Running a morally ambiguous game in a world where Alignment is real

[Donp]

Just wondering. I'm currently running a SW SAGA game where the PCs are petty criminals trying to make it in the underworld, often working against each other. It's been a blast.

I have been really interested in running Pathfinder for a while, I ran a full level 1-30 4E campaign even though I disliked the system's emphasis on encounters and all that, just because I really like the concept of fantasy, and yes, D&D.

But with a new Pathfinder campaign I would like to work with some of the themes from our current game, politics, intrigue, and most important, moral ambiguity. A big part of how our current SW game is fun is that unlike before, when we've run standard Good vs Evil games, in this one, no one is a hero, and everything is more subjective and realistic. More of a grayscale morality. The "heroes" are not going on noble quests to save someone, they're just trying to get more power and money and destroy their enemies, to further their own goals.

I would love to do a game that's more like that, but in Pathfinder, as I really like the system, its relatively realistic portrayal of a fantasy world, the spell system, classes being different, all that stuff.

But I'm wondering whether things such as the alignment system built into the game will make playing a morally ambiguous game hard. Should I view alignments as a potential issue with the game, or should I just not worry about it? I'm thinking it could be hard to run intrigue if you can, for instance, always detect someone's alignment with a spell.

Also I'm worried about the larger issue, if a gameworld's rules are built on alignment being some sort of hard-coded real force does that mean that you have to see the world in that simple black and white way, as a player, and as a PC, meaning that there are no subtleties in the middle? Because I've been running this other game, and there, there is no absolute right and wrong. There is no good or bad. There's only people's opinions on what is good and what is bad, and most people don't care either way. But I'm worried about having to classify every action as either good or bad, and if the players make too many selfish (bad) decisions, then according to the game world, they are no better than Orcs, or the Red Wizards of Thay or whatever, which to me seems like too simple a worldview.

If anyone gets any of that, or has done morally ambiguous Pathfinder games, tell me how that worked out for you. Should I be worried?

 

[tylermalan]

Well, the first thing is that you can do whatever you want. Ignore alignment completely, if you want. It's just a guide, anyway.

Further, the spell detection thing doesn't necessarily remove all intrigue. Just because the chancellor pings evil doesn't mean the well-meaning bard won't work with him. Or whatever.

But really, I guess I don't really know exactly what your question is. Alignment just isn't that big of a deal, and is probably one of the easiest things to houserule in the entire game if you don't like the way it functions.

 

[Epametheus]

A basic view of good vs. evil is that it's not okay to hurt innocent people. If you run a game where hurting innocent people is normal and expected, or there's no such thing as innocent people because everyone is out to get everyone else...

I suppose your quick solution is to just make everyone neutral, and reserve the evil alignment only for people like Jabba the Hutt or the Sith Lords -- those who would be considered terrible even in a world where murder is routine business.

Obviously, good alignment would probably be reserved only for those who recognize how horrible their society is, and are actively trying to make things better.

 

[spasemunki]

The areas where alignment gets in the way are easily sidestepped- things like certain classes (monks, paladins) having alignment requirements, and the Detect Good/Evil spell/paladin ability.

For an underworld-based game, monks and paladins would be a pretty counter-intuitive class choice, so there isn't really any conflict there unless your players want to push it.

Detect Alignment spells can easily be dropped in that case, or ruled to only detect supernatural good/evil, like angels and demons.

Alternatively, you could also build it into the background of the setting- alignment detecting magic is unreliable on this world, or was banned because of abuses by an absolutist theocracy, or is over-used by police stats, resulting in widely available counters. It could be fun for players to try to 'maintain their cover' in a place where alignment-detecting magic is widely used, or for people who can detect that someone is evil to be unable to officially do anything about it because they broke the law to find out.

Alignment can also be a red herring. Lawful Good NPC's can be dangerously wrong about a situation and end up doing terrible harm by following the law. A Lawful Neutral character will be a terrible foe in a nation with tyrannous laws, but a useful ally in a more benevolent kingdom. Alignment doesn't do a good job of taking into account prejudices and other personal flaws- what alignment is an otherwise Lawful Good landowner who lives in an area where slavery is the norm, and who believes that a certain race or species is "better off" being looked after by their "betters"?

