Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Atirakis 07-03-06, 05:39 PM	I threw alignment out with thac0. In my campaigns you have character motivations that determine who is "good" and who is "evil" depending on your point of view. Lawful and Chaotic are only gained through extreme ties to that way of life. Two Paladins from opposing nations can smite evil all over their asses since in their mind the opponent they are fighting is "evil" even though neither is inherently evil. Its the whole us vs them mentality. When your nation is at war then the country that you are fighting is evil, regardless of whether or not they are actualyl evil at all.
Dowjin 07-03-06, 05:50 PM	I feel that all alignments should be given a wide berth, but that they shouldn't be disregarded entirely. Atirakis - I think that doing that negates a /lot/ of effective spells, smiting, and etc abilities, against opponents who might be in a 'grey' zone. If a vampire is raising an undead army to conquer the world, but thinks its because all the living are vermin, evil in themselves, and that undead is the true and superior good, then you have a completely justified, medival equivalent of hitler. They'd consider themselves good, but are they? Should smite evil work on them? If their alignment isn't considered, how do you judge? I think, that alignment should reflect how one explains their own actions. Alignment should be what most acurately represents a character's motive, and way of thought. I'd keep alignment, but judge it loosely. I give a one hundred point scale in between alignment shifts. Each action that directly conflicts with how a character justifies themself, is weighed heavily, shifting their own personal view. If an action is viewed by everyone ELSE on whole, but not the character him/herself, as conflicting with said person's alignment, it still counts against one's alignment points, but not quite as much.
Atirakis 07-03-06, 06:09 PM	The vampire in your situation is still affected by any living paladins smite evil because trying to wipe out the living from the paladins point of view is evil. The vampire would also be able to smite evil on the paladin because trying to stop him from making a perfect society is evil from the vampires point of view. The vampire wouldnt be able to smite evil on any creature that was helping his cause, and the paladin would be unable to smite evil on any creature that was helping him fight the undead. In fact its a story arc in my campaign that the "good" humans are forced to fight alongside the "evil" orcs and even vampires in order to combat hordes of undead. Note: Vampires in my campaign are considered neither living nor true undead, they despise the undead because they provide neither food (blood) nor entertainment, conversation, art or any of the beauty that most vampires enjoy (hence why they desire to live forever I mean who wants to spend 5000 years hating life?)
Dowjin 07-03-06, 06:19 PM	Antirakis - Thats all good for abilities, then, but I still see a problem of relativity for "detect alignment" spells. Does it simply judge how close to your point of view a person or item is? If so, what for "evil" items that might register as good, yet whom's effects might enslave, dominate, or curse? If it can be worked out, then I suppose its just as much within your DMly rights. However, a far more important question, is what do your /players/ think of this?
Dan Hemmens 07-03-06, 06:26 PM	Umm... bully for you. Did you want comments, criticisms, praise?
Wtf,k? 07-03-06, 06:35 PM	So a bloodsucking, corpse-defiling vampire can Smite-Evil Bob the baker, who gives bread to the orphans, never tells a lie, does unto other as he would have them do unto him, and would never hurt anyone, despite the fact that Bob, clearly, isn't evil? If you have two paladins from opposing nations, give them Smite [opposing nation], Detect [opposing nation], and that jazz. Let your vampire have Smite [living] to play with. Just don't let good and evil devolve into party politics.
Cifer 07-03-06, 06:53 PM	So a bloodsucking, corpse-defiling vampire can Smite-Evil Bob the baker, who gives bread to the orphans, never tells a lie, does unto other as he would have them do unto him, and would never hurt anyone, despite the fact that Bob, clearly, isn't evil? If you have two paladins from opposing nations, give them Smite [opposing nation], Detect [opposing nation], and that jazz. Let your vampire have Smite [living] to play with. Just don't let good and evil devolve into party politics Mind giving a reason for your advice? For all I can see, I'm going to handle things in a like way in my own campaigns.
