Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 Running the Realms
 Values/Morals in the Realms - DM & Player Outlook
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

cpthero2
Great Reader

USA
2285 Posts

Posted - 03 Mar 2020 :  18:59:29  Show Profile  Visit cpthero2's Homepage Send cpthero2 a Private Message  Reply with Quote  Delete Topic
Hey all,

Apart from the canonical perspective that might be taken within the Sages of Realmslore arena, I have invested a lot of time, thought, and energy into the differences in the Realms between different values systems, or in D&D terms: alignment. As such, I have some questions for all of you DM's and players about it.

1) Do any of you feel there are varying degree's of good and evil, as it relates to the alignment system? If so, how do you define, detail, and implement that difference from the standard alignment system?

2) I implement the first axis of the alignment, i.e. Lawful/Chaos/Neutrality, as not whether people follow the law (as the law can easily change from one place to another and how can we know all of the laws), but rather how people view the world in terms of their personality. Do they tend to go along with a culture's values and traditions, or work against them in a way that makes them sort of a social outcast, and not really fit in?

My question for this is: do you feel that the first axis of alignment is valuable in its current definition? If so, why? If not, why?

3) Knowing that there are so many different nations, organizations, etc. around the world, and that they have very distinct cultures, traits, traditions, values, morals, etc., do you feel it is worth creating a full range of experiences both good and bad when it comes to having players lets say from Durpar (where freedom is ultra prized) end up in Thay (slavery, and all other bad stuff)? If so, how do you implement it? If not, why do you steer clear of that?

4) There is an abundance of intolerance in the Realms, i.e. Thay, Calimshan, Dambrath, all Drow cities, to name but a few. The intolerance takes affect in many ways, such as: racism, sexism, slavery, anti-religious behavior, etc.

Question: do you feel that in the many areas of the Realms that intolerance is a branded staple of society (such as the ones mentioned above, but not limited to them) that those should be hallmarked to demonstrate just what that society is, so that it can be experienced in the fullest way intended? If so, why, and how do you implement that? If not, why not?

5) If any of you do utilize another system to evaluate the complicated nature of behavior through values, morals, principles, etc., how do you do it? If you don't, what do you feel makes the standard system more worthwhile than adopting a different rubric for analyzing behavior?

6) Do any of you feel that paladin's can, and should, be able to exist for any deity, and any alignment? If not, what do you feel makes a paladin only viable for a "good" deity as opposed to an "evil" deity? If so, do you have any examples of having implemented this in any of your campaigns? If so, please share! :)

Thank you, and I look forward to your input!

Best regards,



Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring

keftiu
Senior Scribe

656 Posts

Posted - 03 Mar 2020 :  20:00:27  Show Profile Send keftiu a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Currently on the go, so I can’t respond to all points, but:

5: I don’t believe in Alignment for anything other than cosmic beings (and even that’s dicey), and would be perfectly content if it was thrown out for good in a hypothetical 6e. I also don’t think it necessarily needs a replacement, other than maybe broadly stating what each character’s motivations and personality are.

6: Again, I think Alignment is kind of a useless relic, and here offer the example of Eberron, where alignment and faith aren’t linked. A major character is an Evil cardinal of a Good faith, which is both more useful in play than “all these guys are one alignment!” and also actually reflects how faith can be used to justify evil (and likewise, good people can find their own meaning in “evil” faiths).

4e fangirl. Here to queer up the Realms.
Go to Top of Page

cpthero2
Great Reader

USA
2285 Posts

Posted - 03 Mar 2020 :  20:08:38  Show Profile  Visit cpthero2's Homepage Send cpthero2 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Learned Scribe keftiu,

I completely agree with you as to the uselessness of alignment. It had its function in my view, back in the day as you saw people like Gary Gygax and others transitioning from highly structured war gaming communities, i.e. SSI, Avalon Hill, to this much more fluid, subjective roleplaying environment.

I have my players create character bios, but more importantly, psyche profiles. I then have a karma system that they can earn karma points with (thanks Travis for creating that!). They earn points based on their accurate portrayal of the very psyche profile and bio they wrote. They can update their psyche profile as they feel RP situations may change their characters outlooks, i.e. PTSD, a fight, freeing some people, or whatever.

Great insight.

Best regards,





quote:
Originally posted by keftiu

Currently on the go, so I can’t respond to all points, but:

5: I don’t believe in Alignment for anything other than cosmic beings (and even that’s dicey), and would be perfectly content if it was thrown out for good in a hypothetical 6e. I also don’t think it necessarily needs a replacement, other than maybe broadly stating what each character’s motivations and personality are.

6: Again, I think Alignment is kind of a useless relic, and here offer the example of Eberron, where alignment and faith aren’t linked. A major character is an Evil cardinal of a Good faith, which is both more useful in play than “all these guys are one alignment!” and also actually reflects how faith can be used to justify evil (and likewise, good people can find their own meaning in “evil” faiths).


Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring
Go to Top of Page

evildmguy
Acolyte

USA
33 Posts

Posted - 03 Mar 2020 :  21:05:21  Show Profile  Visit evildmguy's Homepage Send evildmguy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Learned Scribe cpthero2,

I think that alignment means something more in a world such as ours where there are spells that can detect evil and good. Where there are souls and the actions of the people "stain" those souls, to be judged and sent to a specific place in the afterlife. I also think that most people of the Realms are neutral. The average farmer, cobbler, chandler, and tanner are just getting by. They don't concern themselves with such lofty concerns but also don't see much in their lives that would stain their souls to extreme good or evil.

So, therefore, I think most people follow the laws they can or agree with and ignore the ones they don't like. They know if they get caught, there is punishment, but it's not much more than a fine or the like and they can probably afford it. Really, the big fines come from damage of person or property, theft, or worse, and most people don't do that sort of thing.

So, with the common person such as mentioned above, I think you will also see in intolerant areas, a natural selection for those that are tolerated. Thay, for example, is populated mostly by humans. Non humans are the slaves and work force. I do think that serfs, slaves to the land, though do exist in Thay and have about the same rights. In contrast, Cormyr will probably have freeman instead of serfs, allowed to move within the country as they are able. They probably also understand how well they have it and wouldn't want to leave without a good reason.

To answer your later questions, really comes down to the system being used to tell your stories. I have players that do like to create characters that have PTSD. However. Neither DND, any version, nor PF, either version, have no way to model that for playing at the table. Indeed, having those things with those systems is a detriment because they are negative qualities that can only cause problems and they have no system to judge them. Since these systems have defined good and evil, i.e. alignment, it seems to be mostly black and white. Detect Evil and Detect Good make those less than abstract and concrete properties.

Let me put it another way. I have a fear of heights. Sometimes, getting on my ten foot step ladder sets it off and I panic and freeze up. I have to get back on the ground and calm down before I can try again. So, I could come up with a character that has the same trait because I understand that trait and could role play it. But all it does is penalize me. The DM could have me roll <whatever is decided> to see if my fear activates. I guess the systems have some conditions that could be used to model it, which vary by system. Most of the time, it might not matter, and is a good quirk for role playing. When it activates because the group is walking up carved stairs on a cliff, my character is freaking out due to no railing, and then they get attacked? Am I bound to a save mechanic and am useless during this time? Only at a slight penalty?

So, to answer most of your questions, the system is simple because simple works. You can focus on playing heroes having an adventure, rather than a therapy session of one of the characters overcoming that fear of heights. Things like that sound great in theory but, imx, never play well at the table. The player gets annoyed that they can't do anything because their character is panicking and it's not fun.

I do think paladins should exist for all alignments, btw. Maybe not the same abilities, which is why I like the Champion of PF2 that can have different abilities based on the god worshipped.

edg

Go to Top of Page

cpthero2
Great Reader

USA
2285 Posts

Posted - 03 Mar 2020 :  23:21:55  Show Profile  Visit cpthero2's Homepage Send cpthero2 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Seeker evildmguy,

Thank you kindly for your reply. It's greatly appreciated! :)

quote:
I think that alignment means something more in a world such as ours where there are spells that can detect evil and good.


That is an interesting point for sure. The thought that immediately comes to mind for me regarding that is, who is evil? How do we know what evil is? What actions constitute evil? When Karsus went to merge with Mystral and caused the downfall of the Netherese Empire, he was (in my mind) trying to do the right thing so that the Phaerimm could be defeated. In the end, the Netherese Empire was laid low, what was once a beautiful land of rivers, lakes, forests, green & lush plains is now the Anauroch desert. Countless people died: unborn children, infants, toddlers, women, men, the elderly. The outcome is all those dead, a massive amount of the environment destroyed, but the man I believe was trying to save his people. Is he evil because of the outcome, is he evil because of the risk he took, or is he good because he meant well, even though he killed his own civilization? It's an interesting consideration to ponder on. I feel it really drives at actions have consequences, but does what do you to get to those consequences matter or not?

quote:
Where there are souls and the actions of the people "stain" those souls, to be judged and sent to a specific place in the afterlife.


Yeah, I can see your point here. Let me pose this to you: if the souls have a "stain" upon them, such that they are judged to go a specific place in the afterlife, then what does that mean when,

quote:
most people of the Realms are neutral. The average farmer, cobbler, chandler, and tanner are just getting by. They don't concern themselves with such lofty concerns but also don't see much in their lives that would stain their souls to extreme good or evil.


While I appreciate that you did mention that people don't "see much" to make them "extreme good or evil", the acknowledgement is that most people are neutral, and this therefore means they go where in the afterlife, if not good or evil? This is where I've seen the system sort of break down. The colloquial consideration of a sort of everyone gets along in the world alignment just doesn't seem to stand up when we consider the complex and diverse cultures the world over. Thoughts?

quote:
So, therefore, I think most people follow the laws they can or agree with and ignore the ones they don't like.


If a person chooses to follow some laws, but not other laws, knowing they are going to get punished, doesn't that make them intentionally, knowingly lawbreakers? If that is the case, what does that mean for society at large?

quote:
So, with the common person such as mentioned above, I think you will also see in intolerant areas, a natural selection for those that are tolerated.


