I want to pull this into a little more focused discussion on one of the major facets brought up in the overarching cosmology thread. I recall a problem presented by a DM in another board (I think WoC, not sure) - many of his players declared their characters to be neutral in order to 1) avoid accountability for their choices and actions and 2) avoid detection, repelling, etc.; in short, exploiting loopholes in the mechanics. Of course, if you have done away with alignments in your setting then this can't occur. My questions are with regard to handling various situations when the choice has been made to keep/include alignments and their various mechanical considerations.
Now, my solution to the 2nd part of that particular problem is to include neutral versions of the various alignment effecting spells. Those of extreme polar alignments tend to display of extremes of personal perspective (and prejudice) in their views of others - and fanatics generally can't stand anyone too lazy to clarify their position, or lacking the backbone and moral fiber to take a side, with regard to whatever it is the fanatic holds to be of penultimate importance. Dismissing their particular defining conflict as irrelevant or unimportant is often even more infuriating to them than opposing their position. (Try telling Louis Farrakhan and David Duke that some other social concern, such as poverty and homelessness or health care or the war in Iraq, is more important than issues of race in the US - you'll not only get blasted from both sides for your screwed-up priorities but also for being too stupid or lazy to recognize the obvious fact that all those concerns listed fundamentally are issues of race in the US. . .) Neutrality is for some a euphemism for "equal opportunity whipping boy." Since there is a difference to Neutrality between the general absence of a defining alignment and a dedication to some principal such as Balance, the first (typical of a character avoiding responsibility) would detect much weaker than the latter (such as a Druid). Likewise the latter is much more likely to be acknowledged as having a distinct (possibly equally fanatic) position and at least be respected for that, while the former will be lumped under "those not for us must be against us" and find everyone considers them to be potential enemies or at least obstacles to be removed out of hand, (thus dealing with the first problem as well). Basically this serves to even the field a bit, making all alignment choices (including choosing not to decide) equally consequential.
More problematic for me is determining what constitutes a given position in the mechanics when there are multiple schools of morality sometimes contradicting each other regarding the good/evil of a given proposition (such as the use of waterboarding) with equal certainty. e.g., The Catholic Church still holds the actions of the Holy Office ("inquisition") to be precisely that - a "Holy Office!" Anyone care to offer ideas on how "Detect X-Alignment" used in a medieval Europe setting would handle Torquemada or an, um, "interrogation room?" How about Torquemada at the point of transfiguration (assuming for the sake of gaming and argument at least the doctrine whereby the mundane bread of the host literally becomes the holy body of Christ to be factually true in a setting which permits the definitive determination of sanctity,) while saying High Mass? Fantasy settings offer even greater scope for ambiguity. Does the belief of the caster influence the result? How about the belief of the subject? If the answer to both is "No" then how can demonstrably "false" beliefs be maintained at any significant scale in the face of absolute and definitive proof? In terms of creating a setting, such moral certainty straitjackets a lot of possible variety among social structures, institutions, etc. as many are rendered impossible by the mechanics. Yet if either question can be answered "Yes" then how do you get the mechanics to at least permit, if not support, the contradictions which arise according to cases?
Free Will
Words by Neil Peart, Music by Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson
There are those who think that life
Has nothing left to chance
With a host of holy horrors
To direct our aimless dance
A planet of playthings
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
"The stars aren't aligned ---
Or the gods are malign"
Blame is better to give than receive
You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will
There are those who think that They've been dealt a losing hand
The cards were stacked against them ---
They weren't born in Lotus-Land
All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face
You can't pray for a place
In heaven's unearthly estate
Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt
That's far too fleet...
dude, that's a lot to think about. ;)
i'm not fond of strict alignments, but i really HATE detect X spells, because they can be huge plotspoilers. this is especially the case with paladins, who have the evil-o-vision on permanently. on the other hand, these are so easily circumvented. for example, my dread necromancer adventures with a zealous paladin (out of necessity). the necro is NE, but has an eternal wand of hide alignment, so the paladin doesn't violate his oath of not willingly associating with evil beings and the necro has fun doing bad things behind his back.
in my opinion, if you must use detect/protection from, it should only work on outsiders. i can't reconcile the existence of some "evil gene" that makes me stand out in a crowd with my perception of good and evil. here are two ideas how to handle the spells:
idea 1: alignment is subjective.
