Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Geek 07-03-04, 02:55 AM	A search on the word "alignment" gave 219 threads, just the word alignment, not even good, or evil. The PHB says on alignment: GOOD VS. EVIL Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. These 3 paragraphs can NEVER be enough to adress all the questions that those 219 threads have. So we (DM's) have to come up with a workable solution. The first choice a DM has to make is: Will alignment be objective, or subjective? Subjective If you chose subjective, you have to adress a view questions: Since the phb gives a definition of good and evil, can characters diviate (sp?) from that? Or can they only stretch the difinitions as given? How about the gods? You have to avoid a situation where 2 good people start bashing each other head because they accuse each other of being non-good. (or you can let this situation occur, looks a lot like RL then...) Objective This seems to be the defualt. The gods dictate what is good and what is evil. Evil people know that they are Evil, but they consider it Right to be Evil (because being good doesn't get you anywhere). While good people think that being good is the right thing to do (because it is good... duh). This is as a DM the easy way out (and I think the right way, in the context of the GAME). You must make sure that your players understand what your gods call good and evil. They don't have to agree, they just have to know. In an Objective alignment campaign the words Right and Wrong should be introduced to keep things clear. Good and Evil are dictated by Gods, Right and Wrong are personal things. The second question a DM has to ask himself is: Is alignment dictated by Actions ot Intentions? Where the phb gives a hint for the objective/subjective thing, here it is much vaguer(sp?) Actions If you chose this than you focus on things like “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. and Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others In game turns it is (again) the easy way, because just by looking at ones actions, a DM can determine alignment. A problem can be that if you chose Actions and Objective, that for a given problem, their doesn't have to be a good way out. In this case their could b times one have to chose between 2 evils (it sucks to be a palli, but who told you it would be easy). Intentions If you chose this approach, you are focusing on: Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master For a DM this is harder to do, because you have to disrupt gameplay now and than to ask your players why their characters did things the way they did. If you follow this road, you have to beware of sliding slope's. These are the situations in which characters start justifing (sp?) their atrosities (sp?) by good arguments. The killing of all the orcs comes to mind here. So there you have it. A DM has to make a choice out of 4 systems. I like Actions,Objective the most, but this doesn't mean that it is the only (the right, the good) way to go. If you want to discuss alignment on these boards, please make clear which set your using. If you make comparisons to RL, please note that RL is at least subjective and probably Intention based and thus very hard to discuss. So my advice for further discussion: state which alignment system you use keep RL examples out of it Happy gaming PS You could also skip alignment altogether. You should check the Alignment Removal Project thread for that. PS2: in your replies, please state which you use, out of interest.
Nyvinyd 07-03-04, 03:19 AM	Good and Evil are pretty clear-cut, honestly. Good and Evil have been stereotypical opposites forever, and we have many great precidents for examples. Good is good, and Evil is evil. The good guys are all about world peace and all that mushy crap, while evil is all about power and oppression. Whether or not the intentions are there, there's a core being. Go one step beyond intentions... Take your character, and look at what you've done. There are Evil acts and Good acts, and that's cut and dry. You want to see if your character is Good or Evil? Whether or not it was your intention to make the guy suffer, do you like that it happened? If the answer is yes, then you're Evil! Seriously, the difficult distinction lies in Lawful vs Chaotic.
Geek 07-03-04, 03:40 AM	There are Evil acts and Good acts, and that's cut and dry. So you chose Actions over Intent. Please recognize that in this GAME system more is possible. I intent to write some on law and chaos soon. the number of questions and threads prove that although law vs chaos may be even harder, good vs evil isn't clear cut for everyone. There seems to be different opinions out there, and all I want to do is get some structure in all those discusions.
