don't even know what "Lawful" is, and aren't acting from a conviction to Lawfulness, the DM decides after the fact. Yes, DMs should try to give a pretty clear idea as to what it means to be Lawful, Good, Evil, and Chaotic prior to the game starting. If the DM has not discussed this with the players, the players should bring it up and discuss it, even if it takes the entire first session. And then suddenly you, playing a monk, find you can no longer gain monk levels because you're now N/G instead of L/G. Most of these problems come about due to a failure to communicate. Tell me how alignment restrictions make sense from the standpoint that your actions determine alignment, not your alignment determines actions. As I said on a previous post, I don't think that it is a one direction only issue. Since players do not have the life experiences of the characters, from time to time, the player may need to use the alignment as a reminder as the character's mindset. While we're at it, tell me how in a world where classes have alignment restrictions its at all fair for the players not to know exactly what is G, E, L, and C so they can avoid having a large metal rod shoved you-know-where and be stuck spinning. It is not. I personally have often responded to "Do you believe what my paladin did?" threads by said, "Have you discussed what is G, E, L, and C with your paladin player? If not then you have no place to take away their abilities."
a_psh 07-25-06, 08:20 PM	D&D is not subjective.If I sit down for a serious game and hear that said as an absolute, I'm just getting right back up. It is not for emos.This is about as meaningful and relevant as saying "D&D is not for emus". Seriously, what do "emo kids" have to do with cosmologies, spell mechanics, philosophy, moral relativism, or dark fantasy / noir gaming?
pres_man 07-25-06, 08:24 PM	But I do not have an answer as to why or how they have come to the conclusion that Animate dead is Evil. Unless it goes along the lines of desecrating a corpse and is taboo or evil. Well it should be noted that the tie between the spirit of the deceased and the body are not completely severed at the time of death. Look at Raise Dead, Reincarnate, and Resurrection, and see how using the body for undead, can stop the individual from coming back. The body is still owned by the spirit, even if the spirit no longer inhabits the body. The "desecration" of the body by making undead, destroys the spirit's ability to return through it. I can see how this might be some of the basis for it being evil.
Verelor 07-25-06, 08:52 PM	Monks: A monk's unshaking discipline is his greatest tool to enlightenment. A chaotic monk is a barbarian. Barbarians: Your "noble savage" idea still has no precedant for a truly lawful barbarian. Savage is still what the barbarian is when being described in this case, noble is but an adjective, as in "what sort of a savage (chaotic-leaning) is the barbarian"?. In this case, noble. The barbarian's heart is still wild (lest he be not a barbarian at all), but in this case he has set loyalties. As far as I am concerned, the uncommon "noble savage" barbarian character is ethically neutral, not lawful. Bards: The bard is an artist through and through and at her core, which requires a free spirit. The bard is also a free-roaming traveller and an eclectic, as well as a basker in the poetry of existance, things that are mostly incompatible with an actual lawful alignment. You can have "artists" that abide by all the strictures of the kingdom and commision for the rulers and nobility as a full-time ordeal. However, at that point, your assimilated "artist" is no longer one at all, but an artisan. His "art" is at the mercy of those that he works under, and is usually for either simply aesthetic purposes or for functionality (such as a portrait or orchestral piece). It takes an artist to appreciate artistry, and those that the lawful "bard" works under can only squander her growth and autonomy as an artist. Truth: The alignment restrictions for the classes are generally all very well-founded. Truth: Basically everyone that plays the game has at least a very decent idea of what good and evil, and law and chaos is. Any confusion is a trivial matter indeed, on the liesure of the Dungeon Master. Well it should be noted that the tie between the spirit of the deceased and the body are not completely severed at the time of death. Look at Raise Dead, Reincarnate, and Resurrection, and see how using the body for undead, can stop the individual from coming back. The body is still owned by the spirit, even if the spirit no longer inhabits the body. The "desecration" of the body by making undead, destroys the spirit's ability to return through it. I can see how this might be some of the basis for it being evil. He is for the most part correct, I think. On monolithic evil, and the potential lack of realism thereof The most skeletal defenition of evil might be the persuit of personal gain or empowerment at the willfull cost of other sentients or their environment. Monolithic evil is perfectly possible, especially in a fantasy game. What keeps so many evil characters from being vile is because they deep down all feel a level of disgust from their actions, which mostly stems from the ideas of "this is not what I would want others to do unto me" and "i was not born such a monster". However, a creature literally born of sin or negi-egoism does not feel ushc disgust, because it may truly never have had anything else to compare its actions to, and nearly every creature feels some sort of "birth destiny", that it was born on correct terms. That's how you have most of your vile creatures, and monolithic evil-a thorough lack of self-disgust or the extended or even non-exposure to good (most fiends) or walking a path that is thoroughly untouched by the opposing viewpoint (most undead, and fiends as well).
Wiseblood 07-25-06, 09:23 PM	[. Bards: The bard is an artist through and through and at her core, which requires a free spirit. The bard is also a free-roaming traveller and an eclectic, as well as a basker in the poetry of existance, things that are mostly incompatible with an actual lawful alignment. You can have "artists" that abide by all the strictures of the kingdom and commision for the rulers and nobility as a full-time ordeal. However, at that point, your assimilated "artist" is no longer one at all, but an artisan. His "art" is at the mercy of those that he works under, and is usually for either simply aesthetic purposes or for functionality (such as a portrait or orchestral piece). It takes an artist to appreciate artistry, and those that the lawful "bard" works under can only squander her growth and autonomy as an artist. :bow: An inciteful take on bard, especially the first line. I had never really thought of them like that I guess.
Grandpa Gamer 07-25-06, 09:48 PM	Let's face it, this is FANTASY role-playing, not the 12-steps of AA!!! Evil is evil because that he/she/it/they simply ARE evil. If we didn't have antagonists in our games, we wouldn't be playing ADVENTURES, we'd be having CONVERSATIONS! How many posters on these threads read comic books or other similar "graphic literature", and have no problem accepting the existance of King Pin or Dr. Doom - neither of whom have any concience concerning their actions. Evil is by definition the lack of good. That is, a ruthlessness in thought, word, and/or deed. An evil person does things simply because they WANT to, regardless of the impact on others. Or, even worse, they perform evil deeds because of malice - the enjoyment of other people's pain. If a good person were forced against their will to do evil deeds, they are not considered evil. But if a good person SUBMITS to the evil, and WILLINGLY participates, then they could be considered evil themselves. Again, once more, repeating, ibid, ditto - alignement is descriptive, not prescriptive!. Alignement can simply be stated as a description of your character's self-image. If you THINK you're chaotic-good, then you ARE chaotic-good. Admittedly, from time to time, situations will develop that will force your character to examine his/her/it's alignement. This is no different than in real life, when something "comes along and stops you on a dime" (as the song goes :D). A lot of what I'm reading on these posts sounds like people are complaining because their characters, as they are playing them, do not conform to the core-book definition of their stated alignement. SO? If you're character's outlook on life changes over time due to accumulated experiences, then your alignement will simply change to reflect that altered viewpoint. Sounds a lot like real people, doesn't it? Can you honestly say that your politics/religion/work ethic/party habits/driving habits/taste in beverages/taste in food/punctuality is EXACTLY as it was five years ago? Ten? Again, alignement is only a description.
Ezell Pike 07-25-06, 10:43 PM	One point that I didnot see addressed, Grandpa Gamer, is that alignment also holds machanical value in a game. That it is also subject (moreso than other rules) to DM interpretation.
Squirrelloid 07-25-06, 11:17 PM	Ezell Pike/Pres Man: I was referring to my second post when i was talking about questions - the first basically was a rant. Pres Man got to it, but he's making remarkably different assumptions than the pro-alignment crowd who was posting when i made that comment (see the person i responded to, for instance, who even claimed that the DM just sort of told players what their alignment was after some amount of playing). I agree, if you are going to use alignment, you use it the way Pres Man is interpreting it. General Problem with Alignment: I have a problem with the definition of G and E because it is based on a vaguely Kantian viewpoint. This is internally inconsistent because in a Kantian framework G == L, and the two cannot be considered independently. The second is that people have rather different ideas about G than Kant. Kant said straight out that the prohibition on lying under the categorical imperative is so strong that you have to tell a known murderer the location of his intended victim (assuming you know it) - the moral blame is on the murderer for killing him, none on you for telling him where to go. Most people have a much more consequentialist view of morality than that - and in a game which generally degenerates to stabbing people in the face, consequentialism is essential (most people would find the idea of stabbing people in the face to be generally wrong). Consequentialism, however, doesn't recognize any fixed G and E, just an orderable series of consequences with actions likely to lead to those consequences. In short, in a game about doing something thats generally wrong (killing people and taking their stuff - normally referred to as murder and theft), the only possible moral system which doesn't shoehorn the heros into being evil is one which doesnt have fixed definitions of good and evil, only judgements on the quality of the achieved consequences relative to the possible range of consequences. I mean, if G and E are objective realities, killing people is E, and there's no way around that. (ok, or killing people is G, but then its always G no matter who's doing that, and nobody wants that). But someone's going to say that in all fantasy (not true, but certainly in a lot of high fantasy) the bad guy is inherently bad. The good guy is inherently good. We know who is who from the get-go. Frankly, the fairytale notion of killing the other guy is G because he's the badguy is a morally reprehensive notion that finds its expression in modern propaganda, and originally in tribalism and the need to demonize the enemy in military conflicts to give your peasant conscripts the balls to swing their pitchfork with lethal force. Its the same instinct behind the Crusades when the Church declamed moslems as heathens and evil for not following the one true faith. Its the same instinct behind the suicide bombers of today. If the other guys is evil because you don't like what they're doing, and anything is justified to stop them, you can justify a lot of reprehensible activities. Which is basically what D+D alignment comes down to - we're the good guys and thus the bad guys have to be bad inherently. The Lich has been pressed into being E because they wanted to live forever (come now, who doesn't, how is this evil), and because they've linked themself to the negative energy plane (um, so what? its even voluntary). So they look like a skeletal dude, and perhaps they have ideas of conquering their neighbor - sounds pretty evil right? Only if you consider a long series of french monarchs who wanted to actually control all the land that is modern day france evil. And maybe the Lich keeps getting attacked by neighboring monarch's armies and the only way to get it to stop is to dethrone neighboring monarch and sit on the throne himself - doesn't sound so evil anymore, does it? It gets even worse if all the lich is doing is sitting in his lair researching spells from now to eternity - a TN occupation if I ever heard of one - but this doesnt stop the heros from barging in, setting fire to his lab, and kicking his arse to steal his stuff. Who's the good guy here? D+D alignment says the PCs. I'm inclined to laugh. Consequentialism says 'to hell with that' and instead goes 'if i do x, what does the world look like'; 'if i don't do x, what does the world look like', choose the better of x or not x. This requires a standard of better, which can vary depending on your goals, and has no pretension to being objectively G, just good relative to your standard of good. This is a serious moral judgement, not some appeal to authority 'x is good because the cosmos said so' which is just a big cop out. Consequentialism takes responsibility for actions and outcomes. D+D alignment denies responsibility because the player has no say in what good or evil is - he's good if he follows some cosmic ideal of good, not if his actions actually have positive results, and has no real responsibilty for the consequences. When you can't decide for yourself what is good and evil, you can't be held responsible for those definitions of good and evil.
Gottwick 07-26-06, 02:03 PM	In the early 80's when I started playing D&D ... (there, my credentials are established) ... one of the things I loathed about D&D was alignment. For almost 20 years I avoided the game, and espoused all the same reasons you've heard. Then I read 3.0 and was converted. I love the game, and enjoy alignments. The descriptions in the book are clear to me. I've gone with the "actions determine alignment, not the other way around" school. But I have two concerns with the system: True Neutral is used as an excuse to avoid picking an alignment, and evil descriptor spells that people think aren't evil. In my games, True Neutral means you're either undecided or dedicated to something you feel is more important than law/chaos/good/evil. This is why Mialee is N: she's dedicated to her craft. She could fly out to the village and destroy the four goblins that have been stealing sheep, or she could continue crafting that new spell. It's pretty clear to me which she would choose. And evil-descriptor spells are Evil. What components do they use? "Pieces of raw meat and splinters of bone?" What good person does this: "You must place a black onyx gem into the mouth or eye socket of each corpse you intend to animate." How would you learn evil spells? What kind of people would you need to associate with to learn them? An evil character that went around improving crops would be considered a softy and would drift towards goodness. A good character using "energies of unlife" to get gold would develop a hard edge as he drifted towards evil. If I was a good-aligned cleric in a party with someone casting evil spells, I'd withold healing.
Grand Theft Otto 07-26-06, 02:22 PM	Alignment has always been lame. You should figure out a personality for your character (or NPC), and stick with it, or evolve that personality as you see fit. Its a useless mechanic that causes more harm than good, and is the root of TONS of arguments. Same thing with the paladin's code. Does the paladin lose his paladin status for lying to the corrupt fire marshall to save the burning orphanage? If your DM is as stupid as 90% of them, then yes. It was just crammed in as a way to allow for guilt free wholesale slaughter. It fit the juvenile attitude of roleplaying games in earlier editions, but its high time this hunk of garbage was jettisoned. about the only style of "alignment" that I can stand is the Unknown Armies system, where you list a fear, nobility and rage stimuli. At least that helps to make characters more realistic rather than walking stereotypes.
Ezell Pike 07-26-06, 02:39 PM	Squirelloid, Usually people do not engage in an activity that they do not believe is justified. In the current system it is up to the DM to interperet your actions. I was looking at BoEd last night and got a pretty clear definition of good. I do not have BoVD but another tome just called "EVIL" I think it is by AEG. I felt that they nailed evil down nicely. In the consequentialist framework that you mentioned, is this already set up in game terms? I am having difficulty understanding it. There have been numerous posts regarding Neutral assassins. I think players are frustrated because they are denied an ability due to alignment restrictions. IE: Death attack More DM's are apt to disallow Evil alignments than Chaotic or Lawful.
pres_man 07-26-06, 03:23 PM	Squirrelloid: Not being a philosphy major, I find your discussion a bit too "philosphical" for me. I haven't really got a clue as to what "kantian morality" might be, nor do I have any interested in knowing. Instead of discussing how D&D morality violates kantian morality, let's discuss if it violates its own morality. It is internally inconsistent? That would really be the issue. In D&D, unlike in many RW morality frameworks, there is not just a binary choice (right/wrong), there is three choices (right/neutral/wrong). So where as in RL a person that didn't make any effort to save a child from drowning would probably be thought of as "bad" or a "wrong"-type, in D&D that person would be viewed as neutral. Now it seems to me that a lot of people who dislike alignment seem to play with people with a slightly skewed view as to what is "good" and what is "evil". See what Titan W described about the DM telling him that he was evil because he did NOT kill his foes. If you play with people that are obvious screwed in the head, then of course there is going to be problems, but that is the fault of the bad DM not the alignment system itself. Yet D&D is broad enough that you could have games where to be evil you have to be EVIL, where you are basically a fiend in mortal form. In games like that then it may well be acceptable for "good" characters to kill them "merely" for detecting as evil. The assumption is that if they are detecting as evil they have already been judged and condemned by the "multiverse". Other games, to be evil, you could be anything from a bully to a fiend in mortal form. In these games, killing someone based on "only" being evil is probably not appropriate. It is up to the DM to make it clear to the players which type of game they are playing in. I personally don't find the D&D alignments in anyway shape or form supporting the idea Party = Good, Foes = Bad. I have played some table top games like that (good old HeroQuest), but in those games, the types of actions was strictly controled (you couldn't do any fighting in towns for example). Parties that are only interested in hunt down evil beings in order to kill them and get their treasure, would at best be neutral in most games. As for liches and wanting to live for ever, it greatly depends on to what measures one must go to. Remember that to become a lich you must willing participate in a ceremony of "unspeakable evil". I think it would be hard for a good or neutral person to do that, for some things the price is just too steep. Also in a setting where it is known for certain that there is an afterlife, death though perhaps not desirable, is not as terrifying. It is the "natural" way of things. When you can't decide for yourself what is good and evil, you can't be held responsible for those definitions of good and evil. Yet you can be held responsible for your actions in respect to those definitions. Grand Theft Otto: Same thing with the paladin's code. Does the paladin lose his paladin status for lying to the corrupt fire marshall to save the burning orphanage? If your DM is as stupid as 90% of them, then yes. And that is the issue isn't it. Not that the paladin's code is messed up or alignments are, but that there are stupid DMs out there. In the situation you described the paladin would not fall by the raw, as 1)it is not an evil act and 2)it is not a gross violation of his code.
a_psh 07-26-06, 04:18 PM	I was looking at BoEd last night and got a pretty clear definition of good.The BoED's definition of "good" is a bit self-contradictory. Anything that causes suffering or discomfort is evil, yet causing massive suffering to evil (via ravages) is justified as "turning evil on itself". Either you believe in the absolute immorality of suffering or you don't. I think the BoED makes a mistake by trying to haphazardly apply the modern-ish "pain is evil" philosophy to D&D, which relies on inflicting pain as the primary conflict resolution mechanic (primarily because so much of classic D&D is based on fighting unreasoning monsters or evil-to-the-core bad guys, neither of which can really be reasoned with, and because a lot of the most important and climactic moments happen during tactical combat, meaning that players will naturally want to hurt their enemies for the sake of an interesting story). It's like making up a soccer variant where you get yellow cards for kicking the ball. If you're going to use alignment (which, for all the issues and limitations associated with it, should still be the default course of action, I believe), I think you're really better off sticking with just what's in the core.
Squirrelloid 07-26-06, 07:49 PM	Squirrelloid: Not being a philosphy major, I find your discussion a bit too "philosphical" for me. I haven't really got a clue as to what "kantian morality" might be, nor do I have any interested in knowing. Instead of discussing how D&D morality violates kantian morality, let's discuss if it violates its own morality. D+D alignment is a Kantian framework. But we can ignore that. In fact, thats generally the best approach to take to any Kantian moral construction. It is internally inconsistent? That would really be the issue. In D&D, unlike in many RW morality frameworks, there is not just a binary choice (right/wrong), there is three choices (right/neutral/wrong). So where as in RL a person that didn't make any effort to save a child from drowning would probably be thought of as "bad" or a "wrong"-type, in D&D that person would be viewed as neutral. Ok, is the act of killing G, E, or N? It has to be one of them. If its G, then everyone should kill all the time. If its N, you can't fault anyone for killing, ever. And if its E, no one should ever kill. None of these describes the standard D+D story concept. =><= In fact, the very nature of a game where even the purest of the good goes around stabbing people in the face and taking their stuff demands a consequentialist moral system. (Simply, it is the consequences of actions on which the actions are judged as good or bad). Because we really don't want to agonize over whether or not the heroes shouldve stabbed the villain in the face, we want to know that the Evil Plan (TM) was worse than the status quo and stabbing them in the face prevented it from happening. Now it seems to me that a lot of people who dislike alignment seem to play with people with a slightly skewed view as to what is "good" and what is "evil". See what Titan W described about the DM telling him that he was evil because he did NOT kill his foes. If you play with people that are obvious screwed in the head, then of course there is going to be problems, but that is the fault of the bad DM not the alignment system itself. Most of the good games i have played in have totally ignored the alignment system and given compelling reasons to act such that it didn't matter whether the BBEG was actually evil. The consequences of not acting were sufficiently dire, even if the villain was only acting out of a deluded sense of 'goodness', that they had to be stopped. So at the end of the day, who cares what their, or your, alignment was. The world was still a better place because you acted. As for liches and wanting to live for ever, it greatly depends on to what measures one must go to. Remember that to become a lich you must willing participate in a ceremony of "unspeakable evil". I think it would be hard for a good or neutral person to do that, for some things the price is just too steep. Also in a setting where it is known for certain that there is an afterlife, death though perhaps not desirable, is not as terrifying. It is the "natural" way of things. See, i don't understand what a ceremony of 'unspeakable evil' is. Of course, since its unspeakable, i can't know, cause we can't even talk about it. The phrase unspeakable evil is ridiculous. Implicit in its phraseology is the assumption that i'm not allowed to judge whether or not its evil, it just is, because they say so. Further, the SRD just says the process of becoming a lich is 'unspeakably evil', not that it even involves a ceremony. In 2nd it just required possession of a certain staff when you died - certainly owning something isn't unspeakably evil. In 3rd we apparently can't even talk about the process, because everything undead is automatically marked evil for our protection so we don't have to trouble ourselves with any actual moral issues. As to no good or neutral person doing it - what if some G human knew (via divination magic or prophecy) that only they could prevent a catastrophe a thousand years in the future. So they suffer becoming a lich in order to still be around in 1000 years to prevent the catastrophe. In this case becoming a lich involves said person sacrificing whatever rewards they have coming in the afterlife in order to help others in the future - if that isn't the iconic altruistic definition of good i don't know what is. And as far as i can tell, magic is no more unnatural than being human in fantasy games. Of course, its apparently evil to also not want to be some deity's catspaw in some worlds (see FR where the faithless get a raw deal in the afterlife), in case independent thought was getting too tempting. When you can't decide for yourself what is good and evil, you can't be held responsible for those definitions of good and evil. Yet you can be held responsible for your actions in respect to those definitions. Lets consider two examples. (1) You're a G cleric of sufficient level to have some scary healing magic, but are less than 17th level. Having trashed an evil temple you find a beaten and sickly man in the dungeon. Unbeknownst to you, he carries a magical plague only curable by miracle (lets just assume for the moment you have no way of getting access to a miracle spell) which is a few weeks from reaching the contagious state. However, in his current condition he won't survive another 10 hours. Do you cast heal on him and release him back into civilization? Standard D+D alignment tells you that you heal him, because healing people is a good act. But healing him actually does more harm than good, and the only way to prevent his spreading the disease is to let him die or kill him yourself. So despite the fact your actions were "good" (healing a wounded man), the consequences were bad. D+D alignment is a shield from moral dilemma because it lets you avoid responsibility (for the plague in this case) since you committed no evil acts. Moral dilemma is only possible when morality isn't black and white - because sometimes killing an innocent person is better than letting them live. When morality is black and white, a character who wants to be good never has any moral dilemmas - they just have to do what the universe tells them is good every time. You can't have competing goods when the universe has already voted. (2) The neighboring kingdom's internal politics have been extremely unsettled for awhile, and its been going through mad crazy inflation and depression like you wouldn't believe. Not too long ago, a charismatic leader rose to power, and has full effective control of the country. Shortly thereafter, his military ambitions become clear, and he assembles a massive army to invade your kingdom. Apparently he is motivated by a hatred of elves, having blamed them for the country's inflation, and has instituted a systematic hunt and elimination of all elves has been instituted within that kingdom's borders Your kingdom's military is not equal to the task, and is crushed in one battle after another. Low on men, your kingdom can not hold. Desperate, you raise your kingdom's fallen soldiers as an army of undead to repel the invader. Are you good or evil? I believe in playing a serious game with real moral issues. Alignment makes that impossible, so i reject it. I prefer villains who aren't evil, or who are evil because they use poor means to pursue noble ends. When my players decisions aren't automatic, when they have to think about the consequences of their decisions, then i know i'm running a good game.
Verelor 07-26-06, 08:45 PM	D+D alignment is a Kantian framework. But we can ignore that. In fact, thats generally the best approach to take to any Kantian moral construction. Never been too much of a Kant fan. Though I find even less merit in Rand's philosophy. It does not really "transcend" Kant neither is it the direct opposite as she claimed, more like being N(E) aligned by D&D. Ok, is the act of killing G, E, or N? It has to be one of them. If its G, then everyone should kill all the time. If its N, you can't fault anyone for killing, ever. And if its E, no one should ever kill. None of these describes the standard D+D story concept. =><= In fact, the very nature of a game where even the purest of the good goes around stabbing people in the face and taking their stuff demands a consequentialist moral system. (Simply, it is the consequences of actions on which the actions are judged as good or bad). Because we really don't want to agonize over whether or not the heroes shouldve stabbed the villain in the face, we want to know that the Evil Plan (TM) was worse than the status quo and stabbing them in the face prevented it from happening. By the Book of Exalted Deeds, killing escapes the framework of an evil act if it prevents a much higher amount of suffering unto others under reasonable foresight. Killing a good-aligned character can never be a good-aligned act. Most of the good games i have played in have totally ignored the alignment system and given compelling reasons to act such that it didn't matter whether the BBEG was actually evil. The consequences of not acting were sufficiently dire, even if the villain was only acting out of a deluded sense of 'goodness', that they had to be stopped. So at the end of the day, who cares what their, or your, alignment was. The world was still a better place because you acted. Most evil does act out of a deluded sense of "goodness". Goodness is indeed the correct path, and since every sane creature in existance wishes to be correct, you have few creatures that consciously champion evil (doesn't mean they are not). They want to do what they see as correct (even though it isn't) and justify it by calling it "good". What one calls or thinks of oneself is not the objective measure. See, i don't understand what a ceremony of 'unspeakable evil' is. Of course, since its unspeakable, i can't know, cause we can't even talk about it. The phrase unspeakable evil is ridiculous. Implicit in its phraseology is the assumption that i'm not allowed to judge whether or not its evil, it just is, because they say so. "Unspeakable", I would assume, because the mere act of passing the specific acts that were commited causes so much suffering both to the speaker and those the information is relayed to that it is not ever retold, either dying with those that knew the information or will not be spoken of. Understand? Further, the SRD just says the process of becoming a lich is 'unspeakably evil', not that it even involves a ceremony. In 2nd it just required possession of a certain staff when you died - certainly owning something isn't unspeakably evil. In 3rd we apparently can't even talk about the process, because everything undead is automatically marked evil for our protection so we don't have to trouble ourselves with any actual moral issues. Because the game is made for a wide age and maturity group, and talking of the gory specifics of the malign processes necessary to assume undeath and what have you are too much information for some. It ties in to the "unspeakable". As to no good or neutral person doing it - what if some G human knew (via divination magic or prophecy) that only they could prevent a catastrophe a thousand years in the future. So they suffer becoming a lich in order to still be around in 1000 years to prevent the catastrophe. In this case becoming a lich involves said person sacrificing whatever rewards they have coming in the afterlife in order to help others in the future - if that isn't the iconic altruistic definition of good i don't know what is. However, that implies the character committing great evil or residing within unhallowed flesh for the hope (perhaps false hope) of the "greater good", which by the BoED and probably the core definition is merely neutral. And as far as i can tell, magic is no more unnatural than being human in fantasy games. Of course, its apparently evil to also not want to be some deity's catspaw in some worlds (see FR where the faithless get a raw deal in the afterlife), in case independent thought was getting too tempting. Noone said the "deal" always had to be "fair" (if such a thing has its final objective destination). That's the way it works in FR. It works very differently in Greyhawk. It works just as differently in Eberron. And just as differently in Dark Sun. And your cleric example: the consequences of your actions if they are unbeknownst to you, have nothing to do with morality by definition. Morality is what you were hoping to accomplish by virtue of your action, not the way it actually turned out (if you had no idea it would end up that way). Morality is all about intent. I believe in playing a serious game with real moral issues. Alignment makes that impossible, so i reject it. So do I, which is one reason many including myself see alignment as quite useful. I prefer villains who aren't evil Villains are really evil by definition. You can call a morally neutral opposer of the PC's ideals a "misguided adversary", but they fall short of "villain" in my opinion. or who are evil because they use poor means to pursue noble ends "Poor means to persue noble ends" might be better classified as neutral. The majority of evil, including in D&D, is strikingly similar to what you desire, but even more subjective. It is "poor means to persue what the character erringly views as noble ends". When my players decisions aren't automatic, when they have to think about the consequences of their decisions, then i know i'm running a good game. That describes roleplaying in nearly every game I can think of.
not Yoda 07-26-06, 08:53 PM	I have to point out that in the BoED comitting an evil act for the greater good is cedeing to evil. Commiting an evil act does not make you evil but comitting evil for a good reason is still commiting evil. Preforming acts of good for the wrong reasons does not make you good nor does it make the acts themselves evil. ;)
pres_man 07-26-06, 09:22 PM	Ok, is the act of killing G, E, or N? It has to be one of them. If its G, then everyone should kill all the time. If its N, you can't fault anyone for killing, ever. And if its E, no one should ever kill. None of these describes the standard D+D story concept. I fail to see why it always has to be one of them. This idea is nowhere supported in D&D alignments, in fact very few act are always one alignment or the other (I believe rape, torture, sexual abuse are always evil, these being the exceptions). At the worst killing has to be always neutral, because we all kill, we kill bacteria in our bodies, we kill animals or plants to feed ourselves. But I fail to see how killing innocent children is morally equivalent to killing someone in the process of killing innocent children. Anyone who would argue those two things have to be equal morally is someone I wouldn't want to be around :looloo: . No, most people would take D&D morality as being, at least some of the time, situational. On the other hand, only a really warped few would argue that attempt to stop people from harming others without killing them is evil. Most people would recognize that behaviour as at least neutral if not good. Taking lives when there is not need is rarely thought of as a good act, the question is where is the line "without need" drawn. Very powerful individuals may be able to contain a 15th level rogue or wizard, but most people can not. If there is not a reasonable hope of containing them, then it might be needed to kill them when they become a threat to others. Again it depends greatly on the setting, some games have a strong support system and thus killing all foes is undesirable, while most games do not have such a support system, and thus justice is handed out immediate and deadly. In fact, the very nature of a game where even the purest of the good goes around stabbing people in the face and taking their stuff demands a consequentialist moral system. This statement is already heavily morally biased, "stabbing people in the face" and "taking their stuff". How about instead, "defending the weak and helpless" and "taking the equipment of fallen foes and using it for good, where previously it had been used for evil". That is the D&D games I play in, not the "stabbing folks in the face in order to just loot them". What is the motivation, to stop evil and protect innocents or to get loot? Alignment is more than just actions, it is also motivations and intentions. So at the end of the day, who cares what their, or your, alignment was. The world was still a better place because you acted. Of course, especially if you are in a group with different alignments. Why should the CN fighter care about the liche in the next kingdom? Obvious to get as many folks under the same banner you have to give more than just, "to do good" as a reason. Lets consider two examples. 1) First healing is not good or evil, good people heal and inflict wounds, evil people inflict and heal wounds, good deities just tend to like to see it done more often the evil deities do. Second, your belief is that to be good, one should be able to foretell all of the consequences to any action, and if you can't foretell the consequences you should ... do what? Curl up into a little ball and starve yourself to death? That is about the dumbest thing I've heard. You can not be responsible for consequences that you couldn't reasonable predict. If the cleric knew the guy was infected, and that it wasn't possible to remove the infection, the cleric shouldn't heal the guy, but should instead try to comfort him during his last few hours of life (by the way, the bad guys are pretty dumb for letting him get in this condition if they intended on spreading the infection). It may be that he decides to take his own life if he knew (a sin in many RL religions, but not necessarily so in D&D). If the cleric does not know he is infected, and if there is no way the cleric could know, how can he possible be held responsible? Who in their right mind would support a stance like that? If that is what it means to follow "consequentialism", then I'm glad I do not. 2) First, what is the alignment of the leader of the other country? I mean if alignments are meaningless, then how can you say the other leader is wrong, if morality is meaningless? Now considering the price it costs to make undead in money and spell levels (25 gp and 4th level for skeletons and zombies~worthless troops) and (50 gp and 6th or 8th level spells for better undead), you'd be better off hiring mercenaries from other kingdoms, asking for assistance from others, and having your spell casters throw area attacking spells at the foes. Really creating undead is not only evil, but is generally pretty stupid. On the other hand, neutral clerics can do so without too much worry, especially if they are using them for a very limited purpose. Notice mummies are not necessarily evil, not all undead are necessarily evil, just the great majority of them. I believe in playing a serious game with real moral issues. Alignment makes that impossible, so i reject it. I prefer villains who aren't evil, or who are evil because they use poor means to pursue noble ends. When my players decisions aren't automatic, when they have to think about the consequences of their decisions, then i know i'm running a good game. Yet it seems as if you would still punish them if they were not able to think of what you think the consequences should be. Basicly punish them for not reading your mind. Frankly, I prefer not to play in games where people think that putting baby orcs on pikes is "good" (though their characters may be deluded into thinking so). It seems that always these consequentialist DMs make it so the orc babies you save always grow up to be the guys who rape and pillage and in the end destroy the world, and it is your fault for not putting them on pikes as children. Never is the consequence that they grow up and actually are able to take over tribes of orcs and calm them from attack the other races and instead lead them into if not a friendly relationship at least a non-hostile one. Never are the consequences good, they are always bad. And it is the player's fault for not realizing it, that good intentions always lead to bad outcomes, where bad intentions always lead to good outcomes. I guess in a warped way it makes sense, I mean after a couple of sessions the players should realize that is how the DM is playing and adjust accordingly.