to take your example of the inquisition: imo, they would have called themselves good people, trying to do gods work. they have no doubts and are convinced to do the right thing, as such their belief and alignment would detect as a shining light, pure and undimmed, while a servant who secretely drank his master's wine and is ashamed of it would register as evil, as he has willingly and knowingly something forbidden.
idea 2: alignment is determined by the gods
your detect spells work from your god's POV, so, to stay with the inquisition, their fellow priests would see them as the paragon of goodness, while a pagan witch would see them as evil. this is basically a "detect heretic".
i don't think their should be a "detect neutrality", it feels just wrong. i can understand on a certain level why you should be able to feel a persons zeal for his or her ideals, but total calm? nah...
your point of fanatic druds is valid, but those are never true neutral, but NE or LN or something like that, so you can always detect one alignment component.
S&M, you make many good points. As I have said in many threads, much like my taste in reading has changed from fairy tales tobasic SF and fantasy to history, and the way our taste buds work as we refine our palates as we age, my taste in gaming has gone from more black and white situations to a games that try to deal with real problems and avoid simplicity.
I know we play a game, but I find your refernces to current policy right on the mark.
Celtricia has no detect alignment spells, but as a fantasy setting, many major Churches have 'detect taint of X' type spells'. The Church of Vernidale the Green Mother actually a spell that detects a rival sect, the Church of Vernidale the Serpent Queen (as nothing is so vicious as a holy war over the same goddess...).
Well, I'm going to twist things up a little bit by going in a slightly different direction.
For me personally, the attraction to Detect and Protection spells comes from certain mythic themes and/or genre conventions. I'm sure these conventions had something to do with the way that alignment was treated in early D&D. I'm also sure that EGG preferred a form where alignment made a very clear-cut distinction between sides.
For example, there are some conventions that holy items or areas can either protect against evil or even be actively harmful - such as a blessing or consecrated area providing protection from evil spirits, or holy water against vampires. These things predate D&D, and form part of the cultural backdrop that attracts people like me to the game.
Not all games need this, but for a lot of games some kind of "alignment" mechanic makes sense to me. BUT... In the myth and story conventions that I am familiar with, ordinary people just aren't affected by this. Maybe if you are a saint or otherwise unusually blessed by the gods, but usually not. So the use of detect and protection spells should be much more limited in order to create the kind of stories I'd like to see.
Something more like this:
Detect Opposition - Similar to detect alignment spells, but it only works to detect creatures that are opposed to the priest's deity. This will generally only work within that deity's pantheon - on foreign gods it just won't do anything.
Detect Alignment - Detects creatures, objects, or areas that are aligned, and identifies the alignment. A higher-powered version of Detect Opposition. If the creature (object, ...) is aligned with a deity within the priest's pantheon, then the priest will know which deity (or deities) it is aligned with. If it is aligned with a foreign deity, the priest will know it is aligned, but will have to pass some kind of knowledge check to identify the pantheon and/or deity.
Protection from Opposition - Cast on a person, object, or area, this will repel or discomfort creatures that are aligned with an opposed deity. A priest of a specific deity or pantheon will have only a limited subset of deities or pantheons that are defined as opposed for this purpose.
Lesser Repulsion - Cast on a person, object, or area, this repels or discomforts all aligned creatures unless they are aligned with or allied with the priest's specific deity or pantheon.
Greater Repulsion - Similar to lesser repulsion, but this also repels non-aligned creatures - thus, only aligned creatures who are aligned with or allied with the priest's deity may approach without penalty.
Concepts like this are designed to make alignment feel more spiritual and supernatural. For me, at least, this seems closer to the kinds of mythic and genre conventions that I am interested in. Also, if you want to run stories where alignment isn't a major part, it seems less intrusive to me.
Quote from: Scholarin my opinion, if you must use detect/protection from, it should only work on outsiders. i can't reconcile the existence of some "evil gene" that makes me stand out in a crowd with my perception of good and evil.
I can see it multiple ways, certainly.
There are plenty of settings in which having detectable outsiders (and only outsiders) makes good sense. But in that case, why not replace alignment detection spells with various divisions of "Detect Outsider," since that's all you're really doing, anyway.
I think having alignment detection work for people
in specific situations is not without merit. If you're running a game set in Salem, with
Malleus-Malificarum-toting witch hunters facing off against the powers of darkness, then why not let "detect evil" reveal witches or their handiwork? If they've supposedly made pacts with evil spirits to gain power, those
supernatural spirits/forces/pacts ought to ping the evil-o-meter in ways that more mundanely-evil villains would not. (Though, you've pretty much shot the chances of any secret witches blending into the townsfolk by day, or ambiguous witch trials for those who are caught.) Yeah, your Jack the Ripper types might be just as "evil" (or more so), but in this model, it's the supernatural connections, not the morality, that are detectable.