BenTGaidin 07-03-04, 04:32 AM	Here's what I'm thinking of, for the world I'm building in my head (Wah! I need players! *grins*): First, alignment is objective. These terms are defined, not by the gods, but by the moral fabric of the universe itself. That is, an evil god considers sacrificing unwilling virgins a "good" act (as long as the sacrifice is to them, anyway), but that doesn't mean that a cleric of said god will be "Lawful Good" if he conducts monthly sacrifices; despite that fact that both he and his god would agree that he has always been "Good," his alignment is "Evil." Secondly, alignment is determined by actions. What a person does or causes determines their alignment; the closer a causual relationship between the action and the event, the more it affects their alignment. For example, killing an innocent baby is evil; if you don't kill them (a morally neutral act), and then that baby grows up to be a serial murderer, you get a hit of evil on your alignment, but only a tiny one because it's not very related to your choice to not kill the baby. Giving an order for your henchman to kill a baby is a morally neutral act, but you get a hit of evil if your henchman carries out the order because you're rather close to causing the death yourself. Your henchman gets a bigger hit of evil for actually killing the baby. If this horrible act inspires your henchman to leave you and become a saintly person, you'd get a hit of good on your alignment, though not as much as if you'd ordered him to become a saint directly. *grins* And for the curious, I wouldn't strip a Paladin of his powers for anything but the closest causual connection to the evil act. Ordering someone's death would do it, but not killing a baby who'll grow up to be a killer (assuming he knew this through some sort of prophecy or something) would likely just result in his god telling him that he should be doing something to try and make the baby grow up to be a good person anyway. As for law and chaos, here's an excerpt from the alignment guide I've been working on for this world: "Law and Chaos are less than intuitive terms. One way to look at it is that Lawful people seek to find similarities in the world around them, while Chaotic people seek the differences. A Lawful person will treat people according to stereotypes, while someone Chaotic will treat them as individuals according to their personal history. Law seeks fairness, that all are treated equally. Chaos seeks justice, that all are treated as they individually merit. Law sees people as part of a group, while Chaos sees groups as made up of people." As an example, a lawful character will trust (or not trust) shopkeepers because of how shopkeepers have treated them in the past, and what sort of reputation merchants have. A chaotic character, on the other hand, will be more likely to determine whether to trust that the shopkeeper would cheat them or not based on their impression of that particular shopkeeper. Their alignment on the good or evil axis would help determine which stereotypes or impressions they are more likely to go on. Following this, then, a lawful character is mostly likely to react "appropriately" to someone who is normal for that sort of person; in a world full of greedy but deceptively nice shopkeepers, a Lawful Good character is more likely than a chaotic one to eventually stop getting cheated so often. For the other side, a Lawful Evil character is more likely to start beating on the shopkeepers immediately, rather than waiting until they've seen that they're getting cheated again like a chaotic character would be inclined to. That's not to say that chaotic characters never learn from their mistakes, it just takes them longer. On the other hand, chaotic characters will be better equiped to deal with people and situations that are outside the norm. In a civilized and law-abiding city, the chaotic character is more likely than their lawful friend to be ready for the ambush when someone calls for their help from down a dark alley. (Chaotic Good would be going in ready for trouble; Chaotic Evil would be going in swinging. *grins*) Also, for those who are interested - magic that allows detection of alignment is subjective. A Paladin can Smite whomever is evil _in the eyes of their god_ whether that person is evil or not, and that person will show up on their Detect Evil radar similarly. A mage's circle of Protection from Evil will hedge out anyone that the mage considers evil, regardless of their actual alignment, while letting the mage's backstabbing best friend stand right by their side (and perhaps a little back...). Even the gods can't determine a person's true alignment with certainty, although their powers allow them to see much further the consequences of a person's actions, and much that a person might want hidden, and so they can usually make a pretty good guess. The only exception is the