It's a bad system, but you're also thinking of it in narrow terms. Alignments are best thought of as not actually representative of morality (because they do a poor job at it). Instead, good and evil are physical forces and alignment is more reflective of that.
There are a number of variant systems already put forth by Paizo that might help. Take a look at Pathfinder Unchained to start.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Broaden your view of the alignments. LG is supposed to be a law following and normally good person, this is true. But everyone has something that would make them break the law or do a bad thing. In real life I would put myself as NG but I do not, often break the law. But I am not charitable, which is a common thing people seem to think the good alignment has them doing
To save someone they think is innocent the LG fighter might interrupt a hanging. That and the laws change from country to country. Or it maybe just be a code that they follow. Like what a paladin has to follow. If a Paladin of Sarenrae was in Chelaix I doubt they would follow the law of the land. They might be dedicated to liberating slaves. Which is illegal.
Good people can be tempted to do bad things or can easily chose to ignore a problem and still be good at their core. I enjoy having characters the struggle with their views. Currently I am playing a Paladin of Shylen who is starting to have a crisis of faith. His family died and he is struggling to continue to see the beauty in the world. He is bitter and angry. To try and figure out the plague that is ravaging the town, and the same thing that took out his family, he thus far has broken into someones home. Trespassing is illegal everywhere.
One fun way to consider a paladin is this speech. This is a LG paladin.
Remembering that detect evil / good / haotic etc. Exist.
Spell can racist huh?
Yes.
Take a person who has generally lived a good life, but has been recently influenced. Events have led them to start courting "the dark side". They're dabbling. That person would still detect as Good, because they haven't actually fully changed their outlook.
Take a person who is on the path of redemption. They've done horrible, horrible things but they've recently come to understand the horror of what they've done. It's difficult to unlearn years of atrocity, but they're trying. They still detect as Evil, but are working towards the light.
So. You cast a couple spells. You decide it's slaying time, and kill the second person because "the spell told me so". Guess who's evil? You.
Why? Because the detect spells are guidelines. They're hints. Just like a Sense Motive check to tell you someone's lying. It doesn't tell you why they're lying. It's up to you to get context to find out the why of the matter.
Now, obviously if you've got other evidence, the detect spells are great at sealing the deal. They're also very good for helping you locate a creature. But they're not - in isolation - enough to judge a creature.
While the alignment system isn't perfect, it's actually very good at giving a framework upon which to build a rich morality without bogging gameplay down.
Remembering that detect evil / good / haotic etc. Exist.
Spell can racist huh?
And the vast majority of people will not detect with those. You need to be at least 5th level/5 hit dice (or be an Outsider, Undead, cleric, or paladin) before you start to show up to the various Detect Alignment spells. And of the few people that do trigger the detection, they would only just barely register (a faint aura).
That raping, slaughtering, baby killing, puppy kicking horde of orcs coming your way? Won't detect as evil (though their leaders might).
|
Remembering that detect evil / good / haotic etc. Exist.
Spell can racist huh?
And the vast majority of people will not detect with those. You need to be at least 5th level/5 hit dice (or be an Outsider, Undead, cleric, or paladin) before you start to show up to the various Detect Alignment spells. And of the few people that do trigger the detection, they would only just barely register (a faint aura).
That raping, slaughtering, baby killing, puppy kicking horde of orcs coming your way? Won't detect as evil (though their leaders might).
Actually,
Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually,
Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.
Which just means that a Chaotic Good creature could detect as evil. That does nothing to change any of the other mechanics of the spell, including the aura strength. And most people won't show an aura until 5th level/5 hit dice.
Yeah, but as quoted above, evil creatures only show up on detect evil when they're past 5 HD (or are evil priests, or undead, or outsiders. Fun fact: Native Outsiders still light up like a Christmas tree when you detect their alignment, even below 5 HD.)
|
|
Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.Which just means that a Chaotic Good creature could detect as evil. That does nothing to change any of the other mechanics of the spell, including the aura strength. And most people won't show an aura until 5th level/5 hit dice.
