Why I Ditched Alignments

[Rassilon]

The thing about alignments is . . . they establish a baseline. Alignment may be an active hinderance to your game, and hey, I've played with different ideas myself - but alignment does produce a general idea of what certain fantasy archetypes consider reasonable bounds of behaviour.

I don't think that alignment is really (anymore at least) intended to produce an advanced socio-political, and more importantly philosphical index of the moral and ethical spectrums in the real world. I do think that alignment is supposed give an idea of what the Evil Wizard, or Honourable Fighter, or Good Cleric will do in the 'average' behaviourally challenging situation. Also, a bit like laws (or conventions) alignment gives some common ground to integrating player and DM expectations of the moral/ethical motivation of a character.

Of course, I know (and have had) those huge disagreements over whether the LG Monk will be 'nice' or 'nasty' in response to a given stimulus. However, given how much argument can be had over the minutae and differing world views on alignment, consequence, and just interpreting what the given situation is, alignment is valuable exactly to restrict the argument within certain parameters.

For example: although the player and DM may disagree over what LG means, they can both turn to the book and have a common arena to discuss in, and contrast LG with CE to see exactly what LG won't do, to help refine what LG will do.

If your group doesn't find it valuable, ditch it!

I think that even if every group develops in such a way that it chooses to use something other than alignment as written, alignment will stil have been valuable to provide a set of base undertandings (a 'discourse') from which to develop alternative systems tailored to the individual group.

Rassilon.

 

[WayneLigon]

2) You're making the assumption that the use of these spells is standard. Since the use of such things is pretty obvious, I'm not convinced it would be. After all, the diplomats in the real world don't take polygraph tests as a matter of course.

I think that it's such a common spell and so readily available that it would be used to some degree. Now, there might be a cultural impediment to using such a spell but in your baseline D&D game there isn't; that's a function of your campaign world. It's a simple spell to do.

The reason we don't do the poly graph is that we can't trust the polygraph to such a great extent, and it's severely limited. It takes a well-trained operator in controlled conditions to take an accurate polygraph reading and then it's still in doubt. And all it detects is lies as reflected by physical changes, it doesn't detect evil intent.

A Detect Evil spell always works, regardless of how competant the spell caster is, takes virtually no time, no equipment that can malfunction, etc. The person need never know he was even scanned. The only possibility is a priest the deliberately lies.

I disagree. For many centuries of our history, the notion that there might not be a single God was considered outlandish, and at times punishable by death. People simply accepted the existence of an objective measure of godd and evil. The only element that was missing was a reliable measure of detecting 'good' and 'evil'. And yet this obviously did not hinder the development of realistic politics.

Hmm. Well, for a vastly longer period, the exact opposite was true. And we don't have magic. The main reason we have realistic politics is that politicians tend to be more realistic; many of them may well have been men of unwavering faith but I would not find it hard to beleive that many more were much more pragmatic inside their own heads despite the face they presented to others, and justified actions as needed. With real actual reproducable magic, though, some of that becomes harder to do.

 

[Staffan]

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

Actually, the ease of alignment detection vs. concealment lie along two different axes. Yes, detect [alignment] is a 1st level spell while undetectable alignment is a 2nd level spell, so from that perspective detection is easier. However, detect [alignment] only lasts a short while (as long as you concentrate, up to 10 min/level), while undetectable alignment lasts all day. So once you get one casting of UA, you're good to go.

 

[Wombat]

My biggest problem with alignments in D20 (which I dropped quite some time ago) was, and remains, the fact that the system tries to play both sides of the fence.

Alignments are absolute.
Alignments are relative.

On the one hand you have Outsiders and the Planes, along with certain spells, magical items, as assumptions about creatures. In these cases alignment is Absolute -- Evil is Evil, Good is Good, etc. The spells, planes, Outsiders are not supposed to deviate in any way from this pure path of alignment. Based on this Absolute definition, spells such as Detect Evil work very well, in that they are not looking for tendencies, but rather specific, identifiable criteria.

