I think it's fine as it is. Too much detail and people would feel constrained by it. Too little, and there would be even more endless discussions about morality in every game.
Maybe that's why some of us play.
Really, I think the whole concept of absolute morality needs to be tossed out the window.
It really adds nothing to the game at all. At the very most it should be something like "People with Law/Chaos/Good/Evil tendencies may have any or all of these characteristics", leave it at that and remove any bearing it has on actual game mechanics.
In my opinion, the concept of actually measurable Evil/Good/Law/Chaos is stupid in mortal characters, though tolerable in Outsiders, since at least they actually have the excuse of being made from primordial creation ooze aligned as per the gods or something to justify it, and Clerics who merely ping as the gods whose power they channel.
In a more basic sense, absolute morality is okay in the sense of "Cardboard cutout personifications of abstract concepts" such as gods and demons, but not in what are supposed to be real, complex, living characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"In the twentieth century is it almost a joke, in the western world, to use words like 'good' and 'evil'. They have become old fashioned concepts, yet they are very real and genuine. These are concepts from a sphere which is above us" Aleksander Solzhenistysn
I suppose you'd consider a noble prize winner in literature a "Cardboard cutout personifications of abstract concepts"
Alignment has a mechanical component and is not just fluff. Class abilities and spells are dependent on alignment.
They are! But they're also ridiculously easy to change. You could even take away alignment from players and keep outsiders/undead/divine auras and it would mostly be unchanged, particularly at higher levels. Some things about alignment can be pretty arbitrary too, which is the main reason its easy.
Anyways, not a fan of alignment. Too much of "This is what x is!" and I see it take freedom out of the players hands too often. Too many bad experience and having to put up with someone telling me what I would do and so on.
So, a good question might be "Why should we have alignment?" Instead of "Why not?" If so, why not have something beyond chaotic/lawful and more paradigms, or alternate paradigms?
"In the twentieth century is it almost a joke, in the western world, to use words like 'good' and 'evil'. They have become old fashioned concepts, yet they are very real and genuine. These are concepts from a sphere which is above us" Aleksander Solzhenistysn
I suppose you'd consider a noble prize winner in literature a "Cardboard cutout personifications of abstract concepts"
A fact that most people don't realize is "Has won an award", regardless of how prestigious, does not mean that someone is correct, or everyone should agree with them all the time forever.
I do not believe in Good and Evil as tangible aspects of reality that are indisputable. Different things are good and evil depending on the person viewing these actions or events. Some things are more evil to more people, yes (Most would agree that indiscriminate murder is a bad thing) but there is nothing in this universe that is wholly good, or wholly evil, and these abstract concepts do not affect the world in any direct way except to act as labels for things people approve or disapprove of.
Also, unless you think Mr. Solzhenistysn is a god, I didn't call him a cardboard cutout.
Most concepts of religious morality have the concept of 'sin' and the related concepts of 'redemption' and 'atonement'.Thus it isn't that good people can't do evil things, but they feel guilt, and regret.
-In game terms, this is excellent, for example a character who murdered his cheating wife, may embark on an adventure to redeem himself. Or a character who betrayed his king to save his family might dedicate himself to serving the king's family in exile, aiding them in secret.
-It is really only the most trivial of minds who think good means perfect. The really problem I find is that 'neutral' usually means 'selfish' and 'selfish' is very close to evil. Good means 'self-sacrifice'.
-So really I see most alignment arguments not to be about the game, but the players' worldview. Those of the traditional judeo-christian moral view, and those of the post-christian world, who despise an objective, universal morality. These two viewpoints are unable to occupy the same space, similar to the hatred between to two teams of soccer(football) fans who have to be seperated by fences and police to revent riots.
-I can play under both kinds of views, and am happy to roleplay characters with very bizzare senses of ethics. However, As DM I make it clear to my players, evil exists, and is VERY evil in my world. An example of this is human child sacrifice. It exists, and is horrific. However, it is 'an important part of X culture' and so many of their neighbors favor exterminating them. Yes genoicde is wrong, but there are acts that SHOULD horrify the mind, and cry out for vengence. Otherwise, we wouldn't have an inquisitor class, yes?
