Political Correctness - An end to alignment troubles

[Dark Jezter]

Okay, my opinion on this topic is getting fairly well known on a variety of boards, but let me see if I can articulate it in terms of the original post.

Alignment, as written in the PHB, is still pretty darn ridiculous. Every character chooses and alignment; almost all monsters and NPCs have alignments attached to them. The problem is that alignment here is two entirely different things. In the case of monsters it is an Immutable Truth -- monsters are EVIL or GOOD (or whathaveyou) and will never vary from this. The same is true for most NPCs as they are played -- the alignment shapes the actions. With PCs, OTOH, alignment is something that provides broad outlines of actions you wish to adhere to; over time you may change your alignment based on your actions, thus the actions supposedly dictate the alignment.

That's only true in certain cases. Demons and devils, for instance, are always evil, because if they ceased to be evil, then they wouldn't be demons or devils.

Other creatures, like orcs, are usually chaotic evil because orc society on a whole tends to be chaotic evil. However, it would be possible for an orc to be any alignment, even lawful good. Elves are usually chaotic good, but there's a female elf Zhentarim wizard in the Forgotten Realms who is lawful evil.

Only for certain creatures are alignments set in stone.

Example: one player in a 3.0 version of my game wrote on his character sheet "Lawful Good" for alignment. All his actions during the course of the campaign would have labelled him as Chaotic Neutral. Why did he choose LG to begin with? "I thought that's what we needed for the party." So why act differently? "Because that's who I am." So game mechanics versus personal tastes. In any event he played a Wizard, so it made little difference, but with a Paladin, technically, it would have lost him all of his powers.

If a player isn't keeping true to their alignment, then it's the job of the DM to change their alignment accordingly. I know that if I claimed my character was LG and I consistantly acted in a CN manner, my DM would make sure to tell me that my alignment has shifted.

Alignment is the last truly silly leftover from the original D&D. It serves no real purpose, other than to artificially constrain Paladins and Monks. Beyond that, I see no real purpose to it other than to allow those using magic to quickly determine who the good guy/bad guy is, and even that is problematic. Actions and intentions are much more important to character development than a label.

In D&D, good, evil, law, and chaos are more than philosophical concepts; they're the forces that drive the universe. If you're evil, you take extra damage from things like Holy weapons and are affected by spells like forbiddence. If you're an good cleric, then you can't use evil spells like unholy blight and the like.

So take the Urbis definitions. Or do as others have done and drop alignment altogether. If, after you drop alignment, someone uses Harm instead of Heal, people will know the character is evil without having to resort to artificial labels.

There is nothing that prevents good-aligned clerics from using Harm. In fact, I once was in a party with a Lawful Good cleric who used it all the time.

 

[Green Knight]

Evil: Pragmatic, survival-oriented, competitive.

Zuh? Since when are any of these intrinsically evil? Pragmatic? At worst, it's neutral. Survival oriented? So if I build a bomb shelter in the backyard for my family I'm evil? Survival-oriented is only evil when you do what it takes to survive at the expense of innocent others (For example, you're so focused on survival at all costs that you murder someone who's done you no harm so you can steal their food). And competitive? So does the entirety of the NFL register when a Paladin uses Detect Evil (Though in all honesty, the Buffalo Bills WOULD register as Evil, while the Miami Dolphins would register as Lawful Stupid )?

 

[Zappo]

I've had many occasions of repeating my stance on the alignment wars. In my campaigns, we first decide the character's personality and only after we decide an alignment. The alignment determines the effect of certain spells and magics only. It does not determine the character's behaviour; with just 9 alignments to choose from that would a rather tight straightjacket. Rather, it's the behaviour or personality that determines the alignment.

PCs don't have to adhere to their alignment; simply, if they don't then they'll change it. I don't consider acting against your alignment to be intrinsically "acting out of character". I consider this alteration of alignment as the mechanical representation of a character's evolution. In my campaigns, NPCs and even monsters can and do change alignment when they are subject to events that prod their minds one direction or another (even though there are characters, such as outsiders or undead, that are so inhuman in their mindsets that alignment shifts are unheard of).

When dealing with Wombat's player, the LG wizard acting as a CN characters, I would simply have changed the PCs' alignment. I don't see why not.

Jürgen Hubert's problem, though, is a different one. It's the problem of detectability of alignment. IMC, beeping as evil isn't a big deal. Yeah, people that know you beep as evil will probably trust you a bit less and assume that you have an agenda. But IMC detecting as evil doesn't automatically make you a psychopath bent on world destruction, a mortal's alignment generally isn't unchangeable, most people that beep as evil are just barely this side of neutral, and anyone that knows about detect evil spells knows this as well.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Zuh? Since when are any of these intrinsically evil? Pragmatic? At worst, it's neutral. Survival oriented? So if I build a bomb shelter in the backyard for my family I'm evil? Survival-oriented is only evil when you do what it takes to survive at the expense of innocent others (For example, you're so focused on survival at all costs that you murder someone who's done you no harm so you can steal their food). And competitive? So does the entirety of the NFL register when a Paladin uses Detect Evil (Though in all honesty, the Buffalo Bills WOULD register as Evil, while the Miami Dolphins would register as Lawful Stupid )?

Well, the point of these exercise is to create euphemisms. These "Detect" spells exist, but it is simply impolite to refer to that very successful merchant prince who has contributed so much to our political faction as "evil". So you say that he is "pragmatic", "success-oriented", or something like that. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Everybody knows what you mean, but nobody says it outright, because that would be, you know, terribly lower class. A major social faux pas.