On the other hand you have PCs, nations, and "alignment requirements" for classes. In these cases alignment is Relative. As long as you are more or less Good and more or less Lawful you are able to remain a Paladin. A nation has an alignment, but it doesn't really describe most of the people in that land or even how the government is going to act the majority of the time. And certainly characters are given vague guidelines; please don't colour outside the lines, but you can have gaps. In this case, what the heck does Detect Evil actually do? Detect General Tendency Towards Doing Things That I Do Not Consider Nice At The Moment? Is slavery Evil, Lawful, or just Not A Nice Idea Where I Come From? Are different governmental structures inherently more or less good, lawful, evil, neutral, etc.?

Since the system is not set up to map in either direction consistently, I was quite happy to drop it. Yes, this required some adjustments, but I found the adjustments were better for the game than dealing with the vagueness that is the D&D alignment system.

 

[delericho]

I think that it's such a common spell and so readily available that it would be used to some degree. Now, there might be a cultural impediment to using such a spell but in your baseline D&D game there isn't; that's a function of your campaign world. It's a simple spell to do.

If we're talking about the development of realistic politics in a world with magic, we need to consider how cultures would adapt to the presence of said magic. In fact, the existence of alignment is not really a big factor here - the moment it becomes possible for a diplomat to be subjected to any effect that reads his thoughts, some sort of countermeasure must be developed. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the most effective means of doing this is by employing diplomats who know only what they need to know, and nothing more. However, I suspect this may not be enough - to do his job effectively, the diplomat probably needs to know sensitive information.

I think that the most likely response to the existence of telepathic effects is that the meeting of diplomats would probably take place under anti-magic protection, or perhaps under the watchful eyes of powerful bodyguards, who won't take kindly to any spellcasting on the part of the opposing wizards. (And that would need to occur in rooms shielded from scrying, and... Basically, the development of a realistic culture in a world featuring D&D magic is a very difficult task, if one wants it to stand up to serious scrutiny.)

The reason we don't do the poly graph is that we can't trust the polygraph to such a great extent, and it's severely limited. It takes a well-trained operator in controlled conditions to take an accurate polygraph reading and then it's still in doubt. And all it detects is lies as reflected by physical changes, it doesn't detect evil intent.

Fair enough, not a great example. However, detect evil doesn't detect evil intent, only evil creatures.

A Detect Evil spell always works, regardless of how competant the spell caster is, takes virtually no time, no equipment that can malfunction, etc. The person need never know he was even scanned. The only possibility is a priest the deliberately lies.

True, but it's still not terribly useful. Good creatures still can and do screw each other over, given sufficient need or motivation. (A human kingdom deperately needs to build a fleet of warships to defend themselves. Sadly, the only easily-available forests are the holdings of the elven people on their borders.) Good creatures make errors of judgement, and come to truly believe that actions are moral when they are not (bear in mind that a character of such mistaken views remains Good until his actions dictate otherwise). The Good cleric takes the view that he knows best, and gives a false report to derail negotiations (or to encourage negotiations where he should not). Or the evil necromancer gleefully acknowledges that he's evil, but holds sufficient clout that the Good kingdom has to negotiate.

Also, Discern Lies and Zone of Truth both have Will saves. So they're not exactly reliable, in addition to being rather limited in scope.

Hmm. Well, for a vastly longer period, the exact opposite was true. And we don't have magic.

Sure, I'll not argue with that. I just needed an example, and that was as close as I could get.

The main reason we have realistic politics is that politicians tend to be more realistic; many of them may well have been men of unwavering faith but I would not find it hard to beleive that many more were much more pragmatic inside their own heads despite the face they presented to others, and justified actions as needed. With real actual reproducable magic, though, some of that becomes harder to do.

I'll not argue that. However, I also think that realistic politics probably means that you won't get kingdoms ruled by wise and noble paladins, probably at all. There are too many cases where the good of a nation requires some sort of compromise of ideals, and so a paladin is unlikely to remain so for very long, or is likely to be a very unpopular ruler. (Simple example: if 3% of your population are extremely wealthy nobles, and 10% are starving on the streets, and the royal coffers are empty, what do you do? At what point does just taxation of the rich to feed the poor become unjust theft? And even if it never becomes theft, how long will it be before the nobles decide that they're better off removing their king, and placing their own puppet in his place?)

 

[mythusmage]

It's possible, if Evil is sneaky.

Cleric: "Don't vote for him! My God declares he is Evil!"

Politician: "Don't listen to him! His God is Evil!"

Whom do you believe?