As a matter of full disclosure, I don't play much D&D anymore, so this is sort of a moot issue for me. When I do play, I don't much care for alignment detection (or for anything related to alignment whatsoever.) I think it is a system implemented with the best of intentions (i.e., dramaticizing the showdown between good and evil!) but that's not really the sort of game I usually prefer to run. Plus, it too often gets used as a crutch (and a wobbly one) to prop up players who can't be bothered to write actual
characters, and prefer to work with piles of math.
But look at me, ranting away. Silly Crayon.
Hmm, perhaps Detect Balance would be a better term than Detect Neutrality -
[blockquote[to quote the SRD:]Neutral, "Undecided"
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil'"after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. (emphasis mine)[/blockquote]
It's the latter who would actually show up, as well as objects, etc. dedicated to this ethos. The former group simply doesn't show up to any detection as they aren't committed to any particular principle. Oddly, given some of what I'm doing with deities and cosmology, the truly enlightened would not show up either, having moved beyond attachment even to "The Middle Way" (principles of balance). They however, have little to fear from anyone mistaking them for the morally lazy. . .
I think the spells are meant to reveal presence (and degree) of dedication, whether in the consecration of a place/object, or the personal commitment of someone, to a given alignment principle. The problem still arises in handling sentient beings - primarily PCs, in terms of determining degree of dedication. DMs are free to determine this rather arbitrarily for NPCs as suits storytelling, but defining PC alignment is more of a collaborative effort - mostly up to the player with the DM occasional making a referee's call as to whether or not the player is portraying the character in a manner consistent with chosen alignment. That brings up the fact that few realistic characters are likely to be truly consistent in the choices and behavior outside of obvious exceptions such as paladins, resulting in few individuals actually being affected (or detected) by these spell - though this is generally a good thing. I have to look at it in a sense of "aura" acquiring a particular characteristic which may be temporary, e.g., someone protected by a Bless spell or the like will "look" different than usual for the duration.
The problem for me remains in handling this mechanically in a consistent fashion, along with some other influences which can arise that defy categorization in alignment terms. To address these from caster's POV (whether personal or defined by deity) won't reflect (solely) an influence coloring the subject's aura as it opens it up to differences in interpretation. Including an element of subjectivity may be workable (perhaps desirable - I'm still mulling these over and kind of processing "out loud" here) - but increases the degree of difficulty in consistent application.
To propose a case: the dwarves in my world hold all life in such reverence that any killing, even when clearly necessary (self-defense) is viewed as, while not necessarily evil, incorporating a sort of inherent "wrongness." The sorrow that this engenders in them is quite palpable. They would definitely say that killing colors the aura with a taint of this wrongness, and deal with it through subsequent rites of purification - very much like the Enemy Way ceremony of the Dine. (Shortly after a Dine returns from war they will request a Singer to perform an Enemy Way to restore their spiritual balance - balance in this sense being a trait of the "good," although what is being cleansed isn't necessarily considered evil. However, it can in a sense open the door to influences of an evil nature in the individual's life if not corrected. While I'm very reluctant to equate such spiritual practices to purely modern psychological models, the tradition is at least consistent and efficacious in terms of treating PTSD among veterans, which left untreated certainly manifests frequently in a number of ways which the Dine would characterize as "evil influences.") Anyway, when including subjective interpretations by the caster, there is definitely in this case something detectable in an individual's aura as a result of killing - which a dwarf casting Detect Evil on a long-term career mercenary should definitely perceive quite strongly - even though the veteran may well be LN or even LG by any other criteria - say a paladin officer who has led a mercenary company for years entirely in wars against explicit forces of evil. Even so, the same dwarf casting Detect Good on that paladin should also clearly perceive that element in his aura as well. . . Here we have definable, quantifiable but apparently contradictory moral absolutes at work. Ultimately, I think these things should be possible, perhaps even desirable, but actually handling them in the game poses a lot of problems. . .
Snakefing's Detect Opposition may be a way to address that - the paladin's ethos may be opposed to the dwarf's without necessarily implying an absolute moral judgment of good or evil, but this may then begin to replace alignment with everyone applying a personal, subjective value judgment of agreement/opposition in comparison to the details of their own moral codes and (so far at least) I'm still trying to work with the alignment system rather than replace it.