a_psh 07-27-06, 12:13 AM	Here's my take on alignment in more detail -- simple, straightforward, not really based on any kind of philosophy or ideology: People like to attach moral values to actions and their consequences. In the real world, people disagree about the moral significance of an action all the time. This isn't about relativism or whatever; whether there is or isn't an absolute morality is unimportant, since, if it exists, not everyone recognizes that. In a cosmology like the Great Wheel, a fundamental unified morality does exist and is knowable and testable. Moreover, it has real physical effects on the universe, such as determining what plane you end up on when you die. Since absolute morality is both knowable and significant, it makes sense to track a character's "alignment" with respect to the Planes. These particular traits are important to measure because they fundamentally represent the character's place in the cosmos in a very objectively real and significant way. Mordenkainen is a good example of a person from such a setting: many of his actions are motivated by this weird philosophy of cosmic balance that is very much based on the fact that Good and Evil are powerful cosmic forces rather than simply mortal moral structures. In a cosmology like FR's, it's often implied that all beings do subscribe to the same absolute morality and that Evil beings do Evil specifically because that absolute morality tells them it's Evil (and cackle while they do it). Yes, this is a gross generalization. Yes, I'm bashing FR when I say this stuff. But this is pretty much how it works. People murder babies and worship dark gods and perform dark magical rituals specifically because they know it's Evil-with-a-capital-E and love it. Since everyone in the world adheres to the same moral system, it makes sense to track alignment here as well. This kind of world is wholy unrealistic in the bad way, though: nobody has any motivations that are actually comprehensible to real humans, who internally justify their actions rather than being Evil just because. Aribeth from Neverwinter Nights is a classic example of this type of character: when she falls, she doesn't do the wrong thing for the right reasons or vice versa -- she's just fed up with being Good and wants to be really hella Evil and dress in black and cackle a lot. In a cosmology like Eberron, alignment is pointless. Deities are distant. Everyone goes to the same place when they die (we think). Planes still have alignment traits but there isn't the same great conflict of ideals. Knowing that two factions are Good or that two factions are Evil won't tell you anything about their relative relationships with each other. Knowing that a ruler's alignment won't help you determine whether what she's planning is good or bad for the world. Et cetera. Neither the people of the world nor the nature of the cosmos defines any real metaphysical consequences for doing something "Good" or "Evil". Alignment just plain serves no purpose here. Selfishness or orderliness or how much pain you cause to others or whether you break your promises or what you think of starving orphans isn't really any more relevant than like 50 other personality axes and alternate moralities, such as whether you've done something to be deserving of eternal life as a Deathless. So why bother keeping track of what is just an arbitrary subset of what actually makes a character's personality and behavior when you don't do that with the rest? Eberron's Queen Aurala is a good example of a person from such a setting. The book says she's NG (and there's been much debate over this, with claims what she should be N or NE perhaps), but her defining characteristics is that she is a ruthless and calculating idealist, willing to restart the horrific violence of the Last War in order to create a new Galifar united under her benevolent rule. Her alignment's pretty much irrelevant: whether she's NG or NE, it's really how the PCs feel about her schemes that will determine whether they fight for or against her (if they get involved at all). (Note that canonical Eberron does, indeed, still use alignment. This is an argument using the flavor of settings as examples rather than using existing setting rules to justify anything.) In a heavily intrigue-minded game setting, allegiances and personal convictions are more important than the kinds of things alignment actually tracks. The alignment mechanic is either playing second fiddle to a bunch of other personality barometers that mean a whole lot more, which probably means you've got too many competing mechanics around, or -- worse yet -- alignment is mechanically defined whereas things that are far more important are left to in the realm of "flavor text". Alignment just adds more clunk than utility to something like this. Similarly, in a "gritty horror" setting where the characters are just struggling to survive, do you really need any kind of "alignments" other than "Sane Human" vs. "Vile Monster"? Do Law vs. Chaos mean anything substantive in this world? Is Good all that different from Neutral? If the answer is "no" for all practical purposes, why bother with alignment? Alignment is useful in the context of a game where absolute morality not only exists but is cosmically relevant or widely recognized. Outside of that, it's usually dead weight. Like other rules, such as the barbarian class, catapults, plane shift, ogre mages, or what it's like to move in zero gravity, there will be times when alignment is just plain useless in a campaign. It's not a big deal. It's not the end of the world. It's not some fundamental change to the very nature of D&D. *shrug* It's always better to change something if it'll make a particular campaign work better.
Edymnion 07-27-06, 12:41 AM	True Neutral is used as an excuse to avoid picking an alignment In my games, True Neutral means you're either undecided or dedicated to something you feel is more important than law/chaos/good/evil.I find the description from the PHB to be very nice for what being Neutral really is, and that most city dwellers actually fall right smack into True Neutral naturally. Neutral on the Good/Evil axis means that you watch out for yourself and your friends/family, but don't really care what happens on a larger scale. If somebody is being oppressed on the other side of the world, its not your problem. You don't try to do bad things, but you're not going to devote all your time to trying to make the world a better place either. You just want to get along as best you can, and you let the rest of the world do the same. Neutral on the Law/Chaos axis means that you do not actively try to go against the rules of the game, but you don't actively try to enforce them or promote them either. You go day to day obeying the law as best you can, but you feel no compulsion to turn in jaywalkers or to make a scene when you see a kid steal a candy bar at a gas station. True Neutral is literally just living for yourself. You don't try get involved in affairs that are none of your business. As long as you and yours are taken care of, life is good. Live and let live. Which would fit the average New Yorker to a T (New York chosen as the classical example of a large north american city). They hear about muggings, but don't really care unless its them or someone they know that got mugged, and even then its more of a "Yeah, well that sort of thing happens, nothing to do really but move on with life". Watch out for your neighbors so they'll help watch out for you, maybe even toss a homeless guy some spare change from time to time, but you're not out working for shelters to serve hot meals, and you're not a cop out writing tickets, but you're not a mugger or an anarchist either. When I'm picking an alignment for my characters, I always start at True Neutral and examine how they see the world. Many of my characters just go with the flow as far as law/chaos is concerned, making them Neutral, and most are usually "fighting for the light", putting others before themselves, etc, pushing them over to Good. So yeah, I end up with a lot of Neutral Good characters. Second most common alignment for my characters is Lawful Neutral. Usually for the fighter type characters, well disciplined, thinks that a set order to things is the way life should go, etc, but don't really care much about fighting for abstract causes. My WF Fighter I'm playing now is Lawful Neutral. Very military minded, but doesn't care a lick for the well-being of nations or villiages, but is very loyal and protective of his party. Honestly, its quite rare these days that I play anybody with a Chaotic alignment.
Stormbrand 07-27-06, 03:07 AM	Alignment is a tool. So is a hammer, a spade, and a screwdriver. The point to this is that tools are not always used correctly. One group I played with claimed that changing alignments cost you XP, then you could not gain XP for the next adventure and then you got half XP for the next few adventures. The problem wasn't the alignment system, it was that group. I enjoy alignment. I enjoy playing paladins. Moral issues interest me. For my style of play the alignment system features heavily since the characters I like make heavy use of those kind of abilities so it would be awkward for me to remove alignment. For face-value games alignment works fine however once characters begin to develop complex personalities and begin to act in many alignments simultaneously it becomes difficult to apply the system as is. Not really. You just need a strong sense of where your own morality lies. Alignment is meant to measure values and morals rather than personality. Think of it on that sort of scale. E.g. However if your character seems to be Chaotic in several ways however you want certain monklike attributes and at the same time as beign generally good there are certain evil acts he wouldn't think twice about doin in certain situations, making that work at1st level by the current system is extremely difficult. Chaotic nuetral or chaotic good, depending upon how far 'generally good' goes and the characters intentions. Accept that characters will occasionally act against their alignment, if the character does in a specific context, fine. There are other ways to get monk abilities as well. I also agree with this however if 90% of those game mechanics didn't exist there would be no reason to even have alignment and as such it would just be better to have columns on the character sheet "morals," "Personality," and "ethics." as well as maybe a "Code of Honor" in which the player could fill in what they wanted in those coumns. From a game mechanic perspective, it would need to be quantifyable. The nine alignments are but are just described differently. It is not. I personally have often responded to "Do you believe what my paladin did?" threads by said, "Have you discussed what is G, E, L, and C with your paladin player? If not then you have no place to take away their abilities." Agreed. Any character which is at all dependant on alignment should have a very clear idea of what that alignment is. But I do not have an answer as to why or how they have come to the conclusion that Animate dead is Evil. Unless it goes along the lines of desecrating a corpse and is taboo or evil. My guess is that such black necromancy would be a spiritual violation on levels best not considered in detail. That was probably the original concept. My guess is that making at least some undead does something to the deceased's soul. Same thing with the paladin's code. Does the paladin lose his paladin status for lying to the corrupt fire marshall to save the burning orphanage? If your DM is as stupid as 90% of them, then yes. In my view, a lie assumes there is some right to the truth, otherwise the very concept of privacy would be dishonest because you choose not to tell things and thus lie by omission. If the fire marshall is corrupt and will risk the children's lives if told the truth, then he has no right to it. The BoED's definition of "good" is a bit self-contradictory. Anything that causes suffering or discomfort is evil, yet causing massive suffering to evil (via ravages) is justified as "turning evil on itself". Please, no, mercy! I have the BoED and heartily agree that the point about ravages and poisons is downright silly (my feeling is that poison is no more evil than a sword or mace), that does not invalidate the rest of the book. In fact, overall I was glad for their definition of good. Savage is still what the barbarian is when being described in this case, noble is but an adjective, as in "what sort of a savage (chaotic-leaning) is the barbarian"? Please define 'savage' in this context and how it demands chaotic alignment. Your kingdom's military is not equal to the task, and is crushed in one battle after another. Low on men, your kingdom can not hold. Desperate, you raise your kingdom's fallen soldiers as an army of undead to repel the invader. Are you good or evil? That one action is not enough to decide. My guess is that the action itself is neither good nor evil overall, merely pragmatic. In a cosmology like Eberron, alignment is pointless. Deities are distant. Everyone goes to the same place when they die (we think). Planes still have alignment traits but there isn't the same great conflict of ideals. Knowing that two factions are Good or that two factions are Evil won't tell you anything about their relative relationships with each other. Knowing that a ruler's alignment won't help you determine whether what she's planning is good or bad for the world. Et cetera. Neither the people of the world nor the nature of the cosmos defines any real metaphysical consequences for doing something "Good" or "Evil". Alignment just plain serves no purpose here. Selfishness or orderliness or how much pain you cause to others or whether you break your promises or what you think of starving orphans isn't really any more relevant than like 50 other personality axes and alternate moralities, such as whether you've done something to be deserving of eternal life as a Deathless. So why bother keeping track of what is just an arbitrary subset of what actually makes a character's personality and behavior when you don't do that with the rest? :confused: :banghead: :nonono: So morality is not important unless it determines your afterlife? A pretty disgusting way of thinking. If you break your promises is certainly relevent to anyone you make a promise too. What you describe suggests one of two things, either 1) Eberron is badly written (I wouldn't know since I don't have that setting) or 2) Eberron was created with the kind of mindset that doesn't want alignments. Aribeth from Neverwinter Nights is a classic example of this type of character: when she falls, she doesn't do the wrong thing for the right reasons or vice versa -- she's just fed up with being Good and wants to be really hella Evil and dress in black and cackle a lot. No she isn't. Very poor example. She watches a good man and her fiance get hanged to appease a bloodthirsty mob, and harbours a very valid grudge against the people who demanded his death and the lord who ordered it. Lord Nasher's actions were grounds for excommunication from the church of Tyr. Aribeth's motive is revenge, and she allies with an evil cult already targeting the same people who wanted her boyfriend dead. I don't believe she was ever really evil, just hurt and angry and she lashed out. Also, although she looked very fetching in black, at no point did she 'cackle' - she only ever laughed before she fell and her laughter was far more pleasant on the ear than a 'cackle.'
Weaponbreaker 07-27-06, 04:55 AM	Bards: The bard is an artist through and through and at her core, which requires a free spirit. The bard is also a free-roaming traveller and an eclectic, as well as a basker in the poetry of existance, things that are mostly incompatible with an actual lawful alignment. You can have "artists" that abide by all the strictures of the kingdom and commision for the rulers and nobility as a full-time ordeal. However, at that point, your assimilated "artist" is no longer one at all, but an artisan. His "art" is at the mercy of those that he works under, and is usually for either simply aesthetic purposes or for functionality (such as a portrait or orchestral piece). It takes an artist to appreciate artistry, and those that the lawful "bard" works under can only squander her growth and autonomy as an artist. Truth: The alignment restrictions for the classes are generally all very well-founded. Truth: Basically everyone that plays the game has at least a very decent idea of what good and evil, and law and chaos is. Any confusion is a trivial matter indeed, on the liesure of the Dungeon Master. Plus a look at the gypsy or european bard, which seems to be what the D&D bard is based on, were seen by most peoples views as usually living as sponge to a patron while doing little no actual work, and are frequently leaving said patrons to find 'new vision' with other patrons or whims. You can be very dedicated to a journey and not care about the path, that has been the bard I play's motto and lifestyle. He even sat out a few adventures when lucrative work was offered from the noble who had just had his fiefdom saved, yet he was still loyal to his friends and art. He was what I consider the definition of CG.
WayneTheGame 07-27-06, 07:14 AM	FWIW, Let me say that quoting the Book of Exalted Deeds is pointless because it's not a core book and has no bearing on the "standard" D&D alignment (which is what I assume we are all debating anyway), and also because it makes completely ignorant assumptions. An evil act that causes good things cannot, by definition, be evil. If I know that a newborn child will unleash Hell On Earth at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, and I kill said child, I've done "evil" by killing a child, but I've saved the world. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The issue is that by the stringent D&D rules, as I have said before (and was promptly insulted for it... :mad: ), the rules are black and white. There cannot be any gray area whatsoever, under the false pretense of keeping things simplified and to avoid moral discussions such as this of bogging down the game. As I stated earlier, it's like watching an old western film: The second you see the guy with the black hat (and usually moustache) you KNOW he's the bad guy, even before he's DONE anything villainous. Such a view may be simplified but it's also completely ignorant and rigidly adheres to false premises. This is one of the reasons I enjoy Eberron's approach to alignment, and pray to the gawds that it becomes the default. Keep your good/evil and law/chaos, but don't make it cut-and-dried. Just like the real world, there are shades of gray. Raising an army of undead to replace your lost soldiers to fight a war that will save your nation should not be evil, and it only is evil because in their "infinite wisdom" :rolleyes: the game designers decided that ALL spells/powers/whatever that deal with the Undead MUST be evil so players like you and me could feel justified about destroying them without giving a lick of thought to any application of it other than combat. Thus we're stuck with spells like Deathwatch which can be very useful for clerics looking for victims (whether from an accident, crime or conflict), yet nontheless is evil for no other reason than the flavour text reads "Using the foul powers of unlife..." This argument applies to things other than alignment as well, but seeing as this thread concerns that particular mechanic I will refrain from mentioning them here.
a_psh 07-27-06, 10:55 AM	:confused: :banghead: :nonono: So morality is not important unless it determines your afterlife? A pretty disgusting way of thinking.Oh, please. ***MECHANICALLY QUANTIFIED*** morality is unimportant if there are no game mechanics or metaphysical forces it affects. Alignment exists in Eberron, but you honestly wouldn't lose very much by taking it out -- it's not a vital part of the interface between characters and game world. A PC's moral leanings will still be evident from actions, but picking two letters to represent them won't do much for you. (This discussion is based on the assumption that removing alignment means removing spells that utilize it.) People judge themselves and each other easily enough in the real world without having anything written on their character sheets -- I'm not talking about relativism here, I'm talking about the ability to look at a person and his acts and figuring out just how moral, trustworthy, kind, &c., &c. he is. If you can pick 10 or 20 axes on which you could be tracking a character's philosophical values and "alingment" doesn't stand out as more relevant than the rest, there is no reason to use it. It's game-mechanical dead weight. Eberron being D&D, you can still write down two letters in a little box on your character sheet if you want to. Indeed, the setting books expect you to, because you're playing with standard D&D rules. But it's nothing other than a shorthand for morality based on a single metric that has very little metaphysical or cultural meaning in the world itself. Your character simply has no reason to be thinking about things in terms of "alignment" (morals -- sure; alignment -- nope), any more than someone in modern America or ancient Rome would. It has fairly little game-mechanical significance either than a few easily-removed spells. So, why bother? Why emphasize this one facet of your character's psychological identity over the others, and why try to quantify it? Well, two good reasons: "tradition" and "learning curve" -- alignment is a D&D sacred cow and we should give that some consideration (but only if your group likes it -- sacred cows that nobody in your gaming group actually likes should be thrown away with no remorse), and it can help new players get used to playing people other than themselves more quickly. If those two aren't significant reasons for you and it's not an important part of the setting, then you're left with pretty much no reason to keep alignment around.
a_psh 07-27-06, 11:14 AM	In 3e, base classes aren't professions. They're toolkits of abilities. You can say that a minstrel should be Chaotic for such-and-such reasons, but what about all the other uses of the bard class? Is a skald or storyteller necessarily non-Lawful? What about a mighty dwarven dirgesinger praising his ancestors with songs passed down through the generations? What if you're a warrior just taking a few bard levels so that you can have some game-mechanical core-rules-y way to inspire your troops (via Perform(Oratory))? Alignment restrictions are pretty easy to justify for prestige classes, particularly those tied to organizations, but base classes... *shrug* Alignment restrictions work for paladins and druids and whatnot, but these are also the most flavor-loaded and un-multiclassable classes.
Millennium 07-27-06, 11:22 AM	Alignment is a tool. Like any tool, it is highly useful when applied properly. But again like any tool, when misapplied it is useless at best and can be outright harmful. And like most tools, the instructions for using it are woefully inadequate and quite possibly written in a different language. :D Some notes that may help people to apply alignment in a useful manner: Alignments influence actions. Actions influence alignments. The relationship is circular, not a one-way hierarchy. Non-neutral alignments are active commitments. Neutral alignments can be active commitments, but more often they represent a state of non-commitment. Most people in mundane society are neutral in the sense of non-commitment. They have all kinds of leanings, but they don't actively commit themselves in the way that a non-neutral character does. Most adventurers are committed to something alignment-wise. This means they are not a microcosm of society at large. This is not a problem. Alignment is a pattern, not a data point. Although it is theoretically possible for a single act to change a person's alignment, it had better be something spectacular, dramatic, and intentional. More often, a person drifts into an alignment simply by acting that way more often than not. "Do no evil" is part of the paladin's code. This is not an alignment issue. Wizards really needs to clarify this.
Edymnion 07-27-06, 11:34 AM	***MECHANICALLY QUANTIFIED*** morality is unimportant if there are no game mechanics or metaphysical forces it affects. Alignment exists in Eberron, but you honestly wouldn't lose very much by taking it out -- it's not a vital part of the interface between characters and game world.As a big Eberron player, I'll just say this. Everything that makes Alignment a needed system in generic D&D is present in Eberron. The *ONLY* mechanical change to alignment, of any kind, is that clerics no longer need to be 1 step away from their deity in alignment. Thats it. For every other purpose, for every spell, class, and everything else, the rules for Alignment in Eberron are identical to the rules for the base game. Its just that Eberron actually paid attention to the freaking rules instead of just inhereting the straightjacket mentality of the previous settings. Basically, there is no argument you can make for or against alignment for either Eberron or Grayhawk that does not apply just as much to the other setting.
a_psh 07-27-06, 11:40 AM	Basically, there is no argument you can make for or against alignment for either Eberron or Grayhawk that does not apply just as much to the other setting.Cosmology. The Law vs. Chaos and Good vs. Evil stuff is deeply rooted in the Great Wheel. It's not nearly as prominent in Eberron. Take it away and you won't miss it. As I said before, a lot of the alignment-based spells currently in print have a lot of issues and should be scrapped anyway.
pres_man 07-27-06, 11:58 AM	An evil act that causes good things cannot, by definition, be evil. If I know that a newborn child will unleash Hell On Earth at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, and I kill said child, I've done "evil" by killing a child, but I've saved the world. Actually you would have done evil if the child was "innocent". Not all younglings need be innocent, for example Damien in "The Omen" would probably not be considered innocent. It should be noted though in your example, you are not doing good, but instead are trying to minimize evil. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Well that is a LN position. Applied to self-sacrifice in order to save others (see: Spock) it can be good. Used to justify the discrimination of any minority by any majority it can be evil.
WayneTheGame 07-27-06, 12:12 PM	Okay then, lets revisit that classic of scenarios: An innocent five-year old girl is cursed to unleash Hell On Earth on her sixth birthday, and plunge the entire world into 10,000 years of darkness. Is it evil to kill the girl before her birthday, knowing that by killing one innocent person you'll save billions? THIS is why alignment is a problem. Because there is no hard and fast answer to this question, which at its base root is the core of all alignment debates: What defines evil? The act in and of itself, or the end result of said act? According to the Book of Exalted Deeds, it's irrevocably an evil act because, no matter what the end result was, you killed an innocent person ("The ends never justify the means" is a quote from that book, I believe). HOWEVER, if you don't kill the girl, then your inaction condemns the entire world to damnation, which by definition is acting out of selfishness.. another Evil act. Yes, I realize this example is the quintessential "lose-lose" scenario, but that's my entire point for bringing it up; the alignment system by its rigidity (is that even a word?) allows for situations where evil shouldn't always be evil, and good shouldn't always be good.
Pyke_Moonshadow 07-27-06, 12:36 PM	I am a firm believer in the ends never justify the means. Yes life does have lose-lose situations, you deal and suffer the consequences. Of course every lose-lose situation I have seen on these boards is a horrible DM ramrod that he wants to set the players up to fail, which is a problem with the DM and NOT with the alignment system.
krocha 07-27-06, 01:13 PM	I think the biggest problem I have is that things are way to open for personal interpretation and that can be a problem if the DM and players have differing views on each alignment. For example, when I'm not DMing, I play with a great DM who happens to have a totally differint view on Lawful Good then I do. In his world Lawful Good PC's are pretty much majorly discouraged because he feels that adventuring and Lawful Good just doesn't mix. In there are times when the adversaries of the party are Lawful Good paladins and the party in not an "Evil" group. His view are that Lawful Goods (especially Paladins) basically look down on others and constantly tell them what to do (or at least that's my take on it.) They are always played up to what I see as the worse possible negative stereotype possible for the Ideal of Lawful Good. Many of the traits he assignes to Lawful Good I would assign to Evil. Personally when I DM, the only time I look at alignment is when it's used in a game mechanic like a spell or item. If people are drifting fomr what I feel is their alignment I may may some subtle hints but that owuld be about it. And for my tastes, the last thing a Lawful Good PC would do is preach by looking down on others. They would hold to their ideals but only so far as themselves. As long as the party they where in didn't commit grevious acts then he have no problem adventuring with a thief, as long as the laws of the land where not broken. Also, just an FYI, this isn't a did at the guy I share DM duties with. He's flat out the best DM I've ever played under.
a_psh 07-27-06, 01:29 PM	Okay then, lets revisit that classic of scenarios: An innocent five-year old girl is cursed to unleash Hell On Earth on her sixth birthday, and plunge the entire world into 10,000 years of darkness. Is it evil to kill the girl before her birthday, knowing that by killing one innocent person you'll save billions?Difference between an act and a personality. "Good" people will sometimes do "Evil" things. The answer to the "lose-lose" scenario is that you do whatever feels right and it's up to you and your conscience to decide if what you did was the right thing. What defines a "Good" person in this scenario is how he or she feels about the act, not what happens: a (morally) "Neutral" person might say "Needs of the many..." or "You gotta do what you gotta do" and off the girl without a second thought, while the alignment system expects a "Good" person to at least feel some regret. One "Evil" act in trying circumstances does not automagically make you "Evil". Everything works fine unless you drag paladins into all this, and most of this paladin business is based on the erroneous premise that a fallen paladin somehow automatically becomes *N or *E rather than LG and extrapolating from there. A paladin in this scenario could perform the evil act that saves the world and then make penance for it. That makes a fairly decent story, too. The only problem is that, in practice, DMs who set up such "lose-lose" deals often specifically somehow want to flunk paladins and their power-tripping makes atonement difficult. Or, in simpler terms, you can say that a "Good" character tries to do "Good" and abhors doing "Evil", not that a "Good" character only will ever do "Good" things. (Capitalisation and airquotes are used to distinguish the standard D&D definitions of Good and Evil from any others that people might come up with.)
RedUncle 07-27-06, 01:32 PM	I never allow my alignment to dictate my actions - I play with a fairly rambunctious group of guys, so we normally lie someplace between chaotic neutral and chaotic evil - we enjoy setting fire to horses and writing our names in blood -------- but I never let an "evil" alignment tag get in my way of doing good --------- my actions dictate my label, not the other way around
Ezell Pike 07-27-06, 01:37 PM	It can be an obstacle when it comes into contact with real world morality and difficult decisions.
WolfHati 07-27-06, 02:32 PM	Good and evil I've never had a problem with. It basically boils down to whether an idividual is nice or a jackass. If they are enough of these to risk their own personal welfare (good) or someone else's (evil) to be that way, then they are either good or evil, otherwise they're neutral with a certain tendency. Law and chaos seem to be less important, and a bit more tricky. For me it comes down to how much faith they put in rules. Will they break a promise if it suits their good/evil ends? If there's an unjust law, will they first petition for it to be changed (lawful), protest in the streets (neutral), or take action to stop the effects of the law from being carried out by not so legal means (chaotic)? Will they attend wild parties, or do they prefer something more staid? That sort of thing. As for class alignment restrictions, I didn't realize the bard had one, I guess I'd just been ignoring it as it doesn't make any sense. Art requires just as much practice as it requires inspiration, a lawful character would merely take a more analytical approach to composition, rather than straight trial and error or random inspiration. Like a classical violinist vs. a death metal guitarist. Barbarians and monks I can understand. A monk must train religiously, practicing the exacting techniques until they are mastered and learning precise conscious control over their body and mind. That requires a lot of discipline and focus, thus the lawful alignment. Barbarians main ability is to rage, to give up most of their conscious reasoning to be a near feral beast. That's something nobody who's truly lawful, at heart has an ordered mind, could bring themselves to do. And as for Paladins, lawful good is definitely a must. They must be unwavering in their ideals, never willing to take the pragmatic path to a good end over the idealistic one unless there is no other choice, and even then they feel deeply wounded by having to make such a choice. To gain all those extraordinary powers, their dedication must be extreme. Even more so in Eberron, simply because there aren't necessarily gods that say "hey you, you're dedicated tothe cause of justice, have some divine power," but rather the power is possibly purely from them, and contained within their beliefs.
Verelor 07-27-06, 03:19 PM	A few extra points of insight: While it is flawed in some places, I think it is quite OK to quote the Book of Exalted Deeds in an alignment conversation. We have the small fraction of a page dedicated to definining and elaborating on the good alignment in the PHB, and that is good and has a lot of mileage. But if we also have an entire book with hundreds of pages dedicated to defining and elaborating on an alignment in all its many iterations, why not use it? :) * Alignments influence actions. Actions influence alignments. The relationship is circular, not a one-way hierarchy. * Non-neutral alignments are active commitments. Neutral alignments can be active commitments, but more often they represent a state of non-commitment. * Most people in mundane society are neutral in the sense of non-commitment. They have all kinds of leanings, but they don't actively commit themselves in the way that a non-neutral character does. * Most adventurers are committed to something alignment-wise. This means they are not a microcosm of society at large. This is not a problem. * Alignment is a pattern, not a data point. Although it is theoretically possible for a single act to change a person's alignment, it had better be something spectacular, dramatic, and intentional. More often, a person drifts into an alignment simply by acting that way more often than not. * "Do no evil" is part of the paladin's code. This is not an alignment issue. Wizards really needs to clarify this. I couldn't agree more with most of these observations. On law and chaos: I am not sure if categorizing the two ends of the ethical spectrum as left-wing and right-wing is a wonderful idea. Left-wing stresses autonomy and right-wing generally keeps things to a minimum and on a course of stasis, yes. But right-wing can be libertarian much of the time while left-wing actually requires a great deal more rule of law to function (despite what you may have been told) than the right wing. Overall, it is too dissimilar. As for class alignment restrictions, I didn't realize the bard had one, I guess I'd just been ignoring it as it doesn't make any sense. Art requires just as much practice as it requires inspiration, a lawful character would merely take a more analytical approach to composition, rather than straight trial and error or random inspiration. Like a classical violinist vs. a death metal guitarist. That lawful classical violinist has an element of artistry, but is he also a wayward traveller as a bard is? Is he an eclectic or jack-of-all-trades as any bard is? Does he dance under the moonlight, as is natural to a bard? Does his art come from his soul as a bard's art does or must he compose exactly as the duke wishes or else? Bards would say yes to most or all of these things and so much more. The lawful classical violinist? He just makes music, earns a living, and does what the royal court tells him to do.
a_psh 07-27-06, 04:18 PM	That lawful classical violinist has an element of artistry, but is he also a wayward traveller as a bard is? Is he an eclectic or jack-of-all-trades as any bard is? Does he dance under the moonlight, as is natural to a bard? Does his art come from his soul as a bard's art does or must he compose exactly as the duke wishes or else? Bards would say yes to most or all of these things and so much more. The lawful classical violinist? He just makes music, earns a living, and does what the royal court tells him to do.Classes are packets of abilities, not professions. What about the gifted orator or the aforementioned dirge-singing dwarf lorekeeper? Are they non-lawful, too?
