So trying to mess around with a variant of alignments so that I can play around with people believing they are good and righteous when they could actually be evil depending on who's view you take. also I am messing around with the way gods and pantheons work, for example racial pantheons will be used rather than over arching pantheon that covers and mixes races. I would like to get some thoughts on how spells/spell like abilities such as protection from good/evil and smite would work since this could technically ruin these spells.

Here is the basic idea:

Morality is subjective at best, often used as superficial justification rather than true ethical code. For example, in the eyes of humans massacring a tribe of kobold in the mountains is a righteous act that is morally right and good. Yet, in the eyes of kobold the massacre of their ilk is seen as a heinously evil act. Even among the gods the idea of morality is often muddied by perspective and circumstance. A god that condones or supports violence against humanity would be evil in the eyes of the human pantheon, a god that is indifferent to humanity neither condoning violence nor supporting them would be neutral and those gods who support humanity would be good. The only time absolutes come into play is in the case of negative and positive energy. IE healing/inflict spells, angels, demons, devils, undead, and gods who deal specifically with good/evil/healing/undead domains.

I was thinking of handling alignment purely from the view point of the pantheon supported by that god/cleric/paladin... For example human and orc pantheons are enemies so orcs as a whole are treated as 'evil' by humans and subject to smite evil and protection from x. Whereas halfling pantheon are close supporters of the human pantheon and the two almost always move together and support each other so halflings are as a whole are treated as 'good'. Then deal with outliers case by case, a human mass murderer would still be evil but a tyrannical ruler who fervently supports the human pantheon might not be evil.

Does this seem like a reasonable approach?

I think you’re on the verge of opening a very large can of very squirmy worms. I wouldn’t want to play in such a campaign, but I’d be interested in lurking to see how it works out.

Alignments are supposed to represent objective truths, rather than some form of partisan ideology.

Massacring a village of kobolds who are minding their own business, even if they are a bunch of yippy dogmen or dragon-spawn, is an evil act to any god who is of good alignment, even if their aspect is one that opposes kobold-kind.

You may want to uncouple your idea from alignment, allow objective truths to stand, and instead add a layer of partisan or faction zealot-sy. Give the players a rating for each faction, be it religion, or guild, or race, or realm.

Even better, have the characters only know their Zealotsy rating for each faction, and track the objective alignment based on their actions. (Only when dealing with divine magic will they learn their true alignment.)

Maybe. It's probably better than my last approach to salvaging any connection I had with d20. I made it a "points" system, where harm caused point loss, justification, could mitigate point loss, and and doing stuff without justification or harm caused point gain. I'd have to track it down, but since it's the only game I played where alignments are absolute enough to affect the character gaining or losing statistics, it's probably a wash.

In reply to Cubist (msg # 2):

Ya trying to toe the line playing around with different concepts and what not.


In reply to Davy Jones (msg # 3):

What if their business is eating human babies (good ol' kobold ate my baby!)? So then bringing the army to massacre the village of kobold who had been terrorizing, killing human villagers, and eating their babies would then be an evil or good act? Is it an evil act because we have a dominating force so they have no way to fight back? Does the the act being good or evil depend completely on the alignment of those involved? Does it matter who was there first?

If you were to talk to certain druid sects/ nature gods the act of having livestock is no different than slavery and just as evil. Does that then make all those paladins, clerics, and knights of 'good aligned gods' evil because they ride and eat animals raised in captivity instead of hunting for their every meal and giving thanks to their prey the way the goodly god of nature intended it?

Why can the followers of a 'good faith' eat meat but a mind flayer who raises people and feeds on them like cattle is evil. Humans are little more than cattle in the mind flayer's eyes and it treats its humans humanly keeps them well fed and more or less 'happy' in their tiny caged off fields and gives them a switch, clean, painless death...

The mind flayer is evil and the people are good because your gods have explained to you that it is morally right to eat animals because he made them for you to eat (didn't actually make them not part of his domain but hey who are you to argue). Whereas, the mind flayer is evil because you are good and god's people and it is wrong for it to kill god's people.

And what about those orcs who work as highway men killing good humans and robbing them of their things? Well they are of course evil and deserve to be killed off without a second thought. Don't mind the fact that in a war a hundred years ago we slaughtered them by the thousands and took their lands as our own. They were evil aligned then just as they are evil aligned now, it was us or them and we won. Now they have no way to feed their family because their land is now our and they are evil orcs who are unwelcome here, they should go to their wastelands and leave our country alone!

I do like the idea of hiding the good/evil alignment from the player and replacing it with a some sort of zealot/ fanatic score. The one concern I would have is every character capable of casting spells pretty much would be aware of their evilness/goodness.