Has anyone considered actually splitting neutrality into different leanings or something akin to a spectral band? Most neutral character alignments could show sympathy with their relative extremes, but may not condone all actions.
An example of this would be a somewhat benevolent tyrant. They still have the interests of their people at heart, but if the system of government requires them to still be alive and in office to provide stability to the people, they could certainly make a case that disposing of oppositions is in the people's best interest, not his. After all, such actions are likely to increase the number of people seeking his overthrow. Thus, through their own percpetion and the perceptions of many of their people as well, such things are morally condoneable to maintain the status quo.
For example a neutral character who has less moral inhibitions and an "ends justifies the means" personality could fit into either an evil alignment or a neutral alignment, depending upon the motivations behind their actions. For the purpose of a detect evil spell, they would probably register register only a faintly evil aura, and would also require a marginally lower save to overcome a protection from evil spell if their motivation is less closer to neutrality than evil. This would give the DM discretion as to whether a spell or ability will affect the targetted creature, and to what degree.
Also, this option may cause paladins or other classes of extreme alignment to have to think through whether someone of a faint opposing alignment is truly worth smiting, whether they are beyond redemption and whether such actions may action break their own codes of conduct.
To keep it simple and sweet, I took the easy road here. UR doesn't have alignments. Then again there is nothing in UR that would have need of alignments.
I'll begin by saying that I like alignments. I believe they are a useful way for players to generalize how they intend to play their character. I do believe that the original 9 alignment spectrum could have worked if 4 more had been added (supreme devotion to good, evil, law, or chaos should be a different alignment than someone who just is good; call this "Exalted", "Vile", "Anarchic", and ... something ... if you want).
I am growing fond of 4E's "unaligned" alignment, and how someone with an alignment has actually made the decision to be that, not just someone who leans that way. I miss Lawful and Chaotic, and will be adding them back to my world (more because my setting is one of dualities, and the battle between Order and Anarchy or Freedom and Tyranny is more important than Good vs. Evil).
Rather than making spells to target neutrals, I think a better method for discouraging neutral characters would be to make rewards for actually having an alignment. These rewards could come from the abilty to use potent aligned items, or even constant mechanical rewards (defense bonuses for Law, offensive bonuses for evil ... drawing a blank for others). Picking neutral does protect you against some magics, but it also bars you from using others (a neutral character shouldn't be allowed to cast good spells, for instance).
But detecting evil was an issue in some campaigns. When I played a paladin back in 3E, my DM and I had a discussion about this. We established that things with weak auras are usually a low-level person with an evil alignment, but they also cling to someone who is currently plagued by evil thoughts, or just commited a minor evil. They deserve a talking to, and maybe suspcion, but not a good smiting.
If someone is walking around with a strong evil aura, then they're either a priest of an evil deity, a very powerful evil person, or an actual evil creature. These must be watched, suspected of terrible things, and potentially smited.
For my own setting, I'm retaining alignments as a descriptive tool and to determine the use of magic items and such. I'm not sure if I will have spells to detect or attack an alignment, but I do like the idea of it. They do disrupt stories, though, and are probably best left out (at least detection is).
Quote from: Kapn XeviatI do believe that the original 9 alignment spectrum could have worked if 4 more had been added (supreme devotion to good, evil, law, or chaos should be a different alignment than someone who just is good; call this "Exalted", "Vile", "Anarchic", and ... something ... if you want).
Axiomatic perhaps... Anyhow interesting ideas on that. I know that some people enjoy alignment systems but I have never been able to see a need for them. I figure just play your character as you think they should be played and their attitude/personality will be what shapes how they come across to others. Best of luck though, you sound like it is something you will enjoy. :)
I like alignments. Then again, as a servant of Baator, I would. They represent Law! Besides, I can think of a certain class (cough*paladins*cough) that could do with a good smiting, becuase just smiting people for being different (evil) shows intolerance, and intolerance can ultimately leed to tyranny, and that would be doing the devil's work, leaving me out of a job.
[blockquote Kapn Xeviat] But detecting evil was an issue in some campaigns. When I played a paladin back in 3E, my DM and I had a discussion about this. We established that things with weak auras are usually a low-level person with an evil alignment, but they also cling to someone who is currently plagued by evil thoughts, or just commited a minor evil. They deserve a talking to, and maybe suspcion, but not a good smiting.
