Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Vestigalthump 02-09-07, 08:58 PM	I don't like the D&D alignment system. It makes no sense and does not work.
chava 02-09-07, 09:01 PM	Then go with the Eberron idea and don't have alignment. Of course then there are many spells to remove. (Detect Evil, etc)
zatroll 02-09-07, 09:02 PM	Alignment rocks. Alignment is what it is all about.
Xandria 02-09-07, 09:08 PM	That's nice...Why did you make a thread about it? At least explain why, or defend your position. If you don't like it, don't use it, and make something else to alter the spells tied to alignment.
Vaalingrade Ashland 02-09-07, 09:13 PM	I totally agree with you on the relative detrement alignment presents to the game. The following thread is my method for replacing alignment where it comes to religion: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=627837 Spells to replace the alignment spells can be found on my World of Ere site.
V8122 02-09-07, 09:15 PM	I don't like the D&D alignment system. It makes no sense and does not work. Pie is good. :D But seriously, you are Spamming the boards. And whydy'a name youself after Vestigalthumb? At very least defend your erm.... sentence. Though chaotic/lawful is a little tough to say, I think good/evil is solid. Good:It's evil! KILL IT! Nuetral:Who cares? Evil:Who cares? KILL IT!
xandros2000 02-09-07, 09:22 PM	I have been in a campaign with no alignment. Alignment is kind of wacky when you start disecting it. The typical Dungeon crawl consists of the characters breaking into other humanoids homes, killing them and taking their stuff. Its okay though because they are "monsters". Basically this breaks down to racial discrimination, breaking and entering, murder and theft. And these are (usually) the "good" guys. Good and evil are concepts that vary by different peoples vision. In reality most people no matter how bad (Hitler, Suddam) do not consider themselves evil. We were able to keep the detect evil spell, but used it as a gauge based on the casters beliefs. Would the paladin casting the spell consider this person or creature evil if they could look into their soul or aura. It also had a degree of how evil they seemed to be.
Vaalingrade Ashland 02-09-07, 09:26 PM	Alignment is kind of like Starship Troopers (the movie, not the book). Basically, its an easy way to demonize the things you kill without coming out and saying 'we want thier stuff'. If you just sort of accept that the key point is that everyone in the universe is sociopathic and murderously so to one degree or another, you're fine.
Vestigalthump 02-09-07, 09:30 PM	Alignment is bad because after a while good and evil become impossible to define.
Vaalingrade Ashland 02-09-07, 09:32 PM	Alignment is bad because after a while good and evil become impossible to define. Good = mindlessly slaughters evil Evil = Mindlessly slaughters Done.
Vestigalthump 02-09-07, 09:34 PM	Good = mindlessly slaughters evil Evil = Mindlessly slaughters Done. But that is so subjective. It is no different than being on the red team or the blue team.
Witch 02-09-07, 09:34 PM	Why do I get the idea that this is dayrat again?
Vaalingrade Ashland 02-09-07, 09:38 PM	But that is so subjective. It is no different than being on the red team or the blue team. Yup, that's alignment.
Vestigalthump 02-09-07, 09:38 PM	Yup, that's alignment. Then what is the point of calling one good and the other evil?
ZombieDragon 02-09-07, 09:41 PM	The thing I wondered, is the troll talking to itself ; Vestigalthump and zatroll.
zatroll 02-09-07, 09:46 PM	The thing I wondered, is the troll talking to itself ; Vestigalthump and zatroll. No. That is more of a Dayrat/UncleAthanas move. I am insulted.
OneWinged4ngel 02-09-07, 09:49 PM	I don't like the D&D alignment system. It makes no sense and does not work. Wow, what a wonderful and useful new topic. Don't feed the trolls, people, just report them.
ZombieDragon 02-09-07, 09:50 PM	No. That is more of a Dayrat/UncleAthanas move. I am insulted. Well if your just going to name names don't stop, Saigonkix, Brother Marcus, Christorisen, Goblnhunter, Pulpatoon, Ladyeve, Tempustormwand. I think insult damage is non lethal so you will regenerate.
locksmyth 02-09-07, 09:55 PM	good = selfless evil = selfish lawful = respect rules chaotic = no respect for rules Simple.
nickcan 02-10-07, 12:21 AM	Though chaotic/lawful is a little tough to say, I think good/evil is solid. I couldn't agree less. Good/Evil is very subjective. Not to be pat, but it really is a matter of many so called "evil" folks don't realize they are "evil". But they must be because their beliefs don't agree with what my character defines as "evil". Thats all good, but it shouldn't be the basis of a world spanning alignment. On the other hand chaotic/lawful makes sense (well, I would change the word "lawful" to "orderly" but you get the idea). It is an objective (at least more objective than good/evil) of the world around us. Either we see the world as chaotic and we act accordingly, or we see the world as orderly and try to make it more so.
talkingbeatles 02-10-07, 02:07 AM	... I can't tell if the OP is being serious or not. Your pulling our leg, right man?
