Post/Author/DateTime	Post
blackjackg 11-20-06, 12:43 AM	In my lifetime of playing D&D and my on-and-off wanderings on these forums, I find that no topic receives quite as much attention as Alignment. It is a constant source of arguments ("Why'd you kill that helpless orcish infant?" "He was Evil!") and confusion ("Can my Paladin break an evil law?"). It has argued that a nine-option alignment system is a poor representation of the complexities of human (and demi-human) morality. Many campaigns have simply eliminated alignment, but that throws many built-in game systems out of whack (what's the point of a Paladin who can't detect or smite evil?). There must be a way of sorting it out. This thread is to sort out these tangles and make things right again. We will examine the underlying nature of alignment, then sort out the problems. This work will consist of four parts: The first will examine the big questions surrounding alignment, the second some smaller but pertinent questions, the third will present one solution to some of the problems of the alignment system and the final part is a conclusion. This thread will be subject to editing as replies come in. Part I: The Big Questions Question 1: What is alignment? Why do we have it? The world(s) of D&D is a place where ideas have power. Sorcerers can create storms of fire with a word, a gesture and some guano. Paladins are so holy that they can heal wounds with a touch. Heaven and Hell are not fantasies or metaphors, they are physical (and metaphysical) places that the living can visit. In a place where thought and morality have so much tangible power, it is vital that it be codified somehow. An individual's alignment becomes a sort of badge that tells him where and with which group he belongs. An important thing to remember is that your character's actions define her alignment, and not the other way around. Question 2: What are Good and Evil? The dyad of Good and Evil is truly ancient, but what does it really mean? In the real world of complex motivations and long-standing cultural traditions, Good and Evil could be translated to Us and Them. This is a fair definition with plenty of support from Real World history, but its subjective nature doesn't fit into a multiverse where Chaotic Evil isn't just a concept, it's a place. Another definition is that certain actions are objectively evil. Again, there is fair support in real world history. Almost no culture condones theft (from one's peers) or random murder, for instance. The problem with the 'evil actions' theory is that it fails to take context or motivation into account. For example, if a fighter lops the head off a nearby peasant, that is considered evil. If he lops the head off said peasant to prevent a plague from spreading, that is harder to define. The world, but fictional and nonfictional, is a complex place filled with cross purposes and grey areas. In the end, what really defines the morality of an action is the person's intention. If he intends good, the action is good. If he intends evil, the action is evil. Example: A cop has stopped a suspicious man on the street at night. The man reaches inside his jacket. The police officer thinks that the man is going for a gun, so fires on him and ends his life. On further investigation, it is revealed that the man was simply reaching for his wallet. Certainly the cop feels bad, but has he committed an evil action? Based on the information he had at the split-second he had to make the decision, no. He did what he thought was the right thing. Unfortunately, that still leaves us the question of what makes an intention objectively good or evil. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is believed that morality is a mechanism of species survival. Remember that humans (and, by extension, demihumans) are social creatures; we live or die as a group. So that which is good for both the individual and the group is Good, and that which is good for the individual but bad for the group is neutral or evil, depending on relative loss or gain. This is a utilitarian view of alignment (from Wikipedia's entry on Utilitarianism: "Utilitarianism... prescribes the quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population.") but it seems like a logical way to quantify Good and Evil. We might translate the two terms now as Good=Pro-social, Evil=Anti-social. This leaves the question of Neutrality. If a person sacrifices his own happiness for the good of the group, that is clearly good. If a person sacrifices the good of the group for personal gain, that might be either evil or neutral. The question is how much is lost or gained. A neutral action is one that benefits the individual at the expense of the group, but on an equal level, or one where the gain for the PC is greater than the loss for the population. Example: The demon Thranix has captured Leroy the rogue and a commoner that Leroy has never met. The demon offers Leroy a choice: either he or the peasant will die. Leroy knows that Thranix could destroy him with a thought. If Leroy bravely offers his life to save the peasant, he has done a Good deed. If Leroy chooses to save his own life and let the peasant die, that is not necessarily an evil action. It would be more easily defined as neutral, since the loss to society would be no greater if the peasant dies than if Leroy does. If Thranix had offered to let them both go for the price of 1,000 gold pieces and Leroy still sacrificed the peasant's life rather than pay the fee, that would be far easier to classify as evil. Simpler example: Larry the Good, Curly the Neutral and Moe the Vile are walking down the street and they see a crippled, blind beggar. Larry drops a few coins in the man's hat; he can afford it. Curly the Neutral merely walks on. Moe slyly sneaks a few coins out of the blind man's hat and heads off to the tavern to spend