If someone is walking around with a strong evil aura, then they're either a priest of an evil deity, a very powerful evil person, or an actual evil creature. These must be watched, suspected of terrible things, and potentially smited.
[/blockquote]
I whole-heartedly agree. I would have thought it the duty of good-aligned paladins and clerics to try and redeem those starting on the path to damnation, not send them to the afterlife.
[blockquote=scholar]idea 2: alignment is determined by the gods
your detect spells work from your god's POV, so, to stay with the inquisition, their fellow priests would see them as the paragon of goodness, while a pagan witch would see them as evil. this is basically a "detect heretic".[/blockquote]
Only takes me months to get to these things.
This is pretty similar to what Celtricia does, for myriad reasons.
I believe that alignment as a game mechanic has a place in some games, but that is it incredibly simplistic. As said in some half-dozen other threads, my viewpoint is that an absolute alignment system exists only in a near perfect inverse relationship to the maturity level of the setting. Snargash's extreme mental gymnastics are a perfect example of meshing these two nearly mutually exclusive concepts.[spoiler=much love]Snargash, I do read through almost every casting of 'Wall of Text' that you cast. Just am crazy busy.
And I apologize to anyone who takes umbrage to my comments in advance.[/spoiler]
I have 2 mechanics I use as a GM to get similar results.
1) Faction specific spells that detect allegiance or influence. As an example, The Church of the Lawful Triumverate has specific spells that can detect if a person worships entropic beings at close range, and more exact spells that can detect individual churches at some distance. With even greater range, priests from the LT can detect the strong use of Entropic magics. Almost every church has some version of these.
2) I don't like alignment in the traditional game use, but I do actually keep track of every players actions on an alignment graph, and I have done this for decades. It affects little, but it gives me an idea if they are playing a moral position well. This takes it out of players hands for use in cheap justification amd allows for the motivational ambiguity so important to a roleplaying-heavy while at the same time I track my players actions behind the scenes.
I also keep track of what religious factions or worse, their patrons, a player has run afoul of or made friends with. Do enough excavations into ancient temples of the Entropic Overlords, and eventually they will notice you, esepcially if you kill some some entropic outsiders while you are exploring.
Time will tell if that made sense or was helpful.
In the campaign I'm working on, I'm using the Alignment Axis variant from The Book of Hallowed Might (for D20). It plots Chaos/Law and Good/Evil on an axis, which runs from 1 to 9 each way. There is no "true neutral," as neutrality is considered to be a 1 either direction on the scale. Really high numbers make spells and effects related to alignment more potent when they hit that alignment, while low numbers can have limited or not effects.
It's not totally realistic, of course, but as a game abstraction it works OK in my experience and provides additional shades of nuance for the roleplayers in the game to riff on.
It's interesting to see this resurrected. Since I'm seriously considering changing systems (I'll most likely go with GURPS,) the use of alignment becomes even more abstract as it is less obligatory. One thing I have noticed about my writing style in describing Panisadore is that I often write from a sort of internal scholastic POV - I like to present different "theories" and "schools of thought" regarding various aspects of the setting as held and discussed by people within the setting itself. I haven't yet established any specific persona(s) for doing so as I've been more busy writing than such meta-contemplation, but I will probably do so soon.
Anyway, one aspect of alignment that I want to keep is in this theoretical area. It's very useful for instance, to characterize the Malenorian Empire as excessively Lawful. The term conveys a lot about the nature of that society - and general ideas then about the people. This is far less of an absolute as a DnD spell is supposed to detect - in a way the spell would only be useful to someone who subscribes to that method of categorizing phenomena. Players are less obligated to pigeon-hole their characters (certain deities in Panisadore already go so far as to declare concepts of good and evil as being irrelevant - their discussion being indicative of "missing the point"). It's more necessary to have a good idea of what the character's moral/ethical "code" is, if they have one, and how much it matters to them - it requires more thought since it can't be so readily pigeon-holed. However, just as in real life, characters may choose to pigeon hole themselves - subscribing to a specific philosophy and/or religion. . . What this produces is a dialectic within the setting, the validity of which is as debatable as in this world. Detecting good/evil or structure/chaos requires the character understand the concepts, and will only reveal what the one casting the spell is looking for in reference to what they're examining. Ice is lawful, water neutral and steam chaotic by some ways of discussing the concepts. An alchemist may be thinking about things in a very different fashion than a priest or a policeman, and an economist still further divergent - how would these various people view a tax collector?