Pyke_Moonshadow 07-27-06, 04:29 PM	Classes are packets of abilities, not professions. What about the gifted orator or the aforementioned dirge-singing dwarf lorekeeper? Are they non-lawful, too? If they want those abilities to have magical effects that back them up, then by the rules, yes.
a_psh 07-27-06, 04:56 PM	If they want those abilities to have magical effects that back them up, then by the rules, yes.In other words, the bard's alignment requirement is superfluous.
Ezell Pike 07-27-06, 05:08 PM	Barbarians and monks I can understand. A monk must train religiously, practicing the exacting techniques until they are mastered and learning precise conscious control over their body and mind. That requires a lot of discipline and focus, thus the lawful alignment. Barbarians main ability is to rage, to give up most of their conscious reasoning to be a near feral beast. That's something nobody who's truly lawful, at heart has an ordered mind, could bring themselves to do. I'm not so sure about the barbarian being chaotic as they unlike real people have control over their temper. The chaoticness would stem from their society and the strong ruling the weak. Except in cases where religion or custom decides rather than the individual.
Verelor 07-27-06, 07:43 PM	What about the gifted orator Is the orator also a wayward traveller? A jack-of-many-trades? A spellcaster? If she is not these things, she is more an expert than she is a bard. or the aforementioned dirge-singing dwarf lorekeeper - Dirges are not known for their inspirational qualities. - Dwarves are generally distrustful of magic, especially of the playful bardic variety, and bards are not. - Bards do not keep lore and pore over it, at least not by characterization: that is a wizard's and/or loremaster's job. The bard keeps an open mind and dips and samples her ideas from any cultures, which is what her bardic knowledge partly stems from. I'm not so sure about the barbarian being chaotic as they unlike real people have control over their temper. The chaoticness would stem from their society and the strong ruling the weak. Except in cases where religion or custom decides rather than the individual. True, most barbarians learn to cultivate it to an extent. But the ability to call it "rage" or a "loss of temper" implies that it is a departure from the ability to control one's actions in a predetermined pattern. In a word, non-lawful.
ArcTan 07-27-06, 08:03 PM	As a big Eberron player, I'll just say this. Everything that makes Alignment a needed system in generic D&D is present in Eberron. The *ONLY* mechanical change to alignment, of any kind, is that clerics no longer need to be 1 step away from their deity in alignment. Thats it. For every other purpose, for every spell, class, and everything else, the rules for Alignment in Eberron are identical to the rules for the base game. Its just that Eberron actually paid attention to the freaking rules instead of just inhereting the straightjacket mentality of the previous settings. Basically, there is no argument you can make for or against alignment for either Eberron or Grayhawk that does not apply just as much to the other setting. I don't see why the rule that a Cleric has to be within one step of his deity's alignment is any more unrealistic or unreasonable than the rule that a Paladin has to be LG. Keep in mind that a Cleric is not an ordinary worshipper or even an ordinary priest of a deity, but someone who draws upon divine power based on his faith in the deity. Allows Clerics to freely be cross-aligned to their deity opens up tons of interesting story and roleplay possibilities, sure, but it's not necessarily the more "realistic" choice. It's a direct result of how Eberron treats deities -- as vague embodiments of concepts whose literal existence is in question. That might seem more realistic from some people's perspective, but it is, after all, not like real life (where in real life you can't get magic divine powers at all, or at least not reliably and reproducibly, regardless of how much faith you express in anything). The way I picture it in Eberron, after all, a Cleric of an LG god may himself not be LG but *must still profess to an LG belief system* -- he must still *believe* in the god and have faith in the god's principles, as presented, to be a Cleric of the god, even if his actual actions and personality have been corrupted. If he openly says "I reject the cause of good and embrace evil" he becomes an ex-Cleric of Dol Arrah, not an Evil Cleric of Dol Arrah.
ArcTan 07-27-06, 08:07 PM	Classes are packets of abilities, not professions. What about the gifted orator or the aforementioned dirge-singing dwarf lorekeeper? Are they non-lawful, too? The problem is that the Bard's packet of abilities is a packet of abilities that aren't necessarily linked except by flavor. The Bard isn't just the gifted orator, he's *also* the rootless wanderer who picks up bits and pieces of random trivia (Bardic Knowledge), plus many of his Performance-based abilities involve calling on someone's personal power and individuality rather than the group as a whole (Inspire Heroism, Song of Freedom). It's weak, but it's there. A truly Lawful Bard's Bardic Knowledge ability probably wouldn't work the same way, and would probably replace Song of Freedom with something else, Song of Loyalty or something. Not too hard to houserule. You can say this for alignment restrictions, from a metagame perspective: They do motivate people to play alignments you otherwise might not see. Someone can be tempted into playing a Chaotic character so the party can have a Bard, or an LG character so they can have a Paladin, or an Evil character so they can have an Assassin -- and now you've got a particular character type in your party whom your players might otherwise have overlooked (if they always default to playing LN mercenary types who do the job and don't ask questions). It can be fun. Yes, as much annoyance as it causes, for a Good vs. Evil campaign the rift between the Paladin and the other good guys has generated a lot of story ideas since it was introduced.
Verelor 07-27-06, 08:10 PM	If Eberron's existing cleric concepts were to be applied to all campaign settings, it would be less realistic, not more. In Eberron, the deities may not exist at all and the power probably stems from the simple force of belief (which is ironic, since the fact that it is possible to turn belief into divine miracle demands an objective divine presence). In most campaign settings, divine power is granted from the deity to the believer; it is not absorbed from the other direction. If the cleric's ethical and moral ideas disagree with that of the deity, the god will not be granting divine empowerment to a person that no longer reliably champions her ideals. Get it?
Ezell Pike 07-27-06, 08:24 PM	True, most barbarians learn to cultivate it to an extent. But the ability to call it "rage" or a "loss of temper" implies that it is a departure from the ability to control one's actions in a predetermined pattern. In a word, non-lawful. You state a compelling case. :) On a side note as this thread has taken a bit of a turn. :twitch: It seems that the designers could not decide if Barbarian should be a class or a race. Thief go learn to read. Me have to practice getting mad. :mad: :ahem: :banghead: :headexplo Ta-Da! :D
pres_man 07-27-06, 10:10 PM	Just a quick comment about class alignment restrictions. Some folks have been making comments that seem to imply that bards and barbarians have to be chaotic, this is not the case, they must be non-lawful. This means that they could be chaotic or they could be neutral (on the L-C axis). Classes listed by alignment restriction, from most restricted to least: Paladin Monk Druid Barbarian, Bard *Cleric (restricted based on deity but there is a deity for all alignments) Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard Okay then, lets revisit that classic of scenarios: An innocent five-year old girl is cursed to unleash Hell On Earth on her sixth birthday, and plunge the entire world into 10,000 years of darkness. Is it evil to kill the girl before her birthday, knowing that by killing one innocent person you'll save billions? First off, I would say that I find it disturbing that some DMs do not support the faith of the good characters, and in fact actively work against the faith of good folk. I mean if you set up a situation where if one acts good, bad outcomes occur, how does that support the faith of doing good. In the end it only leads to the idea that doing good is pointless. I'm sure there are some people out there who feel that way in RL, but really that idea isn't appropriate for a fantasy game. People should feel they can actually cause good change. Now to your question, how do would I, as a character, know that she is destined to cause this to happen? Also do I believe in destiny or do I believe in free-will, is either actually the nature of the universe? Also how would I know that the knowledge that she would do this is not a trick by some foul fiend that would love to see the forces of good weakened by giving into desperation? Or alternatively, how do we know that despite the horror of 10,000 years of darkness, that this outcome is not better than killing her and something else coming along with an eternity of darkness? This only makes sense when 1)there is no other way to prevent the incident and 2)we have absolute faith that we know it will happen if she does not die. In this case, if I was a person of faith, I'd go to a church or if I was a cleric I would call upon my deity to take matters into his own hands. It may be that others can handle it better then I can, being limited by my mere mortal standpoint. I would certainly try everything I possible could to not have to kill her, including perhaps sending her to another plane, such as the astral plane where it is timeless and individuals do not age, thus preventing her getting to the age of the curse. I mean we are talking about a fantasy game, if the best solution somebody can come up with is "run a sword through her", I fail to see how that is imaginative. HOWEVER, if you don't kill the girl, then your inaction condemns the entire world to damnation, which by definition is acting out of selfishness.. another Evil act. Actually, and this is a very common mistake for people who think in binary morality, allowing the entire world to go to damnation is not an evil act, it is a neutral act. Purposefully iniatiating the curse, with the goal of cause the damnation of the entire world (what spell does this by the way?) would be an evil act. ----------------EDIT---------------------------------- I should say, if I was a player where a tool of a DM pulled some BS like that, I'd have my character kill the girl. Then have him commit seppuku as a way of cleasing his spirit. Then give the DM the bird and walk out of the game. Life is too short to game with morons.
a_psh 07-27-06, 10:13 PM	Is the orator also a wayward traveller? A jack-of-many-trades? A spellcaster? If she is not these things, she is more an expert than she is a bard.The only one of these that's relevant is the spellcasting. What's on your class skill list is meaningless unless you take points in it (and the bard has plenty of purely social / knowledge-based skills!). Nothing other than that and a few trivial weapon proficiencies really makes the bard a "jack-of-many-trades" or a "wayward traveller". The fact is, using the core rules, if you want to actually game-mechanically inspire people, you have to take bard levels. The closest you can get with any other class is a cleric casting bless. Saying "only non-Lawful people can inspire others" is a completely unecessary limitation imposed on the game, much like "dwarves can't be wizards" in 2nd Edition. - Dirges are not known for their inspirational qualities. - Dwarves are generally distrustful of magic, especially of the playful bardic variety, and bards are not. - Bards do not keep lore and pore over it, at least not by characterization: that is a wizard's and/or loremaster's job. The bard keeps an open mind and dips and samples her ideas from any cultures, which is what her bardic knowledge partly stems from.- Campaign stereotype. Is it really that unthinkable that the exploits of your ancestors would be inspirational? - Campaign stereotype. "Dwarves fear magic" is outdated by at least one edition. The only thing that makes bardic magic "playful" is the alignment requirement to begin with. Or can illusionists not be Lawful now, too? - Campaign stereotype. The loremaster uses the same bardic knowledge mechanic for "lore". The bard has class-skill access to all Knowledge skills, including Knowledge (history) or even Knowledge (architecture) and Knowledge (religion) if you want to take ranks in those. So what if 2-3 class skills on the list aren't a perfect fit? Class skills by themselves mean nothing - even though barbarians have Swim as a class skill, Thog can roleplay being afraid of water by just never taking any points in it. What I'm explicitly advocating is throwing alignment restrictions or even alignment itself out the moment it impedes gameplay. I can find 50 reasons to shoot down any character idea ("A fighter? Your retired soldier can't be a fighter, because that class simply doesn't have enough skill points - you can't even take Profession as a class skill!"). A DM should be trying to make reasonable character ideas work, not squishing them as fast as he can. The challenge here is this: Your player comes to you and says "I want to be a dwarven dirgesinger, chanting the great deeds of my people to inspire my comrades in courage -- vaiyo a-o and all that, y'know -- and honoring their memory through maybe some kind of religious devotion, too. All the skills I want are potential bard class skills, and I think I can make the song mechanics work -- the spell list shouldn't be a problem, thought I might avoid a few spells I think unflavorful, much like Ted's Evoker character is an ice mage and so he doesn't take fire spells. I think I can put it all together... except the alignment's kinda weird, as I'm really trying to emphasize tradition and the dwarven ways with my character here. What should I do?" What should you, as DM, do? a.) Throw out a minor rule ("bards can't be Lawful") because it's no longer useful in this campaign. b.) Tell the player he has to be a wild and crazy wandering minstrel or pick another class.
Zyrusticae 07-27-06, 10:59 PM	I'm, personally, not a big fan of the whole alignment system in general. Ever since KOTOR and similar CRPG's, as well as a whole smattering of anime, I've found the black-and-white view of the world to be woefully inadequate for my roleplaying needs. What's especially grating are the silly alignment restrictions for creatures - so, apparently, a dragon of this color is always going to be of this alignment - meaning my half-brass-dragon/half-lizardfolk character is ALWAYS going to be chaotic good... Blargh. I get even more grated by the whole 'protection from [alignment]' and similar such spells, because the idea that a character has an innate 'essence' that is either good, evil, or neutral is just spectacularly lame, IMO. If actions define alignment, how do such things work in the first place? If someone casts 'protection from good' and I suddenly do a spectacularly evil act knowingly, I'm STILL considered 'good'? Pfah on that, and everything else like it!
pres_man 07-28-06, 12:28 AM	The challenge here is this: Your player comes to you and says "I want to be a dwarven dirgesinger, chanting the great deeds of my people to inspire my comrades in courage -- vaiyo a-o and all that, y'know -- and honoring their memory through maybe some kind of religious devotion, too. All the skills I want are potential bard class skills, and I think I can make the song mechanics work -- the spell list shouldn't be a problem, thought I might avoid a few spells I think unflavorful, much like Ted's Evoker character is an ice mage and so he doesn't take fire spells. I think I can put it all together... except the alignment's kinda weird, as I'm really trying to emphasize tradition and the dwarven ways with my character here. What should I do?" What should you, as DM, do? a.) Throw out a minor rule ("bards can't be Lawful") because it's no longer useful in this campaign. b.) Tell the player he has to be a wild and crazy wandering minstrel or pick another class. So basically, you would want to play a bard that isn't a ... bard. Well there are plenty of options, develop a variant of bard, making a new spell list and such that removes all of these things that you claim are not fitting based on flavor, as well as perhaps changing some of the skills. Or you can instead take the Knight class in PHB II or how about the Marshal class from the MHB? Knight (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060501a&page=2) Marshal (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20030906b) There are certainly alternatives to get the feel of the character you are describing without having to just toss alignments and/or class restrictions to the wind.
MEAT 07-28-06, 12:48 AM	I've read this whole thread so far and would like to throw in my 2-cents: I believe that alignment is a necessity in D&D, not because of its staple throughout the lifespan of D&D, but to help keep troublesome players in check. Without some sort of criterion on which to base the characters morals, many inexperienced players actions would seem be and far psychotic, making a DM's job neigh impossible. However, it should [not] be used as a whipping rod either! I believe others have already stated that alignment is simply a "guideline" that should be followed, and this is more or less how it should be looked at. When a LG player needs just three more gold to purchase an enchantment for his favorite sword and decides it best to kill the nearest noble, this is when alignment plays its part and as a DM, you can simply tell your player, "sorry, your character would NOT do that!" On a side-note, if you can get your players to play non-evil aligned characters, it will be much easier to tell your story - trust me!
smoker 07-28-06, 12:53 AM	How do you feel about alignments in general? Do they help or hinder? What are your opinions of alignment requirements in classes? Are they a necessary part of spellcasting or could some other instrument be used, like penalties? Pike Edit: Would personality traits be more useful? Eg. merciful and stoic. Outdated RPG concept. Remove it.
a_psh 07-28-06, 12:55 AM	So basically, you would want to play a bard that isn't a ... bard. Well there are plenty of options, develop a variant of bard, making a new spell list and such that removes all of these things that you claim are not fitting based on flavor, as well as perhaps changing some of the skills. Or you can instead take the Knight class in PHB II or how about the Marshal class from the MHB? Knight (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060501a&page=2) Marshal (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20030906b) There are certainly alternatives to get the feel of the character you are describing without having to just toss alignments and/or class restrictions to the wind.You miss the point: you can reflavor a class for free by just not choosing a spell or skill that doesn't fit the concept. It's like saying you can't make a pyromancer with just the sorceror class because that class has ice spells on its class list. The dirgesinger is an example that fits the bard mechanics perfectly in every way. Yes, you can create a special "Lawful bard" class that uses all the same rules, but then you've got two identical classes that only differ in the alignment requirement. I can understand alignment restrictions for certain PrCs and even a few of the core classes -- "the Assassins just won't accept you unless you meet their standard of nastiness," for example -- when a class has a strong organizational or metaphysical connection to alignment. I can also understand why this kind of issue won't come up in most games -- not a lot of people want to be a dwarven dirgesinger. But, for the circumstances when it does, it makes more sense to dump an unflavorful "flavor" rule than to make players bend over backwards to actually make the characters they want. But you'll also note that every splatbook published using the new PrC format (the one that takes up like five pages per class) has a little section about how to reflavor things where it goes out of its way to say "think about removing the race restrictions" or "think about removing the alignment restrictions". The same generic D&D flavor won't work for everyone in every game. Every player and GM should look at "flavor" mechanics like alignment with a critical eye to determine whether they actually contribute meaningfully to his world (players should be involved in the process, too). These rules are prime targets for revision because they can sometimes strongly limit options but don't actually contribute to the balance of the game, meaning that it's pretty easy to switch things around without breaking everything in the world.
ArcTan 07-28-06, 02:37 AM	Actually, and this is a very common mistake for people who think in binary morality, allowing the entire world to go to damnation is not an evil act, it is a neutral act. Purposefully iniatiating the curse, with the goal of cause the damnation of the entire world (what spell does this by the way?) would be an evil act. Okay. This is by no means a non-controversial statement. In fact, stating it baldly like that, I'm pretty sure the majority of ordinary people would disagree with you. (We're not all strict utilitarians, but we're not all strict deontologists either. Either extreme leads to choices most people wouldn't be comfortable with.) An incredibly contrived situation like the little girl who's the Portal to Hell is irksome, yes, although if you set it up right and motivate it properly by letting the plot build to it it can be just as compelling as any other seemingly implausible fantasy plot. (Remember Buffy's dilemma when she first discovered Dawn's nature, in Buffy the Vampire Slayer?) But situations where one must sacrifice the few for the good of the many are far from uncommon or implausible in real life, and to *eliminate* such situations from the game world makes it too fantastic for me to believe in -- and destroys the point of the Paladin having *faith* in the first place. In order for it to be a form of faith, it has to be something that's not guaranteed -- he must *decide* to do good even when it looks like it's pointless, or else his faith is meaningless.
a_psh 07-28-06, 01:52 PM	(which is ironic, since the fact that it is possible to turn belief into divine miracle demands an objective divine presence)Err, no. It just demands a universe that is capable of being manipulated by thought and belief, which can be quite easily made to work without there being explicit divine beings. E.g. Planescape, where towns slide around between Planes not because of deities making a land grab or because of worshippers empowering a deity to make a land grab, but because most people there feel and think a certain way and adhere to a certain philosphy.
Edymnion 07-28-06, 03:06 PM	Okay. This is by no means a non-controversial statement. In fact, stating it baldly like that, I'm pretty sure the majority of ordinary people would disagree with you.Not me, he's right. Actions are not black or white. Saying "I take no part in this" is not an evil act, like was said, its Neutral. Its the "I don't care about what other people are doing, I'm protecting myself and my friends". It would be Good to stop the evil invasion. It would be Evil to help the invasion happen. It would be Neutral to say "I'm not choosing sides". The whole "You're either with us, or against us" mentality is typically nothing more than propoganda and peer pressure to get the masses to conform. Doing nothing may be a non-good act, but it isn't evil.
WolfHati 07-28-06, 04:09 PM	On the other hand, just because one sees in color does not mean that black and white are invisible. Just a lot harder to judge in many situations, but those situations don't really matter as far as good and evil go.
Echo_that_Pains 07-28-06, 04:29 PM	Im sorry if im just repeating what someone else said, but i didnt have time to look through all of the responses. I am going to agree with Azezel in the post on Page 1. I think that many people dislike alignments for some of the reasons that Azezel said, but also they are thinking of them too politically and specifically. I agree that alignment does not dictate what a character does in the future, but what it has done in the past. Saying this another way to look at it is alignment is given based on personality traits, personal values/goals, and past actions. The alignment is based on the character, not the character based on the alignment. I agree again that if used correctly that they work fine, but the game is not based around alignment, instead alignment is more of a generalized classification of beliefs/actions/values/personal traits. By getting rid of alignment and using traits such as "slothful, honest, prudent" would be the same thing as alignments only on a more specific level. It would be Neutral to say "I'm not choosing sides". To make this better, neutral would say "Who will offer me more to help?" Or that is in my pov. A neutral person wouldnt care which side won, but would be more interested in how it would impact them and what they could make from it.
Sulaco 07-28-06, 04:48 PM	Alignments are a tool, and a simple one at that, that many folks elect to view as an obstacle for some strange reason.
Verelor 07-28-06, 04:55 PM	Alignments are a tool, and a simple one at that, that many folks elect to view as an obstacle for some strange reason. Well-said. For even more mysterious reasons, some view the alignment system as overly complex.
psetzer 07-28-06, 06:01 PM	Alignments are a tool, and a simple one at that, that many folks elect to view as an obstacle for some strange reason. Likely due to the previous editions, where by the rules as written with examples explicitly stating that this the way it is done: The instant a character voluntarily changes alignment, the experience point cost to gain the next level (or levels in the case of multi-class characters) is doubled. To determine the number of experience points needed to gain the next level (and only the next level), double the number of experience points listed on the appropriate Experience Levels table. In the case of a Wizard, this could potentially be a penalty in the MILLIONS of xp, and this is illustrated with a Wizard switching from NG to LG because the DM determines that the Wizard was acting too lawful. Due to the way the penalty works, this will ALWAYS penalize the character MORE XP THAN THEY HAVE EARNED IN THEIR ENTIRE CAREERS, and it can be done unilaterally by the DM. But wait, it gets better! If an alignment change is involuntary, the double experience penalty is not enforced. Instead, the character earns no experience whatever until his former alignment is regained. This assumes, of course, that the character wants to regain his former alignment. If the character decides that the new alignment isn't so bad after all, he begins earning experience again, but the doubling penalty goes into effect. The player does not have to announce this decision. If the DM feels the character has resigned himself to the situation, that is sufficient. The next example at this point illustrates a character with a Helm of Opposite Alignment not gaining experience over several adventures until he finally tricks an evil wizard into removing the Helm, and if the DM feels generous, is given a small xp bonus for his troubles. This would be a penalty caused entirely by the DM's putting the Helm in a treasure trove, and if the player isn't snappy enough according to the DM whims, they get the idiotically huge penalty. So suppose that our newly LG wizard decides to go back to NG. A character can change alignment any number of times. If more than one change occurs per level, however, the severity of the penalty increases. (The character is obviously suffering from severe mental confusion, akin to a modern-day personality crisis.) When a character makes a second or subsequent alignment change at a given level, all experience points earned toward the next level are immediately lost. The character must still earn double the normal experience. The example given for this rule is the NG mage from the previous example who immediately after being told by the DM that she's now LG tries to change back and loses even what experience they had earned so far during that level. So, understand why some people have a bad taste in their mouths when talking about alignment?
Ezell Pike 07-29-06, 01:05 PM	Psetzer is right i remember those xp penalties. *shudder* that was when you had to obey those two letters on your character sheet or suffer bigtime.
Edymnion 07-29-06, 01:40 PM	Which is why I said in a previous post that people should actually READ the alignment section in 3e, and not just assume they know what it says. A whole heck of a lot changed between 2e and 3e. Just like saying "I didn't know a Fireball didn't fill 10 cubic feet of volume anymore!" isn't really a defense when discussing 3e fireballs, saying you still thought alignment was a straightjacket with horrible penalties for not playing it right is not an excuse when talking about 3e. You've had 6 years to read the rulebook you're playing out of, I think the grace period has expired. :P
Verelor 07-29-06, 04:00 PM	We aren't playing in the Gygaxian days anymore, folks, where the game was about killin' and chillin', too much flavor trampled over not enough crunch, and the "balance" or "consistency" that existed was basically Gustapoed down your throat. Alignment is not a straitjacket. You could be playing an exalted half-dragon paladin-cleric and if it is handled correctly the alignment is going to be just as descriptive as it is perscriptive. Alignment is also far more than simply two letters you write on your character sheet. It describes your character's current moral and ethical outlook, and to some extent influences their actions. It's circular.
a_psh 07-29-06, 04:54 PM	This is a side question, not a point about why alignment may or may not suck... moral and ethical outlookOutside of D&D, "ethics" and "morality" mean pretty much the same thing (or one could say that ethics is the study of morality, perhaps, but the point is that they're both about right and wrong). If one was going to talk about alignment in real-world philosophical terms (e.g. your group is a bunch of philosophy majors and you decide to use your real-world knowledge to roleplay your characters sitting in a bar talking about philosophy), what would the actual term for "Lawful vs. Chaotic" be? Is there a real-world moral system that resembles D&D's alignment axes?
Ezell Pike 07-29-06, 06:14 PM	I have to admit I like killin' :fight!: and chillin' :pint:. I really don't even like crunch in my cereal. ;) It's cool if you do though.
Verelor 07-29-06, 09:17 PM	Outside of D&D, "ethics" and "morality" mean pretty much the same thing (or one could say that ethics is the study of morality, perhaps, but the point is that they're both about right and wrong). If one was going to talk about alignment in real-world philosophical terms (e.g. your group is a bunch of philosophy majors and you decide to use your real-world knowledge to roleplay your characters sitting in a bar talking about philosophy), what would the actual term for "Lawful vs. Chaotic" be? Is there a real-world moral system that resembles D&D's alignment axes? The fact that most people have at least a rudimentary idea of good and evil, and to a lesser extent law and chaos, when they hear the terms being mentioned, whether or not they place D&D, means that yes, morality as we know it is not profoundly dissimilar from the game's.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-29-06, 09:45 PM	Its campaign specific as to whether alignment is a tool or a clutching anchor chain, dragging the game down into the abyss to serve on DAvy Jone's Flying Dutchman for 100 years. If good vs evil is the theme -- then alignment has a purpose. Otherwise, its pointless minutia that's just going to cause fights.
Edymnion 07-29-06, 10:56 PM	Otherwise, its pointless minutia that's just going to cause fights.Only if somebody goes out of their way to do so.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-29-06, 11:43 PM	No, that's the natural consequence of alignment in a campaign where it doesn't matter. At best, its pointless. At worse, its a disruption.
a_psh 07-30-06, 12:09 AM	The fact that most people have at least a rudimentary idea of good and evil, and to a lesser extent law and chaos, when they hear the terms being mentioned, whether or not they place D&D, means that yes, morality as we know it is not profoundly dissimilar from the game's.So what does "Law and Chaos" really mean in real life and when does it come up as a fundamental philosophical concept? Would history/philosophy buffs recognize the idea as coming from somewhere other than Moorcock? I'm not trotting out a reason to remove alignment when I ask this -- I'm asking for any decent examples of how real-world thinkers have tried to analyze this kind of thing in order to add depth to the concept.
