Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dragonwriter 03-06-06, 11:14 PM	I've always had a problem with alignment restrictions. Mainly it's that alignment is defined as a very loose concept, but the restrictions are set down very solidly. This results in a situation where the consequences are very solid, but the crime is very loosely defined. Thus one can easily screw over one's character without realizing that one has done so, depending on how your DM views alignments. A player who decides to play a monk character can find his entire future, and even present, idea for the character utterly destroyed because the DM thinks he's playing the character in a more neutral or chaotic way than a lawful way. I just can't approve of that, so I've been seriously considering removing alignment restrictions from one of my games, just to see how it ends up going. The idea is to remove alignment restrictions from the game, although if one plans to play a class/alignment combination that would be otherwise contrary, one still has to run it by the DM first, and of course have a very good explanation available. It will also obviously affect the role-playing experience, since such class/alignment restrictions in the game world are incredibly rare. Granted, I know this will obviously change the game significantly, but I'm not entirely sure the full extent of it, so I've come here. I'm hoping people with more experience will be able to help me get a more accurate picture of exactly how this is going to alter my gaming/DMing experience. I'm more than up to the challenge, I just want to get a clearer picture of what to expect.
Mist of Shadows 03-06-06, 11:52 PM	As much as I hate Alignment (probably because I come out as evil on the alignment test.) I would do it the opposite way. I would just tell the pcs that they can play what they want without worrying about alignment if they run it by the dm. As for getting rid of alignment it can cause issues with Paladin's that deck bar tenders :) and other strange things like that. As for the only being lawful part of the monk that's not a large deal if you fail to be lawful just change to something that doesn't require you to be lawful like a fighter or something.
MasterOfPsychic 03-07-06, 05:01 AM	There is one reason that we NEED alignment restrictions... A raging, defendig dwarf that smites evil and good at the same time, seems a bit of... In other words: POWERGAMING neccetates alignment restrictions... But if your party is great, and only does stuff that fit to their char, then it is not only good, but even GREAT to remove those....
lostone 03-07-06, 09:29 AM	Before completely screwing a character, the DM should take them aside and let them know that the DM doesn't think the player is living up to that alignment. There should be some discussion between DM and player and at least a warning from the DM. People read the alignment description and interpret things differently, what the player thinks fits the alignment the DM might disagree with, and vice versa. This is especially true with a character playing something really hard to live up to like a Paladin. It's a game, and a DM should not be that hardnosed about something like that unless the player is a 10 year veteran under that same DM. Games are supposed to be fun :P
AnAverageDM 03-22-06, 08:55 PM	One of the house rules that I’m thinking of implementing in a new game I’m starting up is to do away with alignment for most everything. Unless stated as “always” under alignment in the MM or if you have DR /alignment (ex. If you have DR 5/evil you will be good), you will be considered true neutral in regards to game mechanics. There will be some instances where a creature will have their alignment determined by special factors. I plan on having any paladins be LG and assassins will be evil. Players can have their PC act as they see fit according to their background and personality that I will have them create and update. This of course weakens A LOT of spells and powers. That’s OK with me. I want my game to focus on Character development and will spend time talking to my players about how I want my game to flow and what they would like in the game to make it more fun.
Xeviat-DM 03-22-06, 09:15 PM	I don't know what everyone's deal is about "removing alignment". Alignment isn't a straight jacket, it is a tool for players to mechanically show how their character behaves. Except in the case of PC characters who take vows (read: classes with lawful alignments), serve a divine entity (clerics and druid's alignment restrictions), or whose power relies upon their freedom (barbarians and bards), alignment is loose. If a character is behaving out of alignment, then it is up to the PC and DM to decide what their new alignment is. Even if this gets out of hand, the constant switching of alignments, this just goes to show that the PC is deserving of a Chaotic alignment (CG if they do seemingly random things in the name of good, CR if they do random things for their own self interest, and CN if there isn't a good/evil trend). Seriously people, it isn't very difficult. My one and only one alignment difficulty as a player was when a player's rogue was labeled NG but he was actually somewhere between N and CN. We eventually decided that his alignment was N. No XP penalties, no complaints, nothing. Removing alignment doesn't make for better role-playing; you can always gauge a character's trends to determine their alignment. If you'd like, have characters play a few sessions without an alignment if they aren't sure, and help them to decide what it is they are playing. And even still, characters can change. A Knight can turn to chaos, a Barbarian can find inner peace, and a Paladin can become a Blackguard. The ones who are married to their alignment are creatures with an alignment subtype, and even then there are examples of characters who break out of their molds (fallen angels are very popular). PS: Why is "U.S. bashing" so popular these days?