Edymnion 07-03-06, 06:54 PM	This is only partially aimed at Atirakis, since xe started this thread: I generally find that anyone who throws out alignment do so because they don't have the slightest clue how alignment is supposed to actually work. No offense, but I have yet to see someone that really understands how that section of the rules works that has the *slightest* problem with it. I'm not going to dredge up the entire speech, but I will hit the high points. Alignment is a thermometer, not a straight jacket. If you *EVER* told a player, or as a player thought "I can't do that, my alignment is X and thats Y", then you don't know how alignment works. Your alignment never dictates your actions or your thoughts, your actions and thoughts always dictate your alignment. Just like the thermometer doesn't make it hot or cold, it just reflects the changes in temperature. That is what alignment is. You play your character however you want. You have them do whatever they want. If you are using alignment correctly, you should never even think about it unless something specifically forces you to (like Detect or Protection spells). Single actions are incapable of changing alignment, no matter how drastic they are. Alignment is a reflection of your character's overall view on life, the universe, and everything. While that view can change over time, it cannot do a 180 through anything but magical means. Just because your Paladin got mad and kicked a baby doesn't suddenly make him Chaotic Evil, he's just a Lawful Good guy that got mad and kicked a baby. Might lose his powers for a bit because of it, but not because of any kind of alignment change. Just because you are Evil doesn't mean you are bad to the bone evil any more than being Good means you are a saint. The fish market owner that knowingly cheats his customers by overcharging because he thinks its okay to price gouge to line his own pockets would be Evil. Heck, his wife could register as Evil because she's rogering the milkman behind her husband's back. Doesn't mean either of them deserve Smiting. There are certain definitions as to what makes each alignment what it is, and most people should, by default, come out to True Neutral. Good means you are self sacrificing, you put the well being of others before your own, you have an active respect for life and the property of others. Neutral means you look out for yourself and your friends/family. You don't try to hurt anyone, you just try to live your life day to day as best you can. As long as you and your circle are safe and happy, you couldn't really care less about the rest of the world, thats their problem, not yours. Evil looks out for itself, and doesn't mind hurting other people to do so. This does not have to mean killing and raping and pillaging. Anything that harms someone, be it physically, emotionally, or financially counts. As long as you don't mind stepping on somebody from time to time to get ahead, you're Evil. Lawful means that you not only respect the law, you actively try to enforce it and spread it. A police officer is Lawful, for example. Neutral means that you follow the law as best you can, and you try not to break it. However, you don't try to make others follow the law, you just get by for yourself and let everybody else get along with themselves. Chaotic means you actively try to break the law. You actively buck the system and thumb your nose at authority. Most people in the real world would like to think of themselves as True Neutral with Good leanings, but very few actually fall into the catagory of Good, as they don't actively try to make other people's lives better. Essentially, my question to you is "Do you actually know how Alignment is SUPPOSED to work, or do you think Alignment dictates your character's actions?" The way its supposed to work, Alignment is a very passive thing, and it doesn't really come into play at any time other than when magical abilities and the like come into the picture. A Neutral Evil character could get along with a Good party just fine, as long as the person playing them didn't think it meant "I'm evil, that means I get to kill people in their sleep!" No, they could be Evil just because they think its fun to pick peasant pockets all the time, and don't care that it hurts those they steal from. So, again, if you say you threw out Alignment, I have to ask if you were using it correctly to start with.
Dowjin 07-03-06, 07:07 PM	Edymnion - I wholeheartedly agree as to thats how the alignment system works. It is a referance, not a constraint. As such, there is no real harm to getting rid of it, as long as the rest of the mechanics and assumptions remain the same. even magical abilities that strictly relate to it, simply become matters of perspective. "Detect good" simply becomes; "I use my magic to discern if he looks out for others." "Detect law" simply becomes; "Does he seem righteous?" An invisible system that doesn't modify anything, or isn't modified (past how people see you differently, there aren't any numbers behind it), is unecessary. I don't have a problem with it, but see my above post to gauge how I use it mostly for flavor and referance. I do, however, believe that alignment is a matter of self-perspective relative to those around you, rather than a meter of karma for all ones good or bad actions. I.E. I believe that the vampire in my above example would be Lawful Good, if he spelled souls into the animated bodies, bolstered them, loved them, revered them, and tried to construct a wholesome society of undeath. It would be no different to /him/ in relation to humans, than it is different to most of us, squishing the common house fly. Atirakis - I would, however, read Edymnion's post and ask if you really need or want to ditch alignments. And, to reiterate, if your player's want to.
allencon 07-03-06, 07:18 PM	I think one could possibly eliminate "alignment" without eliminating good, evil, law, chaos or neutrality or other issues regarding morality and ethics. Mechanically, simply expand the protection, magic circle spells to affect any target attempting to harm the caster within the limits of the spell. Any other spells that work involving alignment would simply be rerouted to a "me vrs my enemy" type of scenario. To that end things like blasphemy, word of chaos, dictum, holy word, etc.. would have their effects changed to work against the caster's opponents. One could subsume these spells then into simply one, that is identical in effect but may be "called" different things from the different world views of the casters. Likewise, remove alignment restrictions on paladins, monks, and barbarians. The first hints of these things have already been done through Unearthed Arcana. For the "Evil" paladin, would have to act in accordance to what his worldview or "evil" religion views how a paladin should act. In this sense his smite ability works on his "enemies" independent if the enemy is trully evil, good, or neutral. As for detection spells, they would simply detect people exhibiting qualities that to the mind of the "caster" would be good, evil, etc. At no point does this mean that good and evil are the same, or cease to objectively exist. You may or may not still have upper and lower planes where souls are rewarded or punished accordingly by their thoughts, intents, words and actions. Just because a caster "detects" a good target, doesn't necessarily mean said target is objectively or inherently good, as the detection works only from the relative viewpoint of the caster. Eberron tried to do this in their campaign setting, but did not push far enough to remove alignment completely. My personal aesthetics I do know if I would like a more loosely defined system. But what you have described here seems feasible. It is interesting you have differentiated between objective/inherent goodness and what may be concidered good relatively to the caster or PC. To that end certain magic abilities on weapons, like axiomatic, holy, etc would have their damage reworked to the "me vrs the opponent" system. Now certain items may still only be usable by people of an "objective" alignment. A vampire paladin probably isn't going to want a "holy avenger" sword, but such vampire paladin may have a "unholy avenger" (even though he still thinks he's the holy one).
