Moral compasses and game mechanics (aside from over-arching cosmology)

[Snargash Moonclaw]

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...

[Scholar]

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.

[LordVreeg]

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...).  

[snakefing]

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.

[Lmns Crn]

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.

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.

[Snargash Moonclaw]

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.

[Malebranche]

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.

[Nomadic]

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.

[Xeviat]

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).

[Nomadic]

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).

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. :)

[Malebranche]

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.

[LordVreeg]

[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.

[lionrampant]

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.

[Snargash Moonclaw]

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?

[Stargate525]

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).