Mist of Shadows 03-22-06, 10:58 PM	I don't like alignment because I don't think a spell should be able to pin it down. Your alignment shouldn't be a game stat like it is in dnd. Does that magical item send off lawful thoughts or something so annoying that chaotic people recoil and thus have a level penalty no. I just think it's broken it's reading ideas dreams wishes and how you few the world, it shouldn't be able to do that. For example if you have a amulet of proof against alignment detection you should not take a penalty from that magical sword that has a different alignment. I just think the system is flawed. I would much rather see a system that had things like precieved honor or something, where your honor only mattered when people could see you. (other then paladin's and clerics who has a god/goddess looking at them) Though charging exp for alignment changes is weird
RaspK FOG 03-23-06, 04:55 AM	In regard to alignment: I have been working on a homebrewed d6 skill-based system that defines morality as 2 axes, compassion and honour (your tendency to want to help others and your tendency to follow set codes of ethics and/or tradition), which have a range from 0 (least) to 20 (most); these are divided in areas from 0 to 1 (2), from 2 to 6 (5), from 7 to 13 (7), from 14 to 18 (5), and from 19 to 20 (2), thus dividing the various tendencies (low, average, high) in 3 equal regions, with the outer regions further divided into hardcore and softcore beliefs with a range of 2 and 5 numbers respectively (thus, a savage tyrant may well have Com 0/Hon 1, whereas a roguish fighter that protects the innocent may have Com 16/Hon 4; your typical paladin would probably have Com & Hon near 20, if possible).
Xeviat-DM 03-23-06, 09:42 AM	Rasp: I don't see how that's any different than the current alignment system. Except for the fact that Tyrants tend to put laws in place and use them to their advantage. As for charging XP, I've heard of DMs who impose an XP penalty for players who do not play their alignment properly. This is done in situations where a player really wants to play CN, but they want to wield the LG sword they just found. Magic items don't necessarily know your alignment. If you're an LG super hero character, and you pick up an Unholy weapon, you can just tell from the stink of it that it is horrible, it has done horrible things, and it will only do horrible things in your hand. Thus, the temporary negative level when you fight with it. And as for spells which detect alignment; they're only one level lower than spells which detect your thoughts. Come on, seeing auras is a big part of fantasy lore; that's what "detect X alignment" spells are, you are attempting to decern if their aura gives off a certain vibe. Even with alignment removed, most players are going to generally play a character to an alignment. Why is that? Because, as I said earlier, alignment can be most easily assigned after the DM has seen the character in play. Even a seemingly random person has an alignment.
RaspK FOG 03-23-06, 12:52 PM	Rasp: I don't see how that's any different than the current alignment system. Except for the fact that Tyrants tend to put laws in place and use them to their advantage. What I pretty much forgot to mention is that your alignment under that system defines 3 conditions: an ad hok limit of what is IC/OOC by the referee (I like that term when it comes to game mastering), how some things affect you (yes, some mechanics may affect you adversely or beneficially, but that does not mean others know how), and what happens to your alignment in some conditions. Suppose you have have the aforementioned Com 16/Hon 4 warrior; if he were to wield a good intelligent weapon, he would wield it with some added benefits, but I doubt a holy weapon would allow him wielding it, being unworthy and all. Likewise, no honourable weapon would ever allow him to wield it! On the other hand, it would be out of character for him to simply slit the throat of some child "just because I say so," which means that the referee would probably give pause to play so that they can discuss the player character's choice of actions... True, not much different from alignment; but more defined. Still, roleplaying is what differentiates everything. ;)
Minister_for_Moral_Truth 03-23-06, 08:21 PM	My thoughts are as follows. 1. Remove all spells which only harm good, chaotic and lawful entities. Remove all spells which only aid evil, chaotic and lawful entities. 2. Remove alignment from all entities. 3. Make possible the swearing alegiance to/being claimed by higher powers/causes. Define specific relationships within the campaign world. Add penalties for breaching the oath you have sworn. 4. Divine classes and the like require such a relationship. 5. If target is oposed to the caster's cause, effects as if the character was evil. If target is of the same or allied cause, effects as per good. If neither, neutral. 6. Re-name things as apropriate. 7. Remove Paladin, replace with various divine warrior PrCs specific to the various faiths. Opinions?