'sin'
Yes? Oh, not talking to me...
Otherwise, we wouldn't have an inquisitor class, yes?
Inquisitors do a lot of things. Any man can go on a quest for vengeance, but that's getting into the problem of giving classes a premeditated roleplaying role, which is entirely different thing.
In and of itself it would be just another page in the book that would be fluff like ya my god is so and I'm a fighter, great. But people a lot of times want to "enforce" alignment. Here in lies a big problem.
It works out pretty well at our table, but we avoid this 'enforcement' part (even by the DM, to be frank).
.The way we play it, whether an act is contrary to one's alignment is entirely a matter for the player. We may occasionally question one another (although generally that's reserved for the DM - like "Your lawful good character wants to leave the bandits tied up without any equipment in the wilderness....?")
We essentially regard it as a guideline the character follows or a tendency which is sometimes contradicted, rather than as a straightjacket or imposed code.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really, I think the whole concept of absolute morality needs to be tossed out the window.
It really adds nothing to the game at all. At the very most it should be something like "People with Law/Chaos/Good/Evil tendencies may have any or all of these characteristics", leave it at that and remove any bearing it has on actual game mechanics.
In my opinion, the concept of actually measurable Evil/Good/Law/Chaos is stupid in mortal characters, though tolerable in Outsiders, since at least they actually have the excuse of being made from primordial creation ooze aligned as per the gods or something to justify it, and Clerics who merely ping as the gods whose power they channel.
In a more basic sense, absolute morality is okay in the sense of "Cardboard cutout personifications of abstract concepts" such as gods and demons, but not in what are supposed to be real, complex, living characters.
You address this in the post subsequent to the bolded, but I think what it enables is the stories about "pure evil incarnate" - ie places like the Abyss, creatures like demons, etcetera.
.I think it works fine to play D&D with alignment whilst just removing it as a statistic of PCs or "natural" NPCs. (Clerics would need to 'act in accordance with their deity's nature' or somesuch instead of requiring them to be the same alignment. This is a bit more like a paladin's code but would be an enhancement, in my view).
You address this in the post subsequent to the bolded, but I think what it enables is the stories about "pure evil incarnate" - ie places like the Abyss, creatures like demons, etcetera.
I always thought what made those places pure evil was being made of pain, suffering, and tortured souls. Something a long those lines anyway. Giving it the evil label doesn't really add that much to it does it? You can still call it evil without alignment.
Shockingly, the 6th ring of eternal suffering, home to the arbiter of damnation, isn't a good place to be. With locations like the pools of boiling blood, the nasty nasty cave of nasty things, and the 3rd place of indescribable evils, it probably wasn't going to be a good place.
Too little, and there would be even more endless discussions about morality in every game.
I can say that this is completely untrue, for my games at least. I don't play with alignment, and morality hasn't become an issue. I simply tell my players up front about it, and tell them not to pick alignment based spells, and it's all good...err...gravy, it's all gravy.
You address this in the post subsequent to the bolded, but I think what it enables is the stories about "pure evil incarnate" - ie places like the Abyss, creatures like demons, etcetera.I always thought what made those places pure evil was being made of pain, suffering, and tortured souls. Something a long those lines anyway. Giving it the evil label doesn't really add that much to it does it? You can still call it evil without alignment.
Shockingly, the 6th ring of eternal suffering, home to the arbiter of damnation, isn't a good place to be. With locations like the pools of boiling blood, the nasty nasty cave of nasty things, and the 3rd place of indescribable evils, it probably wasn't going to be a good place.
I was referring to the existence of absolute morality. I dont really care about mechanics, since we mangle the rules pretty thoroughly anyhow. I think there's a place for absolute morality in a fantasy game though - villains in the real world may not be irredeemably evil, but that's a pretty common fantasy trope.
I was referring to the existence of absolute morality. I dont really care about mechanics, since we mangle the rules pretty thoroughly anyhow. I think there's a place for absolute morality in a fantasy game though - villains in the real world may not be irredeemably evil, but that's a pretty common fantasy trope.