The distinction the books make is preying on sentient beings.  That would set the mindflayers raising human like cattle and the kobolds eating human babies on the evil side.  a pretty clear cut distinction that separates the sides in each example you gave.

The problem you're going to face is if you make morality wholly subjective, it becomes very, very murky.  And very easily made hypocritical and perverse.
This message was last edited by the user at 02:13, Fri 16 Feb 2018.

Except for maybe the case of the orcs, yes you are correct with the addition of the books that distinction is made clear. Granted I am trying to make morality wholly subjective just partially. It would be wholly subjective to each specific pantheon of gods as a whole. So if that pantheon designated another god and its followers as enemies they would fall into the evil category for followers of that pantheon. Granted it does become more subjective to criminals, dnd always made that rather subjective. Robinhood was good because he was looking out for the people where as the prince was evil because he was abusing his people.

it's up to you if you want to run with something like that.  You're making alignment religion based.  But what about people who do not believe in the gods, or are outside of a religion?

despite people's tendency to argue the grey areas, morality isn't actually as subjective as people sometimes say.  No one on earth can make an argument for when the acts of rape or molestation of the young or killing in fury or selfishness are acts of GOOD.  They may try to justify the acts by saying that circumstances made the act necessary for some sort of other good, or that it wasn't what it seemed, or that their intentions were altruistic.  But no one is ever really going to argue that those acts are acts of good in and of themselves.  Even when 'justified' by individuals as something asked of them by a higher power, those people have very rarely been agreed with by others at large.

having different races and different religions may cloud the issue, but you can sort of boil it down to acting in harm of others for the benefit of yourself is wrong.

I see that as much less of a problem, and much more interesting to explore than clear cut black and white.


This kind of thinking is the reason I think morals are objective things applied through a subjective lens. I don't think whether the thing is "wrong" is what changes, I think it's whether the thing is "acceptable".
This message was last edited by the user at 02:52, Fri 16 Feb 2018.

then go for it.  IF you want to play a game where that'd the case, and can find others who'd enjoy it, more power to you.

  In my experience, it leads to people justifying whatever they want to as 'ok.'  Not really bothering to think about it, just arguing to get away with whatever they want.

to me, just run a normal D&D game and don't worry about alignment.  Play in a setting like eberron with chaotic evil kings who fight for world peace and evil bishops of a good god.  Just keep the campaign focused on their exploits, and keep the more divine focused alignment out of it.

Sorry for the confusion, but that was me, not OP.

In reply to gladiusdei (msg # 8):

I mean if what you are saying is true we wouldn't be having so many issues in the middle east. And just to clarify I am not talking about trying to paint rapists and murders in a good light. I am simply looking at situations where you have multiple sides that all claim to be good and righteous fighting each other. Like say the crusades, both the Christians and the Muslims claimed to be good and righteous when in actually both side would probably be of neutral or evil alignment if looked at from an objective side...

But that's my very problem with any alignment system no where In any form of existence is there an objective truth, in anything. Ever.  Period.

Edit: I cannot even understand how any person could ever think their could be, in real life or game.  It is so alien as to be almost if not Literally incomprehensible to me.
This message was last edited by the user at 04:14, Fri 16 Feb 2018.

I disagree.  In the case of things like the middle east, or people acting horribly in God's name, it is never really viewed as good.  Contemporary sources of the crusades mourned the deaths at jerusalem and vilified the crusade leaders.  But they justified the bad by saying it must have been god's will, since it happened.  That's justification.  It doesn't mean that rape and pillage is now good.

Same thing happened with Pope Innocent III and the fall of Constantinople.  He railed against the crusade leaders, he excommunicated the entire Venetian navy for the taking of the christian city of Zara.  then he basically said, there's nothing I can do to change what you did now, so we must make the best of what happened.

yet again, same thing happened with the Albigensian crusade, which led to the inquisition and hundreds of Dominicans using torture on thousands of french Cathars.  These acts were JUSTIFIED by those people who did it saying they were necessary.  But it never really changed the solid belief in christendom that causing human suffering was an evil act.

but it's always a mixed situation.  Some crusaders went on the crusade for personal gain, and did horrible things to get it.  Others fought at their sides because they genuinely believed that God wanted them to defend pilgrims from Turks.  But when each act came about, it was a personal choice.  That's where the good or evil lies.

To me, you're arguing about wider world view of situations, not personal alignment.  For instance, like I described earlier, in Eberron the King of one of the darker nations is a chaotic evil vampire.  He's a horrible creature of the night.  But he believes the only way for his people to survive is for there to be lasting peace.  So he works to ensure peace across the continent.  That's a good act, and a good goal.  Doesn't change the fact that eating people to stay alive makes him evil.



Well, name one culture, group, or individual that says raping a 16 year old girl for your own personal pleasure is good.  Seems like a pretty objective case of an evil act.