Cifer 07-03-06, 07:21 PM	@Edymnion I know alignment works this way in Eberron and the way it is described there would be one of the few ways it might work. There are still problems. To name but a few: The assassin. He kills for his order, never questioning his superior's motives. Is he lawful because he obeys the laws of his order, chaotic because he does not obey the land he lives in (they probably don't want him going around killing stuff), evil because fanatical killing feels evil to us or good because he believes that his assassinations will make the world a better place as his superiors tell him? The elf. (Yep, I already referenced him in another post, but I just like the guy) He is a nice person, donates to charity, has his own family and is a proud father of two sons and a daughter, helps his country whenever possible, is considered a hero because he once saved the mayor's children - and kills dwarves as soon as he can see them because dwarves committed an atrocity in his youth. Is he good because he helps the majority of people he lives with or is he evil because he actively seeks to hurt a minority? The very fact that there are that many threads about alignment questions which usually have diametrically opposed answers in them ("Ok, this behaviour would clearly make him lawful evil"-"No, it would rather count as chaotic good"-"I'd say it wouldn't change his alignment at all" - all of them reactions in "Alignment question" by JamesDruidDM) shows that while the alignment system might have some merit, it is unusable because people are arguing about it since I came to the boards. What use is a system for depicting a character's moral if noone can agree what kind of behaviour would be appropriate for which alignment?
Dowjin 07-03-06, 07:48 PM	Cifer - I think its useful and works, because while we, the DM populace, might disagree vehemently on how to run things, us and our respective players (providing one is in a suitable group) agree on moral and ethic values placed on the alignment meter. My spin on it, answers your questions rather simply. The assassin: Kills for his order. This reflect a loyalty superceeding other needs in his own mind. The /order/ he serves is important. The fact that it is an order and he obeys it, makes him Lawful. It doesn't matter about the law of the land, as much as it wouldn't matter what laws are in evil towns he later ventures in to. Its the order he follows, and he recognizes it as order. Whether he is Evil or not depends on; the scale of his killings. Does public opinion outweight his, if so, he's insane if he believes he is good, and insane for believing that the Order's work is good. However, if the setting he is in doesn't, on the whole, see what he's doing as that inherently evil (the order he's in /exists/, an obvious congregation of like minds, suggesting that perhaps an acceptable doubt can be placed on right or wrong), then he is justified in believing that he is good. The Elf: Is rather obviously Good, by both popular opinion and his own. The dwarves in question are obviously not as common, and untill their opinions begin to permeate into his society, he is viewed as Good. The Dwarves might not see things the same way, but a 'detect alignment' cast on the elf would have the smilar effect of being shot with the 'point of view' gun from hitchhiker's. I can't judge his lawfulness by your description, sorry. While I've covered Law and good, Chaos, Evil, and neutrality are based as such; Does the character feel guilt for actions? They then recognize the opposite alignment and what they've done towards that effect. If the actions are on a large enough scale, then they're going to change on the meter. Does the character agree that others are right, but acts a certain way anyway? "Yeah, its breaking the law, so what?" "Hey, its to help this-and-that, so I don't care if its-" Is realizing the alignment in question, and should be weighted as above. Does or would 75% of the population of your campaign setting, disagree? The character is then commiting acts of the opposite alignment, and will shift. In order to keep his own alignment, he must be mental, or be viewed as mental. Keep the alignment system, its a valuable meter, and being able to keep track of one's status helps to quickly assess whether, I.E., a holy or unholy sword will hurt you. Which leads to... A one hundred point scale between alignments, judging actions and personal reflection. I reccomend this for everyone.
Cifer 07-03-06, 08:01 PM	Keep the alignment system, its a valuable meter, and being able to keep track of one's status helps to quickly assess whether, I.E., a holy or unholy sword will hurt you. I resolve these things by asking myself the question "If those two characters knew everything about each other there was to know, would they violently and irrevocably want to kill each other and despise the other's principles?" If my answer is yes (demon vs. devil, fiend vs. paladin, undead vs. Pelor cleric, elf vs. drow) then any weapon or ability sacred to their belief will work against this enemy. For judging whether someone can use a weapon or item like this, I compare his beliefs to the beliefs of the maker of the item. If they correspond relatively well (cleric of Heironeous making an item for a follower of Moradin), it will work.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-03-06, 08:48 PM	Unless your campaign emphasizes Good Vs. Evil or Law Vs. Chaos, alignment is pretty much just extraneous clutter; a distraction from the campaign at hand to wage some pointless battle between abstracts.