Always-Late 02-10-07, 02:14 AM	Fixxxxxer. Cord Binder. Sulako. a_push. ArcSin. Dan Hemens. When will the fun end?
Geogoose 02-10-07, 02:29 AM	I couldn't agree less. Good/Evil is very subjective. Not to be pat, but it really is a matter of many so called "evil" folks don't realize they are "evil". But they must be because their beliefs don't agree with what my character defines as "evil". Thats all good, but it shouldn't be the basis of a world spanning alignment. No. Good and Evil in DnD are explicitly NOT subjective. Orcs do not think they are Good aligned, they are Evil and enjoy it. Does this mean you cannot create a particular character who is delusional about good/evil? No, you still could. But the DnD world as a whole operates under objective Good/Evil as defined in the PHB and DMG. Remember to put alignment in perspective. Alignment does not attempt to recreate real-world belief systems. In the real world morals tend to shift from culture to culture and two different people may both have conflicting opinions on good and evil. DnD doesn't do that, it defines the alignments so that they become a game mechanic... so paladins know which foes they can smite and spellcasters know what spells can hedge out certain creatures.
Keiichi_m 02-10-07, 02:34 AM	Our group uses Base alignments as a guide line for characters. Good is someone who is generall a good person, will give a warning before being aggresive, and will not attack with out a reason, also lends a hand to those in need. Nutral, doesn't care, might help out a little, and then not help the next person. Evil is selfish and will take what they want by what ever means necisary using force even if it may not be warented by the situation. it's less for game mechanics and more for character and roll playing, aside from class restrictions it's there for the player, not the rules.
Comstockery 02-10-07, 02:57 AM	Things like good and evil are really just points of view. An orc doesnt go around snickering to himself: "Oh, Im so evil and I love it!" He just raids and pillages and murders people to get what he needs, and thinks that it all rightfully belongs to him anyway. Of course, most every one would say that this behaviour is evil, and I would agree, but that would just make the orc a minority opinion, not an alignment... because he doesnt believe he is evil, and neither do his hundreds of kin. A week later, a group of adventurers raids an orc camp because the orcs supposedly have an enchanted suit of armor worth thousands of gold, killing every orc in their path without mercy, assured in the knowledge that the orcs are evil. The orc survivors flee into the forest, running for their lives from something they fear, hate, and undoubtedly classify as evil. But who is evil in the end? The orcs, because more people have that opinion than the orcs' opinion. Again, alignment is really just a point of view.
Azar_of_Faerun 02-10-07, 03:04 AM	Now now, everyone gather round. I'm a level 13 Cleric, and i'm here to cast protection from energy [fire] on you all :)
ArcTan 02-10-07, 04:03 AM	Then go with the Eberron idea and don't have alignment. Of course then there are many spells to remove. (Detect Evil, etc) This is an inaccurate assessment of the Eberron campaign setting's use of alignment, and one I'm a bit tired of hearing. FWIW, the only actual mechanical change in Eberron is that Clerics may now be any alignment at all rather than any alignment within one step of their deity's. That and the Planes are not so clearly divvied up by alignment, and the gods and various planar rulers aren't obviously proven to exist and the war between alignments is therefore not clearly perceived on Earth. Doesn't mean alignment doesn't exist -- by default, in Eberron, it most certainly does. There are just more differences of opinion about it than in many settings.
Azar_of_Faerun 02-10-07, 04:05 AM	This is an inaccurate assessment of the Eberron campaign setting's use of alignment, and one I'm a bit tired of hearing. FWIW, the only actual mechanical change in Eberron is that Clerics may now be any alignment at all rather than any alignment within one step of their deity's. That and the Planes are not so clearly divvied up by alignment, and the gods and various planar rulers aren't obviously proven to exist and the war between alignments is therefore not clearly perceived on Earth. Doesn't mean alignment doesn't exist -- by default, in Eberron, it most certainly does. There are just more differences of opinion about it than in many settings. :bow: I play Eberron as well, thanks for clearing this up/defending it.
taski 02-10-07, 04:49 AM	This is an inaccurate assessment of the Eberron campaign setting's use of alignment. <snip> That said, Eberron does lend itself to houseruling alignment out more easily than some other settings. Cut-and-dry alignment is just not a central theme in Eberron, and the world doesn't need much re-flavoring if one does choose to remove alignment.