An interesting topic, to be sure. I've always preferred a more resolved scale than the simple good-neutral-evil section. Neutral is in the middle, yes, but unless you're completely anal about keeping yourself truly neutral (thereby making yourself extremely lawful), you can't sit right in the center. You'll detect, however weakly, to one side or the other.
The second issue you state of a non-arbitrary or pair of conflicting definitions of good and evil (or, more abstractly, law and chaos), can be easily solved by you calibrating the detection spell to work from the POV of the one casting it. Torquemada casts detect evil on himself and draws nothing, as his acts are obviously justified by God. A Jew or an opponent casts that same spell on him and they discover he is terribly evil, as they don't hold to him performing in God's name.
This makes an interesting effect that detection spells are no longer the silver bullet of a justice system, as they will, almost invariably, tell you exactly what you expect them to. Evil cultists show as good or evil, depending on who performs the detection. Over-zealous paladins could experience a kind of detection creep in which their criteria become more and more broad until EVERYONE lines up evil (including themselves).
Definately in terms of religious zealotry - anyone really is vulnerable to it, though clerics and paladins are the most likely to manifest obvious and significant consequences of their bigotry. I doubt it would significantly hamper a justice system since it is already calibrated to (and what establishes the calibration standards of) a specific POV. If anything it would serve to expedite it. Torquamada after all represented a particular justice system, by the definitions of which everyone whom he would detect as evil were likewise classified as criminals. . .
What you mention about strict neutrality as a lawful behavior points out another problem I've always had with that axis since it is attempting to combine social philosophies with personal standards of behavior. Monks having to be lawful in terms of personal standards and self discipline makes sense, but as a mandate of social values makes no sense at all. Likewise someone with a 'live by the moment' personal philosophy may still be highly in favor of a lawful society which ensures that no one will interfere with this so long as the laws agreed upon aren't violated. These very concepts are part of what the scholarly/philosophical dialectic within my setting - in any institute of the Collegium on Panisadore you can find pundits fiercely arguing these definitions and their applications along with how various societies, religions and personal activities/lifestyles should be categorized. This is also one of the reasons why many less rigid, totalitarian societies prefer to have dwarven priests of Rimilnix in their judiciary - while quintessentially Lawful Good themselves, they don't actually display this sort of bias in their dealings with others. (Originating in the Underdark where nearly everyone they dealt with would detect as evil and many as chaotic anyway, it would have made any trade or other dealings with their neighbors impossible). They don't bother generally to use detection spells in court - their very presence simply makes it almost impossible for anyone (themselves included) to lie. Naturally, there are many who come before them who would much prefer the detection spells even with the extreme dwarven alignment bias.. .
Quote from: Snargash MoonclawI doubt it would significantly hamper a justice system since it is already calibrated to (and what establishes the calibration standards of) a specific POV. If anything it would serve to expedite it. Torquamada after all represented a particular justice system, by the definitions of which everyone whom he would detect as evil were likewise classified as criminals. . .
Are you kidding? I can already imagine entire plot arcs revolving around having to re-try convicted criminals when it's discovered that their Detector had gone a little bit too zealous, having to weed out Detectors who are secretly cultists, getting their mates off with their readings.
A justice system is calibrated to a collective moral standard based on the people who establish it. Those who enforce it can and often do have radically differing standards of their own.
Quote from: Snargash MoonclawWhat you mention about strict neutrality as a lawful behavior points out another problem I've always had with that axis since it is attempting to combine social philosophies with personal standards of behavior. Monks having to be lawful in terms of personal standards and self discipline makes sense, but as a mandate of social values makes no sense at all.
You misunderstand my example. I said those actively trying to maintain their status as neutral; balancing a good act with an evil one, etcetera. Simply being there doesn't make you lawful, attempting to stay there simply to stay there, is.
Quote from: Snargash MoonclawLikewise someone with a 'live by the moment' personal philosophy may still be highly in favor of a lawful society which ensures that no one will interfere with this so long as the laws agreed upon aren't violated.
The alignment system, as it stands, abhors a hypocrite. What you've actually described, I think, is a lawful person (one who is a proponent of a solid and immutable ruleset) in favor of a chaotic-inclined set of laws (ones that allow for great deals of personal freedom).