Otto the Bugbear 07-03-06, 09:20 PM	Yeah, I'm eliminating alignment too. Realistically, I can admit that this decision is heavily influenced by The Black Company novels by Glen Cook. In there, morality is more shades of gray than light/dark, good/evil, law/chaos. Once upon a time, I had all the players tell me their character's alignment (which I dutifully wrote down). Then I had them erase the alignment from their character sheet. I told them roleplay their character as they felt that character would actually act. Turns out, alignments weren't that crucial after all. The game didn't implode, they didn't suddenly start acting in a manner inconsistent with their character, and they certainly never uttered the words "My alignment is XY." Instead of smite evil, I'm going with smite infidel. Instead of LG Paladin being a base class, they're aligned to their church, its leaders, its deity, and its goals. Monks can't be chaotic or neutral? Bah! Bards can't be lawful? Bah! Barbarians must be chaotic? Bah! I anticipate that the game will still run very smoothly, as my games tend to do anyway. Cheers Otto :)
pres_man 07-03-06, 10:31 PM	Why is there so much disagreement on these boards about alignment? Does this prove that alignment is a useless and unworkable mechanic? Not at all. Alignment, either by design or by chance, is an objective mechanic defined by subjective interpretation. It is because of this reason that there is so much debate about what is "good", "evil", "lawful", and "chaotic" on these boards. But just because it is subjectively defined, does not mean it is impossible to be judged in an objective fashion. Just as the points for a touchdown were subjectively decided to be 6 points, but a touchdown can objectively be judged (usually), so can alignment be subjectively defined from one game setting to another, but be judged within a given game setting objectively. It often then makes sense when talking about alignment to define what you mean by a certain alignment, how you clarify or distort the alignment descriptions within the RAW. For example, in my games good-neutral-evil are very close to what Edymnion said, close enough that I don't really feel the need to point out the differences (which are similiar to the difference between pink and salmon). On the other hand, Edymnion description of lawful-neutral-chaotic does not describe the way these are in my games. In my games lawful is akin to "conservative" and chaotic is akin to "liberal", not just the political views of terms but the more general ideas of them. So in my games Lawful could be described as: 3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate> c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners <a conservative suit> While Chaotic could be described as: 5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms As Vaalingrade Ashland says unless you are playing a game where alignment conflicts are an issue then alignment doesn't really play a part, so it might not make a big difference whether it is used or not. Of course, as a DM I like alignments. I like it that my players have to pick a spell and it might or might not be effective against their opponents (they might not all be evil for example). Likewise, smite and such might or might not work. Also I like having alignment to use as an additional personality characteristic for NPCs that the party interacts with.
Quoth_theRaven 07-04-06, 12:35 AM	Once upon a time, I had all the players tell me their character's alignment (which I dutifully wrote down). Then I had them erase the alignment from their character sheet. I told them roleplay their character as they felt that character would actually act. Hmmmm... like this idea. Since most players would likely forget the alignment after a few sessions, it becomes the background element it should be. Alignment does make a convenient guideline (stress guideline), especially when it comes to making the bylaws of organizations and governments to which the character may belong. Some measure of 'right and wrong' from the organization's viewpoint needs to exist. I do think that the character should suffer from actions not in support of personal cause/organization/etc. moreso than because of alignment shift, the alignment is just there as a tool to let the DM know when the line has been crossed. Instead of smite evil, I'm going with smite infidel. Only problem I foresee here is that you would be including more opponents that this would work against. Using the alignments for a moment (and assuming LG), you are not only effective against LE, NE, CE, but now CN, TN, and possibly one or more of CG, NG, LN (depending on what is defined as 'infidel' by the church heirarchy). Careful definition on what exactly an infidel is can remove this minor problem, however. Instead of LG Paladin being a base class, they're aligned to their church, its leaders, its deity, and its goals. ???Pally's not a base class??? Am I reading this right? Anyway, I seem to recall back in the 1E days when Dragon had an article basically describing what you have here, one 'holy warrior' for each alignment. I've often thought paladins should be diverse depending on deity/church, as clerics are. Ah, the good old days...