And?
The point is you can still detect as [alignment] before 5th.
|
|
Remembering that detect evil / good / haotic etc. Exist.
Spell can racist huh?
And the vast majority of people will not detect with those. You need to be at least 5th level/5 hit dice (or be an Outsider, Undead, cleric, or paladin) before you start to show up to the various Detect Alignment spells. And of the few people that do trigger the detection, they would only just barely register (a faint aura).
That raping, slaughtering, baby killing, puppy kicking horde of orcs coming your way? Won't detect as evil (though their leaders might).
Actually,
Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.That applies to paladins that who must commit an unwilling evil act etc.
The Orcs in question are still 4 HD or les and thus have no aura to detect.
Read ultimate intrigue for more information on how the detect ailment spells can fool you.
? To your first sentence.
The spell flat out says you can detect active evil thoughts, don't need an active evil aura for that, it would actually make that part of the spell pointless.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.Which just means that a Chaotic Good creature could detect as evil. That does nothing to change any of the other mechanics of the spell, including the aura strength. And most people won't show an aura until 5th level/5 hit dice.And?
The point is you can still detect as [alignment] before 5th.
No, you can't. They have no aura. That section just means someone plotting to do evil would register just as if he had an evil alignment. You see use the normal rules to determine if their aura registers, and if so at what strength.
|
|
No, you can't. They have no aura.
Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.Which just means that a Chaotic Good creature could detect as evil. That does nothing to change any of the other mechanics of the spell, including the aura strength. And most people won't show an aura until 5th level/5 hit dice.And?
The point is you can still detect as [alignment] before 5th.
The whole point of that line is that you can detect evil thoughts of creatures without auras, otherwise it would be rather pointless.
You can only detect evil thoughts on a creature with an evil aura? What sense does that make?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole point of that line is that you can detect evil thoughts of creatures without auras, otherwise it would be rather pointless.
You can only detect evil thoughts on a creature with an evil aura? What sense does that make?
The captain of the guard (good alignment, 5th level) had been tricked into killing the king. He would show up on detect evil, despite his good alignment, because of his evil intentions. He would also ping on detect good because, despite his intentions, he is still of good alignment and high enough level to register.
If something has an aura it must have an aura strength, even if just faint. What is the strength of someone of 4th level or lower with evil intentions or alignment? None. There is no aura to register.
|
|
That section just means someone plotting to do evil would register just as if he had an evil alignment. You see use the normal rules to determine if their aura registers, and if so at what strength.
Hmm, I'm going to disagree with that second part, as that section of Detect Evil doesn't mention auras at all, just "Evil".
|
|
The whole point of that line is that you can detect evil thoughts of creatures without auras, otherwise it would be rather pointless.
You can only detect evil thoughts on a creature with an evil aura? What sense does that make?
The captain of the guard (good alignment, 5th level) had been tricked into killing the king. He would show up on Detect Evil, despite his good alignment, because of his evil intentions.
If something has an aura it must have an aura strength, even if just faint. What is the strength of someone of 4th level or lower with evil intentions or alignment? None. There is no aura to register.
... if the Guard in question had evil intentions for doing so I wouldn't really say that he was tricked, or Good for that matter.
The thought may or may not have an aura, it just detects as evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, probably FaQ material.
