RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to Game Proposals, Input, and Advice

15:09, 28th March 2024 (GMT+0)

alignment variant d&d 3.5.

Posted by Ravidge
Tortuga
member, 1774 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 16:21
  • msg #26

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

Davy Jones:
So, you don't believe in an objective morality?


Buddy, I don't even believe in objective reality.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:26, Fri 16 Feb 2018.
Alex Vriairu
member, 430 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 16:39
  • msg #27

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

Tortuga:
Davy Jones:
So, you don't believe in an objective morality?


Buddy, I don't believe in objective reality.


You know, thinking on it, I'm not sure I do either, but that's a much larger debate, considering reality must be colored by perception which is slightly different for each person.

Davy Jones:
So, you don't believe in an objective morality? That there are acts that are universally good or evil? Leave politics out of it, and look at the collective of humanity.

Universally, murder is wrong. The mistreatment of another human being or animal is wrong. Kidnapping, raping, stealing is wrong.

That's what we're talking about in an "objective" sense.

Look at Hitler and Stalin, do you not believe that they were evil men? Or that Mister Rogers wasn't a good man?


Actually, No I do not believe Murder is Universally wrong, nor is anything else you listed, I believe that Under MOST NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES it is wrong and abhorrent, but not ALL circumstances, Murder for instance is perfectly acceptable in the defense of another, Rape, I've covered, mistreatment of an animal is somewhat harder, but without animal testing, which can be argued as mistreatment most medicine would not exist.

You ask if Hitler and Stalin were evil men, and I would agree that Hitler was, but I did not ever claim that evil did not exist, I merely claimed it is not universal and must be looked at on a case by case basis every single time for every action ever made to find out if it is infarct evil.  MOST of the time the answer will be Yes.

But not ALL the time which prohibits an Objective Universal Evil.
Hunter
member, 1423 posts
Captain Oblivious!
Lurker
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 16:48
  • msg #28

alignment variant d&d 3.5

The biggest difference between real life and d&d is that alignments are absolutes.   Good and evil aren't relative to the culture you live in.   Evil isn't misunderstood but is a "code of behavior" (if you will) that is clearly defined.   It isn't objective or relative.
Tortuga
member, 1775 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 16:53
  • msg #29

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

These words also imply context.

What's the difference between genocide and mass murder? Context. The intentional extermination of a given class requires a discerning human mind to qualify both intent and class. All acts of mass murder are not genocide.

What's the difference between a killing and murder? Context. Murder is unlawful/unsanctioned killing. Killing in war and executions are not murder unless you do not accept that the state has the right to kill to further its interests. Killing in self defense is generally not considered murder. Killing a deer to feed your family is not murder unless the observing subjective mind values animal lives as much as the hunter's. There can be no murder without that subjective judgement of what is murder and what is killing.

Want to get more esoteric? What is killing? What is death? Brain death? The cessation of breathing? We subjectively decide these states. Objective would be gross matter, to whom alive vs not alive are irrelevant; the laws of thermodynamics continue on. Nature doesn't care if individual members of a given species are alive or not, and extinction is just scaled up death.

Scale down far enough and all you have is entropy. That's objective. Maybe. Quantum states are altered by the act of observation. So how objective is the basest, smallest quantifiable bits? Not very. Not at all, maybe.

But then again, does any of it exist without a conscious mind to observe it? Everything in your reality is a virtual construct based on past experience and what's been told to you. Everything you experience is based on subjectively interpreted sensory input sent to you by imperfect apparatus; your eyes, nose, mouth, skin. Your nervous system. Imperfect.

Seeing is believing; believing is subjective. If there is an objective layer to reality, you will never touch upon it. Your a consciousness mechanically enabled by a mind relying on low res cameras and microphones to build a picture of what the universe is. Nothing reaches you untainted by your subjective filters.

If there is no meaningful objective reality, then morality either is also subjective, or it isn't real.

Oh, and I just don't use alignment in DnD.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:55, Fri 16 Feb 2018.
Alex Vriairu
member, 431 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 16:54
  • msg #30

alignment variant d&d 3.5

In reply to Hunter (msg # 28):

And that's true, but it is something I can't accept/comprehend/or understand.  It would be easier for me to understand a silicon based life-form that only saw existence through the background radiation of the universe.

Than to accept an objective code of existence that defined any act as inherently good or evil.
gladiusdei
member, 638 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 16:54
  • msg #31

alignment variant d&d 3.5

We're sort of arguing around each other.  To me, objective good and evil exist when you combine a room with intent.  Murder is evil, because murder us taking a life for your own gain or personal satisfaction.  Killing to defend another is not murder.

That's also why I said things like rape, or molestation are the clearest examples of evil because they are inflicting suffering in another for personal pleasure.  There really isn't any way to justify that, or a situation where it is good.

An act itself is not evil.  You have to take intention into it as well.  Most historical codes of morality do so, and so do the rules for alignment in D&D.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:56, Fri 16 Feb 2018.
Tortuga
member, 1776 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 16:56
  • msg #32

alignment variant d&d 3.5

And the judgement of intention/creation of context makes it subjective.
gladiusdei
member, 639 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 16:58
  • msg #33

alignment variant d&d 3.5

It does in the context of judging another sentient being, yes, since its very difficult to know someone else's thoughts.  But it doesn't in terms of personal morality.