If those who come in to said area are not tolerated (let's say, a group of disparate character's that come from very different background, i.e. Rashemi barbarians, Thayan wizards, Calishite slavers, how would they be dealt with? The idea is that those are are naturally selected are tolerated, those who are not, are not tolerated. How do people who are neutral, respond to those who are not tolerated?

quote:
Thay, for example, is populated mostly by humans. Non humans are the slaves and work force. I do think that serfs, slaves to the land, though do exist in Thay and have about the same rights.


As to the Thayan demographics, they are (FRCS, p.206):

  • Humans - 62%
  • Gnolls - 10%
  • Orcs - 10%
  • Dwarves - 8%
  • Goblins - 5%
  • Halflings - 5%


You are correct about the demographics. However, the slave and work force is not predominantly non-humans.

quote:
The most common slaves are those from neighboring Rashemen and Aglarond, captured in slaving
raids by the forces of various Red Wizards and tharchions. Humans from dozens of other nations may also be found here along with dwarves, halflings, gnomes, orcs, goblins, gnolls, and other nonhumans.(Spellbound, p.7)


However, to ensure I am not recalling inaccurately about the composition of peoples that are dominantly from Rasheman and Aglarond, where their dominant slave population comes from, I include the cited data here:

"The most common slaves are from neighboring Rasheman and Aglarond..." (Spellbound, p.7)

Rasheman:

  • Humans - 99%

Citation: FRCS 3rd Edition, p. 204

Aglarond:

  • Humans - 64%
  • Half-Elves - 30%
  • Elves - 5%

Citation: FRCS 3rd Edition, p. 200

As you can see, the data, cited, demonstrates that most slaves are in fact human. However, you did elucidate that,

quote:
I do think that serfs, slaves to the land, though do exist in Thay and have about the same rights.


Sadly, this is not fact. The following describes demonstrate how the majority of those slaves (human slaves) live their, brutal, oppressed, and miserable lives in Thay:

quote:
Slaves crouch at the lowest rung of Thayan society. They are considered nothing more than property and are treated as such-bought, sold and traded, mercilessly punished or thoughtlessly put to death for the smallest infraction. Most agricultural and mining slaves wear only the most minimal clothing: rags, loincloths, or tattered tunics. To distinguish them from their masters, slaves are forbidden to cut their hair, and one can tell the length of their enslavement by this.(Spellbound, p.7)


quote:
It is tradition in Cormyr, strongly endorsed by Azoun IV, that all commoners can speak freely to any noble, or to the king himself, on any topic of concern and expect to be heard and answered as politely as if they sat in the Purple Dragon throne themselves.


As to your point about Cormyr, you are correct, as is indicated in, "Cormyr, 9410, p.41".

However, that point regarding Cormyr when juxtaposed against Thay really does drive home the point: there are concepts of good and evil. While I am sure that Cormyrians would argue they are good, I imagine that Thayan Zulkir's argue they are good as well. They just have a different system of government. Despots and tyrants rarely admit their being bad or evil. They always justify it, as does Thay. However, on that point of I have another excerpt from Spellbound:

quote:
The notion of slaves as individual beings with hopes, fears, and feelings is completely alien to the Red Wizards, who see them as nothing more than property or, at best, useful animals. Although slavery itself is an evil institution and the Red Wizards have little or no sympathy for the suffering they create, wanton cruelty or punishment is frowned upon and generally considered to be
bad for business. Overly enthusiastic "punishment" reduces the value of the property, and even the Thayans know that a dead slave isn't nearly as useful as a live one. (Barring transformation into an undead creature, of course, but undead slaves often prove clumsy and unreliable.) Cruelty is considered a tool: Used with restraint and intelligence, it creates hard working, compliant slaves; used foolishly or too often, it makes slaves sullen, resentful, and rebellious. Far better to punish, torture, or kill a single slave as an example to the others (so Thay ans believe) than to punish all the slaves equally (which lowers slave morale and inspires thoughts of rebellion or
escape).(Spellbound, p.7)


You can quickly see the justification, but also, the lack of necessity anyhow to treat these human beings as anything other than property: that is what slaves are, correct?

As you can see, Thay is quite different than I think the original notion was when you stated, "I do think that serfs, slaves to the land, though do exist in Thay and have about the same rights." They don't, and it is a horrible life. So, my question for you at this point is...

Is the kind of evil I just quoted to you from canon lore the same kind of evil as someone raping a single person, murdering a family, or assassinating a politician? I argue, vastly different. So, if we acknowledge that there can be different kinds of evil based on canon lore, doesn't it presuppose the notion that it is not black and white as alignment purports it to be?

I argue, to play the Realms with the full breadth and depth of what is offered in the campaign setting, you need to play out all of the different groups, individuals, etc. as they uniquely are, to get that rich world that the Realms is known to be. :)

quote:
To answer your later questions, really comes down to the system being used to tell your stories. I have players that do like to create characters that have PTSD. However. Neither DND, any version, nor PF, either version, have no way to model that for playing at the table. Indeed, having those things with those systems is a detriment because they are negative qualities that can only cause problems and they have no system to judge them. Since these systems have defined good and evil, i.e. alignment, it seems to be mostly black and white. Detect Evil and Detect Good make those less than abstract and concrete properties.


