Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DMScott" data-source="post: 1200140" data-attributes="member: 11734">Under standard D&amp;D, that's simply not true. They're certain to have done evil; if they hadn't ever done evil, then their alignment would be something different based on what they actually had done in the past. This is why the DMG tells us that &quot;actions dictate alignment&quot; and the alignment change rules make it clear that changes occur as a result of actions taken. Alignment is not a statement of intent, it's a judgement based on past actions. Sure, Detect Evil can't tell you who committed any particular crime or whether they've served time for it, and that's why Detect Evil isn't a plot killer IMHO. There are also often non-alignment related reasons why a Paladin can't directly act against someone who detects as evil - for example, basically Neutral human society tolerates many actions that a Paladin won't approve of, which is the source of the strain between the 'Lawful' and 'Good' parts of a Paladin's alignment. And it's also part of the fun in playing a Paladin - knowing that Duke Dastardly is an evil villain who must be stopped somehow, even as you watch him being feted and honoured at the Queen's ball.But arguing that &quot;hey, that guy who detects as evil might not have done anything wrong&quot; is a non sequitur (outside the context of misdirection and equivalents, anyway) - if they hadn't done evil, they wouldn't detect as evil.Sorry, that's 100% wrong if you're playing by the book D&amp;D. An alignment is indeed a flag, a universal one that applies the same way to all creatures - that's why alignment-based spells from Detect Evil to Unholy Word all work. You can house-rule to change the way alignment works if you like, but if you do you really need to change or eliminate alignment-based spells. Personally, I think it's best just to chuck alignment as a game mechanic if you don't want it to have a consistent meaning - Arcana Unearthed does so quite successfully.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DMScott, post: 1200140, member: 11734"] Under standard D&D, that's simply not true. They're certain to have done evil; if they hadn't ever done evil, then their alignment would be something different based on what they actually had done in the past. This is why the DMG tells us that "actions dictate alignment" and the alignment change rules make it clear that changes occur as a result of actions taken. Alignment is not a statement of intent, it's a judgement based on past actions. Sure, Detect Evil can't tell you who committed any particular crime or whether they've served time for it, and that's why Detect Evil isn't a plot killer IMHO. There are also often non-alignment related reasons why a Paladin can't directly act against someone who detects as evil - for example, basically Neutral human society tolerates many actions that a Paladin won't approve of, which is the source of the strain between the 'Lawful' and 'Good' parts of a Paladin's alignment. And it's also part of the fun in playing a Paladin - knowing that Duke Dastardly is an evil villain who must be stopped somehow, even as you watch him being feted and honoured at the Queen's ball. But arguing that "hey, that guy who detects as evil might not have done anything wrong" is a non sequitur (outside the context of misdirection and equivalents, anyway) - if they hadn't done evil, they wouldn't detect as evil. Sorry, that's 100% wrong if you're playing by the book D&D. An alignment is indeed a flag, a universal one that applies the same way to all creatures - that's why alignment-based spells from Detect Evil to Unholy Word all work. You can house-rule to change the way alignment works if you like, but if you do you really need to change or eliminate alignment-based spells. Personally, I think it's best just to chuck alignment as a game mechanic if you don't want it to have a consistent meaning - Arcana Unearthed does so quite successfully. [/QUOTE]

Verification