Why I Ditched Alignments

[Agback]

How many roman empereors would you call good?

The Five Good Emperors, for a start. And perhaps Perinax, though he was not a successful ruler.

 

[Agback]

Still another GM I played under told the paladin-player (not me, another player) that his Detect Evil was seeing shades of gray in just about everyone around him.

The one time I played a paladin I stopped using my Detect Evil ability because I only ever came across one character who did not detect as evil. Mind you, my character had never tried Detect Evil on his wife.

 

[Psion]

Actually, the alignment system *does* pretty much preclude the possibility of cutthroat realistic politics, if you think through the implications. The problem is the magic factor. Obviously before any important negotiation or diplomacy there would be "Detect Evil" and "Zone of Truth" and "Detect Lies"-type spells cast on both sides.

Here you assume that those who are able to cast this magic (most such spells are clerical) are going to make their services available cheaply or freely for such services. Since you, as the GM, control the nature of religion in your world, you control the vertical here.

Further, consider the nature of magic being used here. Detect evil only detects evil creatures, not evil actions. Some of the greatest tragedies ever told consist of a person who is not necessarily fundamentally evil becoming tempted and engaging in betrayal. The spell can only tell you about characters, and even if the act represents a watershed in their morality, it can't predict the future.

Basically, you would have to divide the world up into "good" and "evil" governments

I definitely don't see that. Any government is going to be made up of multiple individuals, who will run the gamut of alignments.

Frankly, if people are even *aware* of the fact that there is such a thing as an "objective" good and evil, it becomes pretty much impossible for real-world politics and behavior to exist.

Well, it may not be real world anymore, but humans are still humans. They are reluctant to be judged, and its easy for some prostelyzer to convince you that the cleric if Ishtar doesn't really know what is "good". In fact, a cleric of a lawful deity might define lawful behavior as being morally obligatory, i.e., "good".


I've never had any problem introducing politicking and backstabbing into a game. Clerics are aloof government, and beings like wizards are often of unsavory character but have talents that require people to court their services. I don't see the presence of magic turning the world into a utopia.

 

[helium3]

I decided to move this out of the "Typical Player Behavior or Bad Role-Playing" thread...



Actually, the alignment system *does* pretty much preclude the possibility of cutthroat realistic politics, if you think through the implications. The problem is the magic factor. Obviously before any important negotiation or diplomacy there would be "Detect Evil" and "Zone of Truth" and "Detect Lies"-type spells cast on both sides. Clearly if one side is aware that the other side is "evil", they aren't going to trust them. If some politician is "evil", no one is going to vote for him. And while magic works both ways -- i.e., you COULD have people using "Undetectable Alignment" left and right -- it is a lot easier to detect alignment than to conceal alignment, using D&D3.X rules as written.

Basically, you would have to divide the world up into "good" and "evil" governments and the whole thing becomes ridiculous by any real-world standard (although perfectly acceptable for your typical fantasy campaign). In the real world, people *can* be good and faithful to their friends and family, and horribly evil and treacherous and vicious to their enemies.

Frankly, if people are even *aware* of the fact that there is such a thing as an "objective" good and evil, it becomes pretty much impossible for real-world politics and behavior to exist. Of course, people *want* to behave in a "good" fashion, but it's not easy.

(By the way... I know that someone out there reading this thread is going to argue that I'm taking an unnecessarily cynical view of human behavior, so let me pre-emptively say one thing: read a history book. Any history book.)

HOWEVER -- I'm not saying that I think alignments don't have a place in D&D in general. On the contrary. I think they do their job fine. I've run most of my campaigns using alignments, and I think they're perfectly suited for most heroic fantasy campaigns. However, for my current campaign, I wanted a more "realistic" level of backstabbing and betrayal and mixed allegiances. And thus, alignments had to go....

Jason

In my game, only outsiders with an alignment, spells with an alignment descriptor and clerics of gods with a particular alignment register as having an alignment other than neutral. I think it works pretty well in terms of "realism" in that it implies that alignment is a particular state, but most things that exists are a mish-mash of states. It's rare that any particular state is "pure" enough to register as being strongly one alignment or the other.

I'm not personally committed to the idea of alignments, but I'd rather not have to worry about taking it out.

 

[LostSoul]

Clerics are aloof government, and beings like wizards are often of unsavory character but have talents that require people to court their services. I don't see the presence of magic turning the world into a utopia.

I agree that magic wouldn't turn the world into a utopia (I like the idea of a dystopia), but I don't see why clerics wouldn't form a strong government. Not all clerics, mind you, but the Lawful ones I could see going that way.

 

[helium3]

After all, the diplomats in the real world don't take polygraph tests as a matter of course.

Well . . . from what I understand, the interpretation of the results of a Polygraph are pretty subjective. I would imagine that if they were truly objective, they would be used quite heavily in a number of different situations.

Something else to think about. Spells directed at determining the veracity of a statement would not indicate a lie was being told if the person utter the lie didn't KNOW it was a lie. In a world with discern lies and zone of truth, I would imagine that most diplomats would be kept in the dark about a great many things.

 

[Andor]

Actually, the alignment system *does* pretty much preclude the possibility of cutthroat realistic politics, if you think through the implications. The problem is the magic factor. Obviously before any important negotiation or diplomacy there would be "Detect Evil" and "Zone of Truth" and "Detect Lies"-type spells cast on both sides. Clearly if one side is aware that the other side is "evil", they aren't going to trust them.If some politician is "evil", no one is going to vote for him. And while magic works both ways -- i.e., you COULD have people using "Undetectable Alignment" left and right -- it is a lot easier to detect alignment than to conceal alignment, using D&D3.X rules as written.

