Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Alignment Issues!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 5776212" data-attributes="member: 70709"><p>Oh, absolutely as options. Ignoring a few spells is trivial (but because of the importance of alignment in the game I feel written sanction helps people who only want to use "official" things), and the differences between the other two is a well-written paragraph at most.</p><p></p><p>The other operational details of the spells aren't that important to compare the traditional version to the compromise one. I mean, if a thin sheet of lead blocks the spell, it would do so for both. So a low-level version of the spell might grant a snapshot, an upgraded version might last for as long as the caster concentrates (whether that means the picture changes in "real time" or simply grants ever more detail about what is being detected), and maybe an epic Paladin gains an ability to have it on continuously as a spell-like affect. In the traditional version you need to know if a creature of evil alignment is within range. In the compromise version you need to know if a creature is performing/intending evil acts. Likewise, if the spell determines the "magnitude" of the evil that will need to be done for both versions. I grant that the DM may need to make more subtle decisions using the compromise method, but it also probably engages the world more firmly than a line in a statblock. For games that want that it might make for a superior Detect Spell experience. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Alignment disagreements while using the compromise method are just as inevitable as with the traditional method, of course. For example, over why so-and-so didn't show up as evil while cheating at cards. In the traditional system the disagreement might be how the DM could justify that a creature who cheats has anything other than an evil alignment. Those disagreements aren't identical, but the impact at the table is basically the same. In either case the cycle of alignment fights goes on, and is exactly why the game should let everyone opt out if desired.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ainamacar, post: 5776212, member: 70709"] Oh, absolutely as options. Ignoring a few spells is trivial (but because of the importance of alignment in the game I feel written sanction helps people who only want to use "official" things), and the differences between the other two is a well-written paragraph at most. The other operational details of the spells aren't that important to compare the traditional version to the compromise one. I mean, if a thin sheet of lead blocks the spell, it would do so for both. So a low-level version of the spell might grant a snapshot, an upgraded version might last for as long as the caster concentrates (whether that means the picture changes in "real time" or simply grants ever more detail about what is being detected), and maybe an epic Paladin gains an ability to have it on continuously as a spell-like affect. In the traditional version you need to know if a creature of evil alignment is within range. In the compromise version you need to know if a creature is performing/intending evil acts. Likewise, if the spell determines the "magnitude" of the evil that will need to be done for both versions. I grant that the DM may need to make more subtle decisions using the compromise method, but it also probably engages the world more firmly than a line in a statblock. For games that want that it might make for a superior Detect Spell experience. :) Alignment disagreements while using the compromise method are just as inevitable as with the traditional method, of course. For example, over why so-and-so didn't show up as evil while cheating at cards. In the traditional system the disagreement might be how the DM could justify that a creature who cheats has anything other than an evil alignment. Those disagreements aren't identical, but the impact at the table is basically the same. In either case the cycle of alignment fights goes on, and is exactly why the game should let everyone opt out if desired. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Alignment Issues!
Top