Edymnion 07-30-06, 12:22 AM	No, that's the natural consequence of alignment in a campaign where it doesn't matter. At best, its pointless. At worse, its a disruption.I think you're horribly over-inflating things here. There are no disruptions what-so-ever due to alignment that magically go away when you get rid of the rules and keep playing the characters the same way. If there are "alignment conflicts", the conflict comes from how the characters are being played, not their alignments. In fact, the *ONLY* example I can think of would be a Paladin in the same group as an Evil character, and again, thats more the fault of the DM for allowing a Paladin and an Evil character in the same group to begin with, when he doesn't have mature enough players to handle the situation. There is almost no concievable situation that can come up (short of somebody throwing up Protection From X spells when somebody in the group happens to be of the alignment the spell protects from) that alignment matters in any way that wouldn't still be there if alignment was ignored.
a_psh 07-30-06, 12:38 AM	No, that's the natural consequence of alignment in a campaign where it doesn't matter. At best, its pointless. At worse, its a disruption.I'd ammend that to say that alignment can still be useful in a game where it doesn't matter -- players can still use the concept to help them bootstrap their characters, even if it never comes up in the actual game. Whether you think this is good or bad depends on whether you're okay with players having a "crutch", so to speak -- I'd say that it's okay to let people have something familiar if they feel lost in your world. But I do agree that the natural consequence of alignment being a tool is that, sometimes, you just won't need it.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-30-06, 01:15 AM	I think you're horribly over-inflating things here. There are no disruptions what-so-ever due to alignment that magically go away when you get rid of the rules and keep playing the characters the same way. If there are "alignment conflicts", the conflict comes from how the characters are being played, not their alignments. Unless the player is playing like an idiot, problems with how the character are played crop up as 'you can't do that, you're chaoti' and other such scholock. In fact, the *ONLY* example I can think of would be a Paladin in the same group as an Evil character, and again, thats more the fault of the DM for allowing a Paladin and an Evil character in the same group to begin with, when he doesn't have mature enough players to handle the situation. Paladins are a disruptive force in the game even without alignment to drive them forward intot he 'wonderful' world of PvP. There is almost no concievable situation that can come up (short of somebody throwing up Protection From X spells when somebody in the group happens to be of the alignment the spell protects from) that alignment matters in any way that wouldn't still be there if alignment was ignored. Many people use alignment as a character crutch. 'In character' they do thing 'because I'm good' or 'because he was evil' remove alignment, you remove the crutch and now they actually need in character reasons for thier actions as opposed to meta reasons that are only valid in a Good Vs. Evil campaign. Further, any alignment spells become very complicated, bad news in games where alignment isn't key. The fact that Holy Word will probably kill all your neutral and any evil allies you come up with in a game that isn't good vs. evil. So much so that I'd say the most alignment spells are flat out unusable in a game where Good vs. Evil isn't the point or at least part of the point.
jedi_man 07-30-06, 02:09 AM	There are only two situations I can think of in which alignments could be considered "straightjackets", as some have called them in this thread. The first is when you've got an inexperienced DM who has the alignments mentally pictured as 9 little cages with characters trapped inside, and every time you try to roleplay and decide what your character should do, your ideas conflict with with your character's current alignment. This in turn makes you feel like you can't or shouldn't carry out an action, when in reality, anything but a sudden and dramatic shift (although they can happen) is really you and the game representing changes in your character's personality, bringing them closer to how you REALLY want to play them. The second situation is when you want to throw your character all over the moral spectrum, which isn't roleplaying at all, it's most likely just basing their actions on metagame thinking. The nine alignment combos are designed to encompass every conceivable character, if your character doesn't fit into any of them, then it's because your definition of "roleplaying" means screwing around with a character without any direction or goal. //your character's actions// affect //your character's alignment// affects //the metagame (spells, etc)// it doesn't go full circle, information on who's good and evil shouldn't really be available, IMHO, just follow your instincts for your characters moral judgement The words "What alignment is this guy?" shouldn't have to be said by players or the DM. An NPC's alignment is secondary to his actions, and the players should interact with them based on their perceptions of those actions. A paladin could very well read someone wrong, and be friendly with a wolf in sheep's clothing, they shouldn't just ask what alignment they are, then just kill them if the answer is "evil". Alignment isn't a "crutch" either, as said in the previous post. An in character justification should be an alignment justification, even if it results in changing that alignment.
pres_man 07-30-06, 02:46 AM	I think if you really wanted to remove alignments then you'd probably have to have codes of conduct for many characters. These can be developed exclusively by the player, the DM, or a collaboration of the two (often the best idea). Of course even with alignments this is often a good idea.
a_psh 07-30-06, 03:19 AM	//your character's actions// affect //your character's alignment// affects //the metagame (spells, etc)// it doesn't go full circle, information on who's good and evil shouldn't really be available, IMHO, just follow your instincts for your characters moral judgementDetect evil. Is it potentially failible? Sure. But so is your moral judgement. The words "What alignment is this guy?" shouldn't have to be said by players or the DM.They must be said every time an alignment-based spell or item effect is used. An NPC's alignment is secondary to his actions, and the players should interact with them based on their perceptions of those actions. A paladin could very well read someone wrong, and be friendly with a wolf in sheep's clothing, they shouldn't just ask what alignment they are, then just kill them if the answer is "evil".However, a paladin must not associate or abet Evil. It is very much in his interests to use every tool at his disposal (that means both his radar and his brain) to uncover Evil. And, being a paladin, he should do something to oppose that Evil when he discovers it. Alignment isn't a "crutch" either, as said in the previous post. An in character justification should be an alignment justification, even if it results in changing that alignment.It's a tool. That means it can be a crutch if you choose to use it as such. If you're doing something where alignment-the-tool matters, use it. If you're doing something where alignment-the-tool is simply irrelevant and you're worried about alignment-the-crutch spoiling things, you should remove it. If you're doing something where alignment-the-tool is irrelevant but alignment-the-crutch isn't a problem, whether you keep it or ditch it is really just a matter of personal preference (I opt for ditching it since I don't like strange game-mechanical cruft(*)). (* -- Alignment only qualifies as "cruft" when it's not useful. It's "strange" because it is a unique game mechanic not related to AC or attributes or d20 rolls, which means it's not the same as leaving in the Swim rules in a game where they'll never come up.)
Edymnion 07-30-06, 01:43 PM	Unless the player is playing like an idiot, problems with how the character are played crop up as 'you can't do that, you're chaoti' and other such scholock.Come now Vaal, you can't very well sit there with a straight face and tell me that the rules are broken by citing examples where people aren't even using the rules correctly in the first place. You might as well say that the Wizard isn't worth playing in 3e because they take so much more xp to level up compared to the Fighter.
a_psh 07-30-06, 02:09 PM	Returning to a previous point... Alignment is fun if used well and is a drag if used incorrectly, like nearly all other elements of the game!I've never had anything other than a neutral opinion on alignment. I use it when I thought it was useful and try to avoid it when it's not. What kinds of games and situations actually make alignment fun?
Verelor 07-30-06, 02:49 PM	Vaalingrade, thank you for so courteously brow-beating everyone else in the name of what you call liberty. Unless the player is playing like an idiot, problems with how the character are played crop up as 'you can't do that, you're chaoti' and other such scholock. Please phrase your sentences more overtly, because I can't understand what you are talking about here, other than some vague element of distaste. Paladins are a disruptive force in the game even without alignment to drive them forward intot he 'wonderful' world of PvP. Again, what in the world are you talking about? I was able to decode as far as "paladins are a disruptive force." If you disruptive force you mean they will not work with the ideals of evil-aligned people (as goes with most good-aligned people, not just paladins), then you are correct. How wonderfully disruptive indeed. Many people use alignment as a character crutch. None of which are good role-players, probably. 'In character' they do thing 'because I'm good' or 'because he was evil' remove alignment, you remove the crutch and now they actually need in character reasons for thier actions as opposed to meta reasons that are only valid in a Good Vs. Evil campaign. Your poorly structured statements are getting in the way of me providing the best possible response or learning as much as I could from you, but what you are probably implying is that "if alignment exists than it is going to dominate roleplaying, and characters will become two-dimsensional". With a good group, fat chance. My group includes even an exalted teifling paladin, and her character is dynamic, wonderful, and believable. The fact that the character is saintly is another layer of depth, not a ridgeless path. It's the lawful neutral martial-artist player that has problems with roleplaying his character's personality. Further, any alignment spells become very complicated, bad news in games where alignment isn't key. The fact that Holy Word will probably kill all your neutral and any evil allies you come up with in a game that isn't good vs. evil. In most games, the neutrals would be adequately prepared (with spells such as deafness). In my games, good-aligned effects do not usually bring harm to those that are neither virtuous nor villanous. So much so that I'd say the most alignment spells are flat out unusable in a game where Good vs. Evil isn't the point or at least part of the point. The idea of good and that of evil is part of the point in our own world. Besides the holy word and equivelant spells, most other aligned spells only affect opposites. You have have no point here whatsoever. I can't remember a fantasy setting that has been front-and-center good-versus-evil. I testify that even in Eberron alignment adds, rather than subtracts, from the experience. I've never had anything other than a neutral opinion on alignment. I use it when I thought it was useful and try to avoid it when it's not. What kinds of games and situations actually make alignment fun? The kinds of games and situations that make alignment fun are those that include issues of morality, ethics, or philosophical scism. As in, most that are worth playing. No, that's the natural consequence of alignment in a campaign where it doesn't matter. At best, its pointless. At worse, its a disruption. I can't imagine a campaign where moral issues don't have some sway. In the closest example to an extremely gray world, alignment would still be a useful descriptive tool (two capital letters on a character sheet in a very gray campaign have never hurt). So what does "Law and Chaos" really mean in real life and when does it come up as a fundamental philosophical concept? Would history/philosophy buffs recognize the idea as coming from somewhere other than Moorcock? I'm not trotting out a reason to remove alignment when I ask this -- I'm asking for any decent examples of how real-world thinkers have tried to analyze this kind of thing in order to add depth to the concept. Just look at the Left and Right. Both claim to respect liberty, and both claim to embrace the rule of law. The fundamental things is, do they?
a_psh 07-30-06, 03:17 PM	The kinds of games and situations that make alignment fun are those that include issues of morality, ethics, or philosophical scism. As in, most that are worth playing.Do detect law or holy word contribute to the philosophical complexity of the game? Does the Evil monster subtype? I can't imagine a campaign where moral issues don't have some sway. In the closest example to an extremely gray world, alignment would still be a useful descriptive tool (two capital letters on a character sheet in a very gray campaign have never hurt).I can imagine a campaign where morality is purely mentall rather than monitored on a giant metaphysical wheel, however. Just any "extremely gray world" is not the quintessence of a game in which alignment is meaningless. Alignment provides a strong (but not necessarily definitive) answer to the questions "What does it mean to be good?" and "What does it mean to be evil?" You can argue about minutae and specific acts, but involving alignment in a game means that there are predefined answers to a lot of philosophical questions (this is why we can defininitely say that purely utalitarian arguments about good and evil don't hold in all of the so-called "paladin dilemmas", for example -- the alignment system tells us that arguments like "needs of the many..." and "ends justify the means" are, simply, wrong). It gives you a clear standard of what makes a good person and what makes a bad person. Sometimes, when that question is front-and-center in the world, you don't want to have a predefined answer imposed from on high. Likewise, when that question is irrelevant, you don't want to have to keep referencing the answer (which alignment-based spells force you to do, to a certain extent). Just look at the Left and Right. Both claim to respect liberty, and both claim to embrace the rule of law. The fundamental things is, do they?D&D Law/Chaos is painted as a question of personal philosophy, not political ideology, however -- following "the law" doesn't make you lawful and disregarding it doesn't make you chaotic. That's why I asked the question in terms of philosophical and not political movements.
Ezell Pike 07-30-06, 03:19 PM	When everyone sits down at the table does everyone have to be on the same page, with regard to how alignment will be handled? Do most DM's sort this out in advance? Would this help? In all of campaigns that I have been in we have used alignment. It was not always an issue. Remarkably, even when players did not role play well, opposing alignment characters were still at odds. I have yet another question. Lets say you have 4 players and they all pick the same alignment. Would they come to different conclusions about a moral dilemma?
pres_man 07-30-06, 03:36 PM	I have yet another question. Lets say you have 4 players and they all pick the same alignment. Would they come to different conclusions about a moral dilemma? It is likely they would, but it is also likely that they might not. It all depends on what they see as the overriding issues. Let's take an example where a group of 4 paladins are sent to bring back a murderer. They are a paladin of Ehlonna (PE), a paladin of Pelor (PP), a paladin of Heironeous (PH), and a paladin of St. Cuthbert (PS). Now paladins officially don't need to have patron deities so we will assume that each of the patron deity is worshipped due to a similiar goal that the paladin has with it. PH then might have a LG alignment, while PP has a lG alignment, and PS has a Lg alignment, and PE has a lg alignment. Now lets say they track the murderer and find him bleeding to death in a pit trap someone had made, all quickly detect evil, and he is evil. What do the paladins do? Well, I could see the following occuring: PP: We should quickly climb down and save him. PS: Indeed we should so we can take him back to be judged and then perhaps put to death. PE: I disagree, we know he is most likely guilty due to the foulness of his soul. We will only be delaying his death. Best to allow him to die here, where his foulness as led him. PP: But he might not be beyond redemption, his soul still might be saved. PS: We can not allow a random act to steal justice from our people. PH: Let us take him, it may be that he still might be redeemed, though I have little hope of it, even if his life is forfeit.
Verelor 07-30-06, 03:44 PM	Do detect law or holy word contribute to the philosophical complexity of the game? Does the Evil monster subtype? They don't necessarily have to. Simple is good somethimes too. I can imagine a campaign where morality is purely mentall rather than monitored on a giant metaphysical wheel, however. Eberron? Just any "extremely gray world" is not the quintessence of a game in which alignment is meaningless. Then what is? Alignment provides a strong (but not necessarily definitive) answer to the questions "What does it mean to be good?" and "What does it mean to be evil?" You can argue about minutae and specific acts, but involving alignment in a game means that there are predefined answers to a lot of philosophical questions (this is why we can defininitely say that purely utalitarian arguments about good and evil don't hold in all of the so-called "paladin dilemmas", for example -- the alignment system tells us that arguments like "needs of the many..." and "ends justify the means" are, simply, wrong). It gives you a clear standard of what makes a good person and what makes a bad person. Sometimes, when that question is front-and-center in the world, you don't want to have a predefined answer imposed from on high. Likewise, when that question is irrelevant, you don't want to have to keep referencing the answer (which alignment-based spells force you to do, to a certain extent). In Greyhawk, where alignment is a middle issue, or FR where it is a middle-to-front issue, some things are simply objectively tied to a particular moral structure. Is this a problem? D&D Law/Chaos is painted as a question of personal philosophy, not political ideology, however -- following "the law" doesn't make you lawful and disregarding it doesn't make you chaotic. That's why I asked the question in terms of philosophical and not political movements. Why can't (non-corrupt) police officers work with many environmental activists? Both of them share so many of the same ideals and want to make the world a better place, but their methods either embrace order and pattern or see little use for it. Why can't dictators and street thugs work together to screw everyone else? They're both bad and corrupt people, right? Because one seeks his dominance through a structured system that he holds "sacred", and the other doesn't. These aren't perfect examples, but if you can at least "feel" an element of truth, I have fulfilled the purpose.
a_psh 07-30-06, 03:47 PM	I have yet another question. Lets say you have 4 players and they all pick the same alignment. Would they come to different conclusions about a moral dilemma?As long as they're roleplaying real people, there's plenty of room to disagree. Alignment is only representative of general tendencies when used for human or human-like beings. The alignment system, however, does usually dictate that one of the choices is objectively superior to the others (i.e. the universe thinks it's better). The characters don't always know that the universe thinks, however.
Verelor 07-30-06, 06:40 PM	I have yet another question. Lets say you have 4 players and they all pick the same alignment. Would they come to different conclusions about a moral dilemma? Absolutely. Alignment works in broad strokes rather than pin points. You could have two people of the same alignment and their views may be as different as that of a conservative and a libertarian.
ArcTan 07-30-06, 10:06 PM	As long as they're roleplaying real people, there's plenty of room to disagree. Alignment is only representative of general tendencies when used for human or human-like beings. The alignment system, however, does usually dictate that one of the choices is objectively superior to the others (i.e. the universe thinks it's better). The characters don't always know that the universe thinks, however. It says that one is "better" in the sense of "more good", but that's a tautology. "Better" in the sense of "more natural", "more likely to win in the end", "more consonant with the universe's essential nature"... that's arguable. Certainly us good guys think Good is the way the universe is meant to be and the way it will eventually end up being. But you can hear arguments either way. And the question, always, is who's right -- is it true that all order will ultimately fall into scattered chaos, or is it true that all individuality and variation will eventually be subsumed into a single organizing structure? And, along those same lines, does agape-love always ultimately undo selfishness and hatred, or does the natural desire of each individual will to impose itself on others always poison attempts at empathetic connection and altruism? Who knows? It's a long-standing debate that may *never* get resolved (and the rilmani are on the side of "It never will, and it never should"). The attempt to resolve it is, in Planescape, what defines the endless struggles of the planes.
ArcTan 07-30-06, 10:11 PM	Not me, he's right. Actions are not black or white. Saying "I take no part in this" is not an evil act, like was said, its Neutral. Its the "I don't care about what other people are doing, I'm protecting myself and my friends". It would be Good to stop the evil invasion. It would be Evil to help the invasion happen. It would be Neutral to say "I'm not choosing sides". The whole "You're either with us, or against us" mentality is typically nothing more than propoganda and peer pressure to get the masses to conform. Doing nothing may be a non-good act, but it isn't evil. This seriously depends on the situation. If you don't use very strongly loaded terms like Good or Evil with the capital letters, be honest -- if I were walking down the street and I saw an old lady being beaten up by a couple of skinny 14-year-old punks, and I'm a big 20-year-old bodybuilder who could easily take them, but instead I choose to just keep walking -- or, say, watch and laugh at the whole thing -- would you really not call me a jerk, an ass, or even a horrible monster for doing so? If it were you, and you were trapped under a rock dying of thirst, and I drove by, stopped and said "Ha ha!" and then left, wouldn't you at least think I was a bad person? Of course people will say the exact opposite, too, usually to justify when *they* don't pause and intervene in something they think of as minor. But that doesn't stop them from complaining if people don't lift a finger to help them when they desperately need it. All this proves is that people can be inconsistent and self-serving about moral ideas because they're imperfect (i.e. Neutral). The idea that all people *must* adhere to a moral code that requires them to exhibit certain conduct toward others regardless of their degree of connection is Lawful, indeed, and not Good (and could easily be Evil). But the *opposite* statement -- *no one* is *ever* obligated to intervene in someone else's affairs if they don't feel like it -- is the essence of Chaotic, and ordinary, Neutral people will find holding to the one absolutely just as distasteful as holding to the other. "I am never obligated to help anyone unless I feel like it" is too Chaotic for most people to swallow.
ArcTan 07-30-06, 10:38 PM	So what does "Law and Chaos" really mean in real life and when does it come up as a fundamental philosophical concept? Would history/philosophy buffs recognize the idea as coming from somewhere other than Moorcock? I'm not trotting out a reason to remove alignment when I ask this -- I'm asking for any decent examples of how real-world thinkers have tried to analyze this kind of thing in order to add depth to the concept. Sure. Moorcock, after all, wasn't that big a genius -- he just gave a name to a particular thing that has been roiling around in the Western collective unconscious a long time. William Blake, for example, focuses on the conflict between Urizen and Orc as his central theme, with Urizen representing the Divine Architect who intends to map out the whole universe as a single system, and Orc representing the force of creative passion who inspires individual creativity and free will. This kind of thing is there all the time in culture, especially in modern fantasy and SF. The Vorlons and the Shadows from Babylon 5 exemplify D&D style Law and Chaos, after all. Modern occult practitioners often reference this using the terminology of "right-handed" and "left-handed" magic, something that's not really given that much credence by most mainstream theologians (whom the occultists, of course, then simply label "right-handed"/Lawful) but they do have an antecedent in such things as tantra in Hinduism, focused on taking the "ordinary" rules and transcending them by violating them in order to magnify spirit by magnifying free will. (No, there was never a time when Hindus thought having sex freely and promiscuously was "good" religious behavior, despite what exoticizing accounts from the West say -- the set of stereotypical practices that get labeled "tantra" today were followed precisely because they went against what most of society believed.) Other, similar concepts recur in various academic fields. Sociologists talk about the difference between a "culture of honor" and a "culture of law", which seems to me to be a good split between Lawful and Chaotic alignment, and an explanation for how a Chaotic society could be "orderly" and, by their standards, law-abiding and yet hold a Chaotic philosophy. As for philosophy itself -- it's not my field, and Law/Chaos by itself is too simple a split for most moral philosophers, but it seems to me that a consequentalist is *more likely* to be Chaotic and a deontologist *more likely* to be Lawful, though the definitions of those two don't have anything in particular to do with Law or Chaos -- it's just that a consequentialist is more likely to think on a personal scale, because consequences are more observable on a personal scale than a universal one, and deontologists more likely to think on a universal scale, because abstract moral duties are easier to express on a universal scale than a personal one. I do tend to think of the Kantian categorical imperative as the ultimate capsule expression of what it means to be Lawful, and, by contrast, egoistic moral philosophies to be what I mean when I think of Chaotic. (Ayn Rand is the celebrity face of Chaos in the 20th century.)
a_psh 07-30-06, 10:59 PM	Thanks, ArcTan. That was the kind of answer I was looking for.
a_psh 07-30-06, 11:15 PM	Then what is?A game in which one of the main themes is to have the player characters evaluate and construct their own moral system. This is not every "shades of gray" game, only a subset. But you have to admit that giving them a moral system right out of the box and embedding it in the game mechanics is a bad idea there. It's like letting someone peek into the envelope in Clue. Why can't (non-corrupt) police officers work with many environmental activists? Both of them share so many of the same ideals and want to make the world a better place, but their methods either embrace order and pattern or see little use for it. Why can't dictators and street thugs work together to screw everyone else? They're both bad and corrupt people, right? Because one seeks his dominance through a structured system that he holds "sacred", and the other doesn't. These aren't perfect examples, but if you can at least "feel" an element of truth, I have fulfilled the purpose.Thanks. That's interesting. I think I get what you mean here, intuitively. My apologies for not having noticed that until now (stupid page breaks!).
a_psh 07-30-06, 11:19 PM	Next thing to muse about, for those who are bored: Is alignment useful in a game where you only get to peek (i.e. through magic or just other people telling you things) at your own? Why or why not?
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-31-06, 12:42 AM	Not me, he's right. Actions are not black or white. Saying "I take no part in this" is not an evil act, like was said, its Neutral. Its the "I don't care about what other people are doing, I'm protecting myself and my friends". It would be Good to stop the evil invasion. It would be Evil to help the invasion happen. It would be Neutral to say "I'm not choosing sides". The whole "You're either with us, or against us" mentality is typically nothing more than propoganda and peer pressure to get the masses to conform. Doing nothing may be a non-good act, but it isn't evil. EXCEPT -- and this is where it all falls apart -- that people (which are what characters are supposed to represent) are (in theory) three dimensional and rarely act solely on moral grounds. It would be NOT be Good to stop the evil invasion because it would ruin your years of usurping power from within. It would NOT be Evil to help the invasion happen if you're doing it to make it as quick and bloodless as possible where otherwise none would survive. It would NOT be Neutral to say "I'm not choosing sides" because you have an invested interest in seeing that the fighting go on as long as possible.
Edymnion 07-31-06, 01:03 AM	This seriously depends on the situation. If you don't use very strongly loaded terms like Good or Evil with the capital lettersI used the capital letters because I was not referring to generic good and evil, but the specific D&D defintions for Good and Evil. be honest -- if I were walking down the street and I saw an old lady being beaten up by a couple of skinny 14-year-old punks, and I'm a big 20-year-old bodybuilder who could easily take them, but instead I choose to just keep walking -- or, say, watch and laugh at the whole thing -- would you really not call me a jerk, an ass, or even a horrible monster for doing so?Jerk, yes. An ass, yes. But it is not D&D Evil, it is D&D Neutral. You do not care about greater ideologies, you don't care about what happens to people you've never met. You look out for yourself, and those you care about. As long as you and yours are okay, the rest of the world can get along by itself however it likes. Thats what being Neutral is. Walking by while a little old lady gets beat up would definately be Non-Good, because it is Neutral. It would be Evil if you helped beat the old lady up. If it were you, and you were trapped under a rock dying of thirst, and I drove by, stopped and said "Ha ha!" and then left, wouldn't you at least think I was a bad person?See, thats the problem. Pop culture has tried to make it an either or deal, something is either good, or it is evil. D&D has a third option. Just because it isn't Good does not automatically make it Evil. You can be a lousy excuse for a human being, and still not be Evil. Let me say it again, Non-Good =/= Evil.
High Octane 07-31-06, 01:07 AM	Alignment detracts from realisticity. On the other hand, this is a fantasy game. I use it. I dont think D&D was ever meant to really be a game where you argue about morality.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-31-06, 01:37 AM	Alignment detracts from realisticity. On the other hand, this is a fantasy game. I use it. I dont think D&D was ever meant to really be a game where you argue about morality. Not all fantasy need be about the "Epic Struggle Between Good and Evil" Especially not in such inexplicably concrete, yet, undefined ways as DnD goes about it. Stripped down to the basics, Good and Evil are just teams like Red and Blue. Its okay for Red to harm or kill Blue because Blue is Blue. They may have some flowery language about them about respecting sentient life or harming life, but it all goes out the window when some goblins find some starmetal and make a warren on top of it. People think that's not the way its *supposed* to go, but the game encourages you when it talks about coatyls and lammasu inexplicably attacking anyone evil they find regaurdless of what they're currently engaged in.
Edymnion 07-31-06, 01:48 AM	Stripped down to the basics, Good and Evil are just teams like Red and Blue. Its okay for Red to harm or kill Blue because Blue is Blue.Actually, its a very Blue act to kill a Blue thing just because they are Blue, unless you have some evidence that they have been doing very blue things to be Blue, and they don't just sort of think blue and never really do any of it. Attacking somebody because of their color is always a Blue act :)
ArcTan 07-31-06, 02:36 AM	See, thats the problem. Pop culture has tried to make it an either or deal, something is either good, or it is evil. D&D has a third option. Just because it isn't Good does not automatically make it Evil. You can be a lousy excuse for a human being, and still not be Evil. Let me say it again, Non-Good =/= Evil. It's not "pop culture". It's also quite a few philosophers, theologians, and major religious dogmas held over the years. The idea that you *can*, in the long run, be truly "neutral" as a general concept is one that's hotly contested in religious circles. Most people believe that in the long run it's impossible -- believing that you are, in fact, required to be good by whatever system it is that defines these concepts (God, the universe, society) is part of how "good" is even defined in the first place. I could construct a ridiculously contrived example to attack your idea, but I'd rather not. I'd think that even a non-contrived example -- a man has a heart attack, and it'd take me ten seconds to call 911 but I don't because I don't like the guy -- would make most people call my inaction "evil". Indeed, living in a society where there's even the barest modicum of an implied social contract requiring social responsibility -- where people expect you to signal before you turn, and hold the elevator door open for the woman sprinting desperately toward it, and tip waiters in restaurants -- it's hard to separate sins of commission and omission. Is it evil not to call 911 if I'm this guy's bodyguard and *paid to enforce his safety*? Is it evil not to call 911 if I'm a doctor and have a professional obligation to act as a doctor if ever needed? Is it evil not to call 911 if I'm a member of a religion that has as one of its tenets "Thou shalt call 911 for old men having heart attacks?" Is it evil not to call 911 if this guy is my father? Or my best friend? Or a random man to whom I once said, "Hey, if you ever have a heart attack, I'll call 911 for you"? Okay, some more contrived examples: Is it evil to open the door and let someone into a house who then proceeds to kill someone in the house? All I did was open a door, hardly an evil act in and of itself. It's evil to shove a guy into a ditch and break his legs, sure. But if there's a rainstorm and the ditch starts filling up with water, are you saying it's no *more* evil to just sit there and watch as he starts drowning? That it's the *same* degree of evil as just sitting there on a clear sunny day while he lies there till the ambulance arrives? To borrow an example from Asimov's _I, Robot_, is it evil to jokingly drop a 10-ton weight toward someone's head from fifty feet up, with every intention of grabbing it before it hits them again (keeping in mind that I am a very powerful but mentally unbalanced robot), and then suddenly *change my mind* and let it continue to drop and kill them? Only the dropping was an action, and it was conducted with every intention of keeping the human safe. The letting it fall isn't. (I'm a robot. I can change my mind very quickly.) Hell, you can even argue the dropping itself isn't an action, but the cessation of action -- I was exerting strength to keep this weight supported, now I'm not. See, commission vs. omission is almost impossible to define. Even the Catholic Church doesn't like it anymore. It's too easy to construct an endless list of hypotheticals and, in the end, prove that the difference between "acting" and "not acting" is purely *semantic*, not a real difference that people really understand or respect in everyday life, not one you can seamlessly construct from philosophical first principles. You can still try to use it as the basis of morality, just as people use all kinds of flawed principles, but don't pretend it's objectively true, that it's intuitively obvious, and that it's only "pop culture" that makes people not think that. In my mind, someone who cares primarily about themselves and their loved ones doesn't care *much* about others is Neutral. Someone who doesn't care about about others *at all*, however, is Evil. After all, if you really really love your family and want them to have the best, and you don't care about other people *at all*, why *not* stab someone and take his wallet so you can buy your family nice things, if you can get away with it? You might say it's an Evil act because it involves cruelty or hatred of another, but in this case it doesn't -- I don't particularly want the stranger to suffer, I just don't care about him *at all*, so I have no reason to care if he suffers or dies as long as it benefits me and my family, the only people I care about. Neutral isn't its own choice, in my mind, it's the middle ground between the two choices that people occupy because they're imperfect and inconsistent. Being Neutral means that, sure, I care enough about you not to hit you with my car for the heck of it, not to beat you up and take your wallet, and even to say "Hi" to you in the street and maybe give you fifteen cents to take the bus home if it'll get you to leave me alone. None of this implies I care about you much, but it does imply I care about you *some* -- if I cared absolutely nothing about anyone I didn't know, then I would really have no reason not to steal, cheat and even murder my head off as long as I could get away with it and get benefit from it, which does *not* describe most people (or, at least, how most people like to think of themselves).
ArcTan 07-31-06, 02:38 AM	Not all fantasy need be about the "Epic Struggle Between Good and Evil" Especially not in such inexplicably concrete, yet, undefined ways as DnD goes about it. Stripped down to the basics, Good and Evil are just teams like Red and Blue. Its okay for Red to harm or kill Blue because Blue is Blue. They may have some flowery language about them about respecting sentient life or harming life, but it all goes out the window when some goblins find some starmetal and make a warren on top of it. People think that's not the way its *supposed* to go, but the game encourages you when it talks about coatyls and lammasu inexplicably attacking anyone evil they find regaurdless of what they're currently engaged in. You do realize that in D&D being able to "detect evil" actually tells you something objective about someone's personality and ingrained tendencies and past history. If I had a device that actually could read out a display that said "This person rapes and kills prostitutes for the hell of it, even though right now he's just walking down the street" and I were a cop, yeah, I'd try to arrest and/or shoot him. It's because *to you* the evil creature being scanned by detect evil has no history outside the encounter, and the DM tends to like to simplify these things by running detect evil as a purely mechanical effect ("Detect evil?" "Yes" rather than telling you what you actually sense) that the Red Team/Blue Team effect is increased. But it's not how it's actually supposed to go.
Roxlimn 07-31-06, 04:13 AM	ArcTan: 1. Technically speaking, this dichotomy of Good and Evil are ingrained in pop culture which includes the influence of all these philosophers and thinkers. Neutral itself is defined in the D&D PHB, so there's hardly that much ambiguity about it. 2. The game does tell you something specific about the character that detects as evil, but not why. How you act on this information tells you more about whether you're Red or Blue than whether you think negatively about it or not. Thinking and acting Blue on the information makes you Blue, regardless of whether the magic detected positive or not.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-31-06, 06:55 AM	You do realize that in D&D being able to "detect evil" actually tells you something objective about someone's personality and ingrained tendencies and past history. If I had a device that actually could read out a display that said "This person rapes and kills prostitutes for the hell of it, even though right now he's just walking down the street" and I were a cop, yeah, I'd try to arrest and/or shoot him. It tells you nothing about thier personality or ingrained tendencies. It tells you only what *acts* they have committed. It tells you nothing of how or why. Your device, if it were like detect evil, would instead tell you that they killed a prostitute. It will not tell you that he killed her when his car slipped out of park and ran her over. It's because *to you* the evil creature being scanned by detect evil has no history outside the encounter, and the DM tends to like to simplify these things by running detect evil as a purely mechanical effect ("Detect evil?" "Yes" rather than telling you what you actually sense) that the Red Team/Blue Team effect is increased. But it's not how it's actually supposed to go. Detect Evil is an insanely innaccurate spell, even ignoring that acts are judged outside of context by alignment. Standing in the area where an unhallow was once cast will register you as evil and 'justify' your forthcoming untimely death. The thing is *either* alignment is a measure of personality, at which point, it is not a justification for Lawful Good philosophical genocide *or* it is a measure of acts, at which point, there is little reason to trust alignment because it doesn't care about context.
