The Campaign Builder's Guild

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.