You are correct about there not being any model to play out PTSD. That is quite literally the very essence of roleplay. You get to try and understand, and act out, the anguish of let's say.......ohhhh.... Bran Skorlsun when he tries to take Khelben "The Blackstaff" Arunsun to task as a lying, thieving, corrupt Master Harper only to find out that The Blackstaff skips town because he doesn't believe in being held to account by the organization that just found him guilty. Bran was angry as all can be! Was he right though to be so mad? Was he without fault?

Master Rupert has argued that Bran Skorlsun was not as great as people portrayed him to be, and I agree with Master Rupert there. So, it begs the question, if both are kind of not so great people, is one good simply because he declares that, or because of his actions? Can different actions be worst than others? If so, then we know alignment can't be black and white, because there are more than two options.

I would also argue that just because someone has PTSD as a character, doesn't make it a detriment. It makes it a more believable character. A character that many can relate too for the trauma experienced, the challenges faced, the obstacles overcome to still be there surviving. I think it makes the person that much more believable. :)

We know the world, people, and many other things are not black and white, so why not try to live through the people we RP to try and experience the good, the bad, and the ugly? :)

quote:
Let me put it another way. I have a fear of heights. Sometimes, getting on my ten foot step ladder sets it off and I panic and freeze up. I have to get back on the ground and calm down before I can try again. So, I could come up with a character that has the same trait because I understand that trait and could role play it. But all it does is penalize me. The DM could have me roll <whatever is decided> to see if my fear activates. I guess the systems have some conditions that could be used to model it, which vary by system. Most of the time, it might not matter, and is a good quirk for role playing. When it activates because the group is walking up carved stairs on a cliff, my character is freaking out due to no railing, and then they get attacked? Am I bound to a save mechanic and am useless during this time? Only at a slight penalty?


Great point here! The idea about those foibles though is that you get to experience that persons strengths and weaknesses. That fear of heights makes that person more real, more in the moment, not just a cut out of awesomeness. :)

To your point about a fear of heights, I played a wizard with cerebral palsy, in a Gondan created, floating, slow moving "wheel" chair (even though it had no wheels). He had a 3 STR, 2 DEX, 8 CON, 14 WIS, 20 INT, and 8 CHA. He was purposefully nerfed in many ways so I could experience this very different character experience. Winning was the roleplaying. He's still alive today, and is a 12th level focused specialist, master specialist evoker. :) Pretty awesome character. The disabilities made him even more real and memorable. :)

quote:
So, to answer most of your questions, the system is simple because simple works. You can focus on playing heroes having an adventure, rather than a therapy session of one of the characters overcoming that fear of heights. Things like that sound great in theory but, imx, never play well at the table. The player gets annoyed that they can't do anything because their character is panicking and it's not fun.


I completely get having a simple system for a simple game: 100%. My angle here is discussing the stuff that could possibly be done in game, that we read about in book. All of those amazing things that make us love and hate characters, but instead, we can do that for our own characters.

As to your point about playing heroes having an adventure, I get that. Consider though, how many stories in the Realms include a hero having to deal with some loss, fear, challenge, etc., that makes them that much more awesome, that much more believable.

As to the player panicking, etc., do you feel that could be corrected by a DM that is focusing more on the story and how that plays into it, as opposed to some mundane die roll that is meaningless?

Thank you again for your response! I really appreciate it.

Best regards,




quote:
Originally posted by evildmguy

Learned Scribe cpthero2,

I think that alignment means something more in a world such as ours where there are spells that can detect evil and good. Where there are souls and the actions of the people "stain" those souls, to be judged and sent to a specific place in the afterlife. I also think that most people of the Realms are neutral. The average farmer, cobbler, chandler, and tanner are just getting by. They don't concern themselves with such lofty concerns but also don't see much in their lives that would stain their souls to extreme good or evil.

So, therefore, I think most people follow the laws they can or agree with and ignore the ones they don't like. They know if they get caught, there is punishment, but it's not much more than a fine or the like and they can probably afford it. Really, the big fines come from damage of person or property, theft, or worse, and most people don't do that sort of thing.

So, with the common person such as mentioned above, I think you will also see in intolerant areas, a natural selection for those that are tolerated. Thay, for example, is populated mostly by humans. Non humans are the slaves and work force. I do think that serfs, slaves to the land, though do exist in Thay and have about the same rights. In contrast, Cormyr will probably have freeman instead of serfs, allowed to move within the country as they are able. They probably also understand how well they have it and wouldn't want to leave without a good reason.

To answer your later questions, really comes down to the system being used to tell your stories. I have players that do like to create characters that have PTSD. However. Neither DND, any version, nor PF, either version, have no way to model that for playing at the table. Indeed, having those things with those systems is a detriment because they are negative qualities that can only cause problems and they have no system to judge them. Since these systems have defined good and evil, i.e. alignment, it seems to be mostly black and white. Detect Evil and Detect Good make those less than abstract and concrete properties.