Roxlimn 07-31-06, 07:03 AM	I don't think "detect evil" was ever successfully touted as a reasonable justification for persecution, much less murder.
Ezell Pike 07-31-06, 09:23 AM	It's not "pop culture". It's also quite a few philosophers, theologians, and major religious dogmas held over the years. The idea that you *can*, in the long run, be truly "neutral" as a general concept is one that's hotly contested in religious circles. Most people believe that in the long run it's impossible -- believing that you are, in fact, required to be good by whatever system it is that defines these concepts (God, the universe, society) is part of how "good" is even defined in the first place. I could construct a ridiculously contrived example to attack your idea, but I'd rather not. I'd think that even a non-contrived example -- a man has a heart attack, and it'd take me ten seconds to call 911 but I don't because I don't like the guy -- would make most people call my inaction "evil". Indeed, living in a society where there's even the barest modicum of an implied social contract requiring social responsibility -- where people expect you to signal before you turn, and hold the elevator door open for the woman sprinting desperately toward it, and tip waiters in restaurants -- it's hard to separate sins of commission and omission. Is it evil not to call 911 if I'm this guy's bodyguard and *paid to enforce his safety*? Is it evil not to call 911 if I'm a doctor and have a professional obligation to act as a doctor if ever needed? Is it evil not to call 911 if I'm a member of a religion that has as one of its tenets "Thou shalt call 911 for old men having heart attacks?" Is it evil not to call 911 if this guy is my father? Or my best friend? Or a random man to whom I once said, "Hey, if you ever have a heart attack, I'll call 911 for you"? Okay, some more contrived examples: Is it evil to open the door and let someone into a house who then proceeds to kill someone in the house? All I did was open a door, hardly an evil act in and of itself. It's evil to shove a guy into a ditch and break his legs, sure. But if there's a rainstorm and the ditch starts filling up with water, are you saying it's no *more* evil to just sit there and watch as he starts drowning? That it's the *same* degree of evil as just sitting there on a clear sunny day while he lies there till the ambulance arrives? To borrow an example from Asimov's _I, Robot_, is it evil to jokingly drop a 10-ton weight toward someone's head from fifty feet up, with every intention of grabbing it before it hits them again (keeping in mind that I am a very powerful but mentally unbalanced robot), and then suddenly *change my mind* and let it continue to drop and kill them? Only the dropping was an action, and it was conducted with every intention of keeping the human safe. The letting it fall isn't. (I'm a robot. I can change my mind very quickly.) Hell, you can even argue the dropping itself isn't an action, but the cessation of action -- I was exerting strength to keep this weight supported, now I'm not. See, commission vs. omission is almost impossible to define. Even the Catholic Church doesn't like it anymore. It's too easy to construct an endless list of hypotheticals and, in the end, prove that the difference between "acting" and "not acting" is purely *semantic*, not a real difference that people really understand or respect in everyday life, not one you can seamlessly construct from philosophical first principles. You can still try to use it as the basis of morality, just as people use all kinds of flawed principles, but don't pretend it's objectively true, that it's intuitively obvious, and that it's only "pop culture" that makes people not think that. In my mind, someone who cares primarily about themselves and their loved ones doesn't care *much* about others is Neutral. Someone who doesn't care about about others *at all*, however, is Evil. After all, if you really really love your family and want them to have the best, and you don't care about other people *at all*, why *not* stab someone and take his wallet so you can buy your family nice things, if you can get away with it? You might say it's an Evil act because it involves cruelty or hatred of another, but in this case it doesn't -- I don't particularly want the stranger to suffer, I just don't care about him *at all*, so I have no reason to care if he suffers or dies as long as it benefits me and my family, the only people I care about. Neutral isn't its own choice, in my mind, it's the middle ground between the two choices that people occupy because they're imperfect and inconsistent. Being Neutral means that, sure, I care enough about you not to hit you with my car for the heck of it, not to beat you up and take your wallet, and even to say "Hi" to you in the street and maybe give you fifteen cents to take the bus home if it'll get you to leave me alone. None of this implies I care about you much, but it does imply I care about you *some* -- if I cared absolutely nothing about anyone I didn't know, then I would really have no reason not to steal, cheat and even murder my head off as long as I could get away with it and get benefit from it, which does *not* describe most people (or, at least, how most people like to think of themselves). Actually most of these sound evil. A neutral person would walk by and not help the old lady being assaulted by thugs to protect themselves from the thugs. True, a neutral character would not deliberately run you down with a car just for the fun of it. If you were killed or even just hurt, they would keep going because if they stay they might get blamed for your condition. Self serving but not neccesarily to the detriment of others. As for the robot analogy that is evil and chaotic. No danger is presented to the robot and it is easy enough to prevent their death and you are responsible for the predicament that they are in, really only chaotic evil would fit. Capriciousness and no respect for life what so ever.
a_psh 07-31-06, 01:39 PM	One way to look at it: Good: "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you." (i.e. set an example, always do the right thing) Neutral: "Do onto others as they do onto you." (i.e. eye for an eye, quid pro quo, &c.) Evil: "Do onto others whatever you damn well please." (i.e. screw 'em!) By this crude expression of the system, it makes sense that not calling 911 to save a stranger's life is an Evil act if you reasonably expect that he would do it for you (i.e. if he is socially obligated to do the same, for example).
Edymnion 07-31-06, 02:09 PM	It's not "pop culture". It's also quite a few philosophers, theologians, and major religious dogmas held over the years. The idea that you *can*, in the long run, be truly "neutral" as a general concept is one that's hotly contested in religious circles. Most people believe that in the long run it's impossible -- believing that you are, in fact, required to be good by whatever system it is that defines these concepts (God, the universe, society) is part of how "good" is even defined in the first place.And what does any of this have to do with D&D? There is no debate on if you can be Neutral in the long run in D&D, its an established fact, ask at any Druid enclave. Indeed, living in a society where there's even the barest modicum of an implied social contract requiring social responsibility -- where people expect you to signal before you turn, and hold the elevator door open for the woman sprinting desperately toward it, and tip waiters in restaurants -- it's hard to separate sins of commission and omission.Lol, are you seriously trying to say that it is a D&D Evil act to not hold an elevator, to not tip a waiter, or not to pull over and help someone that has a flat tire on the side of the road? Welp, I guess I had better stay away from Paladins then, because I must be the most evil thing on the face of the earth! Come on now, you know good and well that none of that is Evil, so why are you even bringing that up? Is it evil not to call 911 if I'm this guy's bodyguard and *paid to enforce his safety*? Is it evil not to call 911 if I'm a doctor and have a professional obligation to act as a doctor if ever needed? Is it evil not to call 911 if I'm a member of a religion that has as one of its tenets "Thou shalt call 911 for old men having heart attacks?" Is it evil not to call 911 if this guy is my father? Or my best friend? Or a random man to whom I once said, "Hey, if you ever have a heart attack, I'll call 911 for you"?See, now you're twisting what I said out of context to try and make yourself look better. Look back up where I said "You only care about you and yours". If you are being paid to protect someone, or you have a responcibility to care for someone, they are obviously part of "your people", and you would try to take care of them. Being Neutral doesn't mean you don't get involved with anyone, it just means you don't get involved in things that don't concern you. Oh, somebody on the other side of the city you never met got mugged. Neutral says you just shrug and go "oh well, tough luck" and continue on with your life, not "Oh, I better call the police and make sure the incident had been reported, then gather up my neighbors into a posse and hunt the mugger down". Okay, some more contrived examples: Is it evil to open the door and let someone into a house who then proceeds to kill someone in the house? All I did was open a door, hardly an evil act in and of itself.Depends on how much you knew. If you just opened a door and didn't know the person was going to bust in and shoot up the place? No, thats not Evil. If you knew the person was going to do it, and you opened the door anyway, then you were actively aiding the person, which would indeed be an Evil act. It's evil to shove a guy into a ditch and break his legs, sure. But if there's a rainstorm and the ditch starts filling up with water, are you saying it's no *more* evil to just sit there and watch as he starts drowning?Sure its evil, because you are actively responcible for them being there. A better example would have been "If I was driving by and saw somebody lying in a ditch in the rain, is it evil to keep driving and not wanting to get involved?" To borrow an example from Asimov's _I, Robot_, is it evil to jokingly drop a 10-ton weight toward someone's head from fifty feet up, with every intention of grabbing it before it hits them again (keeping in mind that I am a very powerful but mentally unbalanced robot), and then suddenly *change my mind* and let it continue to drop and kill them? Only the dropping was an action, and it was conducted with every intention of keeping the human safe. The letting it fall isn't. (I'm a robot. I can change my mind very quickly.) Hell, you can even argue the dropping itself isn't an action, but the cessation of action -- I was exerting strength to keep this weight supported, now I'm not.Lets see, you are intentionally putting someone in a position of danger, and then actively deciding to let your action kill them. Yeah, thats Evil. See, commission vs. omission is almost impossible to define.Except for the fact that you are intentionally trying to come up with convoluted examples of Evil things that you then try to rules-lawyer by saying "I'm committing an Evil act, and making a few neutral actions while I'm doing it, so that must make the entire act Neutral, right?" Even the Catholic Church doesn't like it anymore.And the Catholic Church isn't involved in this discussion, as we are *NOT* discussing good and evil in the real world. We are discussing good and evil in D&D, which has very clear definitions. It's too easy to construct an endless list of hypotheticals and, in the end, prove that the difference between "acting" and "not acting" is purely *semantic*, not a real difference that people really understand or respect in everyday life, not one you can seamlessly construct from philosophical first principles.Gee, if you take generic game rules to the extreme, they fall apart, yeah, thats never happened to any other part of the game. You can still try to use it as the basis of morality, just as people use all kinds of flawed principles, but don't pretend it's objectively true, that it's intuitively obvious, and that it's only "pop culture" that makes people not think that.Popular Culture, as in "what many people consider to be their culture". D&D alignment rules do not apply to that definition. It does not matter what real world religion A or B says about a matter, it matters what the rules say matter. In my mind, someone who cares primarily about themselves and their loved ones doesn't care *much* about others is Neutral. Someone who doesn't care about about others *at all*, however, is Evil. After all, if you really really love your family and want them to have the best, and you don't care about other people *at all*, why *not* stab someone and take his wallet so you can buy your family nice things, if you can get away with it?Again, you are twisting things to make an extreme look plausible. There is a differance between being indifferant and being actively hostile. You know, I don't send money to world hunger relief funds every month. I don't attend "End the oppression in Zimbabwe" rallies. I see the whole middle east thing on TV, and as long as it doesn't affect me, I don't really care which side wins or whats going on as anything more than a passing interest, because it has no bearing on me. My life is not affected because somebody's house got blown up on the other side of the world. Does that make me Evil because I'm not out there leading the charge to make the world a happy and fuzzy place? That is a heck of a lot differant than preventing other people from sending relief aid, or actively oppressing people. You might say it's an Evil act because it involves cruelty or hatred of another, but in this case it doesn't -- I don't particularly want the stranger to suffer, I just don't care about him *at all*, so I have no reason to care if he suffers or dies as long as it benefits me and my family, the only people I care about.Not caring if a stranger suffers is Neutral. Not caring if they suffer so you go out and torture them is Evil. Neutral isn't its own choice, in my mind, it's the middle ground between the two choicesExactly. You are not actively trying to help or hurt anybody. You are just getting by on your own, and letting everybody else get along on their own as well. if I cared absolutely nothing about anyone I didn't know, then I would really have no reason not to steal, cheat and even murder my head off as long as I could get away with it and get benefit from it, which does *not* describe most people (or, at least, how most people like to think of themselves).Because what you're talking about is not Neutral. Once you start being the active cause of pain and suffering, you've entered squarely into the realm of Evil. The slogan of Neutral would likely be "I'm not getting involved in this, don't ask me". In fact, most of the stuff you put sounds, to me at least, like nothing more than the classic "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenarios people bring up to make a Paladin lose their powers. Just because situations exist that don't have a clear cut alignment situation does not mean the entire system goes out the window.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-31-06, 02:26 PM	Edy, you contend that players shoul play thier character and not thier alignment correct? And that this is, in fact, the way the game intends it to be used, correct? Then, by your understanding, shouldn't nothing happen to a LG character who puts on a Helm of Opposite Alignment? Your Holy weapon will now make you ill, any coatyl you run into will try to murder you, and Holy Word hurts instead of Blasphemy, but you would still be yourself, correct? There is no compulsion to commit evil acts, only a 'thourgh enjoyment' of having the new alignment. The item clearly expects you to 'act' evil when it changes you, *but* your explaination of alignment discounts this. So either the Helm is a wholly pointless and cheap item (because you can toss it on to get PrCs and abilities that have wholly arbitrary alignment restrictions), or your assumption of how the game treats alignment is flawed.
Verelor 07-31-06, 02:27 PM	When it is easily within your power to aid someone that is solely dependant and you do not, it is an evil act. It is called despotic indifference, and it is actually a form of manslaughter.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-31-06, 02:46 PM	When it is easily within your power to aid someone that is solely dependant and you do not, it is an evil act. It is called despotic indifference, and it is actually a form of manslaughter. Despotic indifference only applies to people expressly in your care, not random passers-by.
pres_man 07-31-06, 03:30 PM	I think that people who have a real life belief system akin to what D&D calls chaotic, find the D&D alignment system frustrating. Why? Because the idea of a rigid system goes against how they believe things should/do work.
Edymnion 07-31-06, 05:44 PM	Edy, you contend that players shoul play thier character and not thier alignment correct? And that this is, in fact, the way the game intends it to be used, correct?Yes, you should play your character and then pick the alignment that most closely matches what you are playing. Then, by your understanding, shouldn't nothing happen to a LG character who puts on a Helm of Opposite Alignment?Of course not, you're under the effects of a magical compulsion. If the player is not mature enough to handle that and come up with a way of playing the character that is in line with the new magically induced alignment, then the character should be retired/NPC'ed. There is no compulsion to commit evil actsSure there is, magical compulsion from a cursed item. The item clearly expects you to 'act' evil when it changes you, *but* your explaination of alignment discounts this. So either the Helm is a wholly pointless and cheap item (because you can toss it on to get PrCs and abilities that have wholly arbitrary alignment restrictions), or your assumption of how the game treats alignment is flawed.No, it expects you to act the opposite of the way you had been acting. If you were kind and compassionate before, you are expected to be cruel and uncaring now. And, like I said, if a player is too immature or incapable of going with the flow, the helm either shouldn't be introduced into the game, or the character should be NPC'ed. Again, this is not a flaw of alignments, this is a flaw with the players.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-31-06, 06:03 PM	Sure there is, magical compulsion from a cursed item. Actually, according to the SRD, it isn't. It is a Transmutation that effects anything that puts on the helm. It you put this on a lemure (mindless) it is not immune to the effect even though it should be immune to compulsions.
a_psh 07-31-06, 07:00 PM	Actually, according to the SRD, it isn't. It is a Transmutation that effects anything that puts on the helm. It you put this on a lemure (mindless) it is not immune to the effect even though it should be immune to compulsions.Now I'm imagining a chaotic good lemure. It would behave something like this: Lemure: *drool*
not Yoda 07-31-06, 10:25 PM	Most of these posts seem to come from people with an inability to distinguish good from evil. In their case alignent is an obstacle.
a_psh 08-01-06, 02:48 AM	Most of these posts seem to come from people with an inability to distinguish good from evil. In their case alignent is an obstacle.I am in no way acknowledging your premise, but I think the conclusion you seem to be reaching here is flawed either way. Apply the argument to other game mechanics and see where it goes... If 75% or even 20% of D&D players hated AoOs because they didn't understand them, for example, AoOs would be considered a poorly-designed rule. "The rules are clunky," people would say, "so I don't bother with it." You would certainly see some people posting "If you don't like/get AoOs, you're dumb," but that wouldn't change the fact that it's a rule that doesn't work for the people trying to use it, which makes it a poor rule. Now, I'm not saying alignment is nearly this bad, but the "Everyone just misunderstands the rules" argument is a pretty good sign that a specific game rule is in need of some fixing. If you're a game company/designer and the game rules don't work for a significant part of your player base, then there's something wrong with your rules. I'd also rather see a DM who doesn't really "get" alignment get rid of alignment than start going "Your character sheet says CG so you have to act this way!" or introducing "paladin dilemmas" left and right, to be honest, just like I'd rather play in a game with no AoOs (ugh! the horror! the tactical blandness!) than with some guy's half-baked misrepresentation of the rules.
ArcTan 08-01-06, 03:52 AM	And what does any of this have to do with D&D? There is no debate on if you can be Neutral in the long run in D&D, its an established fact, ask at any Druid enclave. *shrug* You were dragging the argument out of D&D into real life, so I made that point. In any case, I don't view Neutrality as you do -- it's not a thing in and of itself, it's a mix of Good and Evil. Most 3e and 3.5, as opposed to older editions (with that "Balance" crap) say the same -- Neutral means being in between, and that's all. Lol, are you seriously trying to say that it is a D&D Evil act to not hold an elevator, to not tip a waiter, or not to pull over and help someone that has a flat tire on the side of the road? Welp, I guess I had better stay away from Paladins then, because I must be the most evil thing on the face of the earth! Committing an Evil act doesn't make your alignment Evil, and having an Evil alignment doesn't make you worthy of killing. Come on now, you know good and well that none of that is Evil, so why are you even bringing that up? Honestly, I think it is. It's a very very small Evil act, but it's just like kicking someone in the shin instead of killing them is a very very small Evil act, or stealing five cents from them is an Evil act, or violently cussing them out when they ask you for help for no other reason than to make their day harder is an Evil act. Showing wanton disrespect for other people *is* Evil in D&D. See, now you're twisting what I said out of context to try and make yourself look better. Look back up where I said "You only care about you and yours". If you are being paid to protect someone, or you have a responcibility to care for someone, they are obviously part of "your people", and you would try to take care of them. But everyone defines "responsibility" differently, and everyone defines "your people" differently. I would almost say that the definition of Good is someone who defines the whole world as "my people", and Evil as someone whose "my people" extends only to himself. If you think that there is a standard, basic, baseline definition for what "my people" is, then fine, but there isn't one in the universe of actual moral philosophy. It's one of the most hotly debated ideas there is -- the whole notion of responsibility as the definition of morality is hampered by what responsibility means. For example, why, exactly, am I responsible for my family members? What cosmic law makes it so? If my brother runs away for fifteen years and comes back and asks for my help, some people would say it was Evil not to help him, others would say I have no obligation to help him based on my lack of contact with him. Some people say that I have an obligation to all of my fellow countrymen because of the basic principles of patriotism that define a nation, such that if another American is in danger in a foreign country I am *obligated* to help her over anyone else because she is one of "my people". I don't agree, because that's not how I see citizenship -- am I wrong, and therefore Evil? The thing is that what you're saying depends heavily on written law. The law says that a particular kind of contract is legally binding and another isn't -- that it's illegal for me to skip out on a contract if I sign a piece of paper but not if I just say "Sure, I'll be there". But that's only the law's opinion, and a lot of people would say the latter should be just as binding as the former. It's a matter of Chaos vs. Law, in my mind, more than Good vs. Evil. A CG character would certainly abandon the crappy post she has watching the till at a convenience store to go save a little girl from being hit by a car in the street, even though according to you the contractual obligation to protect the store has more impact on his moral alignment than saving the girl -- the store is "his people" and the girl isn't. Being Neutral doesn't mean you don't get involved with anyone, it just means you don't get involved in things that don't concern you. Oh, somebody on the other side of the city you never met got mugged. Neutral says you just shrug and go "oh well, tough luck" and continue on with your life, not "Oh, I better call the police and make sure the incident had been reported, then gather up my neighbors into a posse and hunt the mugger down". And there's no clear definition of "what concerns you". Some people would say that it is the natural duty of all citizens -- not just saints, but all citizens -- to exert minimal effort to help out other people in dangerous situations. To call the police, to call 911, etc. Many governmental organizations say so, after all, even if the Constitution doesn't let them enshrine such obligations in law (but since when does written law define Good and Evil?). My wife could be dying of cancer and I could say I don't want to go to her bedside because *my* understanding of marriage is that we pool our money and we share domestic responsibilities and have sex but that I'm not obligated to give any more affection than that. You might say that I was wrong, sure, but you have to realize that just as you might have a certain minimum standard for how I should treat my wife that's not necessarily Good but at least decent, or okay, that other people have a similar standard for all citizens toward all other citizens. Depends on how much you knew. If you just opened a door and didn't know the person was going to bust in and shoot up the place? No, thats not Evil. If you knew the person was going to do it, and you opened the door anyway, then you were actively aiding the person, which would indeed be an Evil act. Sure its evil, because you are actively responcible for them being there. A better example would have been "If I was driving by and saw somebody lying in a ditch in the rain, is it evil to keep driving and not wanting to get involved?" Lets see, you are intentionally putting someone in a position of danger, and then actively deciding to let your action kill them. Yeah, thats Evil. Except for the fact that you are intentionally trying to come up with convoluted examples of Evil things that you then try to rules-lawyer by saying "I'm committing an Evil act, and making a few neutral actions while I'm doing it, so that must make the entire act Neutral, right?" I'm rules-lawyering to point out that this rule is arbitrary and subjective. And that while your subjective line around "ordinary, Neutral behavior" involves walking by and whistling while someone gets mugged, I don't think of it as such. If I can sacrifice *nothing* in order to prevent suffering -- and the time it takes to call 911 is effectively nothing -- then it's *equivalent* to actively causing that suffering for the gain of nothing. It's one thing to say that you have a greater priority on your own suffering and of those you actively care about than on that of strangers. To have a *reasonable* ratio between the two is Neutral. You're claiming that to have an *infinite* ratio between the two is Neutral, and it isn't, not at all. And the Catholic Church isn't involved in this discussion, as we are *NOT* discussing good and evil in the real world. We are discussing good and evil in D&D, which has very clear definitions. I'm bringing it up only to point out that the difference between "active" and "passive" in real life is meaningless, and dumb. Causing evil is causing evil whether you do it by flexing your muscles or refusing to flex your muscles. It's still hitting someone whether I flex my bicep and swing the club at him or whether I hold my biceps tight and let him run into it -- "active" and "passive" choices are a *semantic distinction and nothing more*. A choice is a choice. Gee, if you take generic game rules to the extreme, they fall apart, yeah, thats never happened to any other part of the game. It's not just a generic game rule thing, it's part of how I evaluate morality in real life. I don't think making a distinction between "passive" and "active" for *anything*, at *any* time, makes sense. It's why D&D punishes paladins for *allowing evil to happen* as well as causing evil. It's why *allowing a lie to be told* violates a vow of honesty as much as actively lying. And so on. Popular Culture, as in "what many people consider to be their culture". D&D alignment rules do not apply to that definition. It does not matter what real world religion A or B says about a matter, it matters what the rules say matter. The "rules" here, unlike the rules for an AoO or a volley of arrows, are not mechanically clear and aren't very mechanical at all. They are clearly intended as general guidelines, and the game repeatedly makes reference to them as such, putting things in the lap of the DM to adjudicate, and so on. Arguing about D&D alignment ultimately has to fall back on arguing about moral concepts on the general scale, even if they're not the kind you hold in real life, because the *idea* of alignment cannot be boiled down into "This list of actions is evil" and "This list of actions is good". Again, you are twisting things to make an extreme look plausible. There is a differance between being indifferant and being actively hostile. Yes. And you can easily kill someone and take their wallet *solely out of indifference* rather than out of hostility. There is a huge difference between someone who kills you because he enjoys the thought of causing you pain, and someone who kills you because you have money and he needs money. The former is in some ways less frightening because it implies the person at least acknowledges you as a human being and is aware of your suffering. But absolute, total indifference towards others? Well, what *stops* you from killing someone and taking his wallet, presuming he has money and you like money? Is it *just* the threat of law enforcement? That might cut it for most 1st-level commoners, but if you're at all a competent and powerful person there will be situations where you can get away with shaking someone down and not getting caught. If you're a powerful character, why *don't* you mug people for money -- after all, they have money and you and yours need money? Why don't you embezzle those funds from the bank? Why don't you do this, or do that? This is pretty basic for me -- one of the chief traits of out-and-out criminal evil is often *not* sadism (and the stereotype that it is makes for annoying D&D campaigns with unrealistic characters). The scary murderers aren't the ones who kill because they love it, i.e. serial killers (who are very few), but the armed robbers and career criminals who kill innocents *because there's something they want and people are in the way*. They don't shoot you because they hate you, or because they *even think about you at all* -- they shoot you because they need the cash in the register (for themselves, and their own people) and you are protecting the cash in the register and they need a quick and easy way to get past you. You know, I don't send money to world hunger relief funds every month. I don't attend "End the oppression in Zimbabwe" rallies. I see the whole middle east thing on TV, and as long as it doesn't affect me, I don't really care which side wins or whats going on as anything more than a passing interest, because it has no bearing on me. My life is not affected because somebody's house got blown up on the other side of the world. Does that make me Evil because I'm not out there leading the charge to make the world a happy and fuzzy place? That is a heck of a lot differant than preventing other people from sending relief aid, or actively oppressing people. Not caring if a stranger suffers is Neutral. Not caring if they suffer so you go out and torture them is Evil. It's all degrees, dude. It would be a burden on you to go out and do all those things, a much greater burden than calling 911 on your cell phone while a screaming person was reaching his bloodied hand out to you for help. Moreover, if we're talking about internal state as well as the sum total of actions as defining morality, the ability to ignore the suffering of people thousands of miles away who are suffering from abstract causes you can only slowly help to ameliorate with a lot of work is one thing. The ability to ignore the suffering of someone who's *right there in front of you* whose suffering you could end by a very simple action is another. The latter speaks to an abnormally high (i.e. non-Neutral) callousness toward others' feelings. Exactly. You are not actively trying to help or hurt anybody. You are just getting by on your own, and letting everybody else get along on their own as well. Because what you're talking about is not Neutral. Once you start being the active cause of pain and suffering, you've entered squarely into the realm of Evil. The slogan of Neutral would likely be "I'm not getting involved in this, don't ask me". In fact, most of the stuff you put sounds, to me at least, like nothing more than the classic "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenarios people bring up to make a Paladin lose their powers. Just because situations exist that don't have a clear cut alignment situation does not mean the entire system goes out the window. All I'm saying is that for a person to be Neutral they should be decent human beings. By your standards, a truly Neutral person would *not* be an ordinary, decent human being you'd say hi to on the street -- he would, in fact, be an utter ass****. Because there is no ordinary, human term for someone who would leave another human being trapped under a car screaming for help or being beaten by muggers without even *considering* calling 911, except an ass****. Would you say that, by contrast, someone who does not *purely* care about his and his own, but will, say, put two bucks in a homeless guy's coffee can to make himself feel a little better, has crossed the threshold from Neutral to Good? I'll allow your hypothetical mugger-ignorer might not be truly Evil, but he's cusping from Neutral to Evil, just like someone who overtips all the time and puts change in every beggar's cup and makes sure to compliment all his co-workers regularly is cusping from Neutral to Good.
ArcTan 08-01-06, 03:55 AM	Edy, you contend that players shoul play thier character and not thier alignment correct? And that this is, in fact, the way the game intends it to be used, correct? Then, by your understanding, shouldn't nothing happen to a LG character who puts on a Helm of Opposite Alignment? Your Holy weapon will now make you ill, any coatyl you run into will try to murder you, and Holy Word hurts instead of Blasphemy, but you would still be yourself, correct? There is no compulsion to commit evil acts, only a 'thourgh enjoyment' of having the new alignment. The item clearly expects you to 'act' evil when it changes you, *but* your explaination of alignment discounts this. So either the Helm is a wholly pointless and cheap item (because you can toss it on to get PrCs and abilities that have wholly arbitrary alignment restrictions), or your assumption of how the game treats alignment is flawed. No. It means that instead of thinking of a Chaotic Evil stereotype, I think of "What would the opposite of my character be?" I take my character as I played him and imagine what would happen if he turned into the opposite of himself and totally reversed, caring about all the things he used to not care about, hating everything he used to love, etc. Then I play *that*, and after I've already got that personality down I mark "CE" on the sheet. At no point do I have to look up an alignment and shoehorn myself into it -- indeed, that'd be inappropriate, because it'd mean I was playing a generic CE character as the opposite of an LG character with a very specific, idiosyncratic, personal way of being LG, which wouldn't fit the flavor of the helmet -- that it reverses you in all important ways. These things make perfect sense if you approach them in good faith.
ArcTan 08-01-06, 03:59 AM	Actually most of these sound evil. A neutral person would walk by and not help the old lady being assaulted by thugs to protect themselves from the thugs. True, a neutral character would not deliberately run you down with a car just for the fun of it. If you were killed or even just hurt, they would keep going because if they stay they might get blamed for your condition. Self serving but not neccesarily to the detriment of others. As for the robot analogy that is evil and chaotic. No danger is presented to the robot and it is easy enough to prevent their death and you are responsible for the predicament that they are in, really only chaotic evil would fit. Capriciousness and no respect for life what so ever. My *point* is that the definition of "passive" as opposed to "active" is not well-defined -- in fact, it's a horrible way to separate moral from immoral actions, and anyone with the least bit of self-interest can find ways around any moral system that bases itself on such a concept without even trying. ("I'm not *actively* hurting people by working for this company -- I'm just doing my job, and my *bosses* are the ones who are buying out the poor farmers and plowing under their land.") ("I'm not *actively* hurting anyone -- I'm just sitting in the getaway car with the engine running, it's the other gangsters who are in the warehouse shooting people.") The examples I gave were somewhat extreme, but they could all fit this system if you assume different definitions of a sphere of moral responsibility and an active action. The example from _I, Robot_ is real, and it involves very literal-minded robots -- who are not, after all, human beings -- beginning to go crazy and test their limits after the all-important second clause of the First Law ("A robot will not harm a human being, NOR ALLOW A HUMAN BEING TO COME TO HARM") gets deleted.