Justice systems only reflect a collective standard if their establishment is a collective effort - democracy being the broadest of such. The narrower the set of constituting the <variable term>ocracy the less this is the case, up to autocracy - which reflects most feudal societies. At that point the enforcers have little leeway in causing the system to do anything other than what the autocrat desires, and those most likely to attain any position of power to enforce the system are either in agreement with the autarch, or very good at appearing to. The latter, upon achieving that position are going to maintain that appearance by giving the autarch what he wants (in terms of judiciary results) regardless of personal opinions. In democracies, republics, etc. I agree that your assertion is quite true. Game worlds are likely to display a broad spectrum. Salis Freeport is more likely to illustrate your point, although the system of elections and appointments is intended to put some degree of check to the potential. The Malenorian Empire on the other hand is a very clear example of what I have just described.
Plot lines you describe however can really occur in any system. The thing about it is that when someone is attempting to subvert the system from within the problem is not so likely to be the calibration of the spell results as in
the reporting of the results. In most cases, only the caster is able to perceive the result, and if no one present is capable of detecting the actual act of magic (since such spells display no bells and whistles as the magic is "released') the magical interrogator can even get away with simply going through the motions (and save the "spell slot") and then report whatever results they please. Of course this all is subject to specific mechanics of the game system. (In all of this I am focusing on the court system and related branches- such as a DA's office rather than actual law enforcement personnel - that's a different ball of wax and even more vulnerable to the type of problem you mention.) The biggest problem in using alignment detecting spells as tools of the court that I see when considering how a society's justice system would work in a setting is their limited utility. Since all they can determine is the alignment stance of the person in question (whether in terms of the caster's own position and views or in more absolute terms as D&D posits the concept of alignment) there is really very little they can say about anything that someone did or did not do (which ultimately is usually the basic question the court is seeking to determine whether criminal or civil), while being of a particular alignment is itself rarely if ever a crime. The spells can indicate someone's general degree of honesty, hence how much the court can trust the truth of their subsequent testimony and be helpful in establishing someone's general character, but that's about it. All of the above notwithstanding, your plot idea is excellent. Not sure off the top of my head how to work out the details of how such a conspiracy might conduct itself but I am definitely going to be considering it.
I did understand you statement that maintaining a neutral position w/regard to good vs evil is a lawful behavior/value. I'm referring to it being a personal value/code of a lawful nature and pointing out that the way D&D has always described the Law/Chaos axis and its positions means that the character must then also hold lawful values with regard to their social philosophy, when this isn't necessarily the case. If often considered splitting Law/Chaos into two axes - one personal values and standards and one social values and standards. Anything I've come up with has been to unwieldy in terms of actual usage/utility in play and would require still more spells and other adjustments of things related to the axis.
QuoteThe alignment system, as it stands, abhors a hypocrite. What you've actually described, I think, is a lawful person (one who is a proponent of a solid and immutable ruleset) in favor of a chaotic-inclined set of laws (ones that allow for great deals of personal freedom).
I'm referring to someone who feels no inherent need for a solid, immutable rule set structuring their personal choices and behavior in life - this person disregards punctuality, prefers to act spontaneously on the spur of the moment rather than scheduling and planning in advance develops minimal routine, prefers improvisation in response to situations (viewing them as all unique even if similar) over SOP or script, etc. This would be chaotic on the personal axis proposed above. I don't see it as contradictory to also believe that structure, order, law are beneficial characteristics of society. American law, social order and structure is not, to my mind, a chaotic inclined set of laws/values etc. - (it's certainly not minarchist), but it is nevertheless intended to not only allow, but ensure a great deal of personal freedom. - tending toward lawful on the social axis.
In regards to the lawfully chaotic person described I think that it depends on how you view things. To be honest, no matter how chaotic a human being acts there will always be some measure of law in the chaos. We as a being require some form of order to function (even if that order appears skewed to outside observers). So if you want to get technical there is no such thing as a chaotic person as every chaotic person has underlying lawful concepts driving them (even mentally diseased people follow their own logical processes).
Likewise this can be used on the opposite end of the spectrum as there is no such thing as a completely lawful person. Humans are prone to their bouts of irrational action. Unlike computers we can take truly random directions in our actions and thoughts (even if we develop biases in doing so (which goes back to the inherent order)).
What I am trying to get at here is that while you can endlessly debate one way or the other about something if you want to get somewhere in regards to the topic it is necessary to find a baseline (in this case the alignment spectrum and it's descriptors).
disregard this if you think it has nothing to do with anything. I just felt like throwing in my 2 cents.
The discussion right now seems centered on D&D's alignment system.