Ahh, well I was just saying we didn't need alignment for that. Absolute morality might work with a race of demons, but even then its a trope to have the occasionally different one(though that's all dependent on setting). Absolute morality in the sense of actions is a much different problem, and it pertains to players more. Deeming something like Cannibalism, murder, or lying as evil carries with it some consequences for the players, which I'm not a fan of. It also enforces an individuals idea of morality, rather than allowing flexibility for a group.
|
Too little, and there would be even more endless discussions about morality in every game.I can say that this is completely untrue, for my games at least. I don't play with alignment, and morality hasn't become an issue. I simply tell my players up front about it, and tell them not to pick alignment based spells, and it's all good...err...gravy, it's all gravy.
So you ”fix the problem” by depriving players of options.
I generally am going to start using TOZ's way. Everyone is neutral unless they have an alugnment subtype. They also pong with the alignment of their god or good and law if they have an aura.
I'm just adding a small addition. Commiting evil acts (or good ones) makes you ping on detect spells for a while. More you do them, more you ping.
"In the twentieth century is it almost a joke, in the western world, to use words like 'good' and 'evil'. They have become old fashioned concepts, yet they are very real and genuine. These are concepts from a sphere which is above us" Aleksander Solzhenistysn
I suppose you'd consider a noble prize winner in literature a "Cardboard cutout personifications of abstract concepts"
Good use of Solzhenitsyn! The mythos behind dnd proposes that in the settings, yes, evil and good are real.
Personally I've seen evil, and I've seen mundane pathetic pettiness. I think there is a difference but it can also be a slider. The funny thing about evil is that people can try to leave it behind, shut it away, put up masks. It still is there though, and sometimes it is so clear (e.g. real racists that only wish death and suffering upon some people, and they jump in and do these things if they can get away with it).
One thing I quite liked was in the game Dark Souls.
Yes it had sin, no you couldn't cheat on your wife (she is a lovely lady you cad!). You racked up sin in a few big ways, killing other players who you attack aggressively (not self defence), killing npcs and betraying covenants (causes you have sworn to uphold, associations you are a part of). Now in this game, there is a specific group of people who will try to hunt you down and kill you for your sin. They can teleport in very close to you, but you can give them the slip or kill them.
Now I threw this idea into a setting I made. The alignments I kept. If you do murder most foul, or treason to your cause/people/movement, you go into the book, and those crazed cultists will be coming for you one day. I had fun with this, none of the players actually qualified for sin (except one npc killer that died rather quickly). Although they did pick up an npc who had sinned heavily. Child murder, murdering people in their sleep, betrayed his liege, turned against his people. He had good reasons sure, and his people were oppressed within a feudal system of the likes which he killed.
Anyway, the party took him on, hid him away, started teaching him another path. Turning him into a good adventurer. They succeeded, but he still had all this sin and those in the know, knew what he had done. So the cultists came, the party protected him and they never know when others will teleport in to claim his soul. It was quite funky, and a bit like the dnd alignment system in that some things make you evil, there is no stepping away from this fact. Alas in this situation, turning good did not erase the cosmic scales of the npc's evil.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I'm of the other camp. I don't see a problem because I don't see good and evil as subjective social constructs, but as that whole sticky eternal truth thing, and when you're set against an Objective marker, determinng how far off from it you are isn't as hard.
The trick of course, like in real life, we have trouble determining where that marker is. Its like blind guys running a race, there's a start and finish line, and somewhere along the line everybody's closer to the goal or further from it, and there's a dozen people shouting conflicting information at the poor blind marathon runners about their relative positions. This doesn't stop the fact there's still a goal and a starting line.
In RPGs our main issues for alignment is that alignment there is ruled by a DM, who himself might have trouble with determining this stuff, or
be unclear to his players about it.
This is the real problem with the alignment system and also its solution.
The vagueness is built in, but a good DM will tell you where things fall.
Don't want alignment, don't run with it.
Personally I don't tie good/evil to niceness or friendliness. I also despise comic book morality in RPGs like 'too much good is evil' or similar nonsense. I'm also not a fan of the 'nuanced' or 'utilitarian' approach where its stuff like 'well sure we murdered this guy but we saved 1,000 people.'