So then the commoner says to himself, "Well, I don't know who's evil or not, but I know that one guy's church healed my wife when she got the pox. So I'll go with them." Of course, the Evil church healed his wife just to pass themselves off as Good. So the commoner sides with the Evil church and they sacrifice the Good Politician to the Gods.

Here's the deal, in a D&D setting such hypotheses are scientific. That is, they are testable. They can be proven or disproven, and there are tools whereby the testing can be done; Telepathy, Detect Lie, Commune. In D&D assertions regarding morality and theology can be falsified.

Not what you have in real life. Then again, D&D doesn't model real life, D&D models what life might be like if magic worked.

 

[Merlion]

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.

I disagree with this, because their is objective good and evil in the real world, right alongside real world politics and behaviour.

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

Then remove or alter those spells. Make it easier to hide alignment. Include mortal characters who are "in doubt" or between alignments...whose actions and intentions are at odds perhaps, and who's "auras" give ambigious readings because at the moment their nature is in flux between good and evil.



I just dont like the idea of removing good and evil alignment and magic, especially in fantasy. What about fiends? Are their really no spells that are inherently evil, or good?



For this reason I will be adding Good and Evil in some form or fashion to my mostly Arcana Evolved, Arcana Evolved/D&D fushion game.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Hyperborean Ethics

The Hyborian Age website makes a good case for its lack of alignment rules.

Don't get me wrong ... I actually like alignment, especially since the arrival of 3.0.

However, I also like options; some settings (like Robert E. Howard's realm of Hyperborea) can enhance their unique flavor by removing alignment rules.

-Samir

 

[I'm A Banana]

On the other hand you have PCs, nations, and "alignment requirements" for classes. In these cases alignment is Relative. As long as you are more or less Good and more or less Lawful you are able to remain a Paladin. A nation has an alignment, but it doesn't really describe most of the people in that land or even how the government is going to act the majority of the time. And certainly characters are given vague guidelines; please don't colour outside the lines, but you can have gaps. In this case, what the heck does Detect Evil actually do? Detect General Tendency Towards Doing Things That I Do Not Consider Nice At The Moment? Is slavery Evil, Lawful, or just Not A Nice Idea Where I Come From? Are different governmental structures inherently more or less good, lawful, evil, neutral, etc.?

You do your actions, and the universe determines your alignment. Detect Evil detects how the universe defines certain individuals. Of course angels and demons are going to be less flexible than mere mortals -- it is part of their very being, while mortals have more free choice in the matter. The Universe may dictate slavery as evil. Or, if the slaves are treated nobly and given human rights, it may detect as Good (even if they have no say in government). It is not the single act, it is the method and design with which it is carried out. Slaying a demon is Good. Torturing a demon to death for your own perverse pleasure is probably Not Good (and, well, ultimately pointless, since you probably can't do to it what it's own home and teammates don't already do to it on a daily basis).

Detect evil detects the current environmental definition.

My explanation is that in D&D, waves and particles of Good and Evil and Law and Chaos actually exist, and are attracted to certian mindsets and behaviors. Thus, someone who likes to kill babies most of the time, but who doesn't kill his own baby, still probably has attracted a lot of Evil energy, and so would radiate Evil, even if he's in the park playing frisbee.

I like options, too, and alignment does have it's problems. However, I still think the original poster's mistake was in assuming that in a world with alignments, everyone would want Good. This isn't true -- there's no real measurable benefit for choosing Good over Evil. In fact, there may ne a detriment. Just as many people want Evil, and probably more people are rather wishy-washy on the topic, choosing Good sometimes and Evil other times, when it suits them. Good and Evil are entirely equal options in D&D, so there's really no reason that a society wouldn't WANT an evil leader every once in a while.

 

[WayneLigon]

...the moment it becomes possible for a diplomat to be subjected to any effect that reads his thoughts, some sort of countermeasure must be developed.

Yeah; D&D is missing most of those non-adventuring magics that would almost have to be developed. I always liked the Champions philosophy os 'defences are always cheaper than attacks' so in a more realistic application of magic, you'd probably have 'Prevent Divination' as a 1at level spell that most people get tattooed on themselves I generally just try to deal with the rules-as-written; otherwise, it just becomes a house-ruled mess as you try to shoehorn in something the system wasn't really meant to handle.