Political Correctness - An end to alignment troubles

[nute]

The way I run it, during character creation players choose an alignment for your character. This must jibe with the character background - as it explains how the character HAS acted. Most of the time, the PCs will continue to act in this way, since it fits their character concept. If their pattern of behavior changes, so does the sliding scale of alignment. One or two minor acts, no big deal. A demonstration of habitual acts, however, can alter the alignment "stat".

It's the "stat" that matters for things like Holy Smite, Detect Evil, etc. If someone, even a mere mortal, makes a habit of killing people because he likes it - evil, obviously. This is why most criminals like thieves and con men are CN, not CE - because Evil in the logical way the game works requries intent to do willful harm to others for its own sake. Steal a loaf of bread, it's not because you hate the shopkeeper, it's because you want the bread. It's an unlawful action, but not necessarily an evil one.

This stops paladins from using their abilities as Detect Criminal Tendencies. That'd quickly turn into 'Minority Report' all too easily.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Sigh. This only works with a very particular world-view. Your definitions are quite controvercial politically. Basically, your rules combine Kant and Communism (Certainly by your rules, capitalism and everything taht surrounds it is evil). Many people have serious issues with one or both.

Nonsense. Evil people will rise to the top in every political or economic system that encourages ruthless tactics to get ahead. And this is true for every system in which the ruling agency becomes to vast for a single person to know personally. And this isn't just the case for Capitalism, but also Communism, National Socialism, and pretty much every -ism you could name.

The trick to a good society is to place enough checks and balances on the rulers to make sure that even if they are evil, they can't do whatever they want. Of course, they will try to subvert these balance, which is why eternal vigilance is yadda, yadda, yadda.

Just my two cents.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Now we just need some politically correct means of paladins smiting the pragmatics.

Well, there isn't, at least not in most regions. Paladins are just one political faction among many. In other words, if they want to take down a bad guy, they will have to do some in-depth investigations to prove his misdeeds beyond a doubt - and then flex their diplomatic skills (most Paladins tend to have high Charisma for a reason) to convince all the other rulers that this guy is a liablity and should be removed from power.

Different from the standard "smiting of evildoers", I know. But I think it makes for a nice change of pace.

 

[takyris]

I think that all of the suggestions here make sense for use in different campaigns. If you wanted to get rid of alignment altogether, that would be within your rights. If you wanted to keep alignment and just have political covers over it, that's also fine.

One thing I would say, though, is that fewer people are evil or good than we'd think. Most guards are neutral. Most henchmen, even, are neutral. They're being paid, they do what they gotta do. Most of the time, doing what they gotta do involves killing people who are armed and coming at 'em. That's just self-preservation.

The BBEG probably has used Detect Evil a few times on his own to figure out which guards to pick for the Nasty Tasks. It's one thing to tell a guy to guard this chamber with his life and kill anyone who tries to get in. It's another to tell a guy to go kill some puppies and use their remains to club some orphans to death.

Most politicians in this country you're describing might be self-serving and conniving, but they wouldn't go out of their way to harm an innocent, would they? That probably makes them neutral. They're in no danger of becoming paladins any time soon, but they don't derive pleasure from any of the unsavory things that they have to do to survive in this city. Heck, many of them hate the way the city works, but if they didn't fight to stay in control, somebody even worse would take over. At least this way, the populace is protected by someone who wants to minimize the damage to innocents...

It might not be true, but it's how a Lawful Neutral guy could convince himself to get out of bed every morning.

 

[Vaxalon]

Nonsense. Evil people will rise to the top in every political or economic system that encourages ruthless tactics to get ahead. And this is true for every system in which the ruling agency becomes to vast for a single person to know personally. And this isn't just the case for Capitalism, but also Communism, National Socialism, and pretty much every -ism you could name.

You didn't mention the most important -ism to this discussion...

"Magical Feudalism" where evil people can be detected by the least of magical practitioners.

IMC, at worship services of good deities, it is a standard part of the service for the celebrant (and in large congregations, acolytes as well) to cast Detect Evil spells. Anyone with a strong evil aura is marked for special attention by investigative types, but folks with weak evil auras are taken aside.