Da Black Cat 08-01-06, 07:00 AM	Saying that every free willed creature into the world falls into one of nine rigidly defined "personality types" is, at best, hard to swallow. All About the Enneagram (http://www.enneagraminstitute.com) - =D Alignment is a thermometer, not a straight-jacket, dammit; stop being so paranoid about men in white coats, they just want to take your temperature (one way or another; struggling will only make it worse)!
Hennet 08-01-06, 07:16 AM	I see alignment not as an obstical, but just as plain stupid. If there was no such things as alignments in DnD, and players wanted to play a character of a particular alignment, they would have to make a character's history etc, and actually play to the character's alignment, and not such saying "hey my character is neutral evil because it says so on my character sheet" (but in reality, the character may not have ever done anything neutral evil) I think that if alignments were not in DnD it would encourage players to actually role-play their characters alignmennt, and just role-play in general, even with areas that are not about alignment. Hennet
a_psh 08-01-06, 10:49 AM	I think that if alignments were not in DnD it would encourage players to actually role-play their characters alignmennt, and just role-play in general, even with areas that are not about alignment.Or, arguably, it could instead encourage more of "My character's personality is my own" syndrome, especially among new players. Even if played in the most revoltingly stereotypical way, alignment does help you make a character with a distinct personality from your own. Since those personalities cluster around extremes a bit, it also helps players get used to parties where their characters disagree on certain things (which is necessary later since intra-PC roleplaying is a huge part of roleplaying, and often the arena in which the most subtle and long-running roleplaying interactions occur). Now, other games get away with not having weird mechanics to quantify morality, certainly, but they have the benefit of not being the introductory game for most gamers. There is definitely something to be said for the "training wheels" factor.
Verelor 08-01-06, 10:54 AM	Sometimes I talk to someone that is so thoroughly misinformed about every facet of a particular issue, it is hard for me to even begin. I see alignment not as an obstical, but just as plain stupid. So then the countless people that enjoy it are also "just plain stupid"? If there was no such things as alignments in DnD, and players wanted to play a character of a particular alignment, they would have to make a character's history etc, You're being assanine. Alignment has completely zip to do with whether or not a player creates a background for his character. and actually play to the character's alignment, and not such saying Even more idiotic than the last quote. People that are no longer roleplaying their character's alignment will have their alignment shift. If that isn't the case, the Dungeon Master isn't doing his job. "hey my character is neutral evil because it says so on my character sheet" He is neutral evil because he acts neutral evil. Or else he would have a different alignment on his character sheet, or else the DM is not doing his job. (but in reality, the character may not have ever done anything neutral evil) Then he shouldn't have neutral evil alignment. I think that if alignments were not in DnD it would encourage players to actually role-play their characters alignmennt, Good roleplayers roleplay their character's moral and ethical outlooks. Poor roleplayers do not. The lack or inclusion of alignment does not affect one's skill at role-play.
Edymnion 08-01-06, 11:26 AM	Showing wanton disrespect for other people *is* Evil in D&D.No its not. Respect is on the Law/Chaos axis, it has nothing to do with Good/Evil. I would almost say that the definition of Good is someone who defines the whole world as "my people", and Evil as someone whose "my people" extends only to himself.So, by your own definition then, Neutral would be someone who's "my people" group extends to a finite group of people they know, and not either extreme. If you think that there is a standard, basic, baseline definition for what "my people" is, then fineOf course there isn't a standard defintion, it would be differant for every character. The thing is that what you're saying depends heavily on written law. The law says that a particular kind of contract is legally binding and another isn't -- that it's illegal for me to skip out on a contract if I sign a piece of paper but not if I just say "Sure, I'll be there". But that's only the law's opinion, and a lot of people would say the latter should be just as binding as the former. It's a matter of Chaos vs. Law, in my mind, more than Good vs. Evil.So if you know what you're talking about has nothing to do with Good/Neutral/Evil, why are you bringing it up? And there's no clear definition of "what concerns you".And there shouldn't be. This is where the roleplaying and the free will of the player comes in. What you seem to be looking for is some hard and fast rule that will force people to play their characters a certain way. It doesn't exist, and it shouldn't exist.To have a *reasonable* ratio between the two is Neutral. You're claiming that to have an *infinite* ratio between the two is Neutral, and it isn't, not at all.Neutrality being a balance between good and evil is the single biggest mistake in thinking that plagues the alignment. You know how many people I've seen that thinks Neutral means that they can do whatever horribly evil thing they want, as long as they do something good later on "to balance it out"? No, its not about balancing your good and evil acts, its a way of life in D&D. A choice is a choice.Yes, and why you make the choice is often more important than the choice itself, which is something else you don't seem to see. Saying "I'm not helping because I don't want to get involved" is Neutral. Saying "I'm not helping because I don't like that person" is likely Neutral with a bit of an Evil leaning. "I'm not helping because I want the bad guy to win" is Evil. WHY you choose to do something is often more important in an alignment sense than what you chose to do in the first place. It's not just a generic game rule thing, it's part of how I evaluate morality in real life.Whoa nelly... we're not talking about how you, or anybody else, evaluates morality in real life. We're talking about how a fictional dice rolling game evaluates morality. If you want to go around living your life by the moral decree of Dungeons & Dragons, thats your thing, but I wanna make it clear that I'm talking about the game, and the game only. because the *idea* of alignment cannot be boiled down into "This list of actions is evil" and "This list of actions is good".No, it can't. But the rules do list the general outline of what each alignment entails. There is ample RAW to discuss alignment without bringing outside stuff in. Yes. And you can easily kill someone and take their wallet *solely out of indifference* rather than out of hostility.Honestly, are you doing this just to press a point, or can you simply not see that there is a differance between "I don't care about him, I'm just going to ignore him" and "I don't care about him, I'm going to beat him with a pool stick until his retinas detatch"? This is pretty basic for me -- one of the chief traits of out-and-out criminal evil is often *not* sadism (and the stereotype that it is makes for annoying D&D campaigns with unrealistic characters). The scary murderers aren't the ones who kill because they love it, i.e. serial killers (who are very few), but the armed robbers and career criminals who kill innocents *because there's something they want and people are in the way*. They don't shoot you because they hate you, or because they *even think about you at all* -- they shoot you because they need the cash in the register (for themselves, and their own people) and you are protecting the cash in the register and they need a quick and easy way to get past you.Which is pretty much the book definition of evil. Not respecting another's right to live, and not having any problems with hurting or even killing others to get what you want. It's all degrees, dude. It would be a burden on you to go out and do all those things, a much greater burden than calling 911 on your cell phone while a screaming person was reaching his bloodied hand out to you for help.Yes, its degrees, so could we talk about the "normal" day to day degrees, instead of constantly trying to pull it to the absolute extremes? All I'm saying is that for a person to be Neutral they should be decent human beings. By your standards, a truly Neutral person would *not* be an ordinary, decent human being you'd say hi to on the street -- he would, in fact, be an utter ass****. Because there is no ordinary, human term for someone who would leave another human being trapped under a car screaming for help or being beaten by muggers without even *considering* calling 911, except an ass****.1) Neutral can lean towards good or evil. And Neutral can be a great guy, or a total jerk. Your alignment has nothing to do with how friendly you are. 2) You repeatedly resort to using highly personal situations like this, and that is precisely what I am trying to tell you that you can't do and still have an objective leg to stand on. Neutral doesn't say you ignore people pleading for help right in front of you, Neutral says you don't go across town to put yourself in that situation to begin with. Basic human decency is not something that should be taken into account, its assumed that you're going to try to help someone in these cases unless you're just plain Evil, and even then you're not assumed to ignore them. Would you say that, by contrast, someone who does not *purely* care about his and his own, but will, say, put two bucks in a homeless guy's coffee can to make himself feel a little better, has crossed the threshold from Neutral to Good? I'll allow your hypothetical mugger-ignorer might not be truly Evil, but he's cusping from Neutral to Evil, just like someone who overtips all the time and puts change in every beggar's cup and makes sure to compliment all his co-workers regularly is cusping from Neutral to Good.And again, as in any alignment discussion, singular acts do not affect alignment. Alignment is a total sum of your life overview on the way the universe works. Just because you're friendly and compliment people does not mean you think that you should be actively fighting the forces of evil and being Mother Teresa, it just means you've got basic social skills. Dracula was friendly and could dole out the smooth compliments left and right, but he still had no problems with murdering helpless people and feeding off their blood. Good and Evil, in D&D (again, we must limit this to nothing but D&D, because I'm not getting into real world morality and ethics, I don't touch that one with a ten foot pole), are extremes, and are active alignments. Good characters go charging off to help a villiage thats about to be attacked by Orcs. Evil characters go charging off to rob said villiage before the orcs get there, or help the orcs, or go defend the villiage just because they get a free liscense to kill orcs. Neutral characters would simply go "Okay, what do you want me to do about it? Its not my problem, why should I get involved?"
Verelor 08-01-06, 11:45 AM	I don't believe that respect is a matter of law and chaos. If respect can be defined by the willingness to accept that another person (or yourself) has a right to exist, then it is definitely a matter of good or lack thereof.
a_psh 08-01-06, 12:38 PM	Whoa nelly... we're not talking about how you, or anybody else, evaluates morality in real life. We're talking about how a fictional dice rolling game evaluates morality. If you want to go around living your life by the moral decree of Dungeons & Dragons, thats your thing, but I wanna make it clear that I'm talking about the game, and the game only.This is a big thing right here... Alignment is a predefined way in which a fictional game evaluates the morality of fictional characters. It seldom perfectly agrees with how the players may think about morality in real life. Why track your morality on an arbitrary scale that has little or nothing to do with how the people around the gaming table think? And why favor this particular arbitrary scale over other arbitrary scales? Moreover, what does this system designed around a handful of fantasy books and one man's personal game have to do with, I dunno, a D&D game set in the Dark Sun universe or a high-seas swashbuckling adventure or magical facsimiles of 10th Century Scotland or 13th Century France? How truly universal is alignment and when does it no longer matter/work?
Verelor 08-01-06, 01:36 PM	This is a big thing right here... Alignment is a predefined way in which a fictional game evaluates the morality of fictional characters. It seldom perfectly agrees with how the players may think about morality in real life. Why track your morality on an arbitrary scale that has little or nothing to do with how the people around the gaming table think? And why favor this particular arbitrary scale over other arbitrary scales? Moreover, what does this system designed around a handful of fantasy books and one man's personal game have to do with, I dunno, a D&D game set in the Dark Sun universe or a high-seas swashbuckling adventure or magical facsimiles of 10th Century Scotland or 13th Century France? How truly universal is alignment and when does it no longer matter/work? Alignment is universal. Anyone can be evaluated for it. If it seems difficult to pin a person's alignment, it usually means just one thing: They are neutral.
not Yoda 08-01-06, 01:51 PM	Alignment is a predefined way in which a fictional game evaluates the morality of fictional characters. It seldom perfectly agrees with how the players may think about morality in real life. I agree. Why track your morality on an arbitrary scale that has little or nothing to do with how the people around the gaming table think? And why favor this particular arbitrary scale over other arbitrary scales?? Why shouldn't we? Is it broken?
Ezell Pike 08-01-06, 02:08 PM	Moreover, what does this system designed around a handful of fantasy books and one man's personal game have to do with, I dunno, a D&D game set in the Dark Sun universe or a high-seas swashbuckling adventure or magical facsimiles of 10th Century Scotland or 13th Century France? How truly universal is alignment and when does it no longer matter/work? Does a DM need to evaluate his/her campaign idea and determine the impact of this alignment system and wether or not to use it? Should he be clear from the outset in this regard?
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-01-06, 03:20 PM	Whoa nelly... we're not talking about how you, or anybody else, evaluates morality in real life. We're talking about how a fictional dice rolling game evaluates morality. If you want to go around living your life by the moral decree of Dungeons & Dragons, thats your thing, but I wanna make it clear that I'm talking about the game, and the game only. And I just wonder why a fictional dice rolling game needs to evaluate morality. Especially since what it does with this evaluation is simply to create another subcatergory of what effects harm/benefit you.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-01-06, 03:24 PM	Why shouldn't we? Is it broken? Yes, its a savge, bloody minded system developed orignally to make the often mercenary acts of player characters palatable.
Callahan 08-01-06, 03:26 PM	And I just wonder why a fictional dice rolling game needs to evaluate morality. because traditional fantasy stories and roleplaying games have a strong moral undertone. you know, hobbits are good, sauron is bad, etc. etc. etc.
Da Black Cat 08-01-06, 03:27 PM	And I just wonder why a fictional dice rolling game needs to evaluate morality. Valiant Heroes! Diabolical Villains! Demonic Forces from the Deepest Layers of the Abyss! - =o So basically, opera.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-01-06, 04:00 PM	because traditional fantasy stories and roleplaying games have a strong moral undertone. you know, hobbits are good, sauron is bad, etc. etc. etc. So basically, the new crop of gamers; who have been revealed to not be able to divide by two in the thread about the new magic item format; don't understand the concept of 'protagonist' and 'antagonist' and so require 'crayon drawing' versions of such?
Da Black Cat 08-01-06, 04:05 PM	So basically, the new crop of gamers; who have been revealed to not be able to divide by two in the thread about the new magic item format; don't understand the concept of 'protagonist' and 'antagonist' and so require 'crayon drawing' versions of such? What greater hamartia is there than being assigned an evil alignment? - =D
pres_man 08-01-06, 05:00 PM	Alignment is a predefined way in which a fictional game evaluates the morality of fictional characters. It seldom perfectly agrees with how the players may think about morality in real life. Well it should be noted that the "exact" limits of each alignment are not clearly defined. Instead general guidelines for each are given, it is up to the DM (and the players) to work out the exact limits of each alignment. Alignment is a mechanic that is to a degree subjectively defined, but (if done correct) objectively applied. So the extent that it does not agree with the players' views is dependent on the exact limits applied in that particular game. This is why in a well played game it is often necessary to discuss these matters initially before play begins. Why track your morality on an arbitrary scale that has little or nothing to do with how the people around the gaming table think? And why favor this particular arbitrary scale over other arbitrary scales? Well mainly because this is how it is used in the game. It might not be ultimately better or worse than another system, but it is better when used with the basic D&D structure, as other things would involve changing creatures, spells, magic abilities, class features, etc. It is generally easier to redefined/tweak what is meant by the different alignments, then it is to just change the entire part of the system. But, yes it is not necessarily better than some other system. Moreover, what does this system designed around a handful of fantasy books and one man's personal game have to do with, I dunno, a D&D game set in the Dark Sun universe or a high-seas swashbuckling adventure or magical facsimiles of 10th Century Scotland or 13th Century France? How truly universal is alignment and when does it no longer matter/work? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean, what does alignment matter if the game is set more around a neutral/chaotic/evil standpoint for the PCs? The detail that alignment plays in any game is totally based on how much the PCs and DM bring it into the game.
Edymnion 08-01-06, 05:38 PM	So basically, the new crop of gamers; who have been revealed to not be able to divide by two in the thread about the new magic item format; don't understand the concept of 'protagonist' and 'antagonist' and so require 'crayon drawing' versions of such?Heh, more like Hate or Lust (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=335). ;) And for the record, "Is that simple enough for you, or do I need to get out my box of crayons?" is one of my all time favorite insults :D
Verelor 08-01-06, 06:01 PM	Vaalingrade, perhaps alignment isn't your cup of tea, but I feel some offense when you make these viscious comments that insult so many people's intelligence. A particularly bad taste is left in my mouth when I see these single-sentence, sweeping statements that imply no exception. I can only ask that you tone it down a bit. ;) Almost as disturbing is the fact that noone seems to be replying to or quoting my posts, as if I do not exist.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-01-06, 06:12 PM	And for the record, "Is that simple enough for you, or do I need to get out my box of crayons?" is one of my all time favorite insults :D Gotcha covered, buddy: From Ledgermain's 2005 April Foolishness Event: Dey's Crayons This box of sixteen colorful crayons bears the holy symbol of the Goddess Dey, the Grey Hand. On of her little known tenets it to educate the ignorant and the Deyic Temple created this item to educate the most embarassingly ignorant. Using the crayons to draw pictures or diagrams to explain a situation and task imparts general understanding of it to any creature thay observes you doing so. This grants a +5 circumstance bonus to checks made to accomplish said task for the next hour. The effected creatures may make checks untrained even if they normally could not. Minor Artifact, 1lb.
a_psh 08-01-06, 08:03 PM	Why shouldn't we? Is it broken?Why shouldn't your character have a Scruffiness attribute that you keep track of on your character sheet? That might be an invaluable attribute for roleplaying Aragorn and tracking your overall kingliness, sure, but should 100 other characters have to have it on their sheet because of that? Sacred cows are dumb. When a mechanic isn't useful in a specific game, the group should ignore it. Simple and expedient. Alignment is universal. Anyone can be evaluated for it.Alignment is like a unisex leotard: it fits everyone, but not always well. And sometimes you'd rather find yourself some pants. If Neutral is "N/A" or "noncommital" and most of the characters in the world end up Neutral, is alignment really describing anybody in that context? Likewise, if alignment describes someone's ethos based on a system that nobody cares about in-character or out-of-character, what does it actually mean? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean, what does alignment matter if the game is set more around a neutral/chaotic/evil standpoint for the PCs? The detail that alignment plays in any game is totally based on how much the PCs and DM bring it into the game.We've already seen that alignment doesn't jive with everyone's out-of-character morals. What I mean by that list is "What does alignment matter if it does not reflect the values system that are relevant in-character?" For example, if you build a game heavily inspired by Medieval Christianity, then Medieval Christianity should be the moral system you care about, if you bother to track anything game-mechanically at all. Note how, say, piety doesn't really figure very much into alignment. Take any philosophy or religious doctrine or whatever and make it the centerpiece of your game and alignment is now just getting in the way. That's my claim, really: Alignment has to model something in order to matter. It doesn't really model any out-of-character thing and whether it means anything in-character is very setting-dependent. A lot of the problems with alignment, of misapplying it and misunderstanding it, in my opinion, come from people thinking of it as a sacred cow and insisting upon using it as an important aspect of their game regardless of what their game is actually like. If you make alignment just one tool in your toolbox and put it away when you don't need it, it's all the better when you do use it.
Ezell Pike 08-01-06, 08:11 PM	Why shouldn't your character have a Scruffiness attribute that you keep track of on your character sheet? That might be an invaluable attribute for roleplaying Aragorn and tracking your overall kingliness, sure, but should 100 other characters have to have it on their sheet because of that? Alignment is like a unisex leotard: it fits everyone, but not always well. And sometimes you'd rather find yourself some pants. You do have a way with words. :) For example, if you build a game heavily inspired by Medieval Christianity, then Medieval Christianity should be the moral system you care about, if you bother to track anything game-mechanically at all. Note how, say, piety doesn't really figure very much into alignment. Take any philosophy or religious doctrine or whatever and make it the centerpiece of your game and alignment is now just getting in the way. That's my claim, really: Alignment has to model something in order to matter. It doesn't really model any out-of-character thing and whether it means anything in-character is very setting-dependent. A lot of the problems with alignment, of misapplying it and misunderstanding it, in my opinion, come from people thinking of it as a sacred cow and insisting upon using it as an important aspect of their game regardless of what their game is actually like. If you make alignment just one tool in your toolbox and put it away when you don't need it, it's all the better when you do use it. Does a DM need to evaluate his/her campaign idea and determine the impact of this alignment system and wether or not to use it? Should he be clear from the outset in this regard? You answered these questions niceley even if you never read them. :clap:
a_psh 08-01-06, 08:17 PM	You answered these questions niceley even if you never read them.I did, don't worry. =)
Callahan 08-01-06, 08:20 PM	Why shouldn't your character have a Scruffiness attribute that you keep track of on your character sheet? That might be an invaluable attribute for roleplaying Aragorn and tracking your overall kingliness, sure, but should 100 other characters have to have it on their sheet because of that? Sacred cows are dumb. When a mechanic isn't useful in a specific game, the group should ignore it. Simple and expedient. first put down the Straw Man then we'll talk about the cow. It does not make sence to recomend a rule change that only functions for a select game type. Most of D&D's rules were designed with alignment in mind, to dump it is a tedious and unessasery task when the Alignment is such a flexible and player/GM oriented tool. In any case it's more harmful to remove it from a game then to keep it with minimum upkeep. Piety = good BTW
not Yoda 08-01-06, 08:28 PM	Sacred cows are dumb. When a mechanic isn't useful in a specific game, the group should ignore it. Simple and expedient. Yeah like AoO's for movement. :yuck:
a_psh 08-01-06, 08:57 PM	first put down the Straw Man then we'll talk about the cow. It does not make sence to recomend a rule change that only functions for a select game type. Most of D&D's rules were designed with alignment in mind, to dump it is a tedious and unessasery task when the Alignment is such a flexible and player/GM oriented tool. Piety = good BTW*shrug* People have been defending alignment as something universal. It's not, even if we just restrict ourselves to heroic fantasy. Does it still have a place? Sure. The rules designed specifically with alignment in mind, however, are a handful of spells, many of them irredeemably poor game design compared to the straightforward baselines in the PHB (such as fireball, dominate person, or bull's strength). I'd seriously think about axing or heavily redacting these regardless of what I did or didn't do to alignment. Piety is not Good-as-alignment defines it, by the way. Piety does not necessarily imply charity, altruism, self-sacrifice for the sake of other people, anything like that. Piety can involve anything from self-flagellation to murder depending on the nature of the divinity in question. You can shoehorn it into Good, sure, but shoehorning alignment everywhere is what turns it into a tired old hat in the first place.
Callahan 08-01-06, 09:51 PM	Unless you mean the basic act of worship(which aside for extreme cases is always an act of good, especially with a christian dogma in mind) piousness refers to righteousness, virtue and morality, which are all examples of a "good" alignment. Otherwise if you're Pious, you are good, however if you're good you're not necessarily pious. Personally I do not like a straight forward crunch game, those get boring fast and could be readily found in a video game. I play with other people to socialise and role play, the alignment system is quite helpful with that, especially when trying to figure out what the general idiom of other players is.
Stev Beren 08-01-06, 10:00 PM	Edy, you contend that players shoul play thier character and not thier alignment correct? And that this is, in fact, the way the game intends it to be used, correct? Then, by your understanding, shouldn't nothing happen to a LG character who puts on a Helm of Opposite Alignment? Your Holy weapon will now make you ill, any coatyl you run into will try to murder you, and Holy Word hurts instead of Blasphemy, but you would still be yourself, correct? There is no compulsion to commit evil acts, only a 'thourgh enjoyment' of having the new alignment. The item clearly expects you to 'act' evil when it changes you, *but* your explaination of alignment discounts this. So either the Helm is a wholly pointless and cheap item (because you can toss it on to get PrCs and abilities that have wholly arbitrary alignment restrictions), or your assumption of how the game treats alignment is flawed. I note that I don't see the HElm of Opposite alignment in the SRD anymore.
pres_man 08-01-06, 10:36 PM	Note how, say, piety doesn't really figure very much into alignment. Take any philosophy or religious doctrine or whatever and make it the centerpiece of your game and alignment is now just getting in the way. Well if you are playing a game based on RW religion, even if applied to a fantasy setting (which could be quite fun), then you aren't playing standard D&D. Since you are already moving so far from the norm, then any mechanic is now possibly worthless. I mean if you really wanted to run a game based on certain RW religions, that would mean to do arcane magic you'd basicly have to make deals with demons and devils, thus no "good" (or whatever word you use to describe the concept) mages in that type of game. As for piety, I believe it describes a strict following of a belief or religion, that seems to fall under Lawful in the standard D&D alignments. Most lawful characters that I have seen played demonstrat a strong piety as well.
a_psh 08-01-06, 10:39 PM	Well if you are playing a game based on RW religion, even if applied to a fantasy setting (which could be quite fun), then you aren't playing standard D&D. Since you are already moving so far from the norm, then any mechanic is now possibly worthless.One could say the same for a setting with anything other than the standard Greyhawk-Lite gods, really. Or the standard Greyhawk-Lite Planes. Which can potentially be any setting other than Greyhawk.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-01-06, 11:18 PM	I note that I don't see the HElm of Opposite alignment in the SRD anymore. Oh, Really? (http://d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#helmofOppositeAlignment) Also, if I had one wish, it would be that people stop using the term 'straw man' in internet debates when they don't know what it means.
smoker 08-02-06, 01:49 AM	So skimming through this thread I gather two thing: 1) D&D alignment exists so that players can argue about it. 2) So characters can cast spells like detect good because roleplaying is far too difficult. I wonder what House, M.D. Would say about D&D alignment. smoker
not Yoda 08-02-06, 01:13 PM	Actually, I believe the alignment system was wraught to give more options for attack and defense, with regard to Heroic adventurers and crawling through dungeons (read looters and grave robbers).
Sulaco 08-02-06, 03:56 PM	Alignment is only an obstacle if you are a tool. ;)
Verelor 08-02-06, 09:38 PM	For the record I don't like the helm of opposite alignment and think that entire deal is pretty crappy. But for talks of peity I think that yes, peity is generally good though good isn't always pious. Similar to the way pacifism is normally good but good is not necessarily pacifistic. It is like a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square. One could say the same for a setting with anything other than the standard Greyhawk-Lite gods, really. Or the standard Greyhawk-Lite Planes. Which can potentially be any setting other than Greyhawk. Worlds like Forgotten Realms and Mystara presented it just as well. ;) I mean if you really wanted to run a game based on certain RW religions, that would mean to do arcane magic you'd basicly have to make deals with demons and devils, thus no "good" (or whatever word you use to describe the concept) mages in that type of game. You may actually be somewhat correct, though I think psionics would be heavier in such a world (more in the way of the wilder or psioshaper (http://boards.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=661618) than a psion or such)
Sarella Starshine 08-02-06, 10:01 PM	*blows the whistle* Ok back to your corners everyone. Yet another alignment issue we all have to agree to disagree about (which, is strangely not suprising at all). You cannot convince someone else to your side of the arguement on this because of differing beliefs on how alignment works, does not work, etc. Yes, I said beliefs, because, that is what is showing to be, people believe one way, people believe in another and others believe in a third. They may classify it as opinions, but as shown through 7 pages (and counting) of 'debates' (more like petty arguements personally), no one has changed thier opinion, but is more intrenched in thier belief. So, lets all shake hands, and say 'nice chat my good fellow, but apparently since none of us is willing to change our views, lets just agree to drop this silly debate and go have a nice cup of tea with some freshly baked sconces.'
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-02-06, 10:06 PM	... or we could do like we always do and have at it like caged wolverines.
Fion81 08-02-06, 10:13 PM	This is really a personal taste issue, but once i had a beef with it myself and the dm at the time had a very good explanation for it. He said the following. "Do not compare alignment to real world moral standards and people. Consider the world to have a different metaphysics and moral code than the real world and this system is simply the expression of that system. Lawful good does not represent 'real world good' they are not meant to be compared like this. Some role playing games do not have character classes but everyone is more mixed in what they do,D&D doesnt work like that. Think of alignment like your moral character class. It allows you to do some things better and other things worse and has restrictions that it places on you. Or simply, the moral code of the universe 'is ontologically(or by its nature or being) such that these alightments encompass all moral options, and much like dragons do not exist in our world, certain moral positions and relations do not exist in the D&D world-it is this way in its being." This is about the best jusitifcation for the moral system ive ever heard. Basically arguing that moral tools are a hindrence is like arguing character classes are a hindrance, and arguing that it doesnt make sense would be like arguing that a dragon doesn't make sense. I hope that makes sense some of the words are technical terms so ill elaborate if anyone wishes.
Kresalak 08-02-06, 10:37 PM	I propose switching all references of "Good" to "Blue", all "Evil" to "Red", all "Lawful" to "Dry" and all "Chaotic" to "Wet". This won't change anything about the mechanics or flavor of alignment, but it will help these debates.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-02-06, 10:46 PM	I propose switching all references of "Good" to "Blue", all "Evil" to "Red", all "Lawful" to "Dry" and all "Chaotic" to "Wet". This won't change anything about the mechanics or flavor of alignment, but it will help these debates. As a Slayers fan, I demand the right to be Chaotic Blue.
a_psh 08-02-06, 10:58 PM	This is about the best jusitifcation for the moral system ive ever heard. Basically arguing that moral tools are a hindrence is like arguing character classes are a hindrance, and arguing that it doesnt make sense would be like arguing that a dragon doesn't make sense.Well, character classes can be a hindrance, too. They certainly were in some versions of D&D and in some D&D-derivative games, and one of the reasons WotC keeps making more and more seems to be that some people feel bored and limited with just the basic set (I don't think so, necessarily, but I certainly do find myself hitting a brick wall when I try to use certain parts of the system to do certain things, and that does make those things, definitionally, limitations).
not Yoda 08-02-06, 11:08 PM	Well, character classes can be a hindrance, too. They certainly were in some versions of D&D and in some D&D-derivative games, and one of the reasons WotC keeps making more and more seems to be that some people feel bored and limited with just the basic set (I don't think so, necessarily, but I certainly do find myself hitting a brick wall when I try to use certain parts of the system to do certain things, and that does make those things, definitionally, limitations). We need more base alignments haha. Edit : and spread them out over several expensive books.
Edymnion 08-02-06, 11:15 PM	As a Slayers fan, I demand the right to be Chaotic Blue.I would have to say, as a Slayers fan, that you would have to be Chaotic Red, because you keep selling little bits of your soul to the devil in order to throw around incredibly distructive spells that wipe out vast tracts of land. Thats so very red. :P
pres_man 08-02-06, 11:24 PM	We need more base alignments haha. Edit : and spread them out over several expensive books. Or: http://www.seventhsanctum.com/generate.php?Genname=ralign a sample: Bouncy Neutral Chaotic Stuck-Up Chaotic Wannabe Fashionable Evil Kleptomaniac Good Lawful Cute Lawful Erotic Neutral Pretentious Neutral Ranting Obsessive Neutral
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-02-06, 11:25 PM	I would have to say, as a Slayers fan, that you would have to be Chaotic Red, because you keep selling little bits of your soul to the devil in order to throw around incredibly distructive spells that wipe out vast tracts of land. Thats so very red. :P Oh sure, she's pretty awesome tastic aginst hunks of splintered gods, but Chaotic Blue is a god. After Darkstar, she doesn't have that 'Five Points of Light' Godslayer, so the Fourth World is just ripe for the taking. I'd rather be Death Fog though. The name's cooler. Oh man... not you make me want to do a who 'crazy Slayers spells' thread in the Spell boards... And just to be on topic, Another problems alignment has is that its used by the devs to force you into a particular archetype; Chaotic/Evil Warlocks, Chaotic Bards, Lawful Monks, where there's not real reason that you should *have* to conform to the stereotype. My long time bard Traceren is, by DnD standard of a very Lawful bent, what with beleiveing that the Words he uses bend the fabric of the universe and therefore require him to be very strict with how he uses them.