Let me put it another way. I have a fear of heights. Sometimes, getting on my ten foot step ladder sets it off and I panic and freeze up. I have to get back on the ground and calm down before I can try again. So, I could come up with a character that has the same trait because I understand that trait and could role play it. But all it does is penalize me. The DM could have me roll <whatever is decided> to see if my fear activates. I guess the systems have some conditions that could be used to model it, which vary by system. Most of the time, it might not matter, and is a good quirk for role playing. When it activates because the group is walking up carved stairs on a cliff, my character is freaking out due to no railing, and then they get attacked? Am I bound to a save mechanic and am useless during this time? Only at a slight penalty?

So, to answer most of your questions, the system is simple because simple works. You can focus on playing heroes having an adventure, rather than a therapy session of one of the characters overcoming that fear of heights. Things like that sound great in theory but, imx, never play well at the table. The player gets annoyed that they can't do anything because their character is panicking and it's not fun.

I do think paladins should exist for all alignments, btw. Maybe not the same abilities, which is why I like the Champion of PF2 that can have different abilities based on the god worshipped.

edg




Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring
Go to Top of Page

evildmguy
Acolyte

USA
33 Posts

Posted - 04 Mar 2020 :  03:10:50  Show Profile  Visit evildmguy's Homepage Send evildmguy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Learned Scribe cpthero2,

Whoa. I wasn't expecting quite the essay of an answer. I thought this was more casual, not researched. Not to say that was a bad answer. It was quite good! I'm saying I wasn't expecting it.

To answer this, I'm going to have to metagame it. I don't see any way to avoid it.

quote:
The thought that immediately comes to mind for me regarding that is, who is evil? How do we know what evil is? What actions constitute evil?


I would say your first point falls apart on asking what is evil as if it isn't tangible or knowable. It is by the aforementioned Detect Good or Detect Evil. True Seeing in the eyes of a cleric would also reveal such.

The rest of that paragraph ask about the actions of Karsus. I don't have an answer. According to Arcane Age, Karsus was CN. I would say that put him as high functioning sociopath, who thought that he knew better. As to his actions? I would judge them as evil for exactly the reasons you specified.

I think many would worship Chauntea, for agriculture, so would go to their goddess plane. Seeing that she is NG, perhaps I was wrong, and most are good? Gond is neutral and might be for smiths. He resides in the Outlands. Same for Oghma, Silvanus, and Waukeen. So, most farmers would go to Chauntea. (If it follows medieval standards, up to ninety percent might be involved with agriculture in some way.)

I am not sure why I thought most were true neutral. The best I can find right now, is a line that says, in the 3E Campaign Setting book, "the most notable creatures to roam Faerun are its heroes and their enemies." I interpreted that to mean most of the people were neutral, not going one way or another. Then area could influence the G/N/E side, with the typical Cormyrian being good and Thayan being evil. Please note, I'm using lower case good and evil, not Good and Evil, which is for Outer Planar beings that exemplify their alignment and are slow to change, if they ever do.

Wow. On my section about tolerated. I was merely saying that in an evil place, you don't have a common person being good because that brings notice. As those in Cormyr lean good, those in Thay lean evil.

I was wrong on slaves in Thay. Most are slaves. And those with no magic are barely above slaves.

Yes, Slavery is evil. Those who practice it are evil.

At the end of the day, jumping to my conclusion, we have gods that are defined as Good or Evil. Although, given that they can rise and fall, perhaps they are good or evil, compared to their servitors. So, what defines good and evil is the gods and their bailiwicks. Agriculture, helping others, renewal, are good. Tyranny, murder, suffering, and destruction are evil. So, to answer your question about levels of evil, well, yes. CE, NE, and LE. But at the end of the day, the G/N/L is just how they manifest the evil; they are still evil.

quote:
You are correct about there not being any model to play out PTSD. That is quite literally the very essence of roleplay. You get to try and understand, and act out, the anguish of let's say.......ohhhh.... Bran Skorlsun when he tries to take Khelben "The Blackstaff" Arunsun to task as a lying, thieving, corrupt Master Harper only to find out that The Blackstaff skips town because he doesn't believe in being held to account by the organization that just found him guilty. Bran was angry as all can be! Was he right though to be so mad? Was he without fault?

Master Rupert has argued that Bran Skorlsun was not as great as people portrayed him to be, and I agree with Master Rupert there. So, it begs the question, if both are kind of not so great people, is one good simply because he declares that, or because of his actions? Can different actions be worst than others? If so, then we know alignment can't be black and white, because there are more than two options.

I would also argue that just because someone has PTSD as a character, doesn't make it a detriment. It makes it a more believable character. A character that many can relate too for the trauma experienced, the challenges faced, the obstacles overcome to still be there surviving. I think it makes the person that much more believable. :)


You have two conflicting concept here.

In this first one, you are comparing literature to gaming. They are NOT the same thing. They are what they are because the author wanted them that way. I mean, Khelben got away with it because someone decided that's how it would go.

