Shoot, I'm up to House Rule 5,346,428. A few more can't possibly hurt!
|
Alignments are unhelpful and cause conflict. They're simplistic, and they're too deeply tied into the mechanics in bad, sometimes ridiculous ways.
So far, we're against removing them because... they're traditional?
C'mon, guys. What do alignments add to the game?
- It's not convenient description. Lawful Good might mean that you're a great person, or that you're an overzealous "detect them all and smite the evil ones" bully. True Neutral could mean that you don't care about that stuff at all, or that you see Good and Evil as cosmic forces that need to be balanced (which is ridiculous). Chaotic Good could mean you're a Robin Hood, or it could mean you're a politic an working to change the laws for the benefit of all from the inside. "My character's alignment is _______" doesn't actually tell me anything about your character. It is completely unhelpful except in the sense that Good-aligned characters probably haven't murdered any demihumans lately. "It's a guide, not a straightjacket"... but on that note, it doesn't actually tell you anything important/useful.
- It's not good as a mechanic. Alignment detection spells trivialize some ethical issues (is he evil?) while creating others based on nothing but their mechanics. Why do we need so many spells tied to alignment, anyway? And doesn't the presence of spells called "Detect Evil", "Detect Good", etc mean that people are in-character aware that there are Nine Official Alignments?
- It's part descriptive, and part proscriptive ("a Good character wouldn't do that"). It's part about intentions, and part about actions. And it doesn't explain any of that. This leads to arguments.
Alignment should stay. I have played the Wheel of time RPG, where there are no alignments. The players think they can kill, maim and torture everyone whom they suspect is a villain, all "for the greater good of saving the world". In D&D I would have changed their alignment long ago to at least neutral. But since there is no...The other problem is that in many ways, Alignments don't provide any benefit other than being a pre-req for something. One of the things I liked about Allegiances is that it at least gave you a +2 bonus to a reaction score when dealing with someone who had the same allegiance as yourself. If you got some sort of reward for doing something that could easily identified as within your alignment I think it would make it more relevant. ( I can already hear keyboards clacking away saying "I didn't nothing, My TN character gets a reward", That's not what I mean.)or perhaps a benefit that must be maintained. After all being good is more than the absence of doing evil.
Another thing I have thought would be a good idea to be brought into some of the diety's write ups would be a listing of what would be considered sin and what would be considered virtue with a nod given to what the prevailing alignments of that deity. Something that was a little more in character from the world view of the character might make alignment fresh again.
In essence, Alignment is a "fluff" mechanic for the most part. It has some small crunchy bits in the way certain spells work, but its really mostly fluff.
It might just need more fluff to really take it from good to great.
2) Protection from Evil (and Magic Circle). This is one of the most broken spells in the game, completely negating enchantment spells cast by evil spellcasters, whilst having absolutely no effect on the evil-spellcasters-really-close-neutral-(for prestige class reasons (not storyline))-friend.
Is this a change in the Beta rules? Because in the 3.5 rules, the protection from [X] spells stop all types of domination, not just those of casters with the alignment the spell "protects" against. Protection from Good (an [Evil] spell) protects the character from domination from good casters, evil casters, neutral casters, amoral casters, whatever. Now the other effects do not apply in that fashion, but the domination one does.
|
2) Protection from Evil (and Magic Circle). This is one of the most broken spells in the game, completely negating enchantment spells cast by evil spellcasters, whilst having absolutely no effect on the evil-spellcasters-really-close-neutral-(for prestige class reasons (not storyline))-friend.Is this a change in the Beta rules? Because in the 3.5 rules, the protection from [X] spells stop all types of domination, not just those of casters with the alignment the spell "protects" against. Protection from Good (an [Evil] spell) protects the character from domination from good casters, evil casters, neutral casters, amoral casters, whatever. Now the other effects do not apply in that fashion, but the domination one does.
Nope. The Beta version is the same as the old version in that regard. The compulsion effect is blocked regardless of caster alignment. Looks like just a misunderstanding
|
|
1) Detect evil. This often is a short way for players to decide “Do I attack or not?” It’s a short-cut to combat. It encourages people to view their own characters in shallow ways, and takes the depth of moral decision out of the game. Instead of the paladin asking herself whether or not she can tolerate adventuring with this somewhat morally-challenged roguish character, all she has to do is concentrate. If the player declares their rogue is actually neutral, then she’s fine. If the player declares their rogue to be evil, then the paladin instantly has to stop adventuring with them. Instead of an interesting role-playing session regarding the character’s struggle of morality, the issue is worked out by a simple, shallow question to the other character who, more-or-less arbitrarily, decides whether they’re CN or CE.