Weaponbreaker 07-04-06, 01:31 AM	IMHO alignment works in D&D because it serves a purpose. Whether the explanation of this is the roll of the gods and their worshipers or a 'worldview' sense of abstractness. Most 'evil' and most 'good' do not wake up everyday saying "Golly time to go do my alignements work today!" Most think of their chores, job, destination and other RL stuff. In a War based Campaign I would see no problem with a redux on certain aspects of the game to reflect my nation v your nation, but I tend to think that those people who spend all day crying about the restrictions of playing an alignment a a bit undermature in their process of thinking. If you as a DM demand strict alignment adhesion and your players continuously lobby you to do away with it then you might be going overboard, but if the assasin in the group whines that he doesn't consider his actions evil and he should not be 'dinging' on the palidins radar he is wrong (and probly 14). If you have a problem with the 'magic' that acompanies alignment try switching campaign modes and play iron kingdoms (low magic) or the new Conan campaign (almost no magic). I think these settign would be more to your groups decisions. And to those that say us random ppl who respond to this board can not make a decision of what is evil/good/chaotic/lawful/neutral therefore the system is flawed they are wrong. As a player of about 15 years I have never had a problem playing with or without alignment, but I use it in the weekly game I DM and even have a Caveat that no Evil characters for players. I do this because I run High Fantasy Epic campaigns. Basicaly Start at first level go til the group breaks and try to save the world from catastrophe, and any evil character would probly not spend very long trying to save the world...................no they wouldn't, they just don't think that way even if they are capable of uniting with good characters to save their asses the unity dies as soon as the dangers past. And I have had players retire a Neutral character that decided he had accomplished his desires and moved on. PS - I do not force Orcs to be evil, Humans to be good etc...I have created areas of my world where orc barbarian tribes reflect the full spectrum of alignments, and there are a group of xenophobic evil elves on the surface. I do not believe in evil races unless they are devils or some such.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-04-06, 01:50 AM	A lot fo people mention Alginemnt as a part of in game religion, but it seems to me that's where a lot of the wonkiness comes up. Good Clerics cure, Evil clerics inflict -- regardless of the god's personal dogma or purposes. It seems to me that a Good god of self reliance (I help those who help themselves), wouldn't give thier clerics a power that would make them a crutch for others. At the same time, an Evil god of War would be all too aware of how hopelessly worthless inflict is in mass combat compared to cure. They would *want* thier clerics to spont cure. Further, a neutral god of magic may see no problem with animation of the dead, or a good god of protection may see the wisdom of protecting people from good as well as evil. Yet they find themselves somehow unable to grant these spells to thier 'good' clerics. And lets not even start on the fact that lawful and chaotic clerics of neutral good gods get spells to kill thier brethren for no good reason. But apperently, the gods get no say in the matter. They're shackled and brainboxed even more than clerics. The current Cleric class puts far, far more emphasis on the cleric's alignment -- his general attitudes and tendencies -- than his own god's dogma. An evil cleric of fire and death can cast cones of cold and ressurections all the live long day -- but heaven forbid he summon a celestial dog to brutally kill someone for him.
Weaponbreaker 07-04-06, 01:56 AM	The current Cleric class puts far, far more emphasis on the cleric's alignment -- his general attitudes and tendencies -- than his own god's dogma. An evil cleric of fire and death can cast cones of cold and ressurections all the live long day -- but heaven forbid he summon a celestial dog to brutally kill someone for him. It is more of a case that celestials do not answer summons from evil folk at least thats how I answer that particular 'wonk'.
Atirakis 07-04-06, 02:22 AM	Let me address a few things 1. My players LOVE this system 2. I still have them pick an alignment that they lean towards but its not written down anywhere but in my notes because its just a guidline for what motivates them 3. The vampire in my example isnt smiting good he is smiting period. Smite is smite and it only works on those opposed to your "alignment" I dont have smite evil or smite good because if you have smite then you smite those opposed to you no evil or good required 4. Detect only works on beings of strong good or strong evil they have to be practically from the outer planes in order to register everyone else is sort of in the gray area of yeah Im good but I will punch you in the face if you make me mad or Im evil but I am smart enough to run my kingdom justly and make sure my subjects are taken care of because otherwise I wont have a kingdom
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-04-06, 02:40 AM	It is more of a case that celestials do not answer summons from evil folk at least thats how I answer that particular 'wonk'. Even the non-sapient ones? It is still a dog. Just one with really shiny fur.
Cifer 07-04-06, 02:43 AM	And to those that say us random ppl who respond to this board can not make a decision of what is evil/good/chaotic/lawful/neutral therefore the system is flawed they are wrong. As a player of about 15 years I have never had a problem playing with or without alignment, but I use it in the weekly game I DM and even have a Caveat that no Evil characters for players. I do this because I run High Fantasy Epic campaigns. Basicaly Start at first level go til the group breaks and try to save the world from catastrophe, and any evil character would probly not spend very long trying to save the world...................no they wouldn't, they just don't think that way even if they are capable of uniting with good characters to save their asses the unity dies as soon as the dangers past. Actually, why wouldn't an evil character want to save the world? Generally, they live in it... Exactly this "but an X character would never do Y" is why I want to get rid of alignment. Just as the points for a touchdown were subjectively decided to be 6 points, but a touchdown can objectively be judged (usually), so can alignment be subjectively defined from one game setting to another, but be judged within a given game setting objectively. Again, why is it that so many alignment threads with the heading "My paladin did X. I think he should move to alignment Y, but he doesn't." appear?
pres_man 07-04-06, 03:00 AM	Again, why is it that so many alignment threads with the heading "My paladin did X. I think he should move to alignment Y, but he doesn't." appear? Well almost every single one of those is a situation where the DM has not outlined the exact boundaries of the alignments. So there are two competing issues. The DM's responsibility to set the exact boundaries of the alignments, and the DMs responsibility to inform the players of these boundaries prior to them being an issue.