Admittedly, my own position on Neutrality not being a desirable state (When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred; middle things are gone." -- C.S. Lewis) makes my games deviate from the standard too..
So there is that.
I don't see a problem because I don't see good and evil as subjective social constructs, but as that whole sticky eternal truth thing, and when you're set against an Objective marker, determinng how far off from it you are isn't as hard.
The trick of course, like in real life, we have trouble determining where that marker is. Its like blind guys running a race, there's a start and finish line, and somewhere along the line everybody's closer to the goal or further from it, and there's a dozen people shouting conflicting information at the poor blind marathon runners about their relative positions. This doesn't stop the fact there's still a goal and a starting line.
Nice analogy.
Alignment is the only thing holding back many, many players from indulging their most psychotic and destructive impulses at the expense of everyone else's fun. It's responsible for the vast horde of Evil players who are forced to pretend they're Chaotic Neutral.
As such, I absolutely love it. Sociopaths like that deserve to have their 'fun' ruined so the rest of us can participate in a game with a shred of depth and style.
If being told whether you were good/lawful or not was the only thing keeping people from wanton acts of evil...
Really, its not the only thing holding people back. Its a fallacy that it is.
So you ”fix the problem” by depriving players of options.
I suppose I should clarify. There are no alignment based spells in my games, period. Not for players, not for monsters, not for npcs. Really, this only removes the Protection Against Law/Chaos/Good/Evil and Magic Circle Against Law/Chaos/Good/Evil spells. Spells with good/evil/law/chaos descriptors are still there as long as they aren't the ones previously mentioned. They just don't have the descriptors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was in a game where they got rid of it and it was completely fine. The world didn't end. In a lot of games these labels are completely arbitrary. If you're wondering through a dungeon slaughtering hostile monsters, there isn't really a difference between good and neutral.
I'm starting to dislike alignment a lot. I didn't used to, but everyone's banning evil alignment pcs and some are moving onto banning chaotic neutral pcs and then there's radar paladins, who use their magic see-evil vision to decide whether or not it's okay to decapitate someone. It's not even entirely linked to whether or not I buy into there being absolute good and absolute evil, but I don't buy that there is no moral ambiguity in the pathfinder world. And even if you believe there is absolute good, disagreements on alignment are way too frequent for one to say everyone always agrees on what chaotic good is or whatever.
Anyway, I believe detect evil just makes things too easy unless you implement that houserule where it's mostly for outsiders and undead. Banning alignments gives me the impression that the DM thinks that I'm the same as their friend who played a neutral evil character and sabotaged the game by killing everyone and taking the treasure when they were 14 and then went 'um im neutral evil, it's called roleplaying scrub'. I mean what happened to individual accountability.
I like that. But redemption should be possible.
Oh it is, you can go from CE to CG, but your sins are not forgotten. There is no convert and make it all better, no, the gods and cultists know. Killing minor gods and major sources of good (saints), also unforgettable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCx__EMjSnE
|
|
I was in a game where they got rid of it and it was completely fine. The world didn't end. In a lot of games these labels are completely arbitrary. If you're wondering through a dungeon slaughtering hostile monsters, there isn't really a difference between good and neutral.
I'm starting to dislike alignment a lot. I didn't used to, but everyone's banning evil alignment pcs and some are moving onto banning chaotic neutral pcs and then there's radar paladins, who use their magic see-evil vision to decide whether or not it's okay to decapitate someone. It's not even entirely linked to whether or not I buy into there being absolute good and absolute evil, but I don't buy that there is no moral ambiguity in the pathfinder world. And even if you believe there is absolute good, disagreements on alignment are way too frequent for one to say everyone always agrees on what chaotic good is or whatever.
Anyway, I believe detect evil just makes things too easy unless you implement that houserule where it's mostly for outsiders and undead. Banning alignments gives me the impression that the DM thinks that I'm the same as their friend who played a neutral evil character and sabotaged the game by killing everyone and taking the treasure when they were 14 and then went 'um im neutral evil, it's called roleplaying scrub'. I mean what happened to individual accountability.