"My son, I have sensed a heavy weight of sin about you. Your soul is in danger. Perhaps we can go to a side chapel and speak in private? I am concerned that you are slipping away."

In a DnD society, I do NOT agree that evil people would always find their way to the top.

 

[woodelf]

Enough with the moral equivalency fallacy. One man's evil brigand or dark lord is another man's good freedom fighter or great ruler and all that garbage. Terminology may be relative. But the facts on who targets the innocent and who doesn't, objectively defines who is Good and who is Evil. Regardless, of the words used by anyone to describe their actions.

Ok, here are two worldviews:

A: we must help those who suffer
B: every person is responsible for their own fate

Which one is "good", and which "evil"?

Now, let's take those a bit further, and postulate some behaviors:

A: the State should provide support for those who cannot support themselves; to do otherwise would be merciless
B: the State should let natural forces (market, social, and otherwise) determine how people live; to do otherwise would be unfair to those who have managed to guide their fate well

Now which one is good?

Finally, i'll add some consequences:

A: while it is true no one is miserable, no one is well-off, either, because the redistribution of resources leaves everyone just barely getting by, with none having truly good health or sufficient food--no one has the resources to help any one else, really
B: by letting a few live in squalor, the vast majority lead existences of good health and sufficient food, and a few live comfortable lives with more than sufficient food and resources--and some of them, in turn, use their resources to help the very poor

So, which is evil: causing all to suffer equally, but sligthly, or allowing a few to suffer greatly so that the rest may suffer not at all?

[n.b.: this is not a parable of modern society--i've vastly oversimplified things to make a point.]

Evil is not so easily diagnosed, nor is Good. And those who believe that Evil can be identified--or, more dangerously, that they are Good--are the cause of much of the ills of the modern world.

 

[fusangite]

Well, I tried to piece together what was being articulated in the post that started this discussion but I'm still not sure what Jurgen was attempting to articulate beyond the obvious statement that alignment is a bad idea requiring significant readjustment. The short chart Jurgen offers is also a bit mystifying in that the term "community-minded" is associated with both goodness and law.

In my campaigns, generally, I mitigate the awfulness and ridiculousness of alignment by viewing it in a kind of Cold War sense. In the Cold War, everyone was either Communist, Capitalist or Non-Aligned. In this sense, alignment was pretty much de-coupled from actual conduct as well as from intentions, it was simply a question of which "side" one was on. Generally, this is how I cope with alignment; people are on a particular side and, to some degree, their side's values affect their conduct but they are not the primary determinant of said conduct.

While it is true that evil people/creatures are more likely to lie, steal, torture and kill than good people, conduct distinctions are not absolute. As in Urbis, evil people might be naturally over-represented in the highest offices in the land were it not for the fact that most of the gods, as well as the state religion, are non-evil.

I too look forward to the day that alignment is removed from D&D and replaced with mechanics more easily adjustable to different types of campaign worlds. I'm not going to come out categorically against alignment, though; some worlds like the worlds of Warhammer and Runequest have a strong Law vs. Chaos dynamic that needs to be modeled in game terms.

 

[Mithreander]

I agree that the concept of good and evil tend to be ambiguous, and if you do not have a foundation for those aspects. I myself use what is the epitome of good for today (though rarely studied): the bible.

Proverbs 21:10
The wicked man craves evil; his neighbor gets no mercy from him.

Matthew 22:34-40

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

[Of these, I only use the second as a guideline, for the first is not applicable in D&D (which causes me some problem). Jesus then explains that everyone is your neighbor in The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke10: 25-37)]

Now, your discussions on the evil nature of man... well that is also discussed in the bible here:

Genesis 8:21
The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done."

I suppose all I'm saying is that with a perspective; it helps to use alignments, as they should be.

[Wow, I'm SO glad I do not speak this disjointedly!]

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Evil people don't always find their way to the top IRL either. I don't see any need to assume that they will ALWAYS find their way to the top in D&D's magical feudalism. Of course, that doesn't mean that there won't be any evil people at the top either.