Let's take a look at some paralell systems from the competitors:
Elric!'s allegiance system: PCs get points for taking actions that match up with one of the three major forces: Law, Chaos, or Balance. Actively supporting one of these causes allows a character to gain a game mechanics benefit from accruing a lot of points in the apropriate force.
Marvel Super Heroes Karma Points and Popularity: The automatic assumption of the game is that PCs are good guys. Doing random good deeds, like making a public appearance, earns Karma points. Karma can be used to buy lucky dice rolls or as experience. Killing a bad guy (or even not taking sufficient action to prevent the death of a bad guy) wipes out all current Karma.
At the same time, there's a popularity system, which works kind of like D&D Charisma and requires active maintenance. The right kind of good action might raise both Karma and Populairty.
Villains have negative popularity, which works like normal on other villains but is a penalty in interactions with civiilans.
DC Heroes Hero Points and Motivations: Again it's assumed PCs are good guys. Every statted NPC is assigned a motivation. There are two categories of motivations: heroic and villainous. Heroic motivations include things like: Upholding the Good, Seeking justice, and Unwanted Power. Villainous motivations include: Mercenary, Psychotic, and Nihilist.
Characters earn Hero Points, which are like experience points and luck points for taking part in adventures appropriate to their motivation. Good guys don't earn Hero Points on adventures where they try to kill bad guys.
I think maybe if D&D gave alignment concrete game mechanics benefits it might be more worth paying attention to.
Quote from: khyron1144I think maybe if D&D gave alignment concrete game mechanics benefits it might be more worth paying attention to.
It does give concrete game mechanics benefits in that only certain alignments can reap the benefit of certain class abilities and artifacts. The problem is there there is no concrete method of actually assigning those alignments.
Your examples, almost universally, assume that the players are good guys. D&D and, I'm betting, many other systems don't want to or cannot afford to make that assumption. I'm an opponent to systems which use two non-interacting systems for good and bad, since that doesn't make much sense. Nor am i a proponent for systems that are a simple sliding scale.
Wow. Lots of stuff to digest and think about. A caveat: I haven't yet read the cosomology thread. I'm heading over that way right now. So I'm sort of talking out my you-know-what.
But I think it's a mistake to try to conceive of game mechanics without reference to "cosmology."
Simply put: Metaphysics is important. How game mechanics work themselves out is a simple matter once you understand what it is that is going on in the background. If you are going to have any sort of objective good or evil, the first thing you need to do is to explain what it is on a substantial level. Is evil the power and influence of certain Gods? (Powerful and active Gods make dealing with good and evil a lot easier in many respects.) Or is the universe governed by some Karmic force?
If it is a Karmic force, what are the principles that it embodies? In my own world, I blend the God concept and the Karmic Force concept slightly: thoughts of malice and murder and deception tend to have a corrupting effect. This means little to the populace of the world, but to the things that the Gods do, it means a great deal. It means that the creations of a God that has turned to evil will be twisted and distorted, imperfect in the extreme. This has a self-reinforcing aspect (and man is fundamentally bad -- created by a very nasty God). So the evil Gods in my world are pretty darn bad. And they are the source of "evil" -- but because of choices that they have made, not because of inherent natures or portfolios.
But one could just as easily imagine a universe where the substantial plenum in which people live reacts more directly to something like "harm" -- any time someone thinks or acts in a way that is harmful to someone, the world reacts a little in response.
Or you could go a different route and say that there is a collective force -- perhaps psionic, perhaps magical -- generated by groups of intelligent beings. That force exerts some effect based on what the group sees as good for them.
You could even get really heavy-handed and go old skool cosmology: the world is caught between two shadow-planes, one filled with munificent beings of light and grace and the other filled with horrible nasty things. Maybe you want to make a story of how these came into being, maybe you don't care. The point is that the beings of these two planes see the world as their battleground, and so "good" and "evil" are directly tied to the influence of non-deity beings of great power, and people can learn to tap into the energies of these planes, filling themselves with light or shadow.... or whatever.
My point is only this: before you can go into a discussion of good and evil and how it falls out in a game in terms of detection and so forth, you need to decide what good and evil *are*. It's a fantasy world. With magic, most likely. ANd Gods. So the tools are there... you can do whatever you want with it. But start with the basic building blocks. How a "detect evil" spell works simply must have something to do with what it is supposed to be detecting in the first place! The benefits that may or may not accrue from being "good" are going to be utterly dependent on the source of those benefits, and the motivations of the bequestors (is that a word?) -- assuming it's not some natural mechanical process. But if it is, the mechanics are going to work differently.