Fion81 08-02-06, 11:34 PM	IN fairness d&d's rules are all made up and there is no real reason to conform to anything. Why not able to cast a 9 level spell with a 3 intelligence, wizard spells logically could be based of how many hp you have, or your height or how friends you have. Its just the way it is in the world, and like any other rule you don't like, up to the descretion of the dm to alter or remove.
Roxlimn 08-03-06, 12:08 PM	In line with that, I don't think that it's particularly hindering or offensive to play Dry Blue, although you can bend that any which way you want, as long as you maintain the characteristic behaviors associated with Dry Blue. It doesn't necessarily make you a pain in the pants, but that doesn't mean you're all that predictable either.
a_psh 08-03-06, 12:52 PM	Or: http://www.seventhsanctum.com/generate.php?Genname=ralignBest of all, you only need five of those to represent all the characters in Dragonlance:Fashionable Evil Kleptomaniac Good Lawful Cute Lawful Erotic Neutral Pretentiousl(Four if people are allowed to be Erotic Cute.)
Edymnion 08-03-06, 01:34 PM	And just to be on topic, Another problems alignment has is that its used by the devs to force you into a particular archetype; Chaotic/Evil Warlocks, Chaotic Bards, Lawful Monks, where there's not real reason that you should *have* to conform to the stereotype.I'll agree with you here. While some of the alignment restrictions make sense, IMO (like Lawful Monks, who need to maintain discipline in order to keep up their abilities), or Barbarians being non-lawful (since lawful indicates a strong and disciplined mind that wouldn't really cut loose in a rage) but others like the Warlock having to be Chaotic/Red just because the designer decided that the only way to get power is to be red is just asinine. I mean, just reading the thing even says it can be one of your ancestors that made the pact, so why the heck should your Red great great great grandaddy's pact with red beings somehow magically prevent you from being blue?
Roxlimn 08-03-06, 03:40 PM	I think that these restrictions make an equal amount of sense. That is - none at all. While the Dry Monk is the foundation of the classic Shaolin or Wudang archetype, there are others of similar skill who do not, in fact, adhere to the principles of Dry. They acquire their mastery of these skills the same way other Wet warriors acquire theirs - through learning and practice. Discipline in swordsmanship doesn't make a Wet Red tyrant Dry. He's still quite Wet. Skilled Wet, but Wet nonetheless. Similarly, the description of the Barbarian's Rage as being emotionally driven is purely flavor. It can be the spirit of ancient ancestors, or nature spirits lending him their strength, or what have you. For that matter, Dry people aren't necessarily emotionless husks. You can value traditions and the hierarchy of your social order passionately, even quite emotionally. Driven, emotional people aren't necessarily undependable, and they don't necessarily value independence, either, personal or otherwise. Why rule that a Barbarian should be non-Dry? Conversely, you could say that a Warlock's patron won't grant him the supernatural powers unless he was nonBlue. That is - he has to be nonBlue to use his class abilities. Heck, it could even be cosmic reality. Red sources of power simply can't give capabilities to people who are too diametrically opposed to such philosophy. It works, and doesn't work, both ways.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-03-06, 04:04 PM	I just don't get the point of even making Core classes if you're just going to narrow thier range to Prestige Class levels.
LCD2YOU 08-03-06, 04:07 PM	I just don't get the point of even making Core classes if you're just going to narrow thier range to Prestige Class levels.Here, here.
a_psh 08-03-06, 05:50 PM	For that matter, Dry people aren't necessarily emotionless husks. You can value traditions and the hierarchy of your social order passionately, even quite emotionally. Driven, emotional people aren't necessarily undependable, and they don't necessarily value independence, either, personal or otherwise. Why rule that a Barbarian should be non-Dry?A good argument for removing Barbarian alignment restrictions and, moreover, for removing the Bard alignment restrictions is actually... the paladin. Paladins are LG only, and very LG at that. But the entire class is set up as being all about a deep and passionate devotion to your faith and ideals, as somehow feeling called to serve a higher purpose, &c., &c. If the paladin is all about such ecstatic emotions, how come other Lawful types don't get to have emotions, too?
Edymnion 08-03-06, 07:09 PM	I just don't get the point of even making Core classes if you're just going to narrow thier range to Prestige Class levels.*cough*Paladin*cough* I'm a big fan of the Prestige Paladin thats a Fighter/Cleric PrC.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-03-06, 07:55 PM	*cough*Paladin*cough* I'm a big fan of the Prestige Paladin thats a Fighter/Cleric PrC. Eh, I don't even think the archetype deserves that much. Certainly not a core class.
Verelor 08-03-06, 08:46 PM	Eh, I don't even think the archetype deserves that much. Certainly not a core class. So..much..hate.. :D I could talk about your campaign setting, saying it is an oddball PoS with rediculous races, prestige classes that are corny as all hell, mostly spells that aren't worth the ink (not compared to Complete Divine/Arcane anyway) and 95% of names and places based on nonsense words that maybe sound cool. Do I judge harshely? Is this not 1337ness? (http://boards.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=158114) {WizO_Cat: OK, let's play nice ...}
Callahan 08-03-06, 09:25 PM	A good argument for removing Barbarian alignment restrictions and, moreover, for removing the Bard alignment restrictions is actually... the paladin. Paladins are LG only, and very LG at that. But the entire class is set up as being all about a deep and passionate devotion to your faith and ideals, as somehow feeling called to serve a higher purpose, &c., &c. If the paladin is all about such ecstatic emotions, how come other Lawful types don't get to have emotions, too? I don't quite see what you mean by this. If anything the Paladin's devotion is working towards denying the basic primal emotions and putting the needs of others ahead of his own. The law axis is all about self restraint. Although I have a sinking feeling that you have a very perverted impression of what the paladin represents I still can't seem to understand how you can interpret the Lawful Good alignment as giving in to your emotions?
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-03-06, 09:33 PM	I don't quite see what you mean by this. If anything the Paladin's devotion is working towards denying the basic primal emotions and putting the needs of others ahead of his own. The law axis is all about self restraint. Although I have a sinking feeling that you have a very perverted impression of what the paladin represents I still can't seem to understand how you can interpret the Lawful Good alignment as giving in to your emotions? I don't think he means 'primal'. The deep, religious commitment represented here, however is not a stoic denial of emotion. It is a dedication and devotion that is, in fact deeply, if quietly emotional. Its sort of a literary tradition, for example to have men of deep faith weep tears of joy in the presence of thier god. The argument here is why can't a barbarian built character, instead of unleashing his pent up rage in a flurry of foam and violence, instead focus his commitment and will to carry out his duty into action. Thus, this character, who can be built from a barbarian, can enter a battle trance instead of a rage and not have to change any mechanics at all.
Callahan 08-03-06, 09:37 PM	well... then it's a "battle trance" and NOT a "rage". I'm pretty sure they have a load of 3rd party classes that do that, including Prestige classes like the Dwarven Defender.
WAG 08-03-06, 09:59 PM	I think alignments are a great role playing tool, if they are used. So often in my group the players simply write down and alignment and never glance at the corner of the Character Sheet again. Then when I pull the "out of alignment card" they get all cranky! Its like playing a cleric. If you choose a deity then why is their name never mentioned again during play, and you simply become the guy that heals people...How does that playing in character? :confused:
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-03-06, 10:06 PM	well... then it's a "battle trance" and NOT a "rage". I'm pretty sure they have a load of 3rd party classes that do that, including Prestige classes like the Dwarven Defender. There is NO reason to use the third party classes or PrCs when you have the proper mechanic right there in the Barbarian. I think alignments are a great role playing tool, if they are used. So often in my group the players simply write down and alignment and never glance at the corner of the Character Sheet again. Then when I pull the "out of alignment card" they get all cranky! Because it's annoying, WAG. Incredibly so. You're putting the stupid letters ahead of what the character would do.
Callahan 08-03-06, 10:15 PM	But then you'd be putting the Barbarian heavily out of character. It's more like a monk like character that could use his self control to enter a fighting trance.
Kresalak 08-03-06, 10:18 PM	That is a problem with too much flavor in base classes. A Barbarian shouldn't have to be a barbarian, he should be a really tough, agile, and strong guy who can make himself stronger a tougher at the cost of his defense a few times per day. The character's flavor should come from the character, not his classes.
a_psh 08-03-06, 10:23 PM	Although I have a sinking feeling that you have a very perverted impression of what the paladin represents I still can't seem to understand how you can interpret the Lawful Good alignment as giving in to your emotions? As written in the 3.x PHB, the paladin serves because she is called to it by a divine force. It's one of the few truly faith-based acts in D&D, where most religious belief can be explained on purely rational grounds. (The gods are right there! RIGHT THERE! Look at how Heironeous just smote that guy for not worshipping him! No faith involved.) The essence of a paladin is not religious scholarship or a nuanced understanding of theology, but a profound dedication to her god, her cause, and her code, motivated by the rare and special ability to perceive something fundamental and very spiritual about divinity. A true paladin is more-or-less a living saint, complete with the near-ecstatic and anything-but-emotionless perception of the divine. If nothing else, the whole purpose of a paladin is to lead by example, inspiring emotion -- faith, hope, courage -- in others. Hence, say, Joan of Arc as the most common reference for a "real-world paladin" on the boards.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-03-06, 10:26 PM	That is a problem with too much flavor in base classes. A Barbarian shouldn't have to be a barbarian, he should be a really tough, agile, and strong guy who can make himself stronger a tougher at the cost of his defense a few times per day. The character's flavor should come from the character, not his classes. Ding Ding Ding! Give this fellow here the Kewpie doll and the sixty four sil-va dollas!
a_psh 08-03-06, 10:33 PM	Ding Ding Ding! Give this fellow here the Kewpie doll and the sixty four sil-va dollas!Do I get that for my long-winded dwarven dirgesinger Lawful bard example a few pages ago? (Y'know, the one that drew such flavor-related criticisms as "nobody likes dirges," "dwarves suck at magic," and -- the coup de grace -- "bards can't be Lawful"?)
Callahan 08-03-06, 10:45 PM	As written in the 3.x PHB, the paladin serves because she is called to it by a divine force. It's one of the few truly faith-based acts in D&D, where most religious belief can be explained on purely rational grounds. (The gods are right there! RIGHT THERE! Look at how Heironeous just smote that guy for not worshipping him! No faith involved.) The essence of a paladin is not religious scholarship or a nuanced understanding of theology, but a profound dedication to her god, her cause, and her code, motivated by the rare and special ability to perceive something fundamental and very spiritual about divinity. A true paladin is more-or-less a living saint, complete with the near-ecstatic and anything-but-emotionless perception of the divine. If nothing else, the whole purpose of a paladin is to lead by example, inspiring emotion -- faith, hope, courage -- in others. Hence, say, Joan of Arc as the most common reference for a "real-world paladin" on the boards. That's a very broad definition of an emotional person. Emotions are most commonly the spontaneous response and often not conscious. Saints are after all people who put their natural emotions aside for a higher purpose. If they were emotional people they'd have a very hard time with their vows of chastity.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-03-06, 10:47 PM	Do I get that for my long-winded dwarven dirgesinger Lawful bard example a few pages ago? (Y'know, the one that drew such flavor-related criticisms as "nobody likes dirges," "dwarves suck at magic," and -- the coup de grace -- "bards can't be Lawful"?) I don't think I was reading the thread then. My first post is where I came in.
Ezell Pike 08-03-06, 10:47 PM	Most class alignment restrictions get ditched by a fair-minded DM and a player with a good story or background. Which begs the question, why have class alignment restrictions? Players and Dm's set the flavor for characters in campaigns not rulebooks. :confused: Let us remember that in 2e the ranger had to be good. This rule was abandoned in 3.X and we lost nothing. It enriched the class IMHO. Paladin would be the only one that could not withstand an alignment change unless it also got an overhaul of it's spell list.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-03-06, 10:50 PM	Saints are after all people who put their natural emotions aside for a higher purpose. If they were emotional people they'd have a very hard time with their vows of chastity. Thats not what a saint is. A saint needs only be exceptionally virtuous in the eyes of whatever group is bestowing the sainthood. We can't discuss Catholic Saints, but there's no prerequisite that they emotionally numb and destroy themselves to become virtuous. They don't need to. That's kind of the point.
a_psh 08-03-06, 11:09 PM	That's a very broad definition of an emotional person. Emotions are most commonly the spontaneous response and often not conscious. Saints are after all people who put their natural emotions aside for a higher purpose. If they were emotional people they'd have a very hard time with their vows of chastity.I define emotion as "a spontaneous psychological state that arises without conscious effort". That is rather the essence of this "call" business: the paladin just feels that being a paladin is her purpose, often at a very young age. This is how saintly ecstasies and visions and all that jazz work, pretty much, too. Those that follow that follow "the call," which is a 100% emotional/ecstatic thing, become paladins. Those who are more practical or level-headed or distant don't. Likewise, a paladin incapable of inspiring emotion in others is a miserable failure, for the most part. This is why the class has such a heavy emphasis on Charisma and going around doing heroic good deeds. Inspiring others is as much the paladin's shtick as the bard's. ... I don't think I was reading the thread then. My first post is where I came in.Just making sure it doesn't go completely ignored, given that we've just entered into the same argument again.
Roxlimn 08-03-06, 11:24 PM	Callahan: I don't see how you mean that. Dry isn't about denying emotion. It's about following tradition and authority. "'Dry' characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duty." "'Dry' implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability." There is similarly little on the "Wet" descriptors about emotion, other than that which are directly comparable to what's on the "Dry" side. Recklessness and reliability are opposite sides of the same coin, which can both be related to powerful emotions. Dry characters aren't necessarily less emotional than Wet characters are. "Primal" emotions aren't necessarily Blue or Red, or Dry or Wet, either. The admiration you feel for your parents is a pretty primal emotion, set very early in life. The betrayal of this admiration can have pretty serious consequences, precisely because of how primal and powerful it is. Sexual urges are primal emotions that only get tapped later on. "Putting the needs of others before his own," isn't a Dry descriptor anyway - it's a Blue one. Also, it's wrong on primality as well. Concern for your children is a pretty primal and powerful emotion, especially so for mothers. This emotion can become so powerful that it overcomes every other emotion, and even reason and judgement. If your alliegance were somehow shifted to the family of "mankind," then you would pretty much try to protect everyone you met. It wouldn't be unemotional. It would be completely emotional. Indeed, I find it difficult to think of an emotionless Paladin. That's not what a Paladin looks like, to me. An Assassin can easily be emotionless, but a Paladin, I don't see it happening very often. He'd fail far too often to last very long. That's a very broad definition of an emotional person. Emotions are most commonly the spontaneous response and often not conscious. Saints are after all people who put their natural emotions aside for a higher purpose. If they were emotional people they'd have a very hard time with their vows of chastity. On the contrary, all the Saints were very emotional people. They put their love of God above all their other emotions, and that's what allows them to live their lives in profound happiness, without indulging in the fulfillment of emotions they choose to ignore. If they weren't emotional people, they probably wouldn't last a week in chastity. Sexual urges are very difficult to fight on the basis of reason alone. However, if you subsume it or fight it with stronger emotions, then you can win very consistently.
Edymnion 08-04-06, 12:07 AM	That is a problem with too much flavor in base classes. A Barbarian shouldn't have to be a barbarian, he should be a really tough, agile, and strong guy who can make himself stronger a tougher at the cost of his defense a few times per day. The character's flavor should come from the character, not his classes.Total agreement. Which is one of the reasons I enjoyed the alternate flavor for classes that was found in the PHBII. When 4e comes around, one of the things I'm hoping for is a more generic approach to classes. No more of this "obviously shaolin monk" stuff, but the bare bones for an unarmed character that you can turn into a monk, a back alley brawler, or whatever else you need. Much like what happened to the Thief/Rogue between 2e and 3e. Gone is the narrow definition of it just being a sticky fingered Thief, and in comes an incredibly balanced set of mechanics that can build a thief, an adventurer, a con man, or any number of other things, because the class itself is not weighed down by needlessly restrictive fluff. If nothing else, I'd like to see a PHBII style to the class section next time around, with several differant examples of ways to use the mechanics, to give new players the example of "These are just suggestions on how you might play this class", so that they're more comfortable changing the fluff as needed.
Callahan 08-04-06, 08:46 AM	Well the problem is that you end up making a bunch of generic classes and for a fantasy game that is the lowest of the lows. The classes in the PHB are the basic archetypes that ANYONE can identify with. They've all had a lot of history to them in the gaming community and have a deep root fantasy culture. Ask a person what a barbarian is and you will immediately conjure up memories of Conan the Barbarian or a Norse Berserkers, you definitely won't find that the answer is "a calm collected fighter that enters a zen like trance". In addition to the fact that the characters are all easy to insert in to any fantasy story they are all designed with the character's concept in mind. I would never allow a character that has a zen like approach to his fighting to fly in to a fit of rage, taking AC penalties and charging head first in to combat. With that character idea in mind it would be better to design a class that far more suited to him: Zen trance: +4 Con, +4 Dex, -2 attack See? That already sounds more like a defensive calm individual then a raging Barbarian. I'd also consider removing his trap resistances and fast movement for traits that would fit him better. And that's the whole beauty of having classes that fit a niche in a fantasy game then some generic clone tool. On top of that, if there's anything that 3rd edition taught us it's that people are creative enough and enjoy the system enough to take advantage of the fact that d20 is an open and node based. There's a nearly infinite amount of resources that I can access, so there is never an issue of not finding the class type to fit my character idea. The basic idea is that you can't possibly please every single person and in trying to do that you reduce the over all quality of the thing you're trying to make. ---------------------- for those still unclear about Law VS chaos: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a I'm sure there are other articles that adress this.
pres_man 08-04-06, 12:51 PM	So is alignment an obstacle or a tool? A few concerns with alignment that have arisen and my responses: 1)Characters being forced to behave in certain fashions due to alignment being restrictive. 1)Alignment and behaviour choices are not a one way relationship. It is not just that alignment causes certain behaviour choices, and it is not just that certain behaviour choices causes alignment. These two things interact together as they should be the same thing. When a player developes a character concept they should think about different situations that might arise and how their character would react. What does the character value (besides gp)? Once the player has a good idea of how the character will respond to most given stimuli then they should pick the appropriate (or the most closely approximate) alignment for their character. This is to give the player a reference to what they had decided on the character's "temperment". Of course other descriptors would also be nice, for some ideas see p. 128 in the DMG for a random list of traits (not that the PC's traits should be choosen at random though that might be fun). So initially the possible behaviour choices should have influenced the alignment decided on for the character, later the alignment should aid in helping the player make behaviour choices for the character. This is particularly valuable when the character's values are different from the player's values. Yet it should be noted that alignments may also change over time as a player redefines/clarifies their idea of the character. If a paladin changes from LG to NG over time, this is not a punishment, but a change in the character. Of course with the retraining rules, this becomes a bit more acceptable by some players. 2)Certain character concepts are stereotyped and pushed by the standard D&D rules through the use of alignment restrictions. 2)This certainly can be annoying to some people, as they feel typecast into a particular role. Yet let us remember that Wizards is trying to put out things for a particular point of view that they want to support. If they want to promote the idea of paladins being the Arthurian knight and thus when someone sees a paladin in other material produced by them, they might want to promote a consistent picture of that type of character. On the other hand, the game is flexible enough for many types of characters to be played and if the issue is flavor then one should handle it as flavor. If one wants to be a dirge singing lawful dwarf, why not multiclass as a rogue/sorcerer, and say that when you cast spells you use dirges to do it. Really the exact method only matters for roleplaying, as long as you include all of the appropriate components (you can always add more if you want). Of the chaotic neutral holy warrior, why not go cleric or cleric/fighter, and get the flavor you want. You want a mount? Go ranger. A lawful "rage" fighter, just take power attack and describe it as you swinging wildly with foam coming from your mouth. The fact is almost any concept can be covered using the core classes as long as you apply enough flavor to the actual character. The makes of D&D have certain icon-types that, at least for the moment, they wish to keep as hallmark types. Things may change in the longrun, but a player's limitation to play a certain character type is mostly limited by their imagination (and occasionally their munchkinness). 3)The definitions of the different alignments may not correspond to what the gaming group thinks. The is the simplest issue to solve. Have the gaming group discuss what they think each alignment should represent and then come to a concensus. Obviously not everyone is going to be 100% satisfied 100% of the time, but as long as everyone got a say and knows what definitions are in play, then it shouldn't be a problem. The core rules only give vague guidelines for each alignment, and there is certainly plenty of room with in each for different ideas, even if you don't want to charge the entire definitions. Some other thoughts I could well see getting rid of the Lawful-Chaotic axis. I think the differences between these two are not really issues of cosmic relevence, and can be covered by having some stricter codes of conduct for certain classes/concept types. Also having a lawful being and a chaotic being fight one another merely for one being lawful and one being chaotic strikes me very much of Vaal's "Red vs Blue" problem. I don't see the same problem with good and evil, as long as it is understood that good tries not to harm or kill unless absolutely necessary, and evil is actively working towards harming or killing others for your own personal gain or pleasure. Nobody is going to convince me that the guy murdering helpless children is morally equal to the guy who killed him to keep him from murdering helpless children. So, yes I would support the L-C axis being dumped (probably don't need twice as many fiends then). Issues currently on this axis would be put to just personal characteristics (flavor) and codes of conduct (mechanics).
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-04-06, 02:52 PM	Well the problem is that you end up making a bunch of generic classes and for a fantasy game that is the lowest of the lows. This is a game of the imagination. Why shouldn't we be allowed to use our imaginations? The classes in the PHB are the basic archetypes that ANYONE can identify with. They've all had a lot of history to them in the gaming community and have a deep root fantasy culture. Ask a person what a barbarian is and you will immediately conjure up memories of Conan the Barbarian or a Norse Berserkers, you definitely won't find that the answer is "a calm collected fighter that enters a zen like trance". And nothing stops you from playing a Barbarian in that vein if you want. But why can't the guy that wants to play the zen fighter just use the barbarian as a class and call himself a Zen Master? In addition to the fact that the characters are all easy to insert in to any fantasy story they are all designed with the character's concept in mind. I would never allow a character that has a zen like approach to his fighting to fly in to a fit of rage, taking AC penalties and charging head first in to combat. With that character idea in mind it would be better to design a class that far more suited to him: Zen trance: +4 Con, +4 Dex, -2 attack The whole point is that you don't have to characterize it as a fit of rage. Also, who in the seven interlocking hells would have a Zen Warrior who give him self penalties in combat? See? That already sounds more like a defensive calm individual then a raging Barbarian. I'd also consider removing his trap resistances and fast movement for traits that would fit him better. I think you're misconstruing the concept of zen combat. And that's the whole beauty of having classes that fit a niche in a fantasy game then some generic clone tool. On top of that, if there's anything that 3rd edition taught us it's that people are creative enough and enjoy the system enough to take advantage of the fact that d20 is an open and node based. There's a nearly infinite amount of resources that I can access, so there is never an issue of not finding the class type to fit my character idea. Why take the time? Seriously, the Barbarian class is totally perfect for the zen warrior and all you have to do is call Rage 'Battle trance' or 'moment of zen' and kick out the useless alignment restriction. The basic idea is that you can't possibly please every single person and in trying to do that you reduce the over all quality of the thing you're trying to make. The problem is that they instead decided to please themselves and force thier flavor text down our throats. for those still unclear about Law VS chaos: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a I'm sure there are other articles that adress this. You know, it started as a joke, but I don't think WotC really even cares about L/C except where is comes to the Blood War. Ya ever notice that the printed LN and CN icionics (Slaad, Formians, Justicars) are all just 'alien-mindset evil'?
Callahan 08-04-06, 03:22 PM	I think you pretty much answered your own question there. Why would a zen warrior rage and take penalties in combat(-2 to AC)? The crunch does not fit the flavour, so why try and hammer in a screw?
a_psh 08-04-06, 03:48 PM	And that's the whole beauty of having classes that fit a niche in a fantasy game then some generic clone tool.Classes with no variation in flavor and special abilities are closer to being "clone tools" than generalized classes. Compare the variety of viable barbarian builds to the variety of viable psychic warrior builds, for example. On top of that, if there's anything that 3rd edition taught us it's that people are creative enough and enjoy the system enough to take advantage of the fact that d20 is an open and node based. There's a nearly infinite amount of resources that I can access, so there is never an issue of not finding the class type to fit my character idea.I would argue that the amazing surge of new base and prestige classes, both official and fan-made, basically shows you that people aren't creative in the ways that the original D&D3 designers intended -- multiclassing is something that a lot of D&D players try to avoid, and a new class or PrC is created for every minor variation on a theme. D&D is still locked into using classes as archetypes, which requires making up new ones for each idea you have. Hardly ideal. ... I can see your general angle, though, which is that it's easier to use classes with mechanical and flavor restrictions right out of the box, since instant flavor means less work for GM and players and a less variable level progression helps dimish the effect of the so-called "paradox of choice" (i.e. option paralysis). From this standpoint, the Paladin, Barbarian, and Ninja are well-made classes, since it's easy to pick one up and get the full package -- archetypical abilities, archetypical flavor, archetypical personality -- without having to make 500 trivial decisions in order to "customize" it. This definitely streamlines usability and ease-of-play (at the cost of some flexibility and modularity, but, like I said, too much flexibility = paradox of choice). If you're looking for something that's more of a pick-up-and-go game than a toolkit, this approach is definitely better. (All the more so since D&D is a pretty bad toolkit anyway, so it might as well try to be a good pick-up-and-go game rather than suck at doing both things.)
Callahan 08-04-06, 04:02 PM	No. Multicasting is what people use to avoid back in AD&D days when it was impossible to do so. Now everyone has picked up on the idea that any variation is a possibility. And, isn't the "out of the box" idea what the core should be? You buy three books, some dice sharpen a pencil and start playing. Mostly anything you expect in a general RPG is right there. If you're an advanced player the system is designed so that you could add third party material and self made material without difficulty. In that sense you can literally build a class around your character concept through available class mixes, prestieges and third party add ons(most of which are free right here on the boards). A hand full of generic classes won't accomplish this. In this context the alignment tools are there to provide the role playing compass, so that if you should choose to leave the axis you would end up on a different path and your class would also reflect your personality change. EG: Paladin turned evil becomes a Black Guard.
Dnjscott 08-04-06, 04:48 PM	OK, no one else mentioned this, so I'll step up. First, go here (http://crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Classes-Base.pdf). That is a thorough, but by no means exhaustive, list of the variant base classes available for 3.5. It includes Paladins of every alignment, even true neutral, and a Chaotic Monk. Lawful Bard is also possible, with a feat from Complete Adventurer, as long as you're lawful good. Rage, as has already been mentioned, is a dime a dozen among PrCs and whatnot. Yes, D&D punishes you for thinking outside the box by making the alternatives hard to find or costly. But, I've foudn that basically every RPG punishes you for thinking outside the designers' box. I wish that they'd go ahead and let you make custom classes--they already balance out hit die and skills and features behind the scenes, so why not let us do it? But, I don't think most want that.
Callahan 08-04-06, 04:55 PM	I wish that they'd go ahead and let you make custom classes--they already balance out hit die and skills and features behind the scenes, so why not let us do it? But, I don't think most want that. http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17 Do you see anyone stopping these people from making classes? No one needs a license to make a class or feat, it's what the SRD is all about. All the guidelines are already in the game, there could not be more examples as to how to make your own class. If however they made specific rules as to what you can and can't add to a class of your own design however they would be limmiting the designer's creativity.
Dnjscott 08-04-06, 05:05 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17 Do you see anyone stopping these people from making classes? No one needs a license to make a class or feat, it's what the SRD is all about. All the guidelines are already in the game, there could not be more examples as to how to make your own class. If however they made specific rules as to what you can and can't add to a class of your own design however they would be limmiting the designer's creativity. Well, you don't need rules to roleplay either, we could all sit around a fire and free-form LARP, but I prefer hard and fast rules for my games, too. ;)
Callahan 08-04-06, 05:17 PM	I somehow doubt that you'll find a lack of rules that describe what you want to do for a custom class out of both free and purchased resources. Though broad rules are possible you'd probably find them as helpful as those in savage species for converting monsters to classes. They don't help you as much as you'd imagine it would (no big table where you can jot off every single ability ever made with a point buy system) and everything would have to be off the shelf, which makes for lame design. Trying to take all the character options that exist in D&D and packaging it to one set of rules is a futile struggle.
Dnjscott 08-04-06, 05:28 PM	I somehow doubt that you'll find a lack of rules that describe what you want to do for a custom class out of both free and purchased resources. Though broad rules are possible you'd probably find them as helpful as those in savage species for converting monsters to classes. They don't help you as much as you'd imagine it would (no big table where you can jot off every single ability ever made with a point buy system) and everything would have to be off the shelf, which makes for lame design. Trying to take all the character options that exist in D&D and packaging it to one set of rules is a futile struggle. Well, other than the fact that it was an aside about some vague hopes so it wasn't particularly supposed to be well-thought our or all- encompassing, I still stand by it reasonably well. Ever check out Hero or GURPS? They assign point totals to a bewildering number of abilties and powers. It's not most DND players' cup of tea, though, which is why I said that most wouldn't agree.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-04-06, 06:15 PM	Player creativity: tool or obstacle?
Kresalak 08-04-06, 06:29 PM	Apparantly an obstacle. Who would have thought.
Callahan 08-04-06, 07:14 PM	Well, other than the fact that it was an aside about some vague hopes so it wasn't particularly supposed to be well-thought our or all- encompassing, I still stand by it reasonably well. Ever check out Hero or GURPS? They assign point totals to a bewildering number of abilties and powers. It's not most DND players' cup of tea, though, which is why I said that most wouldn't agree. yeah AD&D had a book like that as well, including the break up of ability scores.