We can adventure in our favorite settings but if the GM acts as an author, I don't think that's a good, shared storytelling experience, which is what I want.

quote:
We know the world, people, and many other things are not black and white, so why not try to live through the people we RP to try and experience the good, the bad, and the ugly? :)

I completely get having a simple system for a simple game: 100%. My angle here is discussing the stuff that could possibly be done in game, that we read about in book. All of those amazing things that make us love and hate characters, but instead, we can do that for our own characters.

As to your point about playing heroes having an adventure, I get that. Consider though, how many stories in the Realms include a hero having to deal with some loss, fear, challenge, etc., that makes them that much more awesome, that much more believable.

As to the player panicking, etc., do you feel that could be corrected by a DM that is focusing more on the story and how that plays into it, as opposed to some mundane die roll that is meaningless?


And here, it's what the system allows by RAW. To be clear, most of the players that I have had, don't like to give their characters negative traits. They view those as things that can be used against them, instead of something to overcome. It takes a certain level of maturity, on both the player and GM, to do that well in DND because it lacks mechanics that can be drawn upon to help with it.

I contrast that to Alternity, my favorite system, that for example has Perks and Flaws, and is a point buy character creation system. In this system, like most similar to it, taking a drawback gives you points to make up for the drawback. And it also has a defined game term of what it means to have that drawback. The player doesn't go in blind.

Yes, it can be role played but I have found too often that it feels capricious when not backed up by some mechanics.

Similarly, my players did not like Fate and having to give themselves a penalty to earn fate points. Or they did not like using Light Side points in FFG's Star Wars because it then gave me Dark Side points. They would rather not gain the bonus of using the force so I can't use the dark side.

That's not to say that I disagree with the premise that flaws aren't memorable. They are. Indeed, those same players, when we played Exalted, and they truly were the best of the best with archery, got bored at always hitting. They got bored at success! So, it helped them understand that there has to be somewhat of a struggle in role playing but not so much that it's not fun.

I agree, your character in a wheel chair sounds cool and memorable. I'm glad you and your group got it to work.

Thanks for the reply!

edg
Go to Top of Page

cpthero2
Great Reader

USA
2285 Posts

Posted - 04 Mar 2020 :  17:51:35  Show Profile  Visit cpthero2's Homepage Send cpthero2 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Seeker evildmguy,

Fantastic reply! I really appreciate it. :) I love this kind of discourse where people really start pulling apart the framework and looking at why things happen, if they should or should not happen that way, etc. I'm glad you enjoyed my commentary as well.

quote:
I would say your first point falls apart on asking what is evil as if it isn't tangible or knowable. It is by the aforementioned Detect Good or Detect Evil.


I completely appreciate this point here. Though, I am still a little confused about something and would love to hear your insight on it. When Detect Good or Detect Evil is cast, and it detects which ever moral state, who is the analysis of good or evil predicated on? The caster, the god producing the effect (Mystra through the Weave, or a clerics deity), or something else? Certainly if morality as defined by good and evil through use of divination spells is infallible in the analysis of moral character, then all acts are presupposed on one definition of morality, would it not be?

That is too say, there is no interpretation. For example, the deity Hoar worked within the Law domain with the Triad before other things happened (like Tyr dying). Now, in some places like Calimshan, an eye for an eye is legitimately lawful, and a good practice. However, in a place like Waterdeep, they don't consider that practice tolerable as a punishment. Some people might consider torturing to death the perpetrator of the crime for the same thing being done to the victim as legitimate. Followers of Hoar may as well find that to be acceptable. In Calimshan, Tyr would find that following the Law and go along with it vis-a-vis his followers. So, the question then is, if following the law brings about unjust outcomes to one person, but they are not unjust to another, who is right? If colloquially we use justice as an analogy for goodness in how we go about things, then the outcomes should always be consistent across the board, as law would need to be consistent as well. However, we know this to not be true.

So, if we then go back to good and evil and ask ourselves, who is the arbiter of that Detect Good or Detect Evil spell detecting something as being such, that would mean one of the following:

a) everyone has the same values systems, to include gods, in order for those spells to work correctly, or...
b) whatever controls magic is the decider upon how the spells themselves adjudicate the moral character of something.

Option (a) of course seems flat out silly right off the bat to me. So, I don't think it could be that one.

Option (b) seems much more likely. However, if that is the case, then true morality insomuch as it is concerned within the D&D system is predicated by one being, whoever that is. I am assuming Mystra, but could be wrong.

quote:
The rest of that paragraph ask about the actions of Karsus. I don't have an answer. According to Arcane Age, Karsus was CN. I would say that put him as high functioning sociopath, who thought that he knew better. As to his actions? I would judge them as evil for exactly the reasons you specified.


So here is the crazy about this whole thing: as you correctly quoted, Karsus was listed as being CN for his alignment. So, a priest casts Detect Evil on him, and nothing. However, you just personally adjudicated him as evil. I think he was a good guy, who really screwed up, because I don't feel he understood that he would merge with Mystral and have to manage the Weave, just use her power to destroy the Phaerimm. I argue that he took a Kantianist perspective from ethical theory. I am sure others may argue against that, but as of now, it appears to be that that is what he did. I gather you chose to evaluate him as evil because your own ethics, likely more deontological than teleological in nature (which is me guessing, and by the way, totally reasonable), tells you that the ends did not justify the means, and the outcome was not therefore acceptable. Nothing wrong with that.