We're talking about a game where you play a character.  That character's morality isn't subjective.  Its objective, since you know all motivations behind the actions, and can compare them to the rules of alignment.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:59, Fri 16 Feb 2018.
Alex Vriairu
member, 432 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 17:03
  • msg #34

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

Tortuga:
And the judgement of intention/creation of context makes it subjective.


You do so well, in articulating my point I could leave this to you with a flourish and bow, and just find popcorn.
Tortuga
member, 1777 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 17:04
  • msg #35

alignment variant d&d 3.5

Gladius:

Maybe we're just disagreeing on the nature of objective and subjective. If that's the case, there's nowhere to go until a consensus is reached.
gladiusdei
member, 640 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 17:07
  • msg #36

alignment variant d&d 3.5

I guess so. It seems to me our argument lies in judging action versus judging intention.

 But in the context of the question OP asked, the alignment rules for D&D are still clear.  You take into account the act and intention, and determine good or evil.

It still goes back to either alter the system to play without alignment, or just be neutral or evil and not worry about a game's label.
bigbadron
moderator, 15507 posts
He's big, he's bad,
but mostly he's Ron.
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 17:09

alignment variant d&d 3.5

Can we please go back to helping the OP develop a variant alignment system for a GAME.  All of the talk about objective/subjective morality in the REAL WORLD is off topic for this forum.
Ravidge
member, 20 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 17:22
  • msg #38

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

In reply to Davy Jones (msg # 25):

So is killing Hitler and Stalin as children an act of good or evil? You are altruistically killing them to save the lives of thousands of people. But you are at that point killing an innocent person who hasn't committed an evil act. If you believe they are inherently evil and can not be saved then killing them is an act of good and by doing so you are saving human lives. If you believe there is a possibility of changing them then it is an act of evil to kill them without trying to change them first.

In D&D context this goes back to my earlier comment. If the child of a drow is inherently evil and no matter what you do to try and change them they will be evil and are bound to kill many people then killing them as a child and preventing future loss of life would be a good act. In such a situation imprisoning them so as to prevent them from ever having a chance to commit an evil act is much more cruel than simply killing them.

Any how I think I am leaning towards just dumping the good evil alignments and mechanically adjusting things to do with good and evil. I will keep law and chaos, they are much more cut and dry...
gladiusdei
member, 641 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 17:28
  • msg #39

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

You're committing murder, an evil act, by justifying it as something that has to be done.  By alignment rules it is evil.  You could make a good campaign about a paladin who falls from grace doing just such a thing, and has to learn to return to his god.

Killing a defenseless being, no matter the alignment, is evil by the rules.  Your argument is why so often people call it lawful stupid.  But in reality, it's based on the idea that falling to evil to fight evil just makes more evil.

I guess my question for you, is why not just run an evil campaign?  Why does it matter if your characters are viewed as good or evil?
Hunter
member, 1424 posts
Captain Oblivious!
Lurker
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 17:44
  • msg #40

alignment variant d&d 3.5

In reply to Alex Vriairu (msg # 30):

The idea of the Force in Star Wars is the same basic idea.   Good and evil, light and dark are absolutes.
Ravidge
member, 21 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 17:46
  • msg #41

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

So I am not trying to toss everything on its head I am more looking at it from a different point of view. Most religious people say morality comes from god and it is god that tells us what is right or wrong. Furthermore, I am not going to have any god who has good or evil domains period. So we have the situation where a god claims to be good and his followers believe he is good and that they are good and righteous but in the end he is evil and so are his followers from an objective morality point of view.

This logic can't work with the existence of the standard d&d alignment/magic system. Any npc capable of casting spells would know they are in fact evil and then just simply be complicit in their evil. If I simply use the system suggested earlier of fanatic/zealot score and hiding their good/evil alignment and simply have the god tell them this is detect/protection from evil when it is actually protection/detect good; it would work well until you deal with things like undead, devils, or demons that are universally evil inside the setting not showing up in your 'detect evil'.
gladiusdei
member, 642 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 17:53
  • msg #42

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

It's a dilemma.  You could use the Eberron rules where alignment is divorced from divine magic, and good people can follow evil gods, and vice versa.  They also explain that a paladin's detect evil only detects supernatural evil.  It wouldn't go off for every selfish human that walked past him.  And despite pc paranoia, most casters don't cast detect alignment on every person they interact with.

Eberron also has a good info thing on the Dreaming Dark in their Sarlona sourcebook, on how an entire nation could be ruled by supernatural evil and not really realise it.

It doesn't ultimately solve your problem, but it might give you enough leeway.
This message was last edited by the user at 18:11, Fri 16 Feb 2018.
Faceplant
member, 30 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 17:56
  • msg #43

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

What I'd suggest is to have a firm idea of what is "holy" and "unholy" to each god. For the god of the forge, for example, holy might be good craftsmanship and honest business dealings, while unholiness might be "not taking care of your tools" or laziness or just "impurity."