As for your suggestion, I think that it's very good. (It's also one of the reasons I much prefer the current Detect Evil rules to the "only evil outsiders and clerics" interpretation--the current version indicates that the town "seamstress" might be worth investigating; the "evil clerics and outsiders only" interpretation tells you that she's a succubus or evil high priest"). However, I think you exagerate the effectiveness of magically informed intervention.

This is for several reasons. First, you seem to assume a Christian/Jewish (and possibly Islamic) approach to the worship of good deities--the majority of the deities worshippers gather in a single location to worship once a set number of times per week. This may or may not be justified. If, however, the worship of those deities is less communal--people stop by the shrine individually to make offerings, make offerings in shrines in their homes and only occasionally going to the temple with their family for special ceremonies, and/or celebrating in large public gatherings with the whole city, the population would probably not be detectable within the duration of the Detect Evil spells reasonably available to a temple not composed of paladins. For large public gatherings, it is likely that the crowd would be too vast for Detect Evil to cover all of the crowd and/or too densely packed to identify the individuals radiating evil.

Second, the worship of good deities is somewhat self-selecting and many neutral (and possibly even some evil) deities are followed in D&D cities. So, many of the people who would radiate evil would either not be present where their evil might be detected or (in a genuinely polytheistic society where you offer prayers to Pelor for good weather and then to Hextor to defend your city) might well have their evil tendencies reinforced in another venue elsewhere.

Thirdly, I think it's important to realize that magical detection and intervention would not represent a new element of society but would rather expand an existing one. It's not uncommon for RL religious leaders to recognize when a member of the community is slipping into sin and talk to them. (Lots of people do so without being noticed or ignore their counsel). Detecting evil would mean that fewer people fell through the cracks ("that guy back there? I don't know him; I don't think anyone does. So if someone needed to talk to him, nobody would know). Reliance upon detecting evil, however, would potentially make such intervention less effective as it's unlikely that the man who's starting to fall (thinking about cheating on his wife, or embezzling "only a little bit which I'll pay back when I've got the money", or just took a single bribe to find no suspect in a mob hit) will radiate evil until the choices he's beginning to make harden into habits. If magical detection of evil were the primary way to determine who to talk to, intervention would only occur in the late (and potentially more difficult) cases. Detecting Good (and noticing when someone who used to be good no longer radiated it) might actually be more useful when evaluating the moral health of a worshipping community.

For that matter, it also assumes that people would actually listen to the cleric/paladins. One area where I imagine that Detect Evil (and Law/Chaos) would be used would be in evaluating suitors for marriage. Yet, IRL, plenty of people ignore sound advice and obvious warnings ("S/he's no good because x, y, z") from parents and clergy. I don't see that "because he radiates faint chaos/evil" would be much more convincing than "because s/he is a liar/has a criminal record/is in a gang/doesn't share your beliefs and priorities."

For those reasons, I don't think that Detect Evil is likely to make as big a difference to the amount of evil in a community as you seem to believe--the difference would likely be incremental and local in nature rather than representing some kind of paradigm shift.

You didn't mention the most important -ism to this discussion...

"Magical Feudalism" where evil people can be detected by the least of magical practitioners.

IMC, at worship services of good deities, it is a standard part of the service for the celebrant (and in large congregations, acolytes as well) to cast Detect Evil spells. Anyone with a strong evil aura is marked for special attention by investigative types, but folks with weak evil auras are taken aside.

"My son, I have sensed a heavy weight of sin about you. Your soul is in danger. Perhaps we can go to a side chapel and speak in private? I am concerned that you are slipping away."

In a DnD society, I do NOT agree that evil people would always find their way to the top.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I think all of this is leading back to a major point.

IF Good, Evil, Law & Chaos are absolutes.

And IF we can Detect such alignments easily.

Then why NOT lock up all who are Evil?

Well, many Good people would object, for starters. From the definition:

?Good? implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

How "good" is it thus to lock someone up if they didn't actually do something evil? It certainly doesn't show much respect for their dignity... Plus there is always the chance that they might mend their ways one day - but locking them up might just harden their attitudes.

What I could see in some of the more authoritaritan realms are mandatory counceling sessions for all those who register as Evil. But even that will cost lots of money and effort...