Mist of Shadows 03-23-06, 10:49 PM	I like Minister_for_Moral_Truth's ideas for dropping alignment just toss the spells and such things.. The idea of spell effecting allies of your faith is a neat one. Good or evil wouldn't matter so much just what ever holy or unholy so to speak power you are serving. For example a god of war, could have followers on both sides of the previous alignment. Though what about outsiders with the good or evil subtype? As for the honor compassion thing, I don't see paladins as requiring compassion. They can just as easily be hard nosed evil hunting psycopathic people.
Ranger REG 03-24-06, 04:41 AM	Why not just use the Allegiance system from d20 Modern? A monk whose allegiance to a certain monastery is required to follow the rules of said monastery. The same goes for a paladin who is a member of a church or knightly order. Either one break the rules of their monastery or order must face severe consequence as well as a negative reaction from the members of their own allegiance.
Lina_Inverse 03-24-06, 04:44 AM	I don't like alignment because I don't think a spell should be able to pin it down. Your alignment shouldn't be a game stat like it is in dnd. Does that magical item send off lawful thoughts or something so annoying that chaotic people recoil and thus have a level penalty no. Alingment in D&D isnt a concept spouted by people. Its a FORCE OF THE UNIVERSE. As omnipresnt as GRAVITY is to ours. I just think it's broken it's reading ideas dreams wishes and how you few the world, it shouldn't be able to do that. For example if you have a amulet of proof against alignment detection you should not take a penalty from that magical sword that has a different alignment. The sword is as allied with good as a cleric of it. Your literally trying to wield something that is innately opposed to your soul. So your soul weakens, ie level loss. I just think the system is flawed. I would much rather see a system that had things like precieved honor or something, where your honor only mattered when people could see you. (other then paladin's and clerics who has a god/goddess looking at them) Again, the UNIVERSE is judgeing them. LITERALLY. Not a god, or goddes, the UNIVERSE. Part of fantasy is worlds that dont have physical laws resembleing ours. In the D&D universe, Good and Evil are omnipresent PHYSICAL truths.
Minister_for_Moral_Truth 03-24-06, 05:20 AM	Though what about outsiders with the good or evil subtype? ANGEL, ASTRAL DEVA Medium Outsider (Angel, Extraplanar, Mount Celestia) Hit Dice: 12d8+48 (102 hp) Initiative: +8... Treasure: No coins; double goods; standard items Alegance: Mount Celestia, Heironius Advancement: 13–18 HD (Medium); 19–36 HD (Large)... If you're going for the standard cosmology and gods (which I probably wouldn't after doing this, but that's just me, it still works). It would also need something along the lines of this for each god: St. Cuthbert Sworn Foe: Nerull (NE, death, murder, underworld), Erythnul (CE, slaughter, panic), Loth (CE, Drow, spiders, darkness), Incubalos (NE, plagues, famine, disasters), Tarizdun (NE, madness, entropy) Hostile: Olidammara (CN, rogues, music, revelry, tricks), Gruumsh (CE, Orcs, war, territory), Beltar (CE, malice, caves), Luz (CE, deceit), Pyremius (NE, poison, assassins, fire) Unfriendly: Corellon Larethain (CG, Elves, magic, music, arts), Hextor (LE, tyranny, war, conflict, fitness), Vecna (NE, secrets, intrigue), Kord (CG, strength, athletics, courage), Tiamat (LE, evil dragons, conquest), Lirr (CG, poetry, art), Photus (LG, light, order, steadfastness), Procan (CN, oceans, sea weather), Telchur (CN, winter, cold), Tritheron (CG, individuality, liberty) Indifferent: Garl Glittergold (NG, Gnomes), Bobcob (N, magic, knowledge), Obad-Hai (N, nature, freedom, hunting, beasts), Ehlona (NG, forests, flora and fauna, fertility), Kurtulmak (LE, Kobolds, traps), Istus (N, destiny, the future), Wastri (LN, bigotry, amphibians) Friendly: Yondalla (LG, Halflings, explorers); Pelor (NG, sun, light, healing), Wee Jas (LN, death, magic, vanity), Fharlagarn (N, roads), Celestian (N, astronomy, wanderers), Bahamut (LG, good dragons, wind), Joramy (N, volcanoes, wrath), Rao (LG, peace, serenity) Helpful: Heironius (LG, valour, chivalry, war, daring); Moradin (LG, Dwarves, smithing, enigneering), Bralm (N, insects, industry), Dellb (LG, written lore, study), Geshai (N, rivers, lakes), Mouqol (N, trade, negotiation), Allied: Cyndor (LN, time, infinity), Osprem (LN, ships, sea voyages), Lendys (LN, balance, justice)
Krelios 03-24-06, 07:42 AM	Alingment in D&D isnt a concept spouted by people. Its a FORCE OF THE UNIVERSE. As omnipresnt as GRAVITY is to ours. The sword is as allied with good as a cleric of it. Your literally trying to wield something that is innately opposed to your soul. So your soul weakens, ie level loss. Again, the UNIVERSE is judgeing them. LITERALLY. Not a god, or goddes, the UNIVERSE. Part of fantasy is worlds that dont have physical laws resembleing ours. In the D&D universe, Good and Evil are omnipresent PHYSICAL truths. I call BS. Despite all of the capitalization, that's just your opinion and not supported by the rules. It's also extremely silly to say that the D&D world doesn't "have physical laws resembleing [sic] ours." You're saying there's no gravity, force, light, mass, density, energy, or momentum in D&D? I'm sorry, I'll toss the alignment system before I buy that.