Furthermore, the...
sorry i didn't read everything
while ui think that yes hte wprld should be protrayed more in shades than in solids, and there are games that work pretty well this (Arcana Evolved one of this)
also there is a not so easy way to deal with this... that one of my old DM did to one of the metagaming paladins
everytime he saw someone "suspicious" he used his Detect Evi, that Detects everything evil in the cone area.... so he detect the small girl, the merchant, the beggard as evil... but not the person he was trying to find of, and he will do this everytime the paladin did the same... obviously the paladin didn't went in rampage destruction and killings
i did something more drastic that actually made one of the 2 paladins decide to never gaainst use paladins... i used intrigue, ewhere even the good eprsons do shady things and the evil ones could be helping the state... i put evil people in places of powers and if they attacked them the people in the city would attack them as criminals...
its nots just about the character being evil and the paladin good, but of actions... and how society would react to said action...
in LN society if thepladin kills a evil cleric who had had any standing in the city, thje paladin willbe prosecuted for assault and murder...he did murdered someone just for being himself
and yes I DO change the alignment of characters if i perceive them doing evil acts or good acts... being good and being a paladin are NOT flags or badges that allows you to kill everything you don't comfoprt to
good is about doing good deeds, you kill those who oppose you because there is other way, because is teh way of less bloodshed and for the innocents you protect
notbecuase the other guy is evil
anyway i can work with both
or do what happened in ravenloft... change detect good and evil to detect moral (law and chaos) that way you keep thepaladin guessing
PS: just something... while in Arcna Evolved there are "Champions" of gooda nd evil causes (something akin to the paladin) there are NO Clerics... so yes now ay to see how there woul work positive and negative energy
but one thing is clear, dark gods would send negative energyu all the time, light gods would send positive energy all the time, that FIXES it
there is no reason an evil cleric would heal his allies if he can hurt his enemies, and evilclerics are the most proficient creating undeads... so they reallyheal their allies.
I don't think I've heard what GOOD alignments do for the game yet, beyond "really simplistic and very general way of defining characters". So far, the argument seems to be "it's traditional and you can always take it out." (What happens to all the alignment-based requirements, spells, etc?)
Anyone want to explain why having the alignment system, with all of its flaws, is a good thing? How it actively helps the game?
|
|
Seconded. If you hate alignments, just make all your characters Neutral (undecided).Thank goodness.Alignment is staying, pretty much as is. It is a core part of the system we are trying to preserve.
i hate that alignment.... or at least that definition
i liked it more in 2nd AD&D when being true enutral mean you were a force of balance... not that you are just undecided on what to be
for that dru9rds were true neutral
and it was really hard to play
i hate that alignment.... or at least that definitioni liked it more in 2nd AD&D when being true enutral mean you were a force of balance... not that you are just undecided on what to be
for that dru9rds were true neutral
and it was really hard to play
"True Neutral" as "a force of balance that sides with good if there's more evil and evil if there's more good" strikes me as stupid and nonsensical. Sorry, buddy, but if you're killing children just because LOL THERE'S TOO MUCH GOOD IN THE WORLD, you're not True Neutral, you're just plain evil.
|
|
I don't think I've heard what GOOD alignments do for the game yet, beyond "really simplistic and very general way of defining characters". So far, the argument seems to be "it's traditional and you can always take it out." (What happens to all the alignment-based requirements, spells, etc?)
Anyone want to explain why having the alignment system, with all of its flaws, is a good thing? How it actively helps the game?