I struggle with it myself, but I get your point! :)

quote:
I think many would worship Chauntea, for agriculture, so would go to their goddess plane. Seeing that she is NG, perhaps I was wrong, and most are good? Gond is neutral and might be for smiths. He resides in the Outlands. Same for Oghma, Silvanus, and Waukeen. So, most farmers would go to Chauntea. (If it follows medieval standards, up to ninety percent might be involved with agriculture in some way.)


You bring up a very fascinating point in your referencing followers of Chauntea, where they would go, and therefore if they are not neutral but perhaps good? I think the real issue here is...how do we know? Does the fact that a god exists presuppose those who are not yet born to a path of moral enlightenment? If so, it's really not faith, it is enslavement from the get go. If they do have faith, then would argue that an evil farmer would be as interested in venerating the Earthmother, as much as a good farmer: they both have crops to grow and sell.

This also begs another question: can people of an evil or good ilk, venerate a god that purports to be neutral, such as Silvanus? If the notion is that you follow a deity that you align with, it seems that people are predetermined. Though, we know alignment changes happen by magic and action. So, therefore, people have will, and if they do, that brings us back full circle to choice, and that peoples choices are clearly much further afield than most give credit too. That really seems to be the case here as far as I can tell.

People I feel based on the argument above, are not as monolithic as people may like to believe. It is easier to deal with monolithic people, and it is less threatening to deal with monolithic people. We know this in the real world too: how can we have a parent who is seen as such a wonderful father, end up raping his child, but otherwise be by all other accounts a "fantastic" person? He's evil, plain and simple: but are all of his other good accomplishments invalidated because of that one evil act? D&D simplifies things because I feel it boils down to people want to hack n'slash. When we pull back the veil on behavior in all of its confusing reality, it gets messy, and a challenge. Heck, even look at the ethics of hack n'slash...

quote:
I am not sure why I thought most were true neutral. The best I can find right now, is a line that says, in the 3E Campaign Setting book, "the most notable creatures to roam Faerun are its heroes and their enemies." I interpreted that to mean most of the people were neutral, not going one way or another.


Eh, it happens. I think I can tell you why you might have made that choice: it's complicated! It really is. With all of the variables out there, how does one contend with the vastness of all of those separate people who have been acculturated to different cultures, races, ethnicities, and religions? Heck, that is tough. I think "speaking" these things outloud in this kind of a dialogical forum allows us the ability to neutrally [see what I did there? ;)] and with an academic lens evaluate why the world is what it is. Then we can provide an even more in depth experience for our players as we take them from one city, nation, or region to another. :)

I think you had a good point of initial analysis. Nothing wrong with that at all good sir! You seem like a very open minded person that looks for the right answer, not the self-aggrandizing one. :)

quote:
Wow. On my section about tolerated. I was merely saying that in an evil place, you don't have a common person being good because that brings notice. As those in Cormyr lean good, those in Thay lean evil.


Ah, I see your point. Thanks for clarifying! :) I agree with you there. The whole idea behind acculturation is that people who are raised in 'x' environment typically taken on the traits, attributes, traditions, religions, etc. of the culture.

quote:
I was wrong on slaves in Thay. Most are slaves. And those with no magic are barely above slaves. Yes, Slavery is evil. Those who practice it are evil.


First of all: I appreciate your candor and academic outlook. I think your path of evaluation and insight are fantastic. These kinds of discussions, especially about such a fantastic place like the Realms, are top notch!

So, the interesting thing here is, we know the Thayan's justify their horrific slavery operations, but we know in the end it is bad. So, even if Thay has positive outcomes due to the utility of slavery, we agree that the ends do not justify the means, and in other words, we agree that a deontological outlook is more likely a viable "good" ethical approach than a telelogical one, that clearly the Thayan's use. This is an important thing to consider when we look at the modality of behavior of the people of the Realms. I say that because we can then say with greater confidence that there are going to be vast differences between people from let's say Mulhorand to Durpar, or Tethyr to Dambrath. What makes up that difference? It's the ethics, which inform our moral character is the answer.

It's all about values, ethics, and mores, not monolithic alignment systems. Though, I admit: it does make it a lot easier for gaming, but a lot less immersive.

quote:
At the end of the day, jumping to my conclusion, we have gods that are defined as Good or Evil.


With all due respect, I must disagree. We have gods that are defined as good, evil, and neutral. Neutrality is an interesting thing. Does that mean ambivalent? Does it mean they choose one side of morality as much as they do the other? If so, does that mean that a neutral person could murder one day but build a house for poor people the next and it all washes out in the end because of the proportional valuation of the deeds?

If it was just good and evil, I could almost see the appeal. Neutrality just mucks it up and makes moral ambiguity a real concern as it pertains to behavior modalities of people in the Realms. I would be more fearful of a "neutral" people of a nation or god than an evil one. I at least know where I stand with the evil people in terms of a threat assessment, assuming a monolithic ethical and moral system of cultural values.

quote:
So, what defines good and evil is the gods and their bailiwicks.