them. I remind my gracious and patient readers at this point that Good and Evil do not apply directly to actions, but rather to intentions, so the concept of Pro-social and Anti-social must be applied to those and not to the actions themselves. A person who is deliberately selfish with full knowledge that he is hurting others is committing an evil action. A person who does a kind turn for another for purely selfish reasons is committing a neutral deed. Notes for roleplaying morals: Remember that the vast majority of deeds done in the world are neutral. When a person buys an apple from a merchant for a fair price, that is a neutral action. When she slays an orc that is actively trying to slay her, that is a neutral action. All characters can commit neutral actions without fear of violating their alignment. The only concern is when a good character commits a blatantly evil deed, and vice-versa. Obviously, there are varying levels of Good, Neutrality and Evil. These will be visited further later on. Question 3: What are Law and Chaos? If Good and Evil are the measure of a person's intentions, then Law and Chaos are the measure of her actions. There is a justification for that statement. If we think of order and anarchy as goals unto themselves, they can be translated to pro-social and anti-social, and thus to Good and Evil, which they are clearly not. But by the same token, actions can not by themselves be placed on the ethical axis either. Is opening a door a lawful action or a chaotic one? How about looting the body of a fallen enemy? In effect, what the Law-Chaos dyad refers to is adherence to any particular code of behaviour. In many (if not most) cases, this code will be the law of the land (hence the appelation "lawful"). It is important to note that almost every person has an ethical code or another, whether they know it or not. A Lawful character will usually stick to this code, regardless of circumstances. A chaotic character is more flexible and willing to depart from their set rules in response to circumstances. Example: Bob the peasant has contracted a terrible, highly communicable disease. On his delirious way to the city, he encounters two fighters, Ren the Lawful and Stimpy the Chaotic. Both are Good-aligned, and both consider it wrong use force against an innocent person. Ren the Lawful will do everything in his power to divert Bob from his disastrous path, but he will not raise his blade against the man who has done no wrong. Stimpy sadly nocks an arrow and puts the unfortunate man out of his misery. He probably sheds a tear afterwards, but he simply did what had to be done. In the case of the ethical axis, neutrality is essentially just a middle-ground. Where lawful characters will depart from their code of behaviour rarely if ever, and chaotic characters do so whenever the need arises, neutral characters will do it only with extenuating circumstances and after a fair bit of thought. Obviously, there are more than three points along this axis, and these two will be visited later. Notes for roleplaying ethics: Remember that every character (with the possible exception of the insane) has an ethical code. Some are very vague, others are rigidly defined. Remember also that these can be personal codes or those gleaned from exterior sources. Remember that the Knight who valiently defends the law of the land is every bit as lawful as the Cleric who will not vary from his church's manifesto and the Monk who has defined his own rules but will hold to them to his last breath. Question 4: How does alignment change? Alignment might best described as the likelihood that someone will or will not commit an action with a particular intention. Vague, yes, but here are a couple of examples: A chaotic good character is one who will likely do anything necessary to achieve greater good for herself and her group. A lawful evil character is one who has a particular code of behaviour, but will invariably seek to gain personal power by the means available to him. A true neutral character is just as likely to hold to his codes as vary from them, and just as likely to support others as to exploit them. It is important to remember that, as noted above, a character's alignment is defined by her actions, and not the other way around. As these are measures of statistics and probability, they are not static. A character that was created as Lawful Good may find themselves bending the rules more and more as circumstances become more dire. This change is organic and natural, and should be encouraged by DMs. While a character may close a door by changing alignment (a Monk who ceases to be lawful can no longer progress as a Monk, for example), this is part of life. A character will never naturally change alignment by more than one step at a time. The process is gradual, and a character will move very slowly one step at a time. The exception, of course, is magic that automatically changes a character's alignment. The change in alignment must be a side-effect of the change in behaviour, so a character must suddenly change their behaviour. Remember that even with items and spells that can drastically change a person's alignment, it is not just words on paper. Alignment is a reflection of who you are. Question 5: What about Free Will? This is the hardest subject of all, not only in the D&D world, but in the real world as well. Everyone on these forums has seen the eternal question, "Is it evil to kill an orc baby?" Some say no, because orcs are evil. It says so in the Monster Manual. Therefore killing them reduces the amount of evil in the world, so it is a good action. Some say no, because orcs aren't always evil, and you might be killing an orc with potential for good. Now, by our definition, killing an orc baby is neither good nor evil unto itself. It depends on the intentions of the killer. Whether it is