Then track not alignment, but affinity/holiness/sacricity to each god according not to good/evil, but to their individual ethos.

So a cleric of the god of the forge casts "protection from evil" and gets a bonus against lazy people or shoddy craftsmen or dishonest merchants or poorly made weapons or whatever.
Ravidge
member, 22 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 18:08
  • msg #44

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

In reply to gladiusdei (msg # 42):

I haven't read through the Sarlona source book source book so I will have to that could be very helpful thanks!

In reply to Faceplant (msg # 43):

That is an awesome idea but I shudder at the complexity of enacting it.
gladiusdei
member, 643 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 18:16
  • msg #45

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

I'd also say, depending on how you want the evil god to trick his followers, and what he makes them do, that even though they commit evil acts, it doesn't automatically make them evil.  In the same way that using a dominate spell on someone to make them kill doesn't make them evil when the spell wears off.  Or using illusion to trick someone into attacking a friend.

If they have been totally fooled into committing evil while thinking it is good, then they are victims too.  So they wouldn't be detectable as evil.
airellian
member, 417 posts
Fri 16 Feb 2018
at 18:23
  • msg #46

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

I would suggest going for the Magic: the Gathering approach, at least with respect to tribals. Select two or three tribal enemies for each of your deities, and these deities now grant detect or protection from spells related to those enemy tribals. So, for example, if one god hates undead, you can detect undead. If elves, then elves. It even has a handy precursor in the grandfather of fantasy, Tolkien, as the blades of Gondolin, i.e. Glamdring, Orcrist, and, of course, Sting, glowed in the presence of orcs and not general evil stuff.

Tribal constructs can be as broad or as specific as you wish. I'm reminded of the notion in Eberron that outsiders from different planes are not necessarily the same. For example, a demon of Fernia is different from a demon of Shavarath. One is related to fire, while the other is related to battle. Both are demons, but what's more important is the planar connection.
DarkLightHitomi
member, 1279 posts
Sat 17 Feb 2018
at 11:05
  • msg #47

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

Honestly, fixing alignment is a lot easier and better if you simplify. Most of the time alignment becomes a problem, it is because people are thinking deeply and nuanced about morality.

Much better to say that alignment is a trait that engenders a general trend, but is not really involved with specifics, such as emotional energy or a focus on who benefits from an action.

For example, Good can be a trait of individuals that spend their time and resources towards group/society based goals, and Evil is a trait of individuals that are spending time and resources towards personal goals. Neutral is someone that either balances the two or does neither. Under this concept, morality is still a largely grey area, yet there is still an objective standard by which you can call something good ot=r evil.

Sadly, while that makes the most sense, players can easily cheat that to suit their own needs, so, if you'd prefer, you can instead base them around emotions.

Good can come from positive emotions, like joy and gratitude, while Evil comes from anger, pain, and hate. This fits DnD spells better and is harder for players to mis-use. Suddenly, evil spells being evil even when used for good intentions makes sense, as those spelks require strong negative emotions.

When a race is evil, in this case it means they act with fear, anger, and hate. Kobalds for example are generally driven by fear and jealousy, negative emotions that make them register as evil.

Of course, with either of these examples, genocide is an evil act.
kark2
member, 247 posts
Sun 18 Feb 2018
at 09:17
  • msg #48

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

Ravidge:
with people believing they are good and righteous when they could actually be evil depending on who's view you take.


I would like to offer a different approach. I used it for a game I GMed it.

Ravidge, you are linking good with righteous. Why not divorce them? That way, Good and Evil are the same philosophical realities in every D&D game.

Is it right to do good deeds with your fellow humans? Yes! Is it right to do evil deeds to the orcs of the next valley? Yes!

Or not. That depends on what each people believe what is right and wrong. Some people will believe that 100% good is the only right. Others not.


All I say is that when good is such a reality that can be summoned in a soulmeld to shape a weapon of pure incarnum, then you have to choose what is right to do with that weapon.
Ravidge
member, 23 posts
Mon 19 Feb 2018
at 15:02
  • msg #49

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

Ya I think I am leaning more towards keeping good/evil alignments more hidden in the background. They can still be used for spell/special abilities but not affect other things. That way I can make following the god's/pantheon's ideology what is important to the followers rather than an absolute objective good/evil.

I do like the idea of going through and identifying each pantheon's enemies, allies, and neutral parties and using that to drive the spells. But I think that might be more trouble than it is worth. Simply muddying the waters and adding in a lot of extra work without much return.
JRScott
member, 26 posts
Fri 23 Feb 2018
at 10:18
  • msg #50

Re: alignment variant d&d 3.5

Boy the minefields.

However if you want a workable system you might look to

Get Your Priorities Straight, Dragon Magazine Issue 173. Page pp 50-53.

It provides a workable system for determining how players (and can be adapted to creatures etc) would act.

Note in the 1970s it was not considered an alignment violation for a Paladin to slay kobold children (or goblin or orc etc). In fact many first edition adventures include women and children in most of the dungeons.

Evil men rarely believe themselves to be evil. Most actually believe they are doing what's right.
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was against the ToU, at 14:52, Fri 23 Feb 2018.
Sign In