1) its a game of heroic fantasy... which is defined by who is what in the alignment spectre
2) some people need boundaries to roleplay, alignement give them some rather crude boundaries on that, giving chance to speciallynew players to focus (eother by doing this or by seeing what alignment their favorite character is and trying to emule it)3) roleplay extra... at elast for intrigue i love it... myu players really hate it that is so morallly ambigue that they could need to deal with the evil character because the good one for reasons unkonw to them is opossing their faction... s*@& happens
4)a focus for spells, magic, characters and magical items in general
5) also as someone has mentioned... demons and devils are evil... period... angels are good... unless they are fallen
and what good does the good alignment does for the game?
while evil creates the plot the good makes it move
or do you prefer a world like us where evil flourishes because there is no good people to stop it? (and i won't mention examoples because i am sure i will either bebaned or gather half the forum as enemies :P)
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
I don't think I've heard what GOOD alignments do for the game yet, beyond "really simplistic and very general way of defining characters". So far, the argument seems to be "it's traditional and you can always take it out." (What happens to all the alignment-based requirements, spells, etc?)
Anyone want to explain why having the alignment system, with all of its flaws, is a good thing? How it actively helps the game?
I thought I had explained exactly why I like the system even if it is a "really simplistic and general way of defining characters." Many players find it useful. Many others may not. YMMV. It's staying so I don't see the point in bickering over it.
If you don't like it then the Modern SRD would be a great place to check out a d20 alternative.
EDIT: And for the record just because the Alignment system is simplistic and general doesn't mean the characters created under it are two dimensional.
|
I personally never understood the "straightjacket" mentality that some people have brought up. Exactly how is describing your character as "LG" preventing you from doing something you want to do with your character? I mean, unless your DM is a particular stickler for adjudicating every action your character takes, you can reasonably do pretty much anything with an alignment that you want.
My LN Scout cares for small children, giving away most of his adventuring loot to help the poor and wayward orphans in his hometown. But when he engages his enemies in battle, he is merciless. If he captures them alive, at the very least he beats them senseless as punishment for their crimes. He is known for breaking the hands, feet, and jaws of prisoners so they cannot escape or perform magic. He doesn't take pleasure in it, it is just a grim necessity of his duty as protector of his town. When I conceived this character, I built his story first and then picked an alignment that would suit his character. It isn't a straight-jacked, it is a representation of who he is.
If you want to use alignments to justify your characters actions, sometimes that is good for beginners and pros alike. For example, my NG cleric and his buddies just captured some half-orc mercenaries in Shackled City. As a player, I was unsure what I wanted my character to do, so I just thought more along alignment as a guidelines. In the end, I voted to let them go - they had some cause to attack us, they surrendered, and we were under no obligation to hand them over to the city guard.
I strongly disagree that alignment DETRACTS from roleplaying. Only to the most narrowminded or uncreative of players. Sorry if that offends those who feel constrained by alignment, but unless you are seriously playing outside your alignment with certain classes, I don't see how it affects your gameplay.
If your beef is with the "alignment-based effects" - they could just as easily be replaced by something else that would equally affect your character, such as protection from humans.
Alignment has been one of the core mechanics of D&D for some time - it defines the struggles of the worlds built around the game, and the people and groups within them. Taking it out invalidates some of that.
And finally, defending something because it is tradition is not ludicrous. If said tradition is not hurting someone, and is a firmly entrenched social meme, then taking it out confuses and alienates more people than it helps.
I am afraid on this point, the anti-alignment people are in the minority, and you need to understand that, no matter how vocal you are, you are advocating removing something from the game that many people hold in equal standing to Vancian magic and +1 longswords. If you truly, strongly, feel that alignment-based roleplaying does not belong in the successor to D&D, then perhaps you need to re-assess why you have been playing D&D all these years, when so many other systems offer roleplaying free of the "restrictions" of alignments.
|
Owner-Manager - Tyche's Games
|
I have not been using alignment in my games for, well, most of 3rd Edition and it has not had caused any problems. Some people like having it as a guideline, other, like me, do not find that it aid role-playing or world building.
Yes, it does require a bit of rearrangement of some of the spells and abilities but nothing that serious.
That being said, I have no objection to it being in the Pathfinder Core, I will just ignore it as I did in the 3.x Core
"True Neutral" as "a force of balance that sides with good if there's more evil and evil if there's more good" strikes me as stupid and nonsensical. Sorry, buddy, but if you're killing children just because LOL THERE'S TOO MUCH GOOD IN THE WORLD, you're not True Neutral, you're just plain evil.
It's stupid if you play it that way, but that's just as stupid as the paladin who kills anyone and anything that lights up under Detect Evil. All alignments are stupid in caricature. That's how caricature works.