RaspK FOG 03-24-06, 10:38 AM	In regard to complaints on spells that affect creatures with specific alignments... Have you ever considered how natural it is, from a thematic standpoint, for a cleric of some good deity to be able to smite (in the generic sense of the word, not the paladin's ability) evil creatures? Sure, detecting such creatures can be very, well, bad for roleplaying, but that's another issue. True, some of us have orders and allegiances playing such roles as the aforementioned, but I see no reason to remove the themata of manichaism unless the setting contradicts them.
tiejaz 03-24-06, 04:06 PM	actually, the sense is very literal. Remember Holy Smite? yum...
Minister_for_Moral_Truth 03-24-06, 05:41 PM	In regard to complaints on spells that affect creatures with specific alignments... Have you ever considered how natural it is, from a thematic standpoint, for a cleric of some good deity to be able to smite (in the generic sense of the word, not the paladin's ability) evil creatures? Sure, detecting such creatures can be very, well, bad for roleplaying, but that's another issue. True, some of us have orders and allegiances playing such roles as the aforementioned, but I see no reason to remove the themata of manichaism unless the setting contradicts them. Seems reasonable in any setting where divine creatures and/or agents abound, which is just about all of D&D. The point is not that the idea is bad, merley that it's pooly executed.
King_Bulba 03-24-06, 06:57 PM	I think the alignment system should be droped and replaced... Most people we consider evil think of themselves as good. Alignment is just a matter of perspective. From my perspective people are evil by trying to limit peoples choices, while others believe I am evil for not believeing in their choice. You hear about the man in Afganastan being on trial for converting to chiristianity is a great example... My point is we both consider the other side evil and there really is no "right" side, only opinion. Anyways my version of what alignment should be is that each God has a code of what is good and evil. This would make work a lot harder onthe DM but I think it makes sense. There should be no "Evil" gods but gods that believe that the world is better in conflict. War breeds inovation in technology/Magic in DnD and the strong survive to propagate. The Sterotypical "good" Gods view peace as good and War as bad since peace fosters growth but some will be in the middle that finds conflict as good yet in a peacfull situation. Each God has a different code even among the sterotypical "good" since they each would hold a different opinion on what is important. You dont have a single alignment, what you have are values for your charactar. According to your values a God might see you as good, neutral or evil. So when a Paladin will find a person evil if the persons values are in the evil catagory of his god. So yes that means there should be Paladins for gods sterotypical evil since their good means something different than what Palor views as good. Spells shouldn't have good or evil tags automatically but some spells a diety should consider evil. I think it could be implemented pretty easy since the sterotypical evil gods view good as evil. This system also gives flexability since people are no longer EVIL or GOOD but a set of values. That is the simple way to do it imo.
Mist of Shadows 03-24-06, 09:55 PM	*Coughs Lina_Inverse out of my throat.* Okay I was just saying I didn't like the alignment system, I have read the books I happen to know what they say, I just don't care for it. So I like thinking about other ways to deal with it. As for the cleric or paladin smiting evil I like the idea, I just don't like how it's done. I would rather those classes have the ability to smite people they don't like don't agree with then someone on the evil/good vew point. To those people in the middle east converting to christianity is a great evil and a crime, to me it's just one person changing from one religion I hate to another religion I dislike. No great crime there, and it's probably (in my view) an improvement. So to them it's evil to me it's good. I would think it would be interesting to see a class not have a good and evil detector but a values to you smite attack. It makes more sense then some arbitary good/evil alignment.