So we won't call him what he is - an evil, opportunistic bastard who'd sell his own mother for profit if he hadn't done so already years ago. Because, thanks to all his money and influence, he is a true "pillar of the community", and we will stick to that no matter what some low-ranking cleric might say.

Because he is one of us.

 

[Green Knight]

You mean like this guy?

 

[Al]

The interesting aspect of evil, of course, is that in a civilised society it can actually be a constructive force. After all, it is the evil members who tend to be the most ambitious, ruthless and pragmatic in their aims. In a war, for example, an evil general could well be more effective than a good general, since he would be willing to take gambles and commit atrocities necessarily to win- at any cost. So long as a strong government proscribes the destructive activity, (lawful) evil needs not be a threat to society, and certainly would not warrant being 'locked up'. In a strongly lawful and regulated society (LN), being chaotic could be a far greater threat to the status quo than being LE.

That aside, I like to keep alignment, but I do strongly base it upon the actions of the PCs and on background (which is one of the reason I do insist on backgrounds). If a PC acts out-of-alignment, I will inform him at first, and change his alignment if the activity is consistent and sustained. It is too ingrained into the system (aligned weapons, DR, aligned spells etc.) to remove effectively, but I do like to blur the edges, as quite a few of my developed (ie not shopkeeps!) NPCs testify.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Jürgen Hubert's problem, though, is a different one. It's the problem of detectability of alignment. IMC, beeping as evil isn't a big deal. Yeah, people that know you beep as evil will probably trust you a bit less and assume that you have an agenda. But IMC detecting as evil doesn't automatically make you a psychopath bent on world destruction, a mortal's alignment generally isn't unchangeable, most people that beep as evil are just barely this side of neutral, and anyone that knows about detect evil spells knows this as well.

Still, this sort of thing could be quite inconvenient to powerful (politically and economically powerful, not neccessarily in terms of combat prowess) evil people - it hurts their image, and thus their power. And thus they will make it known that they don't like to be called "Evil". And since crossing them is often a bad idea, plenty of people will use these euphemisms out of self-defense...

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

The interesting aspect of evil, of course, is that in a civilised society it can actually be a constructive force. After all, it is the evil members who tend to be the most ambitious, ruthless and pragmatic in their aims. In a war, for example, an evil general could well be more effective than a good general, since he would be willing to take gambles and commit atrocities necessarily to win- at any cost. So long as a strong government proscribes the destructive activity, (lawful) evil needs not be a threat to society, and certainly would not warrant being 'locked up'. In a strongly lawful and regulated society (LN), being chaotic could be a far greater threat to the status quo than being LE.

A point that Terry Pratchett made very well.

" 'I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people,' said the man. 'You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.'
He waved his thin hand towards the city and walked over to the window.
'A great rolling sea of evil,' he said, almost proprietorially. 'Shallower in some places, of course, but deeper, oh, so much deeper in others. But people like you put together little rafts of rules and vaguely good intentions and say, this is the opposite, this will triumph in the end. Amazing!' He slapped Vimes good-naturedly on the back.
'Down there,' he said, 'are people who will follow any dragon, worship any god, ignore any iniquity. All out of a kind of humdrum, everyday badness. Not the really high, creative loathsomeness of the great sinners, but a sort of mass-produced darkness of the soul. Sin, you might say, without a trace of originality. They accept evil not because they say yes, but because they don't say no. I'm sorry if this offends you,' he added, patting the captain's shoulder, 'but you fellows really need us.'
'Yes, sir?' said Vimes quietly.
'Oh, yes. We're the only ones who know how to make things work. You see, the only thing the good people are good at is overthrowing the bad people. And you're good at that, I'll grant you. But the trouble is that it's the only thing you're good at. One day it's the ringing of the bells and the casting down of the evil tyrant, and the next it's everyone sitting around complaining that ever since the tyrant was overthrown no-one's been taking out the trash. Because the bad people know how to plan. It's part of the specification, you might say. Every evil tyrant has a plan to rule the world. The good people don't seem to have the knack.'"

And this is pretty much how I see it for Urbis - or much of the real world, for that matter...

 

[Valiantheart]

Tony's the man!!

I do away with alignment as a game tool altogether. Players are still encouraged to pick an alignment but it has no bearing on game mechanics.

There is no detect alignment.
Holy Word effects everyone except those you choose.
Holy Aura protects from all alignments equally.
Smite and Holy Smite can be used against anybody.
Protection from Evil works against all outsiders but not people.
I do away with the weapon abilities like holy, unholy, lawful, and chaotic.

It doesnt mean there isnt true evil in the world, but you cant go walking willy nilly through town and discover with a first level spell that that seamstress is actually a succubus in disguise.

 

[CRGreathouse]

It doesnt mean there isnt true evil in the world, but you cant go walking willy nilly through town and discover with a first level spell that that seamstress is actually a succubus in disguise.

Because, surely, only a succubus would be evil?

Once, IMC, a character managed to cast detect evil, unobserved, in a princely court (it's a long story about how he did this, but anyway...) and read many evil auras. This didn't make him think there were monsters/devils/etc. in the room; in fact, he explained it away to a fellow PC shortly afterward. ("While some of their hearts may be black, none among them is the one we seek -- and it is not for us to pass judgement.")