D&D General The Problem with Evil or what if we don't use alignments?

[Crimson Longinus]

Yep. No matter how you slice it, though, art is a secondary vision. It's someone working second hand on someone else's vision. Then it does get approved, yes. I said that pages ago. Regardless, the description is the primary vision, not the art. I am going to go with the primary vision, not the secondary one.

Nah. The text was written by someone who was hired to do it and the art was drawn by someone who was hired to draw it. It's the same thing.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

The real world doesn't seem to have the equivalent of a 1 minute casting time commune or 1 action casting time zone of truth. It feels like those would make a difference in both theological debates and deciding schisms.

On the other hand, there are cases where the sacraments might be invalidated because of the status of the priest. In the news last year was one in Detroit who found out he wasn't baptized with the correct formula, invalidating his baptism, confirmation, and ordination, and invalidating the marriages and other sacraments he had performed (I can't find a story saying they changed course and didn't make those he married get remarried). Apparently one can get a plenary indulgence for attending a priests first mass - no word if that was invalidated too. The existence of annulments would seem to imply there is no immediate divine check on requirements for the sacraments - so not the equivalent of some D&D spells or a state based check in MtG.

In case it is of import to you, the archbishopric of Detroit's answers it here: Pastoral care regarding the Vatican's Note on Baptism - Archdiocese of Detroit
TL;DR: baptisms are OK, confirmations and "other sacrements" not OK, absolution is OK, marriages are OK but let's redo the ceremony because now that you know that it is invalid, you can no longer claim that you took all the step in good faith (basically), but as long as you didn't know about it it was OK. People who died "improperly baptized" are considered baptized as well. (On the other hand, if it's important to anyone here, don't trust a TL;DR...)

 

[Maxperson]

But it is the real life in real life, thus the disconnect. Or at least it is relative in a sense that people cannot agree what it objectively is. So trying to force it to be objective in fiction causes problems, as that is always someone making a value judgement and forcing their morals on others. I don't need the game writers to tell me whether elves or orcs are 'right' in their conflict. It's not a question that should have an one objective answer.

That was the case 13+ years ago, yes. Now, it can't be forced unless the DM is a bad one, because there are no mechanics to allow it. A bad DM is going to be bad with or without alignment. It's not an alignment issue and hasn't been for 13 years.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That was the case 13+ years ago, yes. Now, it can't be forced unless the DM is a bad one, because there are no mechanics to allow it. A bad DM is going to be bad with or without alignment. It's not an alignment issue and hasn't been for 13 years.

The alignment is in the monster manual. That's the writers pushing their morals on the readers. Did you read the excellent post @Galandris made on the subject earlier?

 

[Umbran]

I wonder if part of the loyalty to alignment is couched in the feeling it gives to 'know' you're 'right' about something that establishes your literal moral superiority and in the past allowed one to literally punish the transgressors.

Mod Note:
Casting aspersions on people because they like a classic game mechanic is not acceptable.

This is a pretty shabby way to treat your fellow gamers. Be better.

 

[Maxperson]

In 1e, does the level of hypocrisy allowed go with the level of the cleric? (They cast the lowest level spells on their own, but the highest come from a direct grant from a greater god).

They cast the lowest levels due to their faith and belief in what they are doing. Any hypocrisy destroys that faith and their ability to cast low level spells with it.

Is arcane magic similarly rare?

It's rare in my game, but not as rare, since you can learn it regardless of belief. In my game you do have to have to be born with a talent for it, which I assume for PCs so that they can multiclass if they want. Outside of PCs, though, it's a fairly rare gift and most that have it don't ever have the opportunity to learn. Sorcery being an exception, since it's intuitive talent.

In a world where clerical magic is rare, how does the balance fall on wanting them to stay at the temple and to go out adventuring? Are they only allowed out when the hierarchy says so? Or does having enough faith to get spells mean they have divine approval to chart their own course? Does not having spells mean one has lesser faith?

Most stay at the temples out of choice, but they ARE the hierarchy, so they get to make the decisions on whether to leave or not. If you've been granted divine spells by your god, that brings authority with it.

 

[Mistwell]

It is incredibly bad tool for doing a thing that is so laughably easy that is weird that you'd need a tool at all, let alone such an awkward and clunky tool which is likely to be more of an hindrance.

We're going in circles. If YOU don't find this tool useful, it's easy for you to ignore. Other people find this tool to be useful, even if you do not and even if you don't understand how others find it useful.

It's not weird that other people like a particular tool which you find to be useless, awkward and clunky and a hindrance to your games. However, it is rude to tell people their preferences are "weird" because you don't appreciate those preferences in your life.

We're all familiar with others having preferences which we don't have and which we may not even understand. Generally however, those become moments for tolerance in life. Not mocking people as weird.

 

[Maxperson]

It is incredibly bad tool for doing a thing that is so laughably easy that is weird that you'd need a tool at all, let alone such an awkward and clunky tool which is likely to be more of an hindrance.

It's not that easy for a lot of players, though. I've seen many instances where less creative people have an easy time building off of alignment, but would have struggled to come up with it all on their own. That it's easy for you(and me) to do, doesn't mean that it's easy for everyone. It's a very good tool for them.

 

[Maxperson]

The alignment is in the monster manual. That's the writers pushing their morals on the readers. Did you read the excellent post @Galandris made on the subject earlier?

What are those morals exactly? Go look at the 5e alignments. Then use all of those to tell me what the morals of Jeremy Crawford and Mike Mears are.

 

[Minigiant]

The last time that was taught as a default was 13+ years ago. They've had 13 years to learn the correct way and there are more new players than old ones at this point who never had that poor use taught to them. It's no longer an issue to anyone not living in the distant RPG past.

Did thou forget 5e is an edition partially based on courting those living in the past?

So embrace the new edition. Most people playing D&D today have never played an older version.

EDIT: I assume most people playing D&D today have never played an older version simply based on the growth of the game and general demographics. Most people playing today are in their teens and twenties and grew up with different concepts.

Most 5e DMs are precious edition users.