god of Death, who has the power to see and weigh a person's soul once they have died. The death-god takes the soul, and after measuring it, delivers it to the god to whom it truely belongs. A paladin good and true would be delivered to the lawful good god, and an evil cleric of destruction would be given to the chaotic evil god, and both of them would be greatly rewarded for their services. However, a fighter who has been a devoted servent of the chaotic evil god, but who has the bad luck to continually be doing acts which end up good by accident (killing the evil high priest, disrupting the thousand-year rite, and letting the virgin escape is good, even if you only do it because the priest had insulted you the other day), could be given to the chaotic _good_ god, and end up with a rather pathetic status in the afterlife because their beliefs and intentions were not in accord with their actions. (In other words, when you die, you want the god of death to tell whomever he gives your soul to that you _meant_ to do things for that god. The god will still like you because you've done things for them, but he'll like you more if you were planning on it. *grins*) This, then, is why infernal beings (highly rewarded evil souls) try and trick mortals into committing evil acts, because this gains their gods more souls. It's also why they favor tricking highly good people; a person trying to be good, but committing evil (enough to be judged as evil) is going to be given low status, and so be another minor demonling that they can order around. If the person changes their moral views, however, and begins to actively work as evil, the infernals would rather see them die immediately (as a general rule) so that they don't become so powerful as to order _them_ around. (Celestials are similar, but they favor trying to make an evil person's actions turn out good, and they're not as likely to kill you if you do change your views. *grins*)
Nyvinyd 07-03-04, 04:49 AM	Originally posted by Geek So you chose Actions over Intent. Please recognize that in this GAME system more is possible. I intent to write some on law and chaos soon. I don't choose action OR intent so much as approval. There are good and evil acts, yes. However, committing them doesn't make your alignment, and neither does intent. It's all subjective until you're done with it. What determines your alignment is how your character feels towards the actions once they're done. Example: A 20th level Lawful Evil Blackguard forces a 5th level fighter to either kill an innocent or kill himself. The fighter chooses to kill the innocent, and preserve his life. The Blackguard leaves, having taken pleasure in his coercion. 3 simple reactions- Evil- "It's done." Neutral- *Sigh* "It had to be done." Good- "What have I done?!?!" See? Intent doesn't matter nearly as much as your own character's judgment of himself. So next time you want to test alignment, don't ask why it was done, ask instead, "So how does your character feel about that?"
Geek 07-03-04, 05:24 AM	Example: A 20th level Lawful Evil Blackguard forces a 5th level fighter to either kill an innocent or kill himself. The fighter chooses to kill the innocent, and preserve his life. The Blackguard leaves, having taken pleasure in his coercion. 3 simple reactions- Evil- "It's done." Neutral- *Sigh* "It had to be done." Good- "What have I done?!?!" Completely true, but... You still have comitted an evil act. If your reaction is "What have I done?!?!" and than you don't do anything about it, than, in an action based system, you are considered evil. If you're truelly good, than you should atone for this. In an intention driven system, you could be good doing this. This is part of the sliding slope I told about. you do evil things, you feel bad about it, and thats that. I think your "how do you feel about it" is very close to my "why did you do that". I still think action based is better, although I can see the con's and pro's of both systems BenTGaidin: First, alignment is objective. These terms are defined, not by the gods, but by the moral fabric of the universe itself. That is, an evil god considers sacrificing unwilling virgins a "good" act (as long as the sacrifice is to them, anyway), but that doesn't mean that a cleric of said god will be "Lawful Good" if he conducts monthly sacrifices; despite that fact that both he and his god would agree that he has always been "Good," his alignment is "Evil." that is why I use right and wrong. the evil god and his cleric will consider monthly sacrifice to be Right, they know it is Evil, but Evil is the right way to go. It avoids confusion. Geek edited sp Geek
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-03-04, 05:27 AM	By the book, alignment is objective and defined by actions. It makes no sense to me in the least, but that's how the book puts it. Personally, I don't care for the book in this instance.
