D&D 3E/3.5 What is the "physical" advantage of being a good aligned character? (3.0e or 3.5e)

[MerakSpielman]

Crack open a copy of the Book of Exalted Deeds; some of the stuff in there is VERY nice, and you have to not only be good-aligned, you have to be very good-aligned (no slipping up for you!) ... but there are clear rewards for doing so. ^_^

By the same token, if you're evil, crack open the Book of Vile Darkness... Though I hear the BOED is a better breeding ground for munchkins, the books are supposed to be equivelent.

In the core rules, good and evil seem pretty much balanced with each other. For every Cure there's an equal and opposite inflict, same with protection, holy/unholy weapons, Desecrate/Consecrate.... Neither offers a true mechanical advantage.

It makes sense, really. If they weren't perfectly balanced, one of them would have gotten rid of the other by now.

Good characters have morality limiting their potential actions. Evil characters do not. Evil characters can spend a lifetime doing good things in public and evil things in private. Good characters cannot spend a lifetime doing evil things in public and good things in private. Ultimately, good limits you and evil sets you free.

Of course, there's that tiny little matter of afterlife, but we can worry about that later, no?

The only real advantages of good are role-playing advantages. The only real disadvantages of evil are role-playing disadvantages.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

People like you more when you're good... would you rather have Good neighbours or Evil neighbours? I think that can be a big advantage, at least it is in my campaign... now, the benefits of Chaos or Law is a whole other kettle of fish...

Agreed. People like having you around. In particular, other Good people are likely to go out of their way to lend you a hand because you make natural long term allies.

Evil people have the disadvantage of having both powerful Good AND Evil people as their natural enemies. A fellow Evil person is a great short term ally, but a powerful one is always a long term competitor.

Purely ruleswise there are no big differences unless you are a cleric: spontaneously healing and turning is a lot more valuable to adventurers than spontaneous inflicting and rebuking. Rebuking is pretty useful, it is a cool concept for 2nd cleric in a party, but spontaneous healing would otherwise be sorely missed.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Theoretically, spontaniously inflicting wounds on the enemy should provide the same net benefit as healing your people... since the enemies die faster, they don't have a chance to inflict greater damage on you. Of course, this does require the cleric to be up in the front touching enemies...

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Theoretically, spontaniously inflicting wounds on the enemy should provide the same net benefit as healing your people... since the enemies die faster, they don't have a chance to inflict greater damage on you. Of course, this does require the cleric to be up in the front touching enemies...

For NPC opponents having a few undead mooks around is a bigger bonus than than the inflicts; it may well be balanced mechnically overall. Since most PCs travel a lot bringing a friendly ghoul and a few zombies along is not as helpful or practical as it is to an NPC in his lair. But I suppose you could throw one into your Bag of Holding...

 

[thorian]

Neutral characters do have a mechanical advantage, unless you want to sculpt a character to use Exalted or Vile material. As for a role-playing advantage, most people are good and the NPCs will most likely treat good characters better than neutral characters, if there has been any word of their deeds.

When the "Book of Waffling Indifference" comes out, this will most assuredly throw the balance in favor of the Neutrals.

 

[Scion]

Here we go a waffling

mmmm.. waffles...

 

[AnthonyJ]

Well, then are there enough advantage (game rule wise) for being good? If not, shall a DM reward good-aligned characters by some way? What kind of things can be used for it?

Being good isn't useful, nor is it intended to be useful. If you're looking for concrete benefits for being Good, you're fundamentally asking the wrong question. The altruistic character is inclined towards good, the selfish character is inclined towards evil, and asking 'what does being Good get me' is a selfish question.

The major advantage to being good is a meta-game answer -- being Good is part of being a hero. Other than that, well, people judge you on your actions, and good actions generally get good reactions from others.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The primary benefit of being good: you're good.

If you want mechanical benefits, however: You're immune to Holy Smite and Holy Word.
You can take the Good domain.
You can make Holy weapons.

Core rules, there's not too much more than that (other than a few items like Robes of the Archmagic and classes like paladin). However, not being hosed when Holy Smites or Holy Words go off is pretty significant when those become available--possibly more significant than your added vulnerability to Unholy Blight and Prot Good. (Smite Good, Prot Good, etc don't come up in every fight against evil foes, OTOH, if your party includes a good caster who uses Holy Smite, etc, odds are good that every fight against evil foes WILL include Holy Smite or Holy Word).

And there's always the benefit that good gods/God (which are the people you pay attention to in the typical D&D campaign) will like you more.

 

[Felix]

Neutral doesn't have it good all the time: they get knucked by both Holy Word and Blastphemy, albeit not as much as Evil or Good people, and don't have a spell to respond with. Maybe a new spell...

The Center Can Hold
Word of Moderation
Lukewarm Waffle Blast

hmmm...

 

[italianranma]

I got two things for you:

1) Evil people are ugly. Look at the difference btwn an Aasamar (however you spell it) and a tiefling; Angels and Devils; Paladins and evil fighter types who use Charisma as a dump score

and 2) I'm DM'ing an evil party right now and although in reallife all the characters are good friends, in the game they've bickered and fought and not trusted eachother (needlessly wasting spells ensuring that they can't backstab each other) and killed off a party member. And we're only on our second session.

When you get down to it Mechanically alignments are balanced (to do otherwise would influence people to consistantly play one or the other) but if you (or your players) are good role players then alignment make a world of difference. And good wins.