TS' Book of Heroic Might: Alignment as it is Meant to Be

[Starbuck_II]

Smite Evil, Holy Word and just about every single aligned attack in 3e. It never bothered me overmuch that neutrals got off scott-free, but it seemed to stick in a lot of people's craw.

Neutrals didn't get off Scot free. Holy Word killed babies in every nursery.


In fact, in alignment discussions that was a popular debate topic. "Why is Holy Word good if it killed babies?"
Usually, this was posed as an aside to animating undead is evil because it has evil discriptor (even if you use the spell to do good things like coal mining or building, saving some from a fire, etc).

It helped one to understand that the discriptor had nothing to do with the spell being good or evil; instead, it just reminded you that it gets +1 bonus to caster level from Good Domain, etc.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

If anyone is interested, I added a short section on Law and Chaos at the request of a poster on the Paizo boards and did a little editing of my aligned powers.

Actually, I like alignment as a roleplaying tool. I just don't like it as a rule set.

That's reasonable, even if I can't identify with you. As a DM I don't need orcs to be labeled as evil to know that they like to rape, maim and kill things. If I ever get to be a 4e player I won't even bother writing an alignment on my character sheet unless the DM wants me too. Then I'll probably write Chaotic Evil on my goodie goodie's character sheet just to demonstrate how much alignment doesn't matter. Just kidding. Probably.

I've always been the DM. I'm really just expressing a personal bias. Every time I've tried to figure out how to use Alignment to "measure" a person's morality, I've come up empty. Mainly because, when it gets down to it, morality is relative. Darth Vader could be Lawful Good, if you look at him from the Empire's point of view.

In a game with alignment, the DM just has to make a decision to the question "Is Force-strangling one's Empire lieutenants for second-guessing oneself Evil or just psychotic?" and stick with that decision. I understand not wanting to answer that question for everyone though.

Alignment should be chosen for its flavor. Not its perks.

Agreed 100%. Personally if a player chooses an alignment and then blatantly acts contrary, I change their alignment. If they don't like it they can find another game, but I don't argue with players.

In fact, in alignment discussions that was a popular debate topic. "Why is Holy Word good if it killed babies?"
Usually, this was posed as an aside to animating undead is evil because it has evil discriptor (even if you use the spell to do good things like coal mining or building, saving some from a fire, etc).

Ah yes, the incessant undead/holy word/alignment flame wars. Those ambiguities never bothered me much, but then again I'd be the DM to rule that babies are unaffected by Good spells because they have the potential for Good. And cute furry animals too.

TS

 

[bardolph]

In a game with alignment, the DM just has to make a decision to the question "Is Force-strangling one's Empire lieutenants for second-guessing oneself Evil or just psychotic?" and stick with that decision. I understand not wanting to answer that question for everyone though.

We understand each other.

Agreed 100%. Personally if a player chooses an alignment and then blatantly acts contrary, I change their alignment. If they don't like it they can find another game, but I don't argue with players.

Gotta show those players who's boss!

Ah yes, the incessant undead/holy word/alignment flame wars. Those ambiguities never bothered me much, but then again I'd be the DM to rule that babies are unaffected by Good spells because they have the potential for Good. And cute furry animals too.

Holy Word kills babies? Dang, that's cool, I didn't know that. OK, I change my mind. Bring back Holy Word!