Detect Evil is already kind of limited. It doesn't pick up like 'Bill who cheats on his taxes' its meant for folks who worship evil gods, or who have large HD unless you're undead or an outsider.
A first level evil guy probably doesn't even register past trace evil. 4HD or lower don't even show on detect evil, and past that the guy's apparently a powerful jerk.
That being said, roving decapitation squads of paladins is why paladins have lawful alignments and a general propensity towards obeying laws like 'you need to commit /a crime/ to be executed.' Unless the country has 'being evil' as a crime, in which case a lawful good character would probably try to strike it down for being so outrageously crazy of a law.
Again, I think the problem is DMs who don't make proper behavior clear.
Detect Evil is already kind of limited. It doesn't pick up like 'Bill who cheats on his taxes' its meant for folks who worship evil gods, or who have large HD unless you're undead or an outsider.
Which is still enough to break an adventure if the quest is trying to root out cultists who worship evil gods/demons/devils.
|
|
Detect Evil is already kind of limited. It doesn't pick up like 'Bill who cheats on his taxes' its meant for folks who worship evil gods, or who have large HD unless you're undead or an outsider.Which is still enough to break an adventure if the quest is trying to root out cultists who worship evil gods/demons/devils.
Thats why paladins are good at that sort of thing, also Inquisitors.
Thats similar to being upset that fighters/rangers/barbarians aren't especially challenged by the Mage College's terrifying 'you have to carry 200lbs of sundry crap and fight a goblin' challenge. I do apologize if I'm being snarky though.
The Mystery or Intrigue plotline always encounters the divination or paladin problem though. Locate Object has similar breaking powers, as does arcane mark ironically enough.
I still remember almost spitting blood over the issue when I played Neverwinter Nights, where the villain of the first arc was assigned a Neutral alignment (despite engineering a plague, feeding people to monsters and consorting with eldritch evils) just so he wouldn't ping on the head NPC or my detect evil. It was lazy writing equivalent to a DM going 'I spent $20 on this adventure, I'm not letting your class ability screw it up'.
The cultists if they're smart should develop some means of hiding, or alternatively, work through innocent people. Otherwise, let your paladin sniff them out and then deal with the much harder issue of getting evidence to prove his accusation as 'I just have this thing, you know,' doesn't usually fly (and as a real paladin shouldn't just go 'you is evil!' and start murdering people).
Detect Evil is already kind of limited. It doesn't pick up like 'Bill who cheats on his taxes' its meant for folks who worship evil gods, or who have large HD unless you're undead or an outsider.
A first level evil guy probably doesn't even register past trace evil. 4HD or lower don't even show on detect evil, and past that the guy's apparently a powerful jerk.
That being said, roving decapitation squads of paladins is why paladins have lawful alignments and a general propensity towards obeying laws like 'you need to commit /a crime/ to be executed.' Unless the country has 'being evil' as a crime, in which...
Yeah okay it has SOME limitations when it comes to very low level evil characters who aren't clerics worshiping evil gods. That doesn't mean it can't mess things up. Doesn't mean it's not a terrible concept that basically entails looking over the gm's shoulder and figuring out who the bad guy is, so you can crap all over the big spoiler like the one in act 1 of Neverwinter (I mean it was an easy thing to figure out but still). I don't believe cultists should have to always work through proxies because there's a paladin around who can instantly scope him out with a first level power. They should be able to hide in plain sight. That's the danger of human cultists vs. say a mindflayer or a big half demon ogre.
And adventurers often operate above the law or where there is no law, so lawful characters end up making their own calls. They adhere to a vague code of knightliness and their deity's tenants. And maybe they start off trying to half-heartedly talk the bad guy into surrendering, dragging them off to jail for a trial and all that but after a certain point it becomes impractical.
And maybe in your games paladins and alignment are done the 'right way' and in mine they are done the 'wrong way'. All's I know is as a player when I see someone use Detect Evil, it sort of ticks me off. Especially if they weren't exactly being the model paladin before that.
It is in the game, where the GM plays the role of God.