kintire 07-04-06, 07:00 AM	Once upon a time, I had all the players tell me their character's alignment (which I dutifully wrote down). Then I had them erase the alignment from their character sheet. I told them roleplay their character as they felt that character would actually act. Oh, right. So you ran it straight with no changes. Easiest choice. The game didn't implode, they didn't suddenly start acting in a manner inconsistent with their character well no. It wouldn't, given that you were running it as intended... I generally find that anyone who throws out alignment do so because they don't have the slightest clue how alignment is supposed to actually work. No offense, but I have yet to see someone that really understands how that section of the rules works that has the *slightest* problem with it. Yes, I agree. A lot fo people mention Alginemnt as a part of in game religion, but it seems to me that's where a lot of the wonkiness comes up. I'm not convinced that this wonkiness has anything to do with alignment, but with religion and the cleric class. All of the examples you give stem from the problem that all clerics, regardless of deity, draw spells from the same list (bring back Spheres!). It isn't an alignment problem really, its that the implementation of religion and priests is poor.
Madfox11 07-04-06, 07:34 AM	Even the non-sapient ones? It is still a dog. Just one with really shiny fur. No it is not. All celestial and fiendish creatures have a minimum intelligence of 3 which is the exact point where creatures become sentient (and yes, I purposefully changed it from sapient to sentient since sapience has little to do with morale judgement). In any event, I tend to follow the argument that the only location you can get these creatures from is the upper planes, and the evil deities simply cannot affect the upper planes directly without some serious repurcursions.
Otto the Bugbear 07-04-06, 09:04 AM	Hmmmm... like this idea. Since most players would likely forget the alignment after a few sessions, it becomes the background element it should be. Yes. Plus the fact that I could start weaning out alignment mechanics without causing a stir. I guess it was my own behind-the-scenes experiment, so it was a little low-down. They would still use stuff from time to time, like Protection from Evil, but it had the same effect regardless of the opponent. Only problem I foresee here is that you would be including more opponents that this would work against. Using the alignments for a moment (and assuming LG), you are not only effective against LE, NE, CE, but now CN, TN, and possibly one or more of CG, NG, LN (depending on what is defined as 'infidel' by the church heirarchy). Careful definition on what exactly an infidel is can remove this minor problem, however. It does include more opponents. With a paladin gaining 5 smites per day, I fail to see the problem. How is him being able to smite that many extra enemies too much, compared to the rest of the game? It's really not. The smite is so limited anyway, I'm comfortable with just giving him this. And yes, infidel would largely be defined by the church, or more acurately, how the paladin interpreted the teachings the church instilled in him. ???Pally's not a base class??? Am I reading this right? :) Yes, you read that right. The paladin is a Prestige Class. It's based heavily on the Prestige Paladin from Unearthed Arcana. It's my feeling that players would get a better feel for what it took to be a paladin by spending several levels living, breathing, and acting on behalf of their church's dogma. Any unforseen wrinkles that might have occured between the player interpretation of the church and DM's interpretation of the church are found out in those 5 levels before taking any paladin levels. This allows the player and DM to discuss those wrinkles and come to a conclusion about what the church expects of the paladin. Who, by the way, would be an organizational PrC, requiring the sanctioning of his church. Anyway, I seem to recall back in the 1E days when Dragon had an article basically describing what you have here, one 'holy warrior' for each alignment. I've often thought paladins should be diverse depending on deity/church, as clerics are. Ah, the good old days... I don't recall that article, but this is exactly what I've done with the paladin. All churches have paladins. This is to say, all churches have a martial branch of holy warriors helping carry out their dogma, smiting infidels, defending the church, and spreading the word. By changing a single class to accomodate this, I save the hassle of making upmteen classes; one for each god. Oh, right. So you ran it straight with no changes. Easiest choice. No changes except the part where character alignment is recorded on the character sheet. Almost the easiest choice. ]well no. It wouldn't, given that you were running it as intended... Excpet the issue of alignment has the tendency to cause problems if it's in their faces. I can't deny that alignment shouldn't be the factor determining a character's actions. But that's rarely how it works out. I also see no problems with removing it entirely (which is a different action than I took earlier.) Your mileage may vary. Cheers Otto :)
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-04-06, 09:27 AM	No it is not. All celestial and fiendish creatures have a minimum intelligence of 3 which is the exact point where creatures become sentient (and yes, I purposefully changed it from sapient to sentient since sapience has little to do with morale judgement). In any event, I tend to follow the argument that the only location you can get these creatures from is the upper planes, and the evil deities simply cannot affect the upper planes directly without some serious repurcursions. Ah, but my cleric could be an Evil cleric of a neutral deity and it still doesn't work. HOWEVER, the Good cleric of the same deity can get it. Somehow, for no actual in game reason, the deity has no control over the spells he can and can't grant. And lets not forget that the evil guy can still cast it from a scroll or wand with no trouble and that doggy will be prefectly fine with slaughtering children for him. That's right, a piece of paper written by a wizard superceeds a GOD. Fact is, under the current system, gods are just simps of some random, arbitrarily defined abstracts masquerading as tangable forces.
