Why I Ditched Alignments

[Dr. Harry]

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

I would like to add a #4 to this excellent post, if I may:

#4: Detect Lies would not do a heck of a lot of good. As helium3 pointed out, this will only detect a lie if the speaker knows that it is untrue. Otherwise a cleric could cast it on a thief in the dungeon who could test every trap with saying "Whew! that's disarmed!" aloud. So there's that.

Plus, this acts against untrue statements, not fuzzy statements or conditional statements, or imprecise statements. "We said our troops would never cross the boundary, but we've always claimed that this river is the boundary. They would result in long, complex, legalistic negotiations that are nothing like the real world ...

Consider how real-world politicians shade and spin their statements so that they can claim that they weren't lying when various unpleasent claims come out, or to actively skirt the edges of laws and still get the benefit of breaking the law. "I never said Ted Smith was the guy who did it!" wouldn't be a lie, per se, even if the person who said it *did* say "The guy I sit down next to is the guy who did it." If there is a spell of "Discern Equivocation", I fear that it would need to be least 7th level, and it would going off all the darn time.

 

[LostSoul]

Here's the deal, in a D&D setting such hypotheses are scientific. That is, they are testable.

Okay, so who's doing the testing? Do you trust that person? Who tests the testers?

You may think that the guy casting Detect Evil is a Paladin, but he's really a 20th-level whatever Succubus with her own agenda. And then if you believe that test, then your whole world-view is upside-down.

You'd still have to resort to "Is what they do Good or Evil?" in most cases, to be aboslutely certain; and even then, Evil can be sneaky.

 

[mythusmage]

Okay, so who's doing the testing? Do you trust that person? Who tests the testers?

You may think that the guy casting Detect Evil is a Paladin, but he's really a 20th-level whatever Succubus with her own agenda. And then if you believe that test, then your whole world-view is upside-down.

You'd still have to resort to "Is what they do Good or Evil?" in most cases, to be aboslutely certain; and even then, Evil can be sneaky.

100% assurance? No, you're not going to get it, because people are not that capable. But, reasonably sure is another matter. And that requires making the effort instead of wringing your hands and declaring the problem hopeless.

My point is, in D&D claims regarding evil are testable. The tools are there, you just need to apply them. A reputed paladin says someone is evil, you put him under a Zone of Truth. Heck, you could have someone you know and trust with the spell cast a Detect Evil on him.

Getting people to accept the results is another matter, but that does not mean a claim of malignity cannot be proved.

 

[LostSoul]

My point is, in D&D claims regarding evil are testable. The tools are there, you just need to apply them. A reputed paladin says someone is evil, you put him under a Zone of Truth. Heck, you could have someone you know and trust with the spell cast a Detect Evil on him.

I see your point, and I admit it would take many years of Evil planning and scheming in order to pull it off. But you could have some Evil cleric, whom everyone trusts, cast Detect Good on the Paladin, and say that he's actually Evil. It boils down to whom you trust: the stranger who wandered in last night, dressed for war, or the nice guy down the block who brought your wife back to life and cured your kids of the plague?

In your example, the Evil cleric could say, "Okay, let's see if he's telling the truth." Then he casts Zone of Truth. And then he says, "His demonic powers allowed him to resist my spell! He's too dangerous to be allowed to roam freely. Get him!"

And if everyone was taught (via a re-interpretation of Spellcraft) that Detect Good was actually the spell Detect Evil, and vice versa...

It boils down to setting flavour, but you can pull of either one with the ruleset.

 

[Slobber Monster]

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.

This is pretty much what I do as well. When the time comes to determine things like the effects of a Unholy Blight spell in my campaign, most free-willed creatures, including the PC's, will grade out to neutral. I do quietly keep track of the PC's behavior though, just in case any happen to act very consistenly in a particular direction. Then when they try to do something like wear a white Robe of the Archmagi or wield a Holy weapon they will find out what the sum of their deeds is, and can seek Atonement if they wish to be (un)worthy. So by the natural course of things most do not become strongly aligned until higher levels. Until then I rarely say a word about the morality of their actions unless they seek my opinion.

 

[helium3]

This is pretty much what I do as well. When the time comes to determine things like the effects of a Unholy Blight spell in my campaign, most free-willed creatures, including the PC's, will grade out to neutral. I do quietly keep track of the PC's behavior though, just in case any happen to act very consistenly in a particular direction. Then when they try to do something like wear a white Robe of the Archmagi or wield a Holy weapon they will find out what the sum of their deeds is, and can seek Atonement if they wish to be (un)worthy. So by the natural course of things most do not become strongly aligned until higher levels. Until then I rarely say a word about the morality of their actions unless they seek my opinion.

Yeah. I agree that it does result in wonky results in a few cases. For example, in the case of a Forbiddence spell, I completely ignore the prior rule simply because to do otherwise would result in the spell only working against clerics and outsiders. That makes the spell as I've seen it used in other games not useable. *shrug* It's a fluid system. I try to make it as coherent as possible, but sometimes that's nearly impossible.

 

[Kisanji Arael]

Well, this is borderline House Rules, but I've always felt (as a believer in relative alignment) that detect good and evil should be replaced with detect virtue and sin, with you picking the virtue or sin to be detected (and can change it every 2 rounds). Therefore, the noble Paladin might register with as much wrath as the githyanki, as well as loyalty, but hopefully would show less of the other Seven Deadlies and many more of the Virtues.

 

[Kisanji Arael]

This is pretty much what I do as well. When the time comes to determine things like the effects of a Unholy Blight spell in my campaign, most free-willed creatures, including the PC's, will grade out to neutral. I do quietly keep track of the PC's behavior though, just in case any happen to act very consistenly in a particular direction. Then when they try to do something like wear a white Robe of the Archmagi or wield a Holy weapon they will find out what the sum of their deeds is, and can seek Atonement if they wish to be (un)worthy. So by the natural course of things most do not become strongly aligned until higher levels. Until then I rarely say a word about the morality of their actions unless they seek my opinion.

You, sir, have earned my respect as a DM. Way to make them earn it. May none question thy skill in the art.

 

[The Druid Merlin]

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.

I'd rather live in a Chaotic Good society. They would respect the rights and freedoms of all indivduals. A Lawful Evil society, wouldn't. A Chaotic Good would be more trustworthy because they wouldn't stab you in the back in a quest for more political power. A Lawful Evil would. Good = trustworthy, Evil = untrustworthy.

 

[Sundragon2012]

Originally Posted by Andor
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.

Lawful evil societies are trustworthy....trustworthy to be corrupt, opressive, warlike, tyrannical, cruel and well......evil. The nature of lawful evil is to hold to the word and not the spirit of the law and if those words can be twisted to their benefit they will be.

Examples of obviously lawful evil societies would include Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Humanity is ground under for the benefit of the state and the benefit of those in power. There is less crime in the street maybe but the government is full of criminals.


Chris