Lawful or Chaotic is a more interesting question. But neither of those questions is the subject of this passage. This passage is about that evil orc baby. Is it necessarily evil just for being born? The answer is probably 'No.' Since an orc is an intelligent creature, it is fair to assume that it has as much power to make choices for itself as any human. When Orc is given the alignment "usually chaotic evil," that is a reflection of its genetic tendency and typical environment. An analogy might be alcoholism. There are people in the world who are genetically predisposed to alcholism, and there are those whose developmental environment make them more likely to become alcoholics. Yet people with these qualities do not always become alcoholics, and there are those who do not have them, but do become alcoholics. A more difficult question arises around dragons and other creatures whose alignment is described as "always" something. Core Rulebook III states that Gold dragons are always lawful good. But is it possible for a dragon, an ancient and highly intelligent creature, to differ from that? Common sense says yes. It is my humble opinion that these entries should be read as 'almost always.' The exception to this is creatures of the Outer Planes. A Demon is always chaotic evil because it is constructed from metaphysical ideas of chaos and evil. A variation in this nature would be so rare as to be entirely unthinkable. Question 6: How does Alignment relate to Positive and Negative Energy? By their definition, positive and negative energy are forces of nature, essentially devoid of moral or ethical tendency. Yet there is a pretty strong connection by current rules between good alignment and the channeling of positive energy, and an even stronger one between evil and negative energy. I would personally ascribe this to the fact that since positive energy is life energy, and negative energy is more closely tied to death and undeath, it is simply that people are more likely to channel positive energy for good reasons and negative for bad. It is possible that a good-aligned persons could channel negative energy for all the right reasons. It's just not probable, and would probably come with a few undesired side effects. Part II: Smaller Questions There are a few qualities that seem to vary by alignment, so let's take a look at them. Mercy: This is a quality that is generally associated with good, because any person who is merciful to an enemy is putting themselves at risk for their enemy's sake. But mercy can be a neutral action, if you intend to gain something from it. It is by its nature neither lawful nor chaotic, and such a quality would depend entirely on your code of behaviour. One paladin might belong to an order that demands mercy be given to all who ask for it. Another order might outright deny mercy in any case. Balance: Maintaining balance is the only trait that has ever been defined as a truly 'neutral' trait. Yet, I am concerned that it is not truly as neutral as it seems. I would consider the endeavour to maintain a particular homeostasis in the multiverse to be not only orderly, but distinctly good. It is a peculiar sort of lawful good that recognizes the necessity of evil and of chaos, but does not partake in them. Loyalty: This trait is both good and lawful. A person who stands by a friend at their own risk or expense is committing a good action. It is difficult to find an evil reason for true loyalty (though there are certainly good reasons for pretended loyalty!). At the same time, Loyalty is a lawful trait, as it is not uncommon to find "stand by your allies" in one's code. Love: This is a very complex emotion, difficult to pin down. Evolutionarily speaking, love is likely a means toward successful procreation. In practice, love can be selfish or selfless or both, it can be intensely pleasurable or acutely agonizing. As such, intelligent creatures of any alignment can feel love. How they react to it, however, is another story. The Paladin Problem A while back, when I was still fairly new to these boards, someone had posted a story on the "What's a DM to do Board." He described how one of his characters (a paladin) had been walking through the city and randomly cast "detect evil" on a drunk in an alley. Discovering that the unarmed man was, in fact, evil, he drew his sword and struck the NPC down. The DM was distraught as to how he might 'punish' the player for an obviously evil act. Like all discussions of alignment, the thread drew tumultuous arguments, which were never resolved. This, and the hundreds of other stories like it, is the "Paladin Problem." How does one decide whether slaying a harmless but evil creature is acceptable or not, and how does one reconcile the player's opinion with the DM. The solution to the Paladin Problem exists! By our way of looking at alignment, we can see that it is neither a good nor an evil act unto itself. The paladin's intentions were obviously good. What they might not have been, however, was lawful. It seems unlikely that a holy order of knights would have "slaying unarmed men in back alleys" as a tenet, nor is it probable that the city's laws condoned such an activity. The solution to the Paladin Problem, therefore, is twofold: One, that a chaotic action (or at least one that blatantly violates the rules of the order) is just as damaging to one's paladinhood as an evil action. Perhaps more so. Two, that when a player creates a paladin (or a similar lawful character), that player sits down with the DM and they decide together what the rules of such a character would be. The DM may feel free to mention when the paladin is about to commit an action that is in violation of the rules they set out, and if the character commits the act anyway, they certainly deserve any consequences that befall them. Part III: One Big Solution (or "nerfing detect evil for fun and profit") There are a few more problems with alignment that are still floating out in the ether. I present them here: 1. A three-by-three alignment grid doesn't accurately represent the wide range of good, evil, lawful and chaotic options there are out there. 