Arakano 07-03-04, 05:32 AM	I prefer objective and actions (it´s nearly impossible to handle otherwise. And my players are an unruly lot even now... ;) ). To give an example why I believe in an objective and action-based approach towards alignment, let me describe an adventure of my group: They met an Ifrit who seemed to torture a captive Dschinn. They attacked and drove the Ifrit of. Then, the freed Dschinn thanked them and asked them for further help: They would have to kill the servants of the Ifrit, who operated a mine nearby, working for an evil cause. If they killed them all, he would reward them with wishes. However, the Dschinn was an illusion created by the Ifrit, and the "servants" were actually enemies of the Ifrit, a colony of Azers. The PCs approached the azer colony, where they were gruffly told to go away. They refused, one even drawing a weapon and uttering a thread. As reaction, the azer guards attacked. They lost the fight, though, being far inferior to the PCs. These slaughtered a dozend of the guards, taking one captive. After interrogating this hostage, even this bunch of dumbheads I call my group ( ;) ) realised there was something wrong. Now, they had murdered a dozend innocent people. Yes, they thought them to be evil, and they even started talking about "self-defense" (the azers hat simply shot once through an arrow-slit, the group could have easily retreated. Instead, they forced their way in and attacked) - so what? They were wrong, and could have easily realised their error. So, although their intentions were good or neutral, their deed was definetily evil. And yes, the Paladin lost his powers after that...
Eltheynn 07-03-04, 07:04 AM	Originally posted by Geek Completely true, but... You still have comitted an evil act. If your reaction is "What have I done?!?!" and than you don't do anything about it, than, in an action based system, you are considered evil. If you're truelly good, than you should atone for this. In an intention driven system, you could be good doing this. This is part of the sliding slope I told about. you do evil things, you feel bad about it, and thats that. A single action warranting a complete Alignment shift? BTW, in an intention based game, considering that your intention was preserving your life at the expense of an innocent's life, you'd be considered Neautral at the very least, as much as in an action-based game... At least IMHO and IMC. Me? I use the Subjective, intent-based approach. But alas, players trying to justify certain things will have a hard time convincing me... Killing every orc in a 5 miles radius area just because won't cut it for me. And no, "but they're evil!!!" won't either... ;)
roguebfl 07-03-04, 07:45 AM	Originally posted by BenTGaidin That's not to say that chaotic characters never learn from their mistakes, it just takes them longer. While in General I agree with you LAW vs Choatic, he is where I dissagree with you. I don't think Chotics take longer to learn from the mistakes at all, its just they do not think it is a mistake to treat people as individuals 8)
roguebfl 07-03-04, 07:49 AM	Originally posted by Eltheynn A single action warranting a complete Alignment shift? Normal No, but in some cases yes. though on the other hand with Paragons like Paladins and Clerics they can fall from grace (with out changing Aligments)
Eltheynn 07-03-04, 11:01 AM	Originally posted by roguebfl Normal No, but in some cases yes. though on the other hand with Paragons like Paladins and Clerics they can fall from grace (with out changing Aligments) But here we'd be talking some major Evil... Slaughter, rape, and/or torture of an innocent for no reason whatsoever, for example. In the example given, I admit I'd have to think twice before ruling any alignment change or something... 'Cause, yeah, the fighter killed an innocent to save his own life, but one could justify that, by staying alive, the fighter could continue to fight Evil... It's the typical situation a Jerk-type DM (no offense meant to anyone) would put a Paladin against: Kill the innocent, hoping that it'll save your ass to continue fighting evil, or kill yourself, hoping that the innocent can leave unharmed? In my games, correct course of action would be fighting the blackguard, even if it means that you're toast. Because, whatever you do, you're toast, but if you fight there's a chance you'll win and both you and the innocent will be OK.
BenTGaidin 07-03-04, 05:17 PM	Originally posted by roguebfl While in General I agree with you LAW vs Choatic, he is where I dissagree with you. I don't think Chotics take longer to learn from the mistakes at all, its just they do not think it is a mistake to treat people as individuals 8) Yeah, good point. *grins* Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that chaotic characters take longer to generalize their opinion of a group, from a series of individual encounters.