On the other hand, a true neutral druid might believe in the laws of nature, one of which is survival of the fittest. Nature is not cruel, but nor is it charitable, and frequently it is tragic. This druid might work dismantle orphanages and hospitals. Not because 'LOL THERE'S TOO MUCH GOOD IN THE WORLD', but because sometimes the weak need to die.
'Good' (capital G) is not quite the same as 'good' (little g). Every character who is commited to his alignment (i.e. not neutal peasants) thinks that his personal outlook is the right one. That true neutral druid certainly thinks that he is doing a good thing and making the world a better place. Just not a Good thing.
I am afraid on this point, the anti-alignment people are in the minority, and you need to understand that, no matter how vocal you are, you are advocating removing something from the game that many people hold in equal standing to Vancian magic and +1 longswords. If you truly, strongly, feel that alignment-based roleplaying does not belong in the successor to D&D, then perhaps you need to re-assess why you have been playing D&D all these years, when so many other systems offer roleplaying free of the "restrictions" of alignments.
QFT. The goal here isn't to make the best possible roleplaying game: It's to make the best possible version of D&D. If you want a game that, deep down, isn't D&D, you should look into the alternatives instead of trying to turn D&D into GURPS (or the other RPG of your choice).
one question.. why its called "Vancian"?
It was inspired by the way magic worked in a series of books by Jack Vance.
|
|
Thanks Ross that is an excellent explanation of True Neutral
Jal... i do not like Vancian magic... but that is another matter entirely :P
one question.. why its called "Vancian"?
Ninja'd by Ross. He is correct.
And addressing your Vancian comments, I wouldn't hold that opinion against you. You could like D&D and just not the Vancian system (or alignments) but those are easily remedied by house rules, even published ones like Unearthed Arcana. But actively removing from the core rules changes the game for many others.
Alignments are unhelpful and cause conflict. They're simplistic, and they're too deeply tied into the mechanics in bad, sometimes ridiculous ways.
The simplicity is their strength. It's why they exist in the game. But I agree that they should be less plugged into the mechanics than they are.
So far, we're against removing them because... they're traditional?
Because they fit the game.
C'mon, guys. What do alignments add to the game?
"Kill the evil necromancer!" "Is he evil?" "Of course he is, he's a necromancer! But let's be sure *detect evil* Aha!"
It's not convenient description. Lawful Good might mean that you're a great person, or that you're an overzealous "detect them all and smite the evil ones" bully.
The latter would be LN at best, LE at worst. Sloppy description and misunderstanding make some people think LG means killing everyone who's evil, but it doesn't work like that. Alignments are to meant to reduce ambiguity, not give the PCs a license to murder.
True Neutral could mean that you don't care about that stuff at all, or that you see Good and Evil as cosmic forces that need to be balanced (which is ridiculous).
Not especially. It may not make sense to you, but there are real-like religions and philosophies based on similar tenants.
Chaotic Good could mean you're a Robin Hood, or it could mean you're a politican working to change the laws for the benefit of all from the inside.
It's arguable, because the L-C axis is a bit ambiguous, but I'd put that politician in LG.
"My character's alignment is _______" doesn't actually tell me anything about your character.
It doesn't especially need to. Alignment is most useful for the player to get a good handle on his character. I've always found choosing my character's alignment to be a quick and perspicacious way of getting some of the foundation laid.
It is completely unhelpful except in the sense that Good-aligned characters probably haven't murdered any demihumans lately. "It's a guide, not a straightjacket"... but on that note, it doesn't actually tell you anything important/useful.
It doesn't tell you much that's definite, but that doesn't mean it's totally unuseful.
It's not good as a mechanic. Alignment detection spells trivialize some ethical issues (is he evil?) while creating others based on nothing but their mechanics.
The trivialization is intentional. D&D is a game about fantasy adventure, not the exploration of morality. The creation of others could be minimized, though, though there's already a net loss.
Why do we need so many spells tied to alignment, anyway?
Because it's a theme.
And doesn't the presence of spells called "Detect Evil", "Detect Good", etc mean that people are in-character aware that there are Nine Official Alignments?
Many of the spellcasters are, at least. Though if you want to press the issue, characters in the game are probably aware of "levels" and "hit points" as well.