2. How come there are only nine alignments, but seventeen alignment-affiliated planes? 3. It's virtually impossible to get a mixed-alignment party going on, because sooner or later, the paladin is going to detect your evil cleric and lop your head off (see "The Paladin Problem" above) The solution to this is the 25-alignment system. Sounds unnecessarily complicated, doesn't it? Don't worry, it's not. It essentially distinguishes between Good as a metaphysical ideal and good as a normal person experiences it. Note the capitalization from here on out; Good and good have been used interchangeably up to now, but at this point they take on very different meanings. The outer planes (with the exception of the Outlands) are all associated with one or more extreme alignment: Good, Evil, Law, Chaos or a combination thereof. On the material plane, nearly all intelligent creatures are more moderately defineable as good, evil, lawful, chaotic or a combination thereof. One way to look at it might be that something is chaotic because of its own choices. Something is Chaotic because of its very nature. Since the captialized version represents a more extreme alignment, we can change the alignment of, say, Arcadia, from Lawful Neutral Good to simply Lawful good. The grid for the 25-alignment system essentially looks like the classic alignment grid overlaid on a alignment-based rendering of the outer planes: LG lG nG cG CG Lg lg ng cg Cg Ln ln n cn Cn Le le ne ce Ce LE lE nE cE CE (I do have a picture, I just don't know how to post it.) Again, we are faced with the worry that this is overly complicated, but we remind ourselves that all (or nearly all) PCs will fall into the middle section, where they always have been. The outer circle is reserved only for extraplanar creatures and very powerful and strongly aligned characters. A normal human or orcish rogue might be chaotic evil, whereas a quasit, a very old red dragon or Demogorgon would be Chaotic Evil. A character might become Evil by taking particular prestige classes, certain Vile feats, or simply by committing numerous large-scale atrocities. Traits of certain alignments: Good: Saint, martyr. good: Kind, generous neutral: Ambivalent. evil: Selfish, malicious. Evil: Diabolic, malevolent. Lawful: Immovable lawful: Principled neutral: Adaptable chaotic: Flexible Chaotic: Random Effect on alignment effects: No longer does Detect Evil (or good, or chaos, etc) pose a threat to your PCs. These spells only detect extreme alignments, those that are aligned a particular way because of their very nature. A chaotic evil rogue can ply his trade without fear of the paladin's ever-present detect Evil, but woe to the Evil Outsider that crosses her path. There are, however, some characters that will give off an aligned aura without being an outsider. They are: Aligned undead Any creature with the Fiendish (or Half-Fiend), Celestial (or Half-Celestial), Anarchic or Axiomatic template Clerics who have taken an alignment (or planar) domain Powerful and strongly-aligned creatures (high-level characters, dragons, etc.) Anyone who has taken a Vile, Exalted, Axiomatic, or Anarchic feat Players with levels in certain prestige classes (Blackguards, Radiant Servants of Pelor, etc.) Planetouched (outer planes only) It is important to note that some of these creatures could potentially give off an aura different from their own alignment. A good-aligned Tiefling will have an Evil aura, for example, simply because of the fiendish blood in his veins. Aligned items will always have a detectable aura (barring magical effects to the contrary). At the DM's discretion, effects that act on particular alignments, such as Smite Evil or Protection from Chaos might work only on extremely-aligned creatures, or they might work equally well both on the extremely- and the moderately-aligned. Part IV: Conclusion Whew. That was a lot of writing. This is obviously a work in progress, and I present it to you all not only to inform you about my views (which I'm sure you were all very interested to know) but to get your input, criticisms, and ideas. It is my hope that this thread might become a home base for alignment debate and reform on these forums, but it's you guys and gals that will make it happen. Please feel free to offer arguments against my views on alignment (or in favour of them), more big or small questions that ought to be examined, criticisms of the 25-alignment system, suggestions how to make it work better, or anything else that comes to mind. Thanks for all the time you've put into reading this, and for your thoughtful replies.
Chrono Nexus 11-20-06, 01:04 AM	You should post this the R'sR. It's certainly long enough to be there. Good read.
blackjackg 11-20-06, 01:31 AM	Thanks! On your advice, I went over and checked out Regdar's house, aiming to post this in there. Luckily, I spotted the sticky that said "No new alignment threads." Apparently the subject has been overdiscussed. Go figure. Thanks for the tip, though. I'll keep an eye open for when the ban gets taken down.
terrainmonkey 11-20-06, 08:35 AM	always the cynic, i think you're barking up the wrong tree here. while the work you did above may work for you, others may find that the current system works for them. alignment debates range as far back as pre 1st ed, and they only had lawful neutral and chaotic as alignment choices. you'll never solve it. this is one of those debates that will NEVER have a solution. it's best just to let it go, for the sake of us all. and yes, a paladin would kill an orc baby, simply because it is the spawn of an evil race.