I can't name a culture or group, but I can say that in certain situations, it -Might- and I stress the word might, because I myself am VERY much Against the idea of rape, be justified, such as in the prevention of an extinction level event after a mass failure reduces a population to dangerous levels.

Again I can't say I Support the idea, but I doubt if the survival of a culture or species was at stake they would be judged to harshly.

you used the exact word I used to explain why you're not quite arguing it correctly.  The act of rape will always be evil.  Always.  But you may 'justify' it by saying it had to happen.  Just like you'd 'justify' stealing food to feed your starving family.  that doesn't now mean taking other people's property without permission is now a good act.

and again, saying they wouldn't be judged harshly is implying normally, they would be.  because the act is evil.  They just might have decided that evil had to happen.

In reply to gladiusdei (msg # 16):

I don't see stealing food to feed your family as evil, as long as you truly had no other alternative, then stealing to provide for your family in my opinion is never evil?

My entire outlook on life is based on Situational Morality, it is impossible to for me to judge an act without looking at all factors within the act and basing my moral idea of said act exclusively within the bounds of that act, past actions have no baring on weither an act is good or evil, moral or immoral, because every act in life, has unique and differing circumstances as to any other act around it.

but you would definitely feel if someone broke into your house and stole your last loaf of bread as something they shouldn't do, right?  You wouldn't find them, ask why the did it, then leave them alone, right?  The act itself is wrong, even if the individual feels justified.

and I think many things are subjective, but every human being has a certain level of belief in things being right or wrong.  We can argue forever where that idea may come from, but very few people would think it was ok for someone else to decide that it was ok to punch them and steal their lunch money, or kill their parents for fun.  The act and the intention combined would be evil in pretty much everyone's eyes.

In reply to gladiusdei (msg # 18):

*thinks a bit* I would wonder why they did it, track them down and ask if I could.  I'd feel bad that they did it, but would I say it's something they Shouldn't do?  I'm not so sure, thinking on it.  Because I can't tell why they did it, I don't have a position on which I can pass good judgement.  I may not like that they did it, and I would want them found.  But until I know WHY they did it, I would not want them punished.

From what I have read, you could go the same way that 5th edition went. Well, a step further and actually remove the notion of alignment, but I digress. I don't think any mechanic refer to a character or monster alignment anymore. The paladin detect celestial, fiend, and undead. They can smith anyone. Spells that were aligned now deal with creature types.


And for the rest, instead of alignment, you use a system of allegiances; ranging from "kill on sight" to "savior". From your example, the party would be on "kill on sight" term with the kobolds, but the town people would consider them their saviors.

Well, "minding their own business" implied that they were not menacing a population. If the kobolds were actually snatching up children from villages, or doing other malicious acts, then there's a level of righteousness in driving them off. And, in fact, the act of protecting innocents from harm is considered objectively good.

However, it still wouldn't justify the murder of non-combatants. If they defeat the kobold combatants, good-aligned characters would not and should not continue the fight to non-combatants (women and children). To do so would be an objectively evil act, regardless of the righteousness of the initial action.

The line, here, is pretty darn clear.



This isn't an objective alignment issue. This is ideology. Druid sects or nature religions that oppose the keeping of livestock or the riding of mounts aren't any more objectively good than pious knights who ride a large steed and keep cattle and sheep on their manors.

However, the druids acting upon that ideology will inform their alignment.



So, you're equating the eating of animals with the eating of sentient beings? This one's a bit of a stretch. Scratch that; it's quite a stretch.

Look at it this way; even dark elves, arguably the most selfish and sadistic of the playable races, don't stoop to eating other sentient beings.



Okay, I think this one is purposefully over the top.

IF the orcs were "evil aligned" then, what were they doing that made the humans believe that? Were they raiding and pillaging border regions? Attacking caravans?

(I've run out of time for the night, so I'll have to leave this one here, but I think you understand where I'm coming from.)

First off up until a few hundred years ago a man's wife was his property and having carnal relations with her was considered his right whether she agreed or not. This was a morality supported and re-enforced by the church so get off your high horses of it has always been morally wrong in all situations. Yes we can go into the fine points of people who were blatant abusers but the fact is it was common for a 13 or 14 year old girl to be wed to a 40 year old man. It was quite common and everyone saw as well good and above bored, and I can guaranty you most of those girls were raped on their wedding night by there husband. Hell there was probably a priest in the room to bless the rape as a successful union of man and wife.

Secondly in the case of the kobolds there is a question of inherent evil. If you are playing in a campaign where kobold can be of any alignment under the sun then yes I agree with you. However, if you are playing in a campaign where certain races are inherently evil (drow were intended to be inherently evil) your argument falls apart. If every kobold or drow or whatever is guarantied to be evil then killing off the women, children, and disabled is not an evil act it is simply taking the weeds out by the roots. So no I don't agree with your blanket statement.