You won't get one. The spell is pretty clear. And so is Ultimate Intrigue:
The first thing to note is that at the lowest levels, alignment detection spells simply don’t register NPCs due to their low level. Other than clerics, undead, and evil outsiders, creatures require 5 Hit Dice or more to register with detect evil. The second thing to keep in mind is that creatures with actively evil, good, chaotic, and lawful intents register as that alignment if they have enough Hit Dice, regardless of their actual alignment. So a selfish merchant whose heart is moved by an orphan’s plight into an act of largesse would register as good at the time, and a loyal knight forced to kill an innocent child to stop a war could appear evil while she formulates and executes the deed. The final thing to consider is that alignment detection is exceptionally easy and cheap to foil in the long-term.
|
|
Hmm, probably FaQ material.You won't get one. The spell is pretty clear. And so is Ultimate Intrigue:
The first thing to note is that at the lowest levels, alignment detection spells simply don’t register NPCs due to their low level. Other than clerics, undead, and evil outsiders, creatures require 5 Hit Dice or more to register with detect evil. The second thing to keep in mind is that creatures with actively evil, good, chaotic, and lawful intents register as that alignment if they have enough Hit Dice, regardless of their actual alignment. So a selfish merchant whose heart is moved by an orphan’s plight into an act of largesse would register as good at the time, and a loyal knight forced to kill an innocent child to stop a war could appear evil while she formulates and executes the deed. The final thing to consider is that alignment detection is exceptionally easy and cheap to foil in the long-term.
Ah, okies. I had missed that, my apologies for the headache.
That part of the spell wasn't clear to me, and must not have for a few people, but that section of UI cleared that up.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Character informs the alignment, not the other way around. Period. People who go on about how the "alignment system is too limiting" are interpreting the system to be way stricter than it's supposed to be.
It's a bad system that persists largely because it's traditional, but at this point it's largely vestigial. You can fairly easily excise alignment completely from the game and the hardest thing to puzzle out is "with what do we replace the Paladin's smite?" In particular removing alignment completely resolves all silly quibbles about "who can worship what deity" by providing the answer "anybody who wants to and is amenable to that deity's teachings."
Complex ethical questions can never be resolved by "which of nine boxes do you use" and so if your players are asking questions that seem to conflict with the alignment system, that's good. "Your players are asking smart questions" is something you can work with.
Alignment is descrptive not proscriptive. Even for a paladin. Alignment doesn't prevent them from doing evil, but if they consistently do evil they will no longer be tat alignment. If you say of someone 'yeah, he's a good guy' are you saying he never does anything wrong? Conversely, you can say 'that s one evil dude' but he still might have. a thing for protecting children, love animals and love his mama. Alignment is a zip code not an address.You are very mistaken in a lot of ways.
A Paladin who does evil isn't a Paladin anymore. They become a fallen Paladin, lose all of their class abilities, and have to atone to get any of them back. That is not if they lose the Good portion of their alignment that is if they do ANY evil act.
Also, "yeah, he's a good guy" isn't a Good Alignment. We are told that a Good Aligned person will go out of their way to do good. Most people won't.A generally good guy, is most likely neutral.
An Evil dude that protects children and loves his mother still enjoys inflicting pain on people. Still goes out of their way to hurt people. The alignment is "descriptive" yes, but it actually describes your actions.
A person who is sort of good and sort of evil isn't good or evil, they are neutral. Which is also why, as we are told by Paizo, most people in Pathfinder are neutral. It is a rare person who is truly good or truly evil.
Taken in that way, you seem to be reinforcing the fact that alignment as a system has fundamental flaws. If you want to be NG for example, you must role play being good as often as possible. If good is truly rare, and you roleplay "sometimes good, sometimes not", don't you risk defaulting to true N as per the rulebook?
|
|
Taken in that way, you seem to be reinforcing the fact that alignment as a system has fundamental flaws. If you want to be NG for example, you must role play being good as often as possible. If good is truly rare, and you roleplay "sometimes good, sometimes not", don't you risk defaulting to true N as per the rulebook?Alignment is descrptive not proscriptive. Even for a paladin. Alignment doesn't prevent them from doing evil, but if they consistently do evil they will no longer be tat alignment. If you say of someone 'yeah, he's a good guy' are you saying he never does anything wrong? Conversely, you can say 'that s one evil dude' but he still might have. a thing for protecting children, love animals and love his mama. Alignment is a zip code not an address.You are very mistaken in a lot of ways.