It's part descriptive, and part proscriptive ("a Good character wouldn't do that"). It's part about intentions, and part about actions. And it doesn't explain any of that. This leads to arguments.
It's only proscriptive insofar as the player wants to play an X-alignment character. Alignment restrictions on classes do get in the way, but I agree that those should mostly be removed.
What does give my PC license to murder? 'cause we are playing in Freeport and license to murder would really be handy.
Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil can pretty much kill whenever it is convenient, without threatening their alignment.
What does give my PC license to murder?
Race. D&D condones genocide, as long as you're not a goblin (in which case you're evil for wanting to kill all humans).
|
What does give my PC license to murder?Race. D&D condones genocide, as long as you're not a goblin (in which case you're evil for wanting to kill all humans).
I always downgrade "Always Evil" for mortal races and make sure my players understand what "Often Evil" means in order to nip that in the bud.
IIRC, even Tolkien wasn't a fan of the idea of "evil races", or at least never found a way to explain it that he was fully happy with.
edit-Pretty much do the same thing for Always Good and Often Good as well.
What does give my PC license to murder?Race. D&D condones genocide, as long as you're not a goblin (in which case you're evil for wanting to kill all humans).
Actually that is a very weak caricature of the "good guys" in gaming and like alignment is nothing more than a simplistic barometer of who is appropriate and inappropriate to kill in the game. All this is nothing more than a hangover from 1970whatever when D&D didn't actually have stories or complexity but was nothing more than an odd outgrowth of wargaming dedicated to killing stuff (I refuse to say the rest for the horrid cliche that it is). Even Paizo's simplest adventures are far more complex in regard to plot and story than the random dungeon crawls that were considered adventures when the idea of alignment was first conceived.
If one can act genocidally against orcs because they are fundamentally evil, then is is eqaully appropriate for a paladin to slaughter anyone who 'pings' as evil. In order to ping as evil, you are evil and most certainly guilty of something more serious than shaving gold coins or stealing chickens. If orcs can be killed for what they have done or what they will do, then every race is due the same treatment.
Perhaps I should clarify: I was being facetious. To an extent. There's a certain strain in D&D of "go into the dungeon, kill all the goblins, take the treasure," but that doesn't mean the game actually condones genocide per se. A paladin who's being played correctly wouldn't kill a goblin just for being a goblin, or even an evil character just for being evil. But that doesn't mean a lot of groups don't have fun playing games like that.
|
|
Jal... i do not like Vancian magic... but that is another matter entirely :P
one question.. why its called "Vancian"?
Ninja'd by Ross. He is correct.
And addressing your Vancian comments, I wouldn't hold that opinion against you. You could like D&D and just not the Vancian system (or alignments) but those are easily remedied by house rules, even published ones like Unearthed Arcana. But actively removing from the core rules changes the game for many others.
Tahnks Ross and Jal
and Jal I only said i didn't liked it... i know the sistem and most of my groups uses it without complain
je i jsut would like something more flexible... but i know i would have to work in that as a side project
the only change i would really want would be that the magic times would be made only 3, expendable items (scrolls and potions), charges (wands and staffs or even rings of wishes) and permanent (weapons, armor and most miscelaneous)
for me i like the idea of grabing spells in runes, or focusing magic in a gem to use either as potions or scrolls, but also i am more of the type that creating magic items should be something uncommon, i like one example a friend alwqays use "potion of heroism" which needs the last breath of a dying heroe, that for me is a magic item with that meets an heroic mood, uncommon, powerful and characterstic...
i would actually give xp to players for creating items with such components...
|
|
Perhaps I should clarify: I was being facetious.
Heh, sorry. It's just a real concern of mine; something I really work to avoid in my games. The idea of inherently evil races is a pet peeve of mine, in literature as well as game.
Societies on the other hand...well who doesn't love starting up a slave rebellion?
|
|
Perhaps I should clarify: I was being facetious. To an extent. There's a certain strain in D&D of "go into the dungeon, kill all the goblins, take the treasure," but that doesn't mean the game actually condones genocide per se. A paladin who's being played correctly wouldn't kill a goblin just for being a goblin, or even an evil character just for being evil. But that doesn't mean a lot of groups don't have fun playing games like that.