Geogoose 02-10-07, 07:12 AM	Things like good and evil are really just points of view. An orc doesnt go around snickering to himself: "Oh, Im so evil and I love it!" He just raids and pillages and murders people to get what he needs, and thinks that it all rightfully belongs to him anyway. Of course, most every one would say that this behaviour is evil, and I would agree, but that would just make the orc a minority opinion, not an alignment... because he doesnt believe he is evil, and neither do his hundreds of kin. No. Orcs know they are evil. Be assured thier clerics and wizards know they will get Demon or Devil planer allies, cast Protection from Good to ward off enemies, and they know full well where they will end up in the afterlife. The thing you are confusing is Good verses good, one opposes Evil and the other describes a sandwich. Orcs think Evil is APPROPRIATE(the sandwich description GOOD).
Witch 02-10-07, 07:52 AM	Yet in another fashion, alignment is subjective in D&D. The Lower planes are made through subjective belief, and the lower planes are also the objective measure of alignment. I.e., the general perception of alignment makes it objective. For an example: Those who lurk in the underground of fiendish knowledge feel that while the purge may have eliminated the true spirit from the yugoloths, it has ensured that their race is filled with the essence of evil. Now all the yugoloths have to do is keep the popular perceptions of evil from changing. For if those basic notions change, the very stuff of the Lower Planes will change, and that could spell the end of all of the yugoloths' plans.
V8122 02-10-07, 08:11 AM	Well... I was going to report this topic, but now that theres a good thread on subjective use of the alignment system going here, I don't think I will.
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-10-07, 10:11 AM	Wow. I'm so reporting the guy for impersonation. There can be only one.
Karish 02-10-07, 12:34 PM	I'm going to make an attempt to murder the "alignment is bad" idea now. Good: Help others, kill only if needed, protect those who cannot protect themselves. Evil: Help oneself, kill as desired, sacrifice others to gain wealth, power, or happiness. Law: Follow the laws, restrictions, and authority figures of several nations/organizations. Chaos: Follow one's personal conscious or lack thereof, only following self-written laws. Neutrality is an even balance of either, or a lack of knowledge or understanding of general morality. Animals, thus, are neutral, while orcs, who may see no problem with killing and raiding, are still evil due to their society.
Vaalingrade Ashland 02-10-07, 01:07 PM	I'm going to make an attempt to murder the "alignment is bad" idea now. The problem here is that your definitions don't jive with the PH. Good: Help others, kill only if needed, protect those who cannot protect themselves. The PH specifically cites a Paladin who 'fights evil without mercy' hardly killing only when needed to protect others. Law: Follow the laws, restrictions, and authority figures of several nations/organizations. Nothing in the Law description cites this. It implies that the Lawful individual values society over the self. Chaos: Follow one's personal conscious or lack thereof, only following self-written laws. Again, the chaos description cites free spirits, not anarchists. Neutrality is an even balance of either, or a lack of knowledge or understanding of general morality. Animals, thus, are neutral, while orcs, who may see no problem with killing and raiding, are still evil due to their society. This was destroyed by 3.5 where mindless undead, lack knowledge, understanding and the ability to act on thier own, are evil. If anything, this post illustrates why alignment is bad: It tries to take something wholly subjective and present it as objective.
Witch 02-10-07, 01:58 PM	If anything, this post illustrates why alignment is bad: It tries to take something wholly subjective and present it as objective. There is no such thing as objectivity to us, as we lack an outside source. Objectivity is simply intersubjectivity, which quite definitely exists.
Anaxander 02-10-07, 02:05 PM	If anything, this post illustrates why alignment is bad: It tries to take something wholly subjective and present it as objective. Sure, but that's why it's a game and not a philosophy course. You can play good AND have all the fun, isn't that great?
Geogoose 02-10-07, 06:50 PM	You are right, Witch. That's why alignment threads generally break down. People refuse to read the alignment section of the PHB wihtout inserting their own beliefs, prejudices, and interpretations.