A Paladin who does evil isn't a Paladin anymore. They become a fallen Paladin, lose all of their class abilities, and have to atone to get any of them back. That is not if they lose the Good portion of their alignment that is if they do ANY evil act.
Also, "yeah, he's a good guy" isn't a Good Alignment. We are told that a Good Aligned person will go out of their way to do good. Most people won't.A generally good guy, is most likely neutral.
An Evil dude that protects children and loves his mother still enjoys inflicting pain on people. Still goes out of their way to hurt people. The alignment is "descriptive" yes, but it actually describes your actions.
A person who is sort of good and sort of evil isn't good or evil, they are neutral. Which is also why, as we are told by Paizo, most people in Pathfinder are neutral. It is a rare person who is truly good or truly evil.
Uh, yeah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I've come to the view that if you don't like the alignment system you're using it wrong.
By that I mean that it is one of the few areas of the rules explicitly called out as being subjective and based on the DM's interpretation. The DM's job is to run the game and make that interpretation in such a way as to bolster the fun of your, specific group. If your group finds it too constricting and fun-limiting, your DM is interpreting it too strictly.
If some people in your group like it and some people don't, you need to work out via discussion where you're going to sit and make peace with the fact that not every facet of a cooperative, consensus-based game is going to meet your ideal.
While I dislike and think the alignment system is severely flawed, it's not as bad as you portray.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of my big problems with alignment is the Law & Chaos axis. Specifically, how nebulous they are as concepts.
Here's an example:
Let's say we have a proud barbarian* warrior who refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the ruler of every settlement he enters. In his mind, people who have stopped living off the land are soft and thus not worthy of respect. However, he does have a code of honor which he follows, a code taught to him by his father which was passed down through generations of his tribe. This is a code of honor that he will not break for any reason, even if following it through to the bitter end would result in his death.
Is this barbarian of ours Lawful or Chaotic? I could honestly see it being argued both ways.
* Not necessarily the class
One of my big problems with alignment is the Law & Chaos axis. Specifically, how nebulous they are as concepts.
Here's an example:
Let's say we have a proud barbarian* warrior who refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the ruler of every settlement he enters. In his mind, people who have stopped living off the land are soft and thus not worthy of respect. However, he does have a code of honor which he follows, a code taught to him by his father which was passed down through generations of his tribe. This is a code of honor that he will not break for any reason, even if following it through to the bitter end would result in his death.
Is this barbarian of ours Lawful or Chaotic? I could honestly see it being argued both ways.
* Not necessarily the class
Sounds 99% lawful.
|
|
Sounds 99% lawful.One of my big problems with alignment is the Law & Chaos axis. Specifically, how nebulous they are as concepts.
Here's an example:
Let's say we have a proud barbarian* warrior who refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the ruler of every settlement he enters. In his mind, people who have stopped living off the land are soft and thus not worthy of respect. However, he does have a code of honor which he follows, a code taught to him by his father which was passed down through generations of his tribe. This is a code of honor that he will not break for any reason, even if following it through to the bitter end would result in his death.
Is this barbarian of ours Lawful or Chaotic? I could honestly see it being argued both ways.
* Not necessarily the class
You can be chaotic and be honorable, likewise just because something is a law/rule doesn't make it Lawful. A law is whatever the law is, you can have Good/Evil/Chaotic/Lawful laws.
You can be chaotic and be honorable
Yeah, but generally not to such a character defining feature extent as the character described. Never ever ever ever breaking your code to that level is lawful.
likewise just because something is a law/rule doesn't make it Lawful. A law is whatever the law is, you can have Good/Evil/Chaotic/Lawful laws.
Not sure how this has anything to do with what I said.... I didn't talk about or assume that lowercase law = Uppercase Law. If anything what I said was pro "lowercase law != Uppercase Law"....