Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Pegasos989 08-18-06, 04:31 AM	So, as the main problem with alignments is that everyone thinks he is doing the right thing, I have been thinking of removing the concept evil (not removing the alignments, but you know, kinda calling it something else). Everyone is good by their point of view and whether they register as good or not, depens on who detects. Examples: A paladin detects at CE priest of gruumsh. He detects evil cause the way priest of gruumsh does stuff is certainly evil from paladin's point of view. A cleric of gruums detects evil at another cleric of gruumsh and does not see any as they both see "good" the same way (propably slaying all non-orcs cause that is how things should be...) So in essense, you think of your values as the right ones and when someone is near them, they are good or neutral to you for everything such as smiting, detecting, etc. and when they have completely opposite values, they are evil to you. The point of this is that all the cultures have diffrent views. A priest of gruumsh is certain that killing all humans is right and human paladin is sure it is not. In similar situations is 2 ways: -Either to assume absolute truth that some morals are right and others wrong and go from there (which I dont really like) -Assume everyone trying to do the right thing is good (which leaves us at complicated situation when someone thinks that the good thing would be to slay the humankind) That is why I have been thinking of takin the "Thinks like me shows up as good" and "thinks diffrently" shows up as evil. Now, opinions? Would this work? What are the mainproblems? Do you think that this would be a solution or another needles fix changing nothing?
Tenzhi 08-18-06, 05:02 AM	::disagrees with everyone else and Smites them into oblivion::
Tormsskull 08-18-06, 01:14 PM	*snip* If you did the whole campaign like this, I think it could be great. I think it would make for more of a politically oriented game, which I am fond of. Question though. Would traditionally evil races who believe they are good now qualify for classes that require them to be good?
Pegasos989 08-18-06, 06:24 PM	If you did the whole campaign like this, I think it could be great. I think it would make for more of a politically oriented game, which I am fond of. Question though. Would traditionally evil races who believe they are good now qualify for classes that require them to be good? Code of conduct of a paladin, for example, seems to limit this stuff. I think I might get rid of them however as I could imagine a lawful goblin paladin riding on his worg, smiting the adventurers who came to kill the goblins, giving courage to those around him... So yes. This would really need some defining of stuff to allow people to join the PrCs that need evil as alignment, etc. but I think it is not very difficult.
JulesCARV 08-18-06, 07:05 PM	I think it's silly. In D&D, how good isn't whether you think you're good or not. It's whether you're good. If you think that, for instance, forcing women to wear burkas and be accompianied by men to go out of the house is good, then you're almost certainly just wrong. Similarly, a sorcerer may think he's the most charismatic studmuffin in the galaxy, and if you asked him to rate his own charisma, on a 3-18 scale with 10.5 = average, he'd say 20. However, if his charisma is only 14, then the save DC of his sleep spells are going to be 13, not 16. Or, if a halfling rogue thinks that she's not very bright, because her lack of knowledge skills means that she feels out of place among highly-educated people, she might rate her own intelligence as being only 8 if you asked her, but her real intelligence might be 14. If that's the case, she should still get 10 skill points per level, not 7. In short, game mechanics should largely reflect the objective reality of the character, not the character's opinion of himself.