I disagree with your theory, and have found it to be otherwise. I have found that kids do indulge in that sort of thing, but to be fair, "boys will be boys". I've also seen them get tired of it and want to get back into the game. YMMV bigtime, but I think there's more than alignment or divine authority to keep people from doing things.(like town guards!)
|
|
Detect Evil is already kind of limited. It doesn't pick up like 'Bill who cheats on his taxes' its meant for folks who worship evil gods, or who have large HD unless you're undead or an outsider.
A first level evil guy probably doesn't even register past trace evil. 4HD or lower don't even show on detect evil, and past that the guy's apparently a powerful jerk.
That being said, roving decapitation squads of paladins is why paladins have lawful alignments and a general propensity towards obeying laws like 'you need to commit /a crime/ to be executed.' Unless the country has 'being evil' as a crime, in which...
Yeah okay it has SOME limitations when it comes to very low level evil characters who aren't clerics worshiping evil gods. That doesn't mean it can't mess things up. Doesn't mean it's not a terrible concept that basically entails looking over the gm's shoulder and figuring out who the bad guy is, so you can crap all over the big spoiler like the one in act 1 of Neverwinter (I mean it was an easy thing to figure out but still). I don't believe cultists should have to always work through proxies because there's a paladin around who can instantly scope him out with a first level power. They should be able to hide in plain sight. That's the danger of human cultists vs. say a mindflayer or a big half demon ogre.
And adventurers often operate above the law or where there is no law, so lawful characters end up making their own calls. They adhere to a vague code of knightliness and their deity's tenants. And maybe they start off trying to half-heartedly talk the bad guy into surrendering, dragging them off to jail for a trial and all that but after a certain point it becomes impractical.
And maybe in your games paladins and alignment are done the 'right way' and in mine they are done the 'wrong way'. All's I know is as a player when I see someone use Detect Evil, it sort of ticks me off. Especially if they weren't exactly being the model paladin before that.
The paladin players who act like jerks is its own issue though.
Also, good's not about practicality. Good ain't easy.
I can understand where you're coming from though, but thats a class feature. Its not an alignment issue anymore then the ability of a wizard to fly over a mountain intended to stop the part is a gravity issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-As long as you are level 5 or lower, and not a cleric, and cultist doesn't radiate evil. And in a world with divine magic evil clerics certainly WOULD give off evil vibes.
-In addition, what about a town where most people ARE lawful evil, how would you find the bad guy. I consider the CCP to be lawful evil, wouldn't really help me find the corrupt judge.
"I am shocked, shocked to find an evil person in a town that allows gambling!"
"Your winnings, sir"
We all support our benevolent dictatorship here! Was there a problem sir?
A six, an eight and a nine!
-As long as you are level 5 or lower, and not a cleric, and cultist doesn't radiate evil. And in a world with divine magic evil clerics certainly WOULD give off evil vibes.
-In addition, what about a town where most people ARE lawful evil, how would you find the bad guy. I consider the CCP to be lawful evil, wouldn't really help me find the corrupt judge.
"I am shocked, shocked to find an evil person in a town that allows gambling!"
"Your winnings, sir"
They have a place in PF where this is true. As a matter of fact, it's a whole country.
And obviously enough, the 'bad' people in this nation are the ones that worship demons, not devils.
Welcome to Cheliax! Where 'good' is a silly thing that has been properly subsumed by 'lawful'. Civilization and adhering to the rigid social order is SO much more important then being moral, after all.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit I find it kind of amusing where it's perfectly okay to have a horrible Lower Planar home of monsters and evil incarnate, but the idea of an opposite place that actually adheres to HIGH moral standards is a horribly bad idea.
If I wanted that kind of crapsack world, I'd go play Warhammer, because that's basically what you have. You're either evil/chaotic, or you're not, and if you're not, it doesn't really matter what kind of 'not' you are.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is not rigid. It is fluid, changing as the character does. Developing gradually, suddenly, for good or evil, for law or chaos. People seems to think that once you choose an alignment, there is no backing out.
Now, there are some classes that restrain this. Potato, pohtahtoh. Don't like the restrictions, don't play the class.