 

[Donp]

Interesting replies. If I get your meaning, you're saying that alignments can be ambiguous, and there is gradience within them.

One thing I find funny about this is that it seems that it matters what the character thinks about his actions. So a Zealot can be lawful neutral or lawful evil, depending on whether he believes his actions to be just and necessary.

I really like the ideas about alignment checking being considered taboo, that might solve the problem completely.

Has anyone run any games in Pathfinder with intrigue a major element? Any advice on how to do it?

 

[am181d]

So a Zealot can be lawful neutral or lawful evil, depending on whether he believes his actions to be just and necessary.

Doesn't a zealot believe his actions are just and necessary, by definition?

I think the key with the alignments is that they serve two purposes:

First, broad description. You have nine buckets of alignments, but there are clearly more than 9 possible actions at any given time. If you describe a person first WITHOUT alignment, you can probably decide which alignment fits that person best. If you want a realistic alignment system, start with "He did X so he's Lawful Good." NOT "He is Lawful Good, so he must do X."

Once you accept that distinction, then alignment makes more sense. The jerk who lives down the street might be chaotic evil, but he's never going to raise an army and kill the king. He's just a jerk. Assuming he's a peasant, per PF's Detect Evil rules, he wouldn't radiate evil at all.

Second, mechanical distinctions. If someone does radiate evil, say a demon or a powerful necromancer, you want to be able to get a bonus to hit with a holy avengers. Or to put up a protective circle. As long as you're handling the alignment rules the right way, I don't think it's a big deal.

 

[Epametheus]

what alignment is an otherwise Lawful Good landowner who lives in an area where slavery is the norm, and who believes that a certain race or species is "better off" being looked after by their "betters"?

If he actually thinks that the subjugated race is better off being enslaved, he's lawful evil. A society that practices slavery as the norm is rotten to the core, no matter how much its members try to sugar coat it.

A lawful good character in that sort of society would be a pariah - perhaps he keeps members of the subjugated race as paid servants, rather than slaves. His neighbors would view him as a radical and a threat for actually showing regard for the "chattel."

If you're running a game where everyone's a nasty, then detect evil really doesn't matter. Someone picking up as evil in that sort of setting just means that they're par for the course. It's the person who picks up as good who's actually in trouble.

 

[Twichyboy]

I can't remember where I read this but I'm pretty sure it was from a 3.5 book, but one thing you could do to make detect alignment spells work is by basically detecting thoughts or past actions essentially,

When someone commits murder, anyone that detects alignment might sense evil from him, but it isn't constant, or detecting evil detects evil or I'll intentioned surface thoughts or intention. So the murderer might go to the bar to drink and a paladin detects his alignment as neutral, as he's not out to do evil,

 

[tylermalan]

One thing I find funny about this is that it seems that it matters what the character thinks about his actions. So a Zealot can be lawful neutral or lawful evil, depending on whether he believes his actions to be just and necessary.

Actually, this is incorrect. There IS a hard-and-fast, black-and-white standard of what is good and what is evil in the Pathfinder (D&D) world. So, evil is evil, no matter what the user thinks about it. Further, don't confuse a feeling of "normal" for a feeling of "good." Just because an evil character lives in an evil society where everyone does evil does not make all of their actions good. When viewed through the spectrum of the alignment system there IS good and there IS evil and perception means almost nothing.

There is definitely room for grey areas, though. Like the otherwise good aligned dwarf with a greedy streak. Etc.

 

[Spatula]

One thing I find funny about this is that it seems that it matters what the character thinks about his actions.

This doesn't hold in your standard D&D world, where alignments have objective (not subjective) meaning. Evil is evil, regardless of motivations. So I dunno about alignment being all that ambiguous using the stock setup, aside from whatever ambiguity arises from differing player interpretations of the alignments.

But one thing to remember is that alignment doesn't have to be a straightjacket. A LG character can commit an evil or anarchic act without changing their alignment, as long as it doesn't become habit.