Philisophical alignment question

[Crothian]

In your own campaign you could further complicate by having a definitive Good and Evil as defined by the gods, but then introduce the possibility that the gods are not always right.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

When topics like this come up...

When running my first game of Earthdawn, my brother's PC and a friend's PC were investigating an empty house. They had found some neat stuff in the house and they were wondering whether or not they should take it. My brother looked at my friend and said, "There's no alignment in this game, let's steal it."

Ah, the memories.

 

[Saxit]

The easiest solution is to use the real world as standard. For example, torture is generally considered to be evil, and helping an old lady over the street is good. That way you dont have to change any definitions no matter what campaign you are playing.
Ofc, this assumes that the DM and the players actually have "normal" values for what is rigth and wrong in real life...
/Saxit

 

[The Sigil]

Disagree...

'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.

I have to disagree with this. It is necessary and "built-in" to the game to have absolute good and evil (e.g., a paladin who commits an evil act loses paladin abilities until he atones... you must have a "list", even if unwritten, of "evil acts" or the statement loses its meaning).

That said, it should be pointed out that all campaigns need not have the same absolutes... in fact, the absolutes will probably reflect the morals of the DM and/or players (but more probably the DM, since he is the adjudicator). Obviously, what a specific campaign defines as evil will vary...

Borrowing an example from the d20 Publishers thread, one campaign might define drawings of topless women in printed publications as evil. In another campaign, this might be a neutral act (or even a good one). This is fine and accepted.

The same act committed under the same circumstances may be judged evil/good/lawful/chaotic in one campaign and judged differently in another campaign.

However, the same act under the same circumstances should not be sometimes judged evil/good/lawful/chaotic and sometimes not within the bounds of the *same* campaign.

--The Sigil

 

[AuraSeer]

IMHO, it's not necessary to have an objective list of evil deeds that apply to all paladins, because not all paladins serve the same ideal.

Since every paladin is a servant of a deity, I consider an "evil act" to be anything that would be considered evil by that specific deity. Maybe Pelor and Zeus and Ra all have differing ideas of what constitutes evil. The loss of abilities does not come from the paladin's own beliefs, or from his mortal superiors. It is a punishment inflicted by an unhappy god, when the paladin breaks his vow in an egregious way.

So in the example in the OP, if the paladin did something of which his superiors disapproved, it's possible that the deity was also displeased and thus took away his abilities. But it's also possible that the deity agrees with the PC paladin's interpretation, in which case the PC can prove his case by demonstrating that his abilities still function.

(All his is IMHO, of course.)

 

[Xeriar]

I have to disagree with this. It is necessary and "built-in" to the game to have absolute good and evil (e.g., a paladin who commits an evil act loses paladin abilities until he atones... you must have a "list", even if unwritten, of "evil acts" or the statement loses its meaning).

Paladins and priests have a god to look up to and follow. That is their absolute - that's fine. These are the only things in the game that require 'absolutes'. It does not mean that they actually are.

 

[Umbran]

Paladins and priests have a god to look up to and follow. That is their absolute - that's fine. These are the only things in the game that require 'absolutes'. It does not mean that they actually are.

Yes, you can run a priest and paladin as having "absolutes" defined by thier particular god. Their behavior can be measured off of the god's preferences. Their spells detect and interact with creatures the way the god would see those creatures.

However, that still leaves the arcane versions of alignment-dependant spells to be dealt with. Unless there is a god of magic that decides this, then you must either eliminate these spells, or have another "absolute".

 

[The Souljourner]

I have to throw my weight in on the "there must be absolutes" side. It's D&D, everything is black and white (or a perfectly neutral gray ) While a person may be more or less good, spells depend on them fitting into a category. Protection from Evil relies on an absolute definition of evil. You don't have to know someone is evil for it to work, it just does. Would you have one cleric's protection from evil spell work against a monster and have another's not? That would give rise to WAY too many problems and way too much bookkeeping. You'd have to have a separate list for each deity about what is good and what is evil. That's just too difficult.

This way, monsters, spells, and acts can just be labelled evil and you'll always know what applies to what.

Otherwise you'd have one god's Cleric casting dispel evil on another god's paladin and it would actually work! That's just not right.

-The Souljourner

 

[hong]

Otherwise you'd have one god's Cleric casting dispel evil on another god's paladin and it would actually work! That's just not right.

Of course it is. It's just that "evil" is spelled "good" in that particular god's lexicon.


Hong "not mentioning Hitler yet" Ooi

 

[shilsen]

Of course it is. It's just that "evil" is spelled "good" in that particular god's lexicon.

Hong "not mentioning Hitler yet" Ooi

I would disagree. Considering that dispel evil cast by both good and evil clerics affects the same creatures, it's difficult to believe that they could make do with lexical differences. An evil cleric casting detect evil knows that a demon, a devil and himself all detect as the same. I doubt he could/would argue that a demon is "good". Maybe it's powerful, intelligent, and a much better ally than those stupid, stuck-up, do-gooder celestials, but good? I don't think so.

I'm planning to use a handout on the subject for my players, and here's the first part. As we've already established in this thread, many would disagree with the points I make.

Alignment in the D&D world (handout for players)

Alignment is an objective and measurable quantity in the D&D world. Using magic, creatures and people can be subdivided on the basis of their alignments, and even on the degree to which they embody the specific alignment. This reality makes a great difference in the way that characters and creatures interact with each other, and makes the way morality is seen and enacted in the D&D world very different from real-world morality.
Magic and alignment: Although it does exist as an objective reality, alignment can only be detected and measured using magic. Hence, no creature or character with access to appropriate magic can deny his (and others') alignment. An evil cleric knows that he is evil, just as a good wizard knows that he is evil. Unlike in the real world, where people on both side of a conflict can, and often do, accuse the other of being evil (e.g. Bush and Saddam Hussein), in the D&D world, the lines are much more clearly drawn. Evil characters often will know that they are evil, but the difference lies in the fact that they will embrace that evil, regarding it as a viable moral approach to their goals. Also, since they would know that their alignment is open to magical detection, they would take various approaches to conceal it.
Society and alignment: For most non-spellcasting characters and creatures, alignment is an ambiguous reality. Although it apparently exists, they have no way of being able to judge it for themselves, and have to rely on the testimony of those who do have the magical ability to access it. Hence, a person's alignment would not be regarded as a vitally important part of their character. In fact, it might often be seen as a personal attribute, and not one that should be easily studied or commented on (i.e. casting a detect evil spell on someone would probably be regarded as extremely rude). In legal matters, alignment would not carry much weight, since it would be obvious to most people that evil characters can be, and often are, valuable members of society.