The argument is similar for the humans and orcs, if they have a racial hatred (like many settings have between elves and orcs, or dwarves and giants/goblins) then they automatically see all orcs as evil enemies. It doesn't matter that they invaded the orcs land and that is what caused the raids, orcs are evil so they don't deserve that land anyways.

Thirdly, in a setting where you are one spell or racial ability away from holding a conversation with an animal blurs the lines of sentient beings. The fact that you can hold a coherent conversation with an animal in most settings even if they only have the competency to speak similar to a child would suggest they are sentient beings. The litmus test for sentience becomes even muddier with awaken/mass awaken. These spells makes the argument of whether it is ok or not to eat something based purely on level of intelligence, you hit this certain threshold and it is wrong for me to eat you... An animal doesn't have a high enough level of intelligence without awaken or becoming the familiar of a mage or the mount of a paladin for us to acknowledge it as sentient. By that same argument the average human is a lot stupider than a mind flayer so it has just as much right to eat lesser sentient creatures as we have to eat animals.

MalaeDezeld, I haven't actually played 5e yet I was so disgusted and disappointed in 4e that I haven't had the heart to look at 5e. Will have to check it out, but that is a great idea.
Going Eberron style was what I was originally thinking before I came up with this hair brained idea. More or less was just interested in seeing what people thought of this dramatic change. Still not sure if it is a decent idea or more trouble than it is worth. If nothing else, this is a fun and interesting thread!

On a side note I don't mean to offend anyone and please let me know if I have.

The argument is a bit pointless now, but most people did not marry at such a young age, even in the height if the middle ages.  That was only common in nobility and royalty, because they wanted to cement alliances and ensure an heir before the lord died.

You're right, it was probably rape for a lot of those women.  But it was still not viewed as morally right.  It was viewed as necessary.  Justifying something as being necessary is not the same as saying it is a good thing.  Rape was still illegal.  They just turned a blind eye to that evil because it suited their purposes.  Never said that the medieval mind was always good.  Just saying as a culture and religion they always clearly delineated good and evil, even if many of their adherents ignored those lines.  That's a distinction that is true of every creed, religion, and code in history.

And the line between harming sentient life is the line made in the books.  Since the books clearly describe how mindflayers enjoy causing pain and suffering in the humans they kill because it tastes good, sort of makes it clear its an evil thing to do.  Just like people argue now thst it is evil to be inhumane to cattle.  Its sort of impossible to kill human beings for food without destroying their conscious will.

Either way, the idea of switching the spells from being alignment based to being type based seems like the best mechanical way to get aroundc alignment.  Without it divine magic will be a lot more complicated and difficult to use in game, since a lot of it functions along lines of alignment.  That's your only big problem with ignoring alignment in a D&D game.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:11, Fri 16 Feb 2018.

This is not universally historically accurate. The rights of women in historical society have fluctuated wildly throughout human civilization, even if you're only considering medieval Christian Europe.

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?

In any game, things get simplified for the sake of ease of play. In a game where the disposition of gods matters, because they are real and their powers manifest through chosen disciples, its useful to have these alignments to guide characters in how they view the world and how they are viewed by others. It's not perfect, but I've found it useful.

Ravidge, you don't have to agree with me, but I will say that someone of GOOD alignment is still forbidden by their code/beliefs from harming even "inherently evil" creatures, if said creatures are not acting on their inherent alignment. To do otherwise is murder, plain and simple.

The inherent alignment of someone doesn't matter to objective good or evil. If you are good, you don't commit murder. Period. You certainly don't commit genocide, wiping out a village just because they are inherently evil. And trying to use their inherent alignment as justification is not a useful defense when trying to explain your actions at the end of your life.

Okay, the "women are property" thing. Do you not consider it objectively wrong? I certainly do. It doesn't matter what is approved by a culture or society, and I will say the way women were treated in some societies was a non-good act. It taints them, even if their society believed it was justified or even moral.

You're conflating what the society itself thinks with "objective alignment." They are two different things. That's why I suggested a faction/societal moral zealotsy as an overlay, because the objective alignment can't be swayed by moral relativism. If your society treats women poorly, your society isn't as objectively good as it thinks.

Anyway, I'm sure you can tell I believe that moral relativism is a cancer on any society. I've said my piece, and I hope I've given you things to consider for your game, should you pursue it. Thanks for letting me opine, and good luck with your game. :)

Buddy, I don't even believe in objective reality.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:26, Fri 16 Feb 2018.

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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

You do so well, in articulating my point I could leave this to you with a flourish and bow, and just find popcorn.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.