Blaine is roght
want to have fun with those player lawful-stupid aligned?use moral and intrigue, and see how they hit their head :D
i know i loved to do that to them :D
Perhaps I should clarify: I was being facetious.Heh, sorry. It's just a real concern of mine; something I really work to avoid in my games. The idea of inherently evil races is a pet peeve of mine, in literature as well as game.
Societies on the other hand...well who doesn't love starting up a slave rebellion?
paladins would not begin one if the political goberment is sort of fair, frees some slaves once ina while, while slaves have no right they must be treated fairly and are protected by law
in such places (some parts of Rome were like that) a paladin would think the slavery is part of the status quo...
but ohh the Circus Maximus he will condone unless those who participate do it on their free will...
|
|
"True Neutral" as "a force of balance that sides with good if there's more evil and evil if there's more good" strikes me as stupid and nonsensical. Sorry, buddy, but if you're killing children just because LOL THERE'S TOO MUCH GOOD IN THE WORLD, you're not True Neutral, you're just plain evil.It's stupid if you play it that way, but that's just as stupid as the paladin who kills anyone and anything that lights up under Detect Evil. All alignments are stupid in caricature. That's how caricature works.
On the other hand, a true neutral druid might believe in the laws of nature, one of which is survival of the fittest. Nature is not cruel, but nor is it charitable, and frequently it is tragic. This druid might work dismantle orphanages and hospitals. Not because 'LOL THERE'S TOO MUCH GOOD IN THE WORLD', but because sometimes the weak need to die.
'Good' (capital G) is not quite the same as 'good' (little g). Every character who is committed to his alignment (i.e. not neutal peasants) thinks that his personal outlook is the right one. That true neutral druid certainly thinks that he is doing a good thing and making the world a better place. Just not a Good thing.
I am afraid on this point, the anti-alignment people are in the minority, and you need to understand that, no matter how vocal you are, you are advocating removing something from the game that many people hold in equal standing to Vancian magic and +1 longswords. If you truly, strongly, feel that alignment-based roleplaying does not belong in the successor to D&D, then perhaps you need to re-assess why you have been playing D&D all these years, when so many other systems offer roleplaying free of the "restrictions" of alignments.QFT. The goal here isn't to make the best possible roleplaying game: It's to make the best possible version of D&D. If you want a game that, deep down, isn't D&D, you should look into the alternatives instead of trying to turn D&D into GURPS (or the other RPG of...
By way of further suggestion, if you're looking to do alignment-less role playing, I hear from a source that I respect (the Sons of Kryos) that Luke Crane's Burning Wheel system might work well for your needs. Judd has run a couple of morally-ambiguous political games with it to, apparently, great success. I do not have any personal experience with the system yet, but from the show it sounds very, very cool, and I'll probably be checking it out at some near point in the future.
I can comment on GURPS from personal experience, though. I wrote one of the monsters in this. GURPS is an excellent system, but it's exceedingly realistic in terms of lethality. Combat is VERY deadly. A 500-point fantasy warrior can be killed by a 10-point peasant with a crossbow. Magic is also far less cinematic than it is in D&D. A lot of 9th-level spells would require the investment of hundreds of character points each to duplicate, so know what you're getting into if you do GURPS. My feeling is that GURPS is better if you want to replicate movies like Ronin and Collateral, not fantasy epics. Alignment is replaces by behavioral disadvantages like Code of Honor, Bad Temper, Honesty, Sadism, Impulsiveness, etc.
Blaine is roght
want to have fun with those player lawful-stupid aligned?use moral and intrigue, and see how they hit their head :D
i know i loved to do that to them :D
If your players want to play a *detect THUMP* game, you should let them. D&D isn't a "gotcha!" that the DM plays on the players, afterall.
|
|
That's a pity. This does invalidate some NPC and players abilities like bluff .
Rogue PC : I bluff the priest to convince him I'm a Good Guy
LN Cleric NPC : Hum , this guy seems allright but let's check , (Detect Good , Detect Law , Detect Chaos )... Away from me , you CN trickster !
If you think that's far fetched , a PC cleric did do exactly this to one of my NPC .I like alignments , they are useful for me as a DM to decide how generic NPC react and how a PC should behave on the whole (and yes , you can act outside your alignment once in a while but if you always do it , your alignment change ). So alignment : Yes ; Detect : No !