Quoth_theRaven 07-04-06, 04:03 PM	This is the reason I advance the idea of a separate spell list for each religion, rather than the cleric class as a whole. Which works for those who use alignment, and those who don't. :D
Edymnion 07-04-06, 07:26 PM	@Edymnion I know alignment works this way in EberronThere is no change to alignment rules in Eberron other than "Clerics do not have to be within 1 step of their deity's alignment". Eberron is simply the first setting to actually use the alignment rules as written, instead of using them as stereotype extremes. The assassin. He kills for his order, never questioning his superior's motives. Is he lawful because he obeys the laws of his order, chaotic because he does not obey the land he lives in (they probably don't want him going around killing stuff), evil because fanatical killing feels evil to us or good because he believes that his assassinations will make the world a better place as his superiors tell him?He is evil because he has no respect for other's rights to live. It doesn't matter if he's doing it for some greater good, he is murdering people just because he was told to murder them. And being Lawful has never depended on obeying the law of the land. The elf. (Yep, I already referenced him in another post, but I just like the guy) He is a nice person, donates to charity, has his own family and is a proud father of two sons and a daughter, helps his country whenever possible, is considered a hero because he once saved the mayor's children - and kills dwarves as soon as he can see them because dwarves committed an atrocity in his youth. Is he good because he helps the majority of people he lives with or is he evil because he actively seeks to hurt a minority?You can do Evil without being Evil. His overall view on the way the world works is weak Good or Neutral with strong Good leanings, but he does terrible things. Which way he would ultimately go would depend on more than just those two circumstances. The very fact that there are that many threads about alignment questions which usually have diametrically opposed answers in them ("Ok, this behaviour would clearly make him lawful evil"-"No, it would rather count as chaotic good"-"I'd say it wouldn't change his alignment at all" - all of them reactions in "Alignment question" by JamesDruidDM) shows that while the alignment system might have some merit, it is unusable because people are arguing about it since I came to the boards. What use is a system for depicting a character's moral if noone can agree what kind of behaviour would be appropriate for which alignment?And they argue just as much about what Feat X or Spell Y should do, but that doesn't mean we should dump the feat system or spellcasting. Just because differant people have differant viewpoints doesn't mean the system is broken or useless.
Edymnion 07-04-06, 07:36 PM	Good Clerics cure, Evil clerics inflict -- regardless of the god's personal dogma or purposes.Default rules say that a cleric must remain within one step of his/her god's alignment in order to retain their power. Which means the farthest they could generally get away from their God's alignment is Neutral, and Neutral lets you pick which one you do. But apperently, the gods get no say in the matter. They're shackled and brainboxed even more than clerics.Actually, accourding the rules, the gods can choose not to grant any spell that doesn't fall into their format. Its not so much that the gods themselves are braindead and just letting their clerics do whatever they want so much as it is the DM that isn't enforcing the rules. Aka, if you're a cleric of a Good god, and you want to cast something with the Evil descriptor, you better have a DAMNED good reason, or the god will simply deny you the spell. The current Cleric class puts far, far more emphasis on the cleric's alignment -- his general attitudes and tendencies -- than his own god's dogma. An evil cleric of fire and death can cast cones of cold and ressurections all the live long day -- but heaven forbid he summon a celestial dog to brutally kill someone for him.Again, there is a differance between "technically capable of" and "being allowed to". Its just that many DMs seem to be too lazy to manage this sort of thing properly. Far as I'm concerned, its about the same thing as a DM that doesn't bother with encumbrance so the players are all running around with about 2 metric tons of gear. There's a differance between utter micro-management, keeping things realistic, and just totally ignoring everythig going on around you.Exactly this "but an X character would never do Y" is why I want to get rid of alignment.And like I said, this idea that an X character can't do Y is exactly the example I gave for people that don't understand how Alignment is supposed to work.
Vaalingrade Ashland 07-04-06, 08:10 PM	Default rules say that a cleric must remain within one step of his/her god's alignment in order to retain their power. Which means the farthest they could generally get away from their God's alignment is Neutral, and Neutral lets you pick which one you do. Again, regardless of the god's actual wishes. The god -- source of your power, isn't capable of allowing you to tap the positive energy plane if you're a bastard. Actually, accourding the rules, the gods can choose not to grant any spell that doesn't fall into their format. Its not so much that the gods themselves are braindead and just letting their clerics do whatever they want so much as it is the DM that isn't enforcing the rules. Aka, if you're a cleric of a Good god, and you want to cast something with the Evil descriptor, you better have a DAMNED good reason, or the god will simply deny you the spell. But the god doesn't have any ability to allow a spell with the exposed tag. A Good gods of trickery is utterly incapable of granting Cheat as a spell. And at the same time, a Neutral one can give it to some clerics, but not others. This smacks of a neutering of the gods in favor of an abstarct mechanic. Pelor, no matter what he thinks of the spell, cannot grant a cleric the powers of certain spells -- even if its a dire emergency and the fate of the world rests on it. Again, there is a differance between "technically capable of" and "being allowed to". Its just that many DMs seem to be too lazy to manage this sort of thing properly. Far as I'm concerned, its about the same thing as a DM that doesn't bother with encumbrance so the players are all running around with about 2 metric tons of gear. There's a differance between utter micro-management, keeping things realistic, and just totally ignoring everythig going on around you. Its not a matter of what they may allow as what they aren't able to allow. What evil god wouldn't love for his clerics to harness celstial beings to do thier dirty work? And don't say its icky for them because an evil wizard can do it all the live long day. The Wizard is more powerful than the god. And like I said, this idea that an X character can't do Y is exactly the example I gave for people that don't understand how Alignment is supposed to work. Such as the designers that made the Bard, Barbarian, Cleric, Monk and Paladin. "No, you see if you have power over words and sounds, you *have* to be chaotic... because some Celtic legend was a free spirit, see?"
