Philisophical alignment question

[Shirt Guy John]

My question is this, and I do realize that it may be more philisophical than game-related but bear with me:

Does a character(NPC or PC)have an alignment based on what is considered Good or Bad or Lawful or Chaotic by others, or by what the character itself believes is right or wrong? Pretty vauge? Here's an example off of the top of my head.

*A Paladin has commited an act of evil in the eyes of his church, but he believes vehemently that what he did was right and good and was what the diety wanted. Does he lose his class abilities for comiting an evil act? or does he retain them, as he in no way feels that what he did is wrong and will not change his stance, for that would violate his concept of being good and true to everyone and oneself?

 

[shilsen]

Neither, actually. D&D 3e has an objective alignment system, so whatever is good or evil depends on your campaign and doesn't change. Whether the paladin in your example believes in what he did or not, or whether the church agrees with him or not, what matters is whether the act was good according to the campaigns concepts. If so, he remains a paladin. If not, he loses his powers.

 

[chilibean]

In order for the alignment system to work there must be an absolute definition of each alignment. As long as there are actual tangible gods that define what alignment is by their very existence, alignment MUST be fixed by the pantheon.

 

[Shirt Guy John]

Coolness, coolness. I get it.

Like I said, mostly a philosophical question. Pretty much set that you have to have a universal set rubric for alignment. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

There is somewhere in the PHB where it states that

"Good and evil are not philisophical concepts in the D&D game" - outright.

I have been watching a beautiful thread over in house rules that is attempting to adopt Pendragon rules to objectify shifts in alignment. I don't want to get into having to arbitrate an alignment shift without any objective basis; and I was looking for such a system.

I am going to have to playtest it a bit - and see.

 

[mirzabah]

I have been watching a beautiful thread over in house rules that is attempting to adopt Pendragon rules to objectify shifts in alignment. I don't want to get into having to arbitrate an alignment shift without any objective basis; and I was looking for such a system.

And for those of us who don't enjoy looking for a needles in haystacks, that thread is here.

Cheers,
Mirzabah

 

[The Sigil]

Absolute

There is somewhere in the PHB where it states that

"Good and evil are not philisophical concepts in the D&D game" - outright.

Astounding... I am in complete agreement again.

D&D has ALWAYS been a game of absolute morality - it is why in 3e we have spells with [good/evil/law/chaos] descriptors and why in the older versions "casting this spell is an evil act" existed - there is no wiggle room for relativistic morality.

Whether you think morality SHOULD be relative or absolute is another question entirely. The game treats it as absolute. Always has.

--The Sigil

 

[strongbow]

Absolute definition of good and evil prevents the game system from devolving into an unplayable mess. Just imagine if casting Animate dead was considered good by one god and evil by another. Instead of having to keep track of whether a particular act is good for a particular god, the designers adopted a system of absolute morality.

If everyone had their own code and beliefs about what was right and good, then the system of morality and laws in the world would be one of utter chaos, with little the same between the thousands of individuals on the planet.

To make this more palatable to you, remember that the PHB describes the channeling of positive and negative energy. The energy that the spells draws on does not change--it is immutable.

 

[Xeriar]

Absolute definition of good and evil prevents the game system from devolving into an unplayable mess. Just imagine if casting Animate dead was considered good by one god and evil by another. Instead of having to keep track of whether a particular act is good for a particular god, the designers adopted a system of absolute morality.

If everyone had their own code and beliefs about what was right and good, then the system of morality and laws in the world would be one of utter chaos, with little the same between the thousands of individuals on the planet.

To make this more palatable to you, remember that the PHB describes the channeling of positive and negative energy. The energy that the spells draws on does not change--it is immutable.

'What is the right' can be a campaign unto itself. It does a disservice to an idea to -demand- that every campaign have its absolutes.

 

[Umbran]

'What is the right' can be a campaign unto itself. It does a disservice to an idea to -demand- that every campaign have its absolutes.

Not necessarily. The fact that there is an absolute definition does not say that mortals know or understand that definition. Mortals can debate and argue about it and have wars over it, just so long as the gods don't actually speak up clearly on the matter.

"But," you say, "what about the alignment related spells? They're a dead giveaway!"

My answer is - Not necessarily. If the alignment related spells deal in long term averages, they won't reveal anything about particular acts, or even any particular short string of them. A person who has been good for most of their life, and commits one evil act won't necessarily register as evil. Or, if they detect aligned intent, rather than the karma scorecard, you are again in gray-hazy areas of moral conundrum juicyness