Pegasos989 08-19-06, 12:32 PM	I think it's silly. In D&D, how good isn't whether you think you're good or not. It's whether you're good. If you think that, for instance, forcing women to wear burkas and be accompianied by men to go out of the house is good, then you're almost certainly just wrong. Similarly, a sorcerer may think he's the most charismatic studmuffin in the galaxy, and if you asked him to rate his own charisma, on a 3-18 scale with 10.5 = average, he'd say 20. However, if his charisma is only 14, then the save DC of his sleep spells are going to be 13, not 16. Or, if a halfling rogue thinks that she's not very bright, because her lack of knowledge skills means that she feels out of place among highly-educated people, she might rate her own intelligence as being only 8 if you asked her, but her real intelligence might be 14. If that's the case, she should still get 10 skill points per level, not 7. In short, game mechanics should largely reflect the objective reality of the character, not the character's opinion of himself. The alignment is not really a mechanic as... well, something else. Can't think of a word. The problem is that with wis 18, all the players around table admit "he has wis 18, +4 wis bonus to everything that it is used." However alignment is not that simple. For example, the traditional example of needing to do something evil for the sake of good. Let's assume that there is a man who is poisoned and knows he will die soon. He knows that in the same room is 10 children, one of which will become a spawn of hell that will slay the mankind. However he can't tell which one and hasn't enough time left to tell anyone about it (so those children can't be just put in observation). The only choices: -Kill all the children. You save mankind but kill 9 innocent children. -Don't kill them, they will eventually die when one of them kills the rest with the rest of humankind... I think that in that situation a good person could kill those children but some people disagree with me. This example was a bit far-fetched but there are still situations when some people think that someone does the good thing, others think he does the evil thing. It is all about point of view. The point of this system is that there will be no "My smite works on him, he did evil stuff" "No he didn't" "Yes he did" and no saying "I am a DM, my view is right, he did right thing" but rather everything will be from the character's point of view.
JulesCARV 08-19-06, 04:17 PM	It seems to me that it would be better just to use something like the generic Destruction domain power Smite, as from clerics. Instead of "smite evil," paladins would just get "smite." Of course, paladins wouldn't go around trying to smite good people most of the time, but if for some reason they had to smite a good person, it would still work. Having everyone have a different alignment to everyone else is just going to make things a mess. Better to do away with it entirely.
Cifer 08-19-06, 06:30 PM	I disagree with Jules. Relativistic morals can work just fine - especially if you work out with your players exactly how opposed the other side has to be in order to be smiteable. Just judge the availability of alignment-based stuff on an individual base. If a church venerates Vecna, its clerics are probably eligible for Create Undead. Any group that has no compunctions about killing one's enemy and doing so stealthily might train assassins. No real problem there...
jagggar 08-19-06, 08:54 PM	I may be okay with the guy killing the children. Okay, so maybe I wouldn't have done it myself, but I can understand him doing it. HOWEVER- He butters his toast on the wrong side!!!! You're either changing the axis from Good vs. Evil to some other sort of 'difference of opinion' or you will have Tenzhi running around smiting them for whatever little detail he can disagree with them on.
X-Codes 08-19-06, 10:30 PM	@JulesCARV: There is no objective reality when it comes to morality because everyone has their own morals, including the loner that doesn't think twice about killing someone who doesn't do what he says. In ancient Chinese culture alone there are were three very different philosophies that noted different actions as good and preferable above others.
Raum_ul_Amon 08-19-06, 10:32 PM	The concept that you wish to explore is interesting and yet fraught with inherent logical conundrums which place it in the realm of absurdity. Cleric of Gruumsh is considered Good because he maims innocents, attacks and brutalizes those less powerful than him/herself and protects his people or his tribe. Cleric of Heironeous is considered Good because he aids innocents, protects those less powerful than himself and protects his people or his tribe. The Law of Non-Contradiction states that "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time" as expressed succinctly by the Philosopher Aristotle. One cannot label or call something A as being identical to B if they are provably and ultimately different and dissimilar. Cleric of Gruumsh = Good = Cleric of Heironeous is not a true statement.
Madsamurai 08-19-06, 11:59 PM	*snip* Cleric of Gruumsh = Good = Cleric of Heironeous is not a true statement. Well, in theory you are right, however, the OP is not talking about the Cleric of Gruumsh being good, he is saying that he has his own point of veiw, and because (Cleric of Gruumsh != Cleric of Heironeous ) both Clerics can consider the other "Evil" and they can both smite each other.