Atirakis 07-04-06, 09:08 PM	I generally find that anyone who throws out alignment do so because they don't have the slightest clue how alignment is supposed to actually work. No offense, but I have yet to see someone that really understands how that section of the rules works that has the *slightest* problem with it. Ummm I understand alignment perfectly and find it to be too abstract to be applied to realistcly role played people. People are neither good nor evil but rather somewhere inbetween and no that doesnt make them neutral either. They are simply... people. Some are more good and some are more evil but nobody is completly good or evil hence why I altered the system.
Cifer 07-04-06, 09:33 PM	Such as the designers that made the Bard, Barbarian, Cleric, Monk and Paladin. "No, you see if you have power over words and sounds, you *have* to be chaotic... because some Celtic legend was a free spirit, see?" My point exactly. There can be no barbarians with a strict code of honour (would be lawful), disciplined armies won't be able to employ a bard to encourage their troups (he would probably become lawful after all the drill and thus lose the possibility to go on with his class). [Regarding the Assassin] It doesn't matter if he's doing it for some greater good, he is murdering people just because he was told to murder them. Sounds to me like the common soldier in an army... or the common cleric, for that matter ("Kill the lich for he is an abomination in the eyes of Pelor!" - does every cleric have to personally check whether the lich in question is acting in an evil way?) So not having the spine to contradict orders is evil?
Weaponbreaker 07-05-06, 05:11 AM	Sounds to me like the common soldier in an army... or the common cleric, for that matter ("Kill the lich for he is an abomination in the eyes of Pelor!" - does every cleric have to personally check whether the lich in question is acting in an evil way?) So not having the spine to contradict orders is evil? No it doesn't, cowardice is not evil. But the mechanics of D&D state making yourself a lich is an evil act, yet becoming an Elven Tomb Guardian is not. These are similar creatures, with totaly different purposes, and to the untrained person could look the same and without the Cleric of Pelor inspecting the tomb and disocvering whether or not this was a dreaded lich, whom he would have to destroy, or a tomb guardian. Now if said cleric did go forth to slay a lich and discover a tomb guardian, reported back to his superiors of his finding and they said go forth and slay, the cleric might want to question his superiors and their reasons for desiring its destruction. The gods (DM) can allow you to prepare any spell on the cleric spell list, however he can also deny you the ability to cast that same spell if it does not fit with the tenets of your faith. It has very little to do with the descriptor of the spell. A god of war might very well deny your healing spell if your trying to heal the fighter tank missing 2hps becuase it would waste your spell energy. To those that do not wish to use alignment use the alternative classes for your divine casters; Spirit Shaman, Healer, Druid, Etc.... An Arcane caster is not more powerful than a god he simply uses different rules for summoning creatures. He does not ask of the god to send him aid, he makes the right gestures and motions to call forth the being that suits his needs. You want to be a celric of pelor and try to summon fiendish scorpions go ahead, however I suspect pelor has very few of those in his ranks to send to your aid. I stand by my assertation that Evil guys will only try to save the world until the danger is past (which BTW is still a selfish act not a selfless act). For a real world application of this look at the actions of Joseph Stalin after WWII, and how he turned on his allies and just ten years later Russia, once a great ally to the west, was it's biggest enemy. Now if you decide to reference this RW example please know your history. (That does not mean you got an B in World History in HS).
Cifer 07-05-06, 07:34 AM	But the mechanics of D&D state making yourself a lich is an evil act They certainly do. However, a lich has all eternity - certainly enough to eradicate this one evil act with several dozen good ones. Also, Pelor does not say "Destroy those undead who are a major harm and irrevocably evil" but "Eradicate all undead!" on account of him being the god of the sun. For a real world application of this look at the actions of Joseph Stalin after WWII, and how he turned on his allies and just ten years later Russia, once a great ally to the west, was it's biggest enemy. Now if you decide to reference this RW example please know your history. Funnily, the last sentence is exactly what I'd like to advise you. Stalin governed the soviet union - it was more than clear that capitalism and socialism would collide and this was only momentarily halted because of a greater danger. The person of Stalin was certainly one factor, but not the only one - as can be seen by the fact that his successors did not immediately end the cold war and neither did the west.