King_Bulba 03-25-06, 12:50 AM	To those people in the middle east converting to christianity is a great evil and a crime, to me it's just one person changing from one religion I hate to another religion I dislike. No great crime there, and it's probably (in my view) an improvement. So to them it's evil to me it's good. I would think it would be interesting to see a class not have a good and evil detector but a values to you smite attack. It makes more sense then some arbitary good/evil alignment. Well personally I think switching from one religion to another is like a junkie switching from crack to alcohol, your still a drug addict... But anyways back on topic. The point is, I don't believe in a single view of good. Each god has his own opinion on what is good and would never agree to an universal standard. Having a detect evil spell assumes there is an universal standard that the gods have agreed upon. Therfore I think the alignment system is a quickfix that isn't really well thought out. Using detect evil should includes a dieties perspective, detect evil (Palor). I dont even think that this is that hard to plug into a game, dieties are already given an alignment and discription you can easily adapt.
Darkuwa 03-25-06, 03:06 AM	Only change I make is that monks can be TN. In my mind martial artists are about balance not order.
RaspK FOG 03-25-06, 12:40 PM	What I really don't understand is how you all got the idea that any and all allegiances are the way to define evil in D&D; it is a well known fact that some, if not many, characters/creatures in D&D know that they are evil or are commiting evil acts and still choose to do so (either because they don't care or because they feel they have to do it, or what not). And comparing all of this to Afghani or whom ever else is certainly unwanted! In any case, I use both allegiances and manichaistic standpoints; and so does D&D: maybe you should look again at such things as Smite Infidel?
Millennium 03-25-06, 02:16 PM	I call BS. Despite all of the capitalization, that's just your opinion and not supported by the rules. Actually, it is supported by the rules. It's mentioned in several places, including the DMG itself. It's also extremely silly to say that the D&D world doesn't "have physical laws resembleing [sic] ours." You're saying there's no gravity, force, light, mass, density, energy, or momentum in D&D? Certainly these things exist, but they don't work the same way they do in D&D. Perhaps the biggest point of contention here is the existence of negative energy. In the real world, we have no such thing; there is no "cold energy" to counter heat, nor "dark energy" to counter light (there is a scientific term 'dark energy' but it means something different). In its place, we have the Second Law of Thermodynamics: energy tends to flow where there is a lack of it, until you reach an equilibrium point. "Cold" is just an absence of heat; "darkness" is just an absence of light. The equilibrium isn't an absence of light or darkness; it's just a relatively "comfortable" level of light, about the same as all the levels around it. There is no such force as suction; all you do is lower the pressure in one area, such that matter rushes in to equalize it again. "Centrifugal force" is not a force at all; it's a relatively simple application of inertia, combined with friction against an object. But the D&D system works very differntly. Among other things, cold and darkness are real forces, and they counter heat and light much like matter and antimatter do in the real world. The "equilibrium point" really is just a lack of either one. For most basic calculations, the numbers come out fairly similar to those in the real world, and so the differences are often subtle. Throwing a ball works much the same way in either universe. But what's going on in the background is different on a fundamental level, and many of the differences between D&D and our own universe follow directly from it. Among other things, it's easy to see where things we call 'magic' could work in a universe like that. Perhaps this is another way you could look at things: most of the real world's physical laws are based around balance, while most of D&D's physical laws are based on opposition. In the real world, it is currently quite fashionable to model morality around physics: 'evil' is nothing more than an absence of good, and most people exist in a balanced state relative to those around them. In a world of opposites with similar modeling, is it really so difficult to see Good and Evil as opposing forces in -and aspects of- the universe?
Millennium 03-25-06, 02:22 PM	I do agree that many of the alignment restrictions on classes seem silly and arbitrary. The "bards mustn't be lawful" bit seems to be based around the idea of bards getting wanderlust, but there are many perfectly valid bard-concepts based around staying in a particular area and gathering its lore; what reason for the alignment restriction exists then? Many tribesmen, even those with fighting styles that harness rage, have much stricter senses of duty and honor than "civilized" folk, so why exactly mustn't they be Lawful? The extraordinarily-talented martial artist who eschews his master's discipline and causes him no end of headaches is such a staple of the genre that it's almost cliched, yet I am to believe that they must be Lawful? Truth be told, the only two core classes that really make any effort to justify their restrictions are the druid and the paladin, but these two do it well. A druid's neutrality comes from a deep devotion to the many balances that exist in nature. The paladins, meanwhile, literally write their alignment into their code of honor: committing a single Evil act is unlikely to change your alignment, but it will get you kicked out of the paladins' order all the same. Aside from canning the arbitrary restrictions on barbarians, monks, and bards, what Wizards really needs to do is clarify a few things about alignment. In particular, they need to point out that the "do no evil" part of the paladins' code is just that: the paladins' code, rather than a part of alignment that means a single act contrary to your alignment has the power to change it.