Pegasos989 08-20-06, 07:34 AM	Madsamurai pretty much summed my idea here. So, if the people can still smite each other, what diffrence does it make? Think that we have 3 people here. A goblin priest, defending his village. A priest of gruumsh, who thinks that both goblins and humans should all be slayed, attacking the village. A human paladin who sees the situation and comes investigate. Don't care about the exact word smite, but you can use "use a spell that affects evil only" or any similar opposite alignment thingy instead of it in this example. Traditionally, human paladin could smite both goblin and orc cleric. The goblin would be able to smite paladin, but not the orc as they are both evil. The orc could also smite paladin but not the goblin as they are both evil. With this however the goblin and cleric could also smite each other (though both are traditionally evil) as killing goblins is one of those things that gruumsh gives power to his clerics for and it seems stupid that he can't use those against goblins too. The paladin could still smite both unless ofcourse he thought that the goblin was good when he was unselfisly defending his village, family and friends... So really, I think that the old system doesn't give enough freedom when evil characters can't never smite other evil, no matter how far their views are from each other. Like gruumsh who thinks all the goblins should die but does not let his clerics smite goblins unless they act unselfis enough (some evil classes have had smite good and that is practically how stupid it is). But yeah, this needs some more defining of what is considered far enough to be properly smitable. Possibly something like "Going against the mainprinciples of the moral code or religion of smiter" or "trying to destroy something that the smiter has adopted as a reason to live for (like protecting the weak, etc.)"... Any other suggestions on what this is missing...?
jagggar 08-20-06, 09:53 AM	Again, it isn't just a mater of how far apart beliefs should be. It's also a matter of what subjects are acceptable to smite on. Can I smite the two clerics and the paladin you mentioned because they all eat their toast buttered side up? Or do there have to be more cosmic disagreements between us in order for smite to work?
Pegasos989 08-20-06, 10:59 AM	Again, it isn't just a mater of how far apart beliefs should be. It's also a matter of what subjects are acceptable to smite on. Can I smite the two clerics and the paladin you mentioned because they all eat their toast buttered side up? Or do there have to be more cosmic disagreements between us in order for smite to work? I suggested this: "But yeah, this needs some more defining of what is considered far enough to be properly smitable. Possibly something like "Going against the mainprinciples of the moral code or religion of smiter" or "trying to destroy something that the smiter has adopted as a reason to live for (like protecting the weak, etc.)"..." So, if we were to use this... Is eating toast the wrong way against main principles of your moral code or the deity that grants you this power? Have you adopted eating toast the proper way as a reason to live for? Do you possibly serve a lawful god of toast? If any of those were true, I guess you could...
jagggar 08-20-06, 11:50 AM	Well, the main reason I use the side you butter your toast on as my example is because The Butter Battle Book is likely my favorite Dr. Seuss book. (For some reason I don't own it, and on making sure I've the title right, it looks as though they merely butter bread, not toast. (How dare they eat untoasted bread!!!)) I'm kind of trying to find where cultural bias can make for smite-ability. And if someone is smitable due to their race (priest of Gruumish smiting the goblin priest for just being a goblin) which isn't really something they believe or not (excluding a _____ rased by _____ situations), then can you be smote for something you don't really think about and just do or must you consciously oppose the smiter to be a smitee? Most people would likely say something along the lines of, "Dude, it's toast. What are you on?"
Raum_ul_Amon 08-21-06, 01:40 AM	Why not just simply allow priests or paladin's of 'oppossed' gods smite each other. It makes sense that there would be a command from 'on high' that would tell each religion who they can or cannot smite. This power derives from the Priest/Paladin's relationship with the Deity and it is ultimately up to the Deity to allow or disallow said smiting. Create something like Smite Infidel which works on enemies of your religion regardless of alignment. This approach would naturally flesh out the natural antagonism and conflict between the varying faith's.
makeshiftwings 08-24-06, 10:41 PM	Personally, I think it's fine to just let the paladin's ability be "Smite" and let him smite whatever. If for some reason after this change, the paladin in your game then starts smiting babies and nuns left and right, you've got a far bigger problem on your hands then this one little game mechanic is going to fix anyway.
Crashy75 08-25-06, 10:12 PM	I think it's silly. In D&D, how good isn't whether you think you're good or not. It's whether you're good.... tell me my friend. can you truely quantify good in the same way you can matter? if so, how? I'd truely like to know.
Fargren 08-26-06, 10:12 AM	tell me my friend. can you truely quantify good in the same way you can matter? if so, how? I'd truely like to know. In D&D you can. In D&D, good creatures have positive energy and evil creatures have negative energy. Wich, with the apropiate spells can be quantified.