blackjackg 11-20-06, 01:01 PM	alignment debates range as far back as pre 1st ed, and they only had lawful neutral and chaotic as alignment choices. you'll never solve it. this is one of those debates that will NEVER have a solution. it's best just to let it go, for the sake of us all. You have a point, but just because there isn't an easy solution to something, does that mean it shouldn't spark debate? I would say the answer is quite the opposite: the harder a thing is to pin down, the more one should talk about it. People have been talking about alignment for years, yes, but they've been talking about determinism and the nature of responsible government for much longer without any sign of slowing down. I respect that you don't want to read yet another alignment thread, but no one is forcing you to either. and yes, a paladin would kill an orc baby, simply because it is the spawn of an evil race. This easy answer leads me to think you did not actually read what I wrote. Check out Big Question 5, "What about free will?"
pres_man 11-20-06, 04:36 PM	A few thoughts. An important thing to remember is that your character's actions define her alignment, and not the other way around. I have to disagree with this statement as an absolute. Before I explain, let's step back, this game from the part about "What is alignment? Why do we have it?" In my view, alignment is a general moral/ethical viewpoint that a given character tends to agree with. Why it is used is because it is a quick way, especially for DMs, to get an idea of a character's general outlook without spending a lot of time and effort developing a character's childhood, life experiences, personality type (he's an INTP, is that evil or not?), or whatever. So coming back to your comment, alignment influences action. Actions are indicative of alignment. Moral and/or ethical viewpoint is equivalent to alignment in a broad sense. In the end, what really defines the morality of an action is the person's intention. If he intends good, the action is good. If he intends evil, the action is evil. The problem with focusing solely on intentions is what if someone is mistaken or deluded? If a red dragon raises an orc to believe that elves are murderous evil beings, and that the only way for the orc to protect himself and the ones he cares for is to destroy all elves. The dragon also warns the orc that elves are tricky and they can delude others to believe that they are not the abominations they truly are, and the orc must be careful not to allow himself to be deluded by these tricks. Now the intentions of the orc may be good, he wants to protect him and his, he also wants to stop the evil that is the elves. The problem is that he was deluded by the dragon, and everything he has been told is a lie. So despite thinking he is doing good, when putting baby elves on pikes, he is actually doing evil. He is evil. Not because he is an orc, but because he is actively doing evil acts. "Is it evil to kill an orc baby?" And the absolute answer is ... it depends. It depends on if orcs truly have free will. Are orcs born evil? Is it possible for orcs to be redeemed? Are orcs born neutral and/or innocent? All of these and more are issues that are related to the specific campaign. No clear answer can be given that will work for all campaigns. Also redemption might be possible for any type of creature, including chromatic dragons and fiends. There is magic that accomplish this, there is also rules and examples of how this might be accomplished (see MMII, crystal dragons for an example of raising CE dragons so they are not so). It is difficult to find an evil reason for true loyalty How about instead of loyalty you replace it with the word "devotion". Evil clerics are devoted to their evil gods. Many evil followers are devoted to their evil leaders. It is hard to think of devotion without sacrifice, and to think of sacrifice without being good, but we need to remember that sacrificing for the good others is good, sacrificing oneself to harm others is not. It seems unlikely that a holy order of knights would have "slaying unarmed men in back alleys" as a tenet, But it is likely to have a tenet that states, "Destroy all evil, whereever it is found." As you said, lawfuls tend to follow their codes even when it is inconvienent or uncomfortable. A paladin might be uncomfortable with killing an unarmed drunk, but may feel obligated to destroy the evil in this form. nor is it probable that the city's laws condoned such an activity. Not completely relevant. There are material plane laws and their are universal laws. Certainly a paladin may disregard a material plane law, not out of hand mind you, because it hinders a universal law. I could well imagine an evil guy being declared not guilty in a court of law, think he got away with his evil acts, only to find the paladin with a yard of sharpened steel in his hand waiting for the evil fellow when he got home, "You thought you had escaped justice didn't you." It's virtually impossible to get a mixed-alignment party going on, because sooner or later, the paladin is going to detect your evil cleric and lop your head off (see "The Paladin Problem" above) Only if by mixed you mean mixing paladins and evil characters. This is problematic even without allowing the detect-smite paladin concept as paladins are strictly forbidden from associating with evil beings. Yet any party of good characters and evil characters are going to have problems if they are being played true. Though different alignments can often get along as long as they are not in direct opposition to one another.