I would rather negotiate with a Lawful Evil person than a Chaotic Good one, he is more trustworthy. I'm not sure I wouldn't rather live in a LE society rather than a CG one. At least the streets would be clean, the sewers would work and the harvest would be distributed properly. Life as an average citizen would probably be pretty good. Remember that in DnD Evil doesn't mean stupid (though Good often does, oddly) just ruthless, and not all the time, just where needed.

 

[Psion]

I agree that magic wouldn't turn the world into a utopia (I like the idea of a dystopia), but I don't see why clerics wouldn't form a strong government. Not all clerics, mind you, but the Lawful ones I could see going that way.

In my world, in some regions, lawful clergy play important roles in the goverment.

But note those are lawful clerics, not good ones. They may see "good" clergy and characters as bleeding heart liberals.

Another of the cities in my game world has a lawful good church of a goddess of justice on the council in the city. But the noble houses resent their presence and tend to wall of and marginalize them.

 

[joeandsteve]

Not having alignments is fine if your players are mature enough. A player in my group hates being labeled 'Evil' in D&D, so he controls himself. If we are Playing Star Wars or GT though, he claims he is good while doing incredibly destructive things that affected the party as well. It became so out of hand that my PC conspired with another to assassinate his character because I could not find any reason for my character NOT to kill him, and it was becoming an unenjoyable playing experience because of him.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Speaking of problems everyone seems to have.....

The Collected Knowledge:

#1: Alignments are descriptive, not proscriptive. Good doesn't tell you what to do. You do what you do, and the universe may describe it as Good. Or it may describe it as Evil, or as Neutral, or as Lawful, or as Chaotic. It makes no sense for someone to "not do something because they are of Good alignment." It makes sense for someone to "not do something out of fear of having a different alignment than the one they wish."

This is quite important, though not specifically for this point.

#2: Alignment is not usually obvious. The only way to determine alignment is magic, and for every magic there exists a countermagic. In addition, you would need a society of a certain size to support a spellcaster or a dozen who can cast the spells that determine and obscure alignment.

This is more important for the point, but you seem to address this mostly. You note that it's easier to detect than obscure, fer'instance.

#3: Evil isn't always bad; Good sometimes is; most folks are Neutral. Evil has teammates. Evil can handle some problems in a more "efficient" manner. Evil is not constrained by someof the ideas of good. Likewise, sometimes Good requires too much sacrifice, too much acceptance, too much generosity to be really practical. Because most (human) folks are Neutral, they tend to look out for themselves and those they care about above and beyond anything and anybody else. "Good, Evil, I'm the guy with the gun." Good isn't always the best option, and in a world with alignment, this is quite obvious. Good doesn't outnumber Evil, and Good isn't nessecarily saught over Evil. Good is just one option. Evil is an equally valid and equally powerful option. There is no objective reason to favor Good. Evil works just fine.

This is more important to your point.

Clearly if one side is aware that the other side is "evil", they aren't going to trust them. If some politician is "evil", no one is going to vote for him.

...
you would have to divide the world up into "good" and "evil" governments and the whole thing becomes ridiculous by any real-world standard (although perfectly acceptable for your typical fantasy campaign). In the real world, people *can* be good and faithful to their friends and family, and horribly evil and treacherous and vicious to their enemies.

...
Frankly, if people are even *aware* of the fact that there is such a thing as an "objective" good and evil, it becomes pretty much impossible for real-world politics and behavior to exist. Of course, people *want* to behave in a "good" fashion, but it's not easy.

This isn't true. Or, rather, it is only true in certain extreme circumstances. In a society dominated by evil humanoids (orcs, goblins, etc), being Evil is a virtue. It is strong, it is assertive, it is dominating -- Evil will absolutely get you elected in a hobgoblin democracy. In a society domianted by good humanoids (elves, dwarves, gnomes, etc), the side is reversed. If you're an Evil gnome, you won't become President Gnome of Gnomes because the Gnomes don't want evil things, in general.

Now, since humans are the majority and humans are the vastly dominant species, most societies are dominated by humans -- humanoids without a real alignment. Thus, you can say 1/3rd the population wants that Evil guy in power, 1/3 of them want that Good guy in power, and 1/3rd of them don't really care as long as they're fed and happy. Being Evil wins some elections; being Good wins others. The most successful politicians play the middle field -- they're Evil sometimes, Good others, leading them to being Neutral overall. They help the poor (because the poor want themselves and their loved ones helped, and the Good like that), and they crush their enemies with scorched earth warfare (because that makes the normal selfish townsfolk happy and safe, while delighting the bloodthirsty Evil in the populace).

Basically, in a world with alingment, most people don't want to try and be Good. Because Good isn't always the best option, or the most rewarding, or even the one the meshes with what they want to see. A society leaning towards Good is just as likely as one leading toward Evil, and most Human socieities will stradle the line.

In D&D, people can be Evil and still fall in love, and people can be Good and still be bloodthirsty. And people don't nessecarily want to be Good.

In the real-world, eveyrone wants to do what they consider to be the best for the world. Because there's no way to tell Good and Evil with a glance, we're pretty much left to our own logic to figure that out (if we even think such things as Good and Evil exist, which we may decide they don't and still be entirely logical). In D&D, the only people who want to do what's best for the world are the Good. Not everyone is Good, or even tries to be. Some want nothing but destruction. Some crave violence like food. Some care for their own dominance only. Some just want to feed their family and live their lives and not worry about those crazy evil destructive folks or those insanely sacrificial good folks.

Where it becomes unrealistic, for you, is when you assume everyone wants good. When you realize that in a world with objective alignment there is no *benefit* for Good over Evil, it becomes a lot easier to envision what a D&D political system might look like.