Dnjscott 08-04-06, 07:21 PM	yeah AD&D had a book like that as well, including the break up of ability scores. Player's Option. Loved it, except the rigid categories for spending CP made cross-overs weird. Edit: Just for anyone's reference, I fail to see how inventing abilities instead of inventing classes whole-hog would somehow be less creative, and, to clarify, it seems to me WOTC has already (albeit backwardsly) enacted the generi-classes rule by making sooo many variants. Sure, you can't 'buy' a Paladin's abilities, but you sure can play one of any alignment with the right Dragons. And, it appears someone at WOTC agrees with me, given the three generic classes in UA that would be a big start along this line of thinking.
Luis_Carlos 08-06-06, 01:26 PM	A very interesting topic, altouhg my English level isn´t enough to understand whole... I like the alignment system, because I believe in the existence of the Goog and the evil, but I don´t the Manichaeism (cosmic equality between good and evil like oposite forces, with the same level of power), nor the moral relativism. In my opinion the cosmology of Dragonlance (wizards with white, red o black tunic, a moon and six deitys for each aligment...) its very ridiculous or childlike. I hate the rimalni (see Fiend Folio) philosophy about the neutrality and the cosmic balance. The more difficoult for me is a coherent or believable playing. The good people wants justice... the law is necessary to defend the justice...Does want justice a caotic good caracther but without any authority? Have you speaked with parent and teachers? A child without autorithy nor rules becames a total litle tyarnt. I think the order helps us to the dinamism. Can you imagine the traffic of a great city without code of circulation nor traffic lights? Or a Hospital without coordination of employees? How is the society of elandrins (caotic good outsides) to bear a strong crisis? Elfs are Caotic Good, Aren´t they? But their sociaty must to have laws (forbiding the poaching, lighting bonfire beacuse the danger of fores fir or the trafic of exotic species). Do you rebember the seventh episode of The Simpsons' fifth season ¨Bart's Inner Child¨?. (the "Do what you Feel" festival is organized. However by the time of the festival the "inner child" concept causes chaos in Springfield) Is practicable a mahority CG society?
a_psh 08-06-06, 02:01 PM	You don't like the concept of Neutrality as a stand-alone force, you don't like the equality of Good and Evil, and you don't like the fact that there is such a thing as Chaotic Good. I would say that you don't actually like the alignment system, just the idea of having one.
Luis_Carlos 08-06-06, 02:25 PM	I don´t believe in the evil like a force us powerful us the good, necesarry to the cosmic balance. My point of view is... more simillar to J.R. Tolkien....(Ainur/ Eru Ilúvatar, the supreme power of creation, and Morgorth, Ainur´s subordinate, who rebelaing by its pride). The evil is the reason of the harmoniousless in the universe. I think the D&D characters have ¨godlines aura¨ if they make admirable good actions, or ¨sin taint¨ by their crimes. * And I don´t the description about the good, angels and Heaven from Todd McFarlane´s comic of Spawn!!!!
Titan W 08-06-06, 03:18 PM	The good people wants justice... the law is necessary to defend the justice...Does want justice a caotic good caracther but without any authority? Have you speaked with parent and teachers? A child without autorithy nor rules becames a total litle tyarnt. I think the order helps us to the dinamism. Can you imagine the traffic of a great city without code of circulation nor traffic lights? Or a Hospital without coordination of employees? Barring my personal opinions on the alignment system overall, I like to think of chaotic good being living by one's own jutsice, and not that of the world. that means that while they have a sense of justice it may be more to the lines of "those poor people are helpless while the rich have mansions that's not right so I can take some of the money of the rich for the poor" (Robin hood yes...) while the Lawful Good person who "Lives by the best aspects of the world's jutice," would try to make money become rich and donate their wealth to the poor in stead of taking it from the rich. They achieve the same goals but the Chaotic Good sees their justice above the law and the world's where as Lawful Good sees Their Justice as part of the world and thus must act within the world's justice to make their justice a part of it. How is the society of elandrins (caotic good outsides) to bear a strong crisis? Elfs are Caotic Good, Aren´t they? But their sociaty must to have laws (forbiding the poaching, lighting bonfire beacuse the danger of fores fir or the trafic of exotic species). In a CG society what happens is that people find a medium between what is right for their justice and what they need to do to survive. Those laws would exist because people wouldn't want to see their homes burned or watch the rare species of the world burtally killed, as that is morally incorrect (evil).
ArcTan 08-06-06, 06:41 PM	You don't like the concept of Neutrality as a stand-alone force, you don't like the equality of Good and Evil, and you don't like the fact that there is such a thing as Chaotic Good. I would say that you don't actually like the alignment system, just the idea of having one. Hey, I don't really like the rilmani either. Neutral as its own force *wasn't* part of the alignment system, really, until later iterations of Planescape. Even in early Planescape Neutral wasn't its own thing -- the Outlands are a *hub* of the Great Wheel rather than holding any position on it, and are distinguished from the other Outer Planes primarily by being the place where nothing happens and people from all the other realms mix freely. But the Outlands exert no overall "balancing" force on the multiverse.
ArcTan 08-06-06, 06:45 PM	That's a very broad definition of an emotional person. Emotions are most commonly the spontaneous response and often not conscious. Saints are after all people who put their natural emotions aside for a higher purpose. If they were emotional people they'd have a very hard time with their vows of chastity. "Emotional" and "unemotional" should not be terms used to describe alignment. Emotion only refers to your own reaction to the things around you, your choices, etc. You can feel an *emotion* about anything. Saints should feel joy and contentment about their sainthood, anger and disgust at evil and sin, desire for a closer connection to their god, etc. What a paladin-like saint can't be is *impulsive*, which is not the same as emotional. Keeping a vow of chastity in such a situation can involve being very fraught with emotion -- the minor emotion of sexual desire being overwhelmed by an emotion of fierce loyalty to one's oath and one's purity. It's like saying the only reason to be a pacifist is to be "unemotional" and deny one's anger, when denying anger is often the result of a greater, more powerful emotion -- empathy, compassion, loyalty to doing what's right, etc.
a_psh 08-06-06, 06:51 PM	Hey, I don't really like the rilmani either. Neutral as its own force *wasn't* part of the alignment system, really, until later iterations of Planescape. Even in early Planescape Neutral wasn't its own thing -- the Outlands are a *hub* of the Great Wheel rather than holding any position on it, and are distinguished from the other Outer Planes primarily by being the place where nothing happens and people from all the other realms mix freely. But the Outlands exert no overall "balancing" force on the multiverse.I prefer this style, too. The Outlands as a meeting ground plus the divine realms of a bunch of disparate beings who either can't seize one elsewhere, like Ilsensiene (sp?), or don't do very much and therefore belong on the Outlands, like Chronepsis.
Callahan 08-06-06, 07:54 PM	"Emotional" and "unemotional" should not be terms used to describe alignment. Emotion only refers to your own reaction to the things around you, your choices, etc. You can feel an *emotion* about anything. Saints should feel joy and contentment about their sainthood, anger and disgust at evil and sin, desire for a closer connection to their god, etc. What a paladin-like saint can't be is *impulsive*, which is not the same as emotional. Keeping a vow of chastity in such a situation can involve being very fraught with emotion -- the minor emotion of sexual desire being overwhelmed by an emotion of fierce loyalty to one's oath and one's purity. It's like saying the only reason to be a pacifist is to be "unemotional" and deny one's anger, when denying anger is often the result of a greater, more powerful emotion -- empathy, compassion, loyalty to doing what's right, etc. Well emoption is such a broad term, that is realy not agreed upon by many experts. So guaging anything about emotion is an imperfect art at best.
ArcTan 08-06-06, 09:23 PM	Well emoption is such a broad term, that is realy not agreed upon by many experts. So guaging anything about emotion is an imperfect art at best. Err... yes. I think that was my point. It's a broad term. So you don't cite its presence or absence as a sign of anything, because it's very difficult to define whether someone is being "emotional", and if you look at it right every decision stems from one emotion or another.
a_psh 08-06-06, 09:36 PM	Well emoption is such a broad term, that is realy not agreed upon by many experts. So guaging anything about emotion is an imperfect art at best.If you think the term "emotion" is very broad and covers most of human experience and consciousness, why did you say this before? I don't quite see what you mean by this. If anything the Paladin's devotion is working towards denying the basic primal emotions and putting the needs of others ahead of his own. The law axis is all about self restraint. Although I have a sinking feeling that you have a very perverted impression of what the paladin represents I still can't seem to understand how you can interpret the Lawful Good alignment as giving in to your emotions?
Callahan 08-07-06, 02:06 AM	If you think the term "emotion" is very broad and covers most of human experience and consciousness, why did you say this before? Your argument that chaotic and lawful characters sharing the same emotions is flawed at best. Emotions have a broad deffinition and even so, the ones commonly associated to Lawful and Chaotic characters are different and imposible to compare.
a_psh 08-07-06, 02:23 AM	Your argument that chaotic and lawful characters sharing the same emotions is flawed at best. Emotions have a broad deffinition and even so, the ones commonly associated to Lawful and Chaotic characters are different and imposible to compare.I reject this completely. To say that "moral" and "ethical" (as D&D uses the terms) inclinations shoud strongly bias or limit characters' emotions is to turn alignment into the horrid bunch of stereotypes that its detractors often say it is. Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, or some flavor of Neutrality should not have a near-monopoly on such basic human feelings as love, hatred, greed, sadness, hope, or joy. Neither Law nor Chaos should be strongly biased towards determination or creativity.
pres_man 08-07-06, 02:29 AM	I like the alignment system, because I believe in the existence of the Goog and the evil, but I don´t the Manichaeism (cosmic equality between good and evil like oposite forces, with the same level of power), nor the moral relativism. Well I'm not sure if they are truly "equal". Yes there is magic that is equally powerful perhaps. Yet remember that the evil beings (fiends) war with one another constantly, on the other hand the good beings (celestials) don't usually, instead they war with the fiends as well most of the time. Thus in all likelihood overall evil is a bit weaker. And remember evil often has to work hidden, while good can work out in the open. What moral relativism are you referring to? The alignments in the game are absolutely defined subjectively (though generally there are guidelines given) by the DM and/or party. Yet their application should be judged objectively in the standard D&D game. So there may be moral relativism from game to game, but (hopefully) within a specific game there should not be, though individual characters may (wrongly) believe there is. In my opinion the cosmology of Dragonlance (wizards with white, red o black tunic, a moon and six deitys for each aligment...) its very ridiculous or childlike. Well, it is a game, a certain level of childishness is to be expected. I hate the rimalni (see Fiend Folio) philosophy about the neutrality and the cosmic balance. It is actually quite funny but I had not read about them before this. Yet in a game I am running what they are for is actually an issue. In the world in the game, some powerful evil beings took over the world several hundred years earlier. Many of the good races seeing this coming took many of their people to the plane of air in giant floating forest balls. Yet since that time (the powerful evils destroyed one another), the balance has shifted dramatically towards evil on this world (still plenty of little evils running around), as the people still there are been forced to do many "necessary evils" to stay alive. Now the very fabric of the planes is destablizing. Rifts appear between planes and often creatures come through these, further destablizing the system. The party must try to rebalance the system. Though in my settings it is almost impossible to imbalance in favor of good as in order to practically eliminate evil it would require evil measures to accomplish, which would keep evil around. The good people wants justice... the law is necessary to defend the justice... Laws and lawful are not the same thing. To be lawful this implies one is "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability." In my own games I use the synonym "conservative" to describe lawful. Basically for lawful types in my game, they tend to look at laws as helping to enforce individuals duties to the greater society. Laws on the other hand do not guarantee justice and in fact may in some cases hinder justice. Does want justice a chaotic good caracther but without any authority? Again chaotic folk are described as people who value "freedom, adaptability, and flexibility." In my games I use the synonym "liberal" to describe chaotic. Basically chaotic folks tend to look at laws to protect individual freedoms. Yet chaotic folks are more likely not to feel personally bound by laws though they may well expect others to be. Have you speaked with parent and teachers? A child without autorithy nor rules becames a total litle tyarnt. I think the order helps us to the dinamism. Can you imagine the traffic of a great city without code of circulation nor traffic lights? Or a Hospital without coordination of employees? Chaotics tend to work better with individuals then with groups, it goes to their thinking. Though there is no reason a chaotic parent would allow their children to do "wrong" things any more than a lawful parent would. The chaotic parent just may seem a bit inconsistent, or they may talk about how something is wrong because it is, not just because society or the law says it is. Chaotic folks would probably teach that you can't base your entire beliefs on what other people say, because if they are wrong or betray your trust then your entire belief system will fall. You have to be true to yourself. How is the society of elandrins (caotic good outsides) to bear a strong crisis? Elfs are Caotic Good, Aren´t they? But their sociaty must to have laws (forbiding the poaching, lighting bonfire beacuse the danger of fores fir or the trafic of exotic species). Well elves would probably believe that making a law that says it is wrong to do those things isn't going to stop someone that wants to do it. Likewise not having a law isn't going to make someone who wouldn't have done it suddenly want to do it. Yet "crimes" would be handled individually, or in personal organizations. Personally I understand the confusion over the "uber" chaotic person trying to claim to be good. Some people don't understand that "no man is an island", that what we do and say effects those around us. A person who says doing drugs only hurts himself, does not see the effect on those around him, to the people that follow his lead to using drugs, to the people that worry endlessly over him. The great majority of people that smoke had a parent that smoked, that is no strange correlation, it is cause and effect. And on the whole stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Why is it if someone is rich that they suddenly have no right to their own personal property? How do we know that maybe someone that is rich, didn't get that way from working hard, and someone that is poor was just lazy. I'm not saying that is true for all rich or poor people, many poor people work hard, and many rich people do not. Yet just because someone is rich does not mean that it is any less wrong to steal from them, then it is to steal from someone that is poor. Just because someone steals a dollar from me, and I could live without it does not mean it wasn't wrong to do so.
HomebrewedMonster 08-07-06, 03:01 AM	An alignment is a tool. If you cannot play a good character, do not play a good character. If the DM has to remind you of your alignment every half hour you should play an alignment that you are comfortable. If you cannot play the Lawful Good Paladin, do not play one. Play the Chaotic Nuetral rogue that you are so good at playing.
Callahan 08-07-06, 02:18 PM	I reject this completely. To say that "moral" and "ethical" (as D&D uses the terms) inclinations shoud strongly bias or limit characters' emotions is to turn alignment into the horrid bunch of stereotypes that its detractors often say it is. Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, or some flavor of Neutrality should not have a near-monopoly on such basic human feelings as love, hatred, greed, sadness, hope, or joy. Neither Law nor Chaos should be strongly biased towards determination or creativity.They hardly limit. They instead focus on specific characteristics abundant to those spectrums. Good - Love Evil - Hate Chaos - capriciousness Law - authoritative A character of an alignment extream expresses sertain emotions more then he does others. In the case of Law they are more consious then subconsious emotions. So say, Chaotic - Evil characters would be prone to raged more then Lawful Good characters.
ArcTan 08-07-06, 03:17 PM	They hardly limit. They instead focus on specific characteristics abundant to those spectrums. Good - Love Evil - Hate Chaos - capriciousness Law - authoritative A character of an alignment extream expresses sertain emotions more then he does others. In the case of Law they are more consious then subconsious emotions. So say, Chaotic - Evil characters would be prone to raged more then Lawful Good characters. This is nothing but a tendency, though, if that, and I'd call it a very subtle tendency. Along the lines of "Lawful characters are more likely to obey the law". It's not the *definition* of Law or Chaos, and anyone who's an imperfect mix of the two -- i.e. anyone who's not a slaad or a modron -- should still experience the full range of human emotions. Lawful characters still get mad, sometimes uncontrollably mad, at those who violate order and create trouble for its own sake. Chaotic characters sometimes find themselves suffused of great calm and clarity when doing what they personally believe is right. And so on.
Callahan 08-07-06, 04:09 PM	Well obviously they have the same capacity for emotions but different alignment tangent are Driven by those emotions that best define them.
Illithid_Tentacles 08-07-06, 04:33 PM	Alignment is kind of like hit points. It's not something that has an effect on your character, instead, what your character does has an effect on it. It's a yardstick, that basically says, "for the most part, the character has lived his life in roughly this way, and is likely to continue doing so." A Helm of Opposite Alignment, or something else that changes a characters alignment against the character's will, basically affects how the character thinks, and that's just about it. A LG fighter who is coerced to perform an evil act (via Charm Person or blackmail or something) does not automatically become evil; everyone does something unusal or out of character for them now and then, and characters shouldn't be forced to change alignment due to circumstances beyond thier control, OR for doing something uncharacterstic in a time of desperation or panic, since it's really hard to make moral or ethical judgements when you're about to die or somesuch. Penalized slightly, yes, but forcibly changing someone's alignment you're the DM and you said so is not slight. A character who has been LG for his entire life, and just gets sick of it and decides to become TN or something, shouldn't be penalized mechanically in any way other than his friends and family are kind of unsettled around him because he's changed so suddenly. Again, alignment essentially reflects how a character thinks, and how he puts his thoughts into action. A TN aristocrat could think about selling all his jewelry and mansion and stuff, and donating the money to charity, and living like a serf the rest of his life, doens't change alignment, because he's only thinking about doing it, the same way a TN rogue thinking about murdering someone for no justifiable reason doesn't automatically make him evil, because he's not acting on those thoughts. If the aristocrat or rogue WERE to act on those thoughts, even then, they wouldn't automatically change alignment, because these are isolated incedents. Granted, the aristocrat would definitely move several steps closer to becomeing Good, and the rogue would move a good bit towards Evil, but unless these kinds of behavior becomes consistant, they're simply extremely unusual isolated incedents, and after a while, assuming both characters returned to thier normal behavior patterns, they'd both be back where they started. The above paragraph is NOT suggesting that such radically uncharacterisic acts be ignored entirely- yes, the aristocrat would likely get a lot of respect for such a selfless act, and if the rogue were caught or linked to the murder, he would in all likelihood be imprisoned or executed himself- but the responses to these acts should be in-game, NOT meta-game.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-07-06, 05:42 PM	Good - Love Evil - Hate I have yet, in DnD seen Good portraying as loving. They are, however portrayed as having a murderous and driving hatred for Evil. Just brutally hateful.
pres_man 08-07-06, 06:49 PM	I have yet, in DnD seen Good portraying as loving. They are, however portrayed as having a murderous and driving hatred for Evil. Just brutally hateful. Do you mean in official texts or do you mean in how it is played in individual games you have participated in?
ArcTan 08-07-06, 07:18 PM	I have yet, in DnD seen Good portraying as loving. They are, however portrayed as having a murderous and driving hatred for Evil. Just brutally hateful. The more you harp on this, Vaal, the more I think your problem isn't with D&D or the alignment system at all, but on having a very shallow, hack-'n-slash gaming group.
ArcTan 08-07-06, 07:21 PM	Well obviously they have the same capacity for emotions but different alignment tangent are Driven by those emotions that best define them. But emotions can vary so much depending on personality. I mean, this is why emotions are hard to define and shouldn't be used for this crap. A person who's Good and who's happy all the time isn't any more Good than someone who's Good but often sunk in despair or wrath over the evil in the world. Good is about what your goals are and the kinds of things you try to do, not about how you *feel*. I mean, take this too literally and you'll start making my Batman-like crusader Evil just because he broods a lot and loses his temper, even though he's devoted his whole life to saving little kids. Or make my Machiavellian character who plans to blow up the whole city Good because all he can think about while he does it is how much he loves his wife and how he can save her from her illness once he performs this task for the demons. That's how some DMs seem to play it, and it's stupid.
a_psh 08-07-06, 07:46 PM	I have yet, in DnD seen Good portraying as loving. They are, however portrayed as having a murderous and driving hatred for Evil. Just brutally hateful.I, too, think you're oversimplifying here, and beating a really dead horse when it comes to the BoED. ... Sorry, I don't have the medical background to help your particular disorder. I suggest contacting a psychiatrist for further help.If you're not a psychiatrist, stop applying armchair psychiatry to other posters.
Verelor 08-07-06, 08:45 PM	I have yet, in DnD seen Good portraying as loving. They are, however portrayed as having a murderous and driving hatred for Evil. Just brutally hateful. Then either the "good" characters were not roleplayed to full extent of intended character traits, or what you saw with that in-play example was more Arunsunian (good with strong neutral leanings). Additionally, good is generally not portrayed this way in any official book that I am aware of, making this all the more null and void. Your arguments here are, as very often, wildly spun in your own direction, and stated more for a rather baseless attempt at shattering the existing axes than any semblance of a search for the truth. I have yet, in DnD seen Good portraying as loving. They are, however portrayed as having a murderous and driving hatred for Evil. Just brutally hateful. Then the good alignment you have seen roleplayed by these peers is either flawed for its intent, or was good characters with definite neutral tendencies. Also, it is generally not portraryed this way whatsoever in official texts. So, as always, your arguments are both tragically spun and use a "two wrongs make a right" paradigm to get a flawed point across. Liberal does not necessarily mean chaotic, though it has more of those characteristics: Example- Are socialists chaotic? Their political outlook requires the firm rule of law and stresses organized mutual involvement for the effect of the whole, though they will still be doing their best to provide for individual freedoms. Conservative does not necessarily mean lawful, though it has more of those characteristics: Example- Are libertarian-leaning conservatives lawful? They stress individual freedom, independance, small government, and low regulation. Law is of course needed in their view to a degree, but they remain uninvolved. Neocons do not count for the benefit of the argument. Love
pres_man 08-07-06, 09:12 PM	:) I must say, I think that is the first time I've seen somebody quote the same text twice in a post and make two different responses. Liberal does not necessarily mean chaotic, though it has more of those characteristics: Example- Are socialists chaotic? Their political outlook requires the firm rule of law and stresses organized mutual involvement for the effect of the whole, though they will still be doing their best to provide for individual freedoms. I assume this is response to my post. Well let us look at how chaotic is described. “Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. Now lets look one of the definitions of liberal Liberal BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms Seems pretty similiar. And notice I didn't say chaotic meant being a "Democrat" or anything. Nowhere did I say or imply any kind of political affiliation, for good reasons because individual parties often have competing liberal and conservative issues in their stances. Conservative does not necessarily mean lawful, though it has more of those characteristics: Example- Are libertarian-leaning conservatives lawful? They stress individual freedom, independance, small government, and low regulation. Law is of course needed in their view to a degree, but they remain uninvolved. Neocons do not count for the benefit of the argument. Again, you are confusing political enties with general terms. Being conservative does not make one anymore "Republican" than believing in democracy makes anyone "Democratic", just because groups use certain terms, does not mean that those terms are used correctly or are all encompassing with their different issues. Yet lets take a look at the actual terms I used. “Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. Conservative a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate> c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners <a conservative suit> Again, seems pretty similiar. Yet again, I said, IN MY GAME this is how I describe it. If you prefer to use other terms and ideas to describe the different alignments in your game, go ahead. Of get rid of them if that is your preference. Love Ah, ... yeah ... right back at you.
not Yoda 08-07-06, 09:20 PM	Two wrongs don't make a right, but they will @$%} sure make us even. :evillaugh I'd say that Vaal's statement might seem true. If you only concern yourself with adventuring. Creeping into the cave and killing the giant and whatnot. However looking at it from a world standpoint someone is making an effort to feed the poor, cure the sick, and uphold the weak. Whether it be a church like that of Pelor or a lonely ranger that helps lost travelers find their way. They, my fellow posters, are doing good. There is inherent generosity and altruism. Adventurers are not necesarily heroic. Vengeful Usurpers to the kings throne, vile demons summoned to gather souls. The worst of the worst is thrown at them from sadistic choices to terrifying planes built on suffering and filled with despair. I can't even blame them for being less than heroic. But if you put that G on your sheet at least make an attempt to be good , and a thousand trite debates can't change good. Good is good, I would be suprised if you did not honestly know what is good and what is evil. Seeing through the illusion of the sadistic choice of killing one innocent or damning everyone is a matter of choice. A choice that your character will have to live with. The real question is, can he?
pres_man 08-07-06, 10:10 PM	Seeing through the illusion of the sadistic choice of killing one innocent or damning everyone is a matter of choice. A choice that your character will have to live with. The real question is, can he? :D That is why my suggestion for those stupid situations is almost always: Kill the person then commit seppuku as means of redeeming yourself. ;)
Verelor 08-07-06, 10:23 PM	That is why my suggestion for those stupid situations is almost always: Kill the person then commit seppuku as means of redeeming yourself. Actually, it is more like "ask your DM what you did for him that he wished to throw you into such nonsense".
not Yoda 08-07-06, 10:45 PM	pres_man :cookie: Verelor is right no need for a game to be as unfair as the real world. ;)
ArcTan 08-08-06, 01:41 AM	:) I must say, I think that is the first time I've seen somebody quote the same text twice in a post and make two different responses. I assume this is response to my post. Well let us look at how chaotic is described. Now lets look one of the definitions of liberal Seems pretty similiar. And notice I didn't say chaotic meant being a "Democrat" or anything. Nowhere did I say or imply any kind of political affiliation, for good reasons because individual parties often have competing liberal and conservative issues in their stances. Again, you are confusing political enties with general terms. Being conservative does not make one anymore "Republican" than believing in democracy makes anyone "Democratic", just because groups use certain terms, does not mean that those terms are used correctly or are all encompassing with their different issues. Yet lets take a look at the actual terms I used. Again, seems pretty similiar. Yet again, I said, IN MY GAME this is how I describe it. If you prefer to use other terms and ideas to describe the different alignments in your game, go ahead. Of get rid of them if that is your preference. Ah, ... yeah ... right back at you. Yes, in the very, very general sense "liberal" means Chaotic and "conservative" means Lawful. This is almost never the sense in which it is used when talking about politics, though. (By this standard, for instance, John Kerry is far more "conservative" than George Bush.) So your statement is still misleading -- it would've been better to use synonyms, like "libertarian" vs. "traditionalist".
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-08-06, 03:04 AM	I, too, think you're oversimplifying here, and beating a really dead horse when it comes to the BoED. I'm talking about the Core. Specifically, 'Alahandra, a Paladin fights evil without mercy' and the couatl, which attacks the second it detects an evil creature.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-08-06, 03:08 AM	:D That is why my suggestion for those stupid situations is almost always: Kill the person then commit seppuku as means of redeeming yourself. ;) No, you kill everyone involved in case the prophecy was wrong, then begin a campaign to weaken the structure of reality enough that it collapses back into the Sea of Chaos, so no more damnation or suffering will ever arise again. I says to myself "Self, if your'e going to do somethin' ain't no reason to do it halfway."
ArcTan 08-08-06, 07:14 AM	I'm talking about the Core. Specifically, 'Alahandra, a Paladin fights evil without mercy' and the couatl, which attacks the second it detects an evil creature. You're being nitpicky and dumb about ambiguous terms in the English language.
horrorshow 08-08-06, 08:45 AM	It's an obstacle, used by tools. Instead of worrying about it, scrap it, as per Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved. Keep the spells though, and as they affect you, let the DM decide your alignment, based upon how you have acted. This removes relativism, as all judgement is made by one person. The DM has the final say anyway, e.g. removing paladin powers.
pres_man 08-08-06, 09:49 AM	and the couatl, which attacks the second it detects an evil creature. Well that is not precisely what it says. A couatl seldom attacks without provocation, though it always attacks evildoers caught red-handed. "Red-handed" usually means "in the act of committing a crime or misdeed" (Merriam-Webster), so what it says about a couatl is that it rarely attacks without being attacked, unless it sees an evil creature doing evil. In that case it attacks. Notice it also does not say, slay evil doers, merely attacks. The couatl has poison, it does Str damage, that will not kill someone but will make them helpless, also grapples are still attacks, basicly there are a lot of choices besides just killing them that still fall within this RAW statement.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-08-06, 01:13 PM	Well that is not precisely what it says. "Red-handed" usually means "in the act of committing a crime or misdeed" (Merriam-Webster), so what it says about a couatl is that it rarely attacks without being attacked, unless it sees an evil creature doing evil. In that case it attacks. Notice it also does not say, slay evil doers, merely attacks. The couatl has poison, it does Str damage, that will not kill someone but will make them helpless, also grapples are still attacks, basicly there are a lot of choices besides just killing them that still fall within this RAW statement. Ah, see, the beastie didn't have the red-handed notion in there in 3e.
Callahan 08-08-06, 02:41 PM	Yes, in the very, very general sense "liberal" means Chaotic and "conservative" means Lawful. This is almost never the sense in which it is used when talking about politics, though. (By this standard, for instance, John Kerry is far more "conservative" than George Bush.) So your statement is still misleading -- it would've been better to use synonyms, like "libertarian" vs. "traditionalist". Unless you're talking about the Canadian Liberal party, in which case it can quite easily fill the Chaotic alignment. :)
pres_man 08-08-06, 04:53 PM	Yes, in the very, very general sense "liberal" means Chaotic and "conservative" means Lawful. This is almost never the sense in which it is used when talking about politics, though. Well since on these forums it is inappropriate to discuss politics, then taking the general sense is probably the more appropriate one.
Ograbme 08-08-06, 11:55 PM	The fact that astral devas, living exemplar embodiments of all that is good, "[take] a fierce joy in bashing evil foes" shown how counterintuitive alignment can be. Not only that, but a race of good creatures who can plane shift and cure disease at will and heal/CLW 7/day somehow haven't managed to wipe out disease and injury. I guess they're too busy taking joy in killing things or playing harps or whatever the hell good outsiders do all eternity.
a_psh 08-09-06, 01:18 AM	The fact that astral devas, living exemplar embodiments of all that is good, "[take] a fierce joy in bashing evil foes" shown how counterintuitive alignment can be. Not only that, but a race of good creatures who can plane shift and cure disease at will and heal/CLW 7/day somehow haven't managed to wipe out disease and injury. I guess they're too busy taking joy in killing things or playing harps or whatever the hell good outsiders do all eternity.Outsiders aren't the reason alignment is broken. Outsiders, definitionally, are bound to be part of the cosmos. They have amazing powers but also weird rules that they stick to (even the chaotic ones -- force goes a long way!). To blame a bunch of celestials for not curing everyone's diseases is the same as saying fiends aren't evil enough because they haven't just all plane shifted to the Prime, each slaughtered half a dozen townsfolk, and plane shifted away again. The idea that paramortals are somehow metaphysically constrained from doing a lot in the mortal sphere is just something you have to buy into in order to make any world with such beings work. The fact that the paramortal quintessence of something isn't very much like a human personifying the same alignment also shouldn't be as big an issue as it is: many authors for hundreds of years have mused about how the purest form of piety or the purest form of charity or the purest form of virtue would be alien, almost incomprehensible to a fundamentally conflicted, imperfect mortal being (ArcTan, care to bring up the C.S. Lewis reference?).