Minister_for_Moral_Truth 03-25-06, 11:02 PM	I will say that limiting ethods of detection short of a full mind scan to only supernatural sources makes things far more interesting. The PCs learn that the villain responsible for the poisoning of the baronet is to be in attendance at a ball in the Duke of Lornsdale's hall. They've actualy got to investigate with skills and roleplaying rather than just runing the Detect Evil radar outside (because the person is a complete git, but for monetary reasons rather than religious ones).
Goldenloveninja 03-26-06, 12:43 AM	I agree with millenium, except in the case of druids: To me, how I read it (I mean how it seems when they are mostly neutral) they could still be any alignment, just not strongly so. I.e, when a druid is lawful neutral, they are just slightly more lawful than TN. With that, i'd say if you're class can be a little good and a little lawful, why can't it be both at once? But of course this is just how it seems it should be to me.
Millennium 03-26-06, 08:52 AM	I agree with millenium, except in the case of druids: To me, how I read it (I mean how it seems when they are mostly neutral) they could still be any alignment, just not strongly so. I.e, when a druid is lawful neutral, they are just slightly more lawful than TN. With that, i'd say if you're class can be a little good and a little lawful, why can't it be both at once? But of course this is just how it seems it should be to me. Because alignment is more than just general demeanor; it represents an actual commitment. If you're only "a little lawful", then you're not Lawful; you're Neutral with some slight leanings towards Law. The same goes for Good, Evil, and Chaos. Most real-world people would probably be considered Neutral, often with leanings towards Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos, but no real commitments.
Millennium 03-26-06, 09:08 AM	I will say that limiting ethods of detection short of a full mind scan to only supernatural sources makes things far more interesting. The PCs learn that the villain responsible for the poisoning of the baronet is to be in attendance at a ball in the Duke of Lornsdale's hall. They've actualy got to investigate with skills and roleplaying rather than just runing the Detect Evil radar outside (because the person is a complete git, but for monetary reasons rather than religious ones). This is something I do, though to a lesser degree: I just remove the "Evil creature" line from the Detect Evil table and let the changes ripple forward from that. It does require a few extra clarifications, though: Clerics have alignment auras as per their deity's alignment, not their own. For example, an LE cleric of Wee Jas only has an aura of Law, because Wee Jas isn't Evil. Paladins and lawful blackguards get an aura of Law to go with their aura of Good. Similar story for holy liberators and chaotic blackguards. Magic Circle against Evil and Holy Smite are keyed to your aura. Undead always have an aura of Evil, as a remnant of their creation process. They don't automatically gain auras of any other type (though they could acquire them in the usual ways). Outsiders have auras for their alignment and also for their subtype, even if this results in conflicting auras. Eludecia the Succubus Paladin, therefore, has all four auras. This has some interesting effects in-game, in addition to the ones you've mentioned in your post: Powerful supernatural beings have more of a reason to keep "mundane" human servants: they can go places their masters could not. A NE rogue, for example, could walk right past a legion of paladins without raising the alarm, but this would be suicidal for the NE cleric of Nerull that he works for. Simple detect spells are not necessarily reliable detectors of alignment, only supernatural ties. Clerics, outsiders, and undead can all have auras that don't mesh with their alignment, so you can get false-positives and false-negatives. Detect spells become, at best, a preliminary tool, and not the reliable Evil-dar that they so often become.
Leap_UK 03-26-06, 10:52 AM	Most real-world people would probably be considered Neutral, often with leanings towards Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos, but no real commitments. Actually got to beg to differ here. The history of the human race is the history of Law (Order for the purpose of instilling security) in action. VERY few have been even remotely chaotic (even the so-called outlaws have been damn near always lawful; trying to establish a secure society with them at the top - LE) - as chaos involves embracing the messiness of the world and the vulnerability it brings (a VERY rare mindset). This is part of why I dont like removing alignment restrictions but instead would INCREASE them so as to better define class positions within a Order vrs Chaos paradigm.