The PFRPG has made a very minor change to the detects that helps address this. If you're not actively aligned with the philosophy (i.e aren't undead, an outsider or a cleric) the first 5 hit dice don't count. You don't register until you've hit 6 HD and that means that the "detect and smite" crowd have a few levels to be trained out of this behaviour.
If your players want to play a *detect THUMP* game, you should let them. D&D isn't a "gotcha!" that the DM plays on the players, afterall.Blaine is roght
want to have fun with those player lawful-stupid aligned?use moral and intrigue, and see how they hit their head :D
i know i loved to do that to them :D
No way in the world. No 'detect THUMP' games at my table. Did that when I was about 15 to about 17yrs old. I've gone about 20 yrs without running that kind of game and won't be going back.
All a DM has to do is run a game in a setting where a paladin has an actual code and a structure of behavior layed out by his god/church not just based on alignment, then it is easy to avoid the 'detect THUMP' mentality and have players have their characters act like actual individuals and not badly played bags of hit points.
The PFRPG has made a very minor change to the detects that helps address this. If you're not actively aligned with the philosophy (i.e aren't undead, an outsider or a cleric) the first 5 hit dice don't count. You don't register until you've hit 6 HD and that means that the "detect and smite" crowd have a few levels to be trained out of this behaviour.
I had not noticed this. I like this change.
Now to get opposing Alignment descriptors attached to the Detect spells.
IIRC, AD&D 1st edition indicated that Detect Evil would not work on Evil characters or creatures unless they are actually having some evil intent at the moment. The example was something like an evil fighter not detecting if he was just sitting at a tavern drinking ale. Supernaturals would always flash, as their intent is evil per essentiam.
In Basic D&D, which did not include the Good-Evil axis, Detect Evil focused purely on evil intent, a Chaotic "bad" cleric could positively use Detect Evil to spot a Paladin trying to dice him. That option is quite workable as an alternative. The only balance would be with outsider beings and related spells.
Also, I don't see alignments deterring from intrigue in character interaction. You can know somebody is Evil but need working with him or her. In many published settings (some of them pretty old), evil guys are not necessarily "villains", but many times they have to become allies of convenience. Glantri in Mystara is a good example for this. Most of its rulers are evil, monsters, insane or all three together, but some of them are worthy statespeople (statescritters?!) whom PCs need collaborating from. How they deal with that duplicity is good RPG stuff.
Maybe it's me being a huge Joss Whedon fan, the whole conceptions of Good and Evil in the Buffyverse are quite a good example of how "aligment" can become a creative notion for story and character development.
True Neutral = Passionate Moral Ambiguity
In other words nonsensical in the extreme. If these passionately moral ambiguous types are working against some opressive, freedom denying element within a good society then they are woking against a non-good element of a good society. They are working against an evil element in a good society.
If good becomes opressive, cruel or malevolent it is no longer good. The Kingpriest of Istar on Krynn was not good. The racist prig Silvanesti elves of Krynn who enslaved their less civilized kin were not good. Good isn't tyrannical or cruel, as soon as it is, it is no longer good. Any setting that doesn't acknowledge that doesn't even know what good even means.
Another reason alignment is a joke in regards to expressing the true complexity of human/non-human motivation. If 4e did anything right, it made true neutral into unaligned, which is actully what a sane neutral individual really is.
|
|
True Neutral = Passionate Moral Ambiguity
In other words nonsensical in the extreme. If these passionately moral ambiguous types are working against some opressive, freedom denying element within a good society then they are woking against a non-good element of a good society. They are working against an evil element in a good society.
If good becomes opressive, cruel or malevolent it is no longer good. The Kingpriest of Istar on Krynn was not good. The racist prig Silvanesti elves of Krynn who enslaved their less civilized kin were not good. Good isn't tyrannical or cruel, as soon as it is, it is no longer good.
And the alignment descriptions in the rulebook completely agree with you.
Any setting that doesn't acknowledge that doesn't even know what good even means.
Another reason alignment is a joke in regards to expressing the true complexity of human/non-human motivation. If 4e did anything right, it made true neutral into unaligned, which is actually what a sane neutral individual really is.
Please reread the alignment descriptions in the PHB, SRD or Pathfinder RPG beta rules... You may be pleasantly surprised by what's actually there.