So, if the gods determine good and evil, does that mean that all evil is the same, as well as good? If that is the case, what is the difference between them? Just whimsical notions of an era of technology that manifests in working the fields, smithing a sword, or sacrificing small children to demons? What happens if technology changes, do the gods themselves change at that point to to adapt to their new outlook on good and evil? If so, how does that change the worshiping faithful? If so, how does that change who have already died and whose souls now reside on the plane of existence that the deity had them go to in death, but now their souls don't align in the same way? Point in case with that is Hoar the god of vengeance. Hoar switched to evil, but had largely neutral followers before.

quote:
Tyranny, murder, suffering, and destruction are evil.


Agreed on those. However, what about the hypothetical situation of Aglarond being kinetically and magically attacked by Thay, they repel it, and The Simbul has decided enough is enough. She decides her enemies that have enslaved her people, taken land, killed, maimed and injured her people, and more, need to be destroyed to end the threat to their way of life in Aglarond. Is that evil to kill an evil nation of people to end that threat once and for all? That begs the question of the difference between murdering and killing. There are personal, moral and ethical differences, as well as there are legal differences. Who is the decider if Mystra and Azuth (both Lawful Neutral) is a dominant god of worship in both countries? They are all worshipers of them.

quote:
But at the end of the day, the G/N/L is just how they manifest the evil; they are still evil.


If that is the case, then is the first axis, L/N/C, how a person manifests their neutrality as well? If so, how do you see that playing out?

Fantastic discussion. I look forward to your rebuttal! :)

Best regards,







quote:
Originally posted by evildmguy

Learned Scribe cpthero2,

Whoa. I wasn't expecting quite the essay of an answer. I thought this was more casual, not researched. Not to say that was a bad answer. It was quite good! I'm saying I wasn't expecting it.

To answer this, I'm going to have to metagame it. I don't see any way to avoid it.

quote:
The thought that immediately comes to mind for me regarding that is, who is evil? How do we know what evil is? What actions constitute evil?


I would say your first point falls apart on asking what is evil as if it isn't tangible or knowable. It is by the aforementioned Detect Good or Detect Evil. True Seeing in the eyes of a cleric would also reveal such.

The rest of that paragraph ask about the actions of Karsus. I don't have an answer. According to Arcane Age, Karsus was CN. I would say that put him as high functioning sociopath, who thought that he knew better. As to his actions? I would judge them as evil for exactly the reasons you specified.

I think many would worship Chauntea, for agriculture, so would go to their goddess plane. Seeing that she is NG, perhaps I was wrong, and most are good? Gond is neutral and might be for smiths. He resides in the Outlands. Same for Oghma, Silvanus, and Waukeen. So, most farmers would go to Chauntea. (If it follows medieval standards, up to ninety percent might be involved with agriculture in some way.)

I am not sure why I thought most were true neutral. The best I can find right now, is a line that says, in the 3E Campaign Setting book, "the most notable creatures to roam Faerun are its heroes and their enemies." I interpreted that to mean most of the people were neutral, not going one way or another. Then area could influence the G/N/E side, with the typical Cormyrian being good and Thayan being evil. Please note, I'm using lower case good and evil, not Good and Evil, which is for Outer Planar beings that exemplify their alignment and are slow to change, if they ever do.

Wow. On my section about tolerated. I was merely saying that in an evil place, you don't have a common person being good because that brings notice. As those in Cormyr lean good, those in Thay lean evil.

I was wrong on slaves in Thay. Most are slaves. And those with no magic are barely above slaves.

Yes, Slavery is evil. Those who practice it are evil.

At the end of the day, jumping to my conclusion, we have gods that are defined as Good or Evil. Although, given that they can rise and fall, perhaps they are good or evil, compared to their servitors. So, what defines good and evil is the gods and their bailiwicks. Agriculture, helping others, renewal, are good. Tyranny, murder, suffering, and destruction are evil. So, to answer your question about levels of evil, well, yes. CE, NE, and LE. But at the end of the day, the G/N/L is just how they manifest the evil; they are still evil.

quote:
You are correct about there not being any model to play out PTSD. That is quite literally the very essence of roleplay. You get to try and understand, and act out, the anguish of let's say.......ohhhh.... Bran Skorlsun when he tries to take Khelben "The Blackstaff" Arunsun to task as a lying, thieving, corrupt Master Harper only to find out that The Blackstaff skips town because he doesn't believe in being held to account by the organization that just found him guilty. Bran was angry as all can be! Was he right though to be so mad? Was he without fault?

Master Rupert has argued that Bran Skorlsun was not as great as people portrayed him to be, and I agree with Master Rupert there. So, it begs the question, if both are kind of not so great people, is one good simply because he declares that, or because of his actions? Can different actions be worst than others? If so, then we know alignment can't be black and white, because there are more than two options.

I would also argue that just because someone has PTSD as a character, doesn't make it a detriment. It makes it a more believable character. A character that many can relate too for the trauma experienced, the challenges faced, the obstacles overcome to still be there surviving. I think it makes the person that much more believable. :)


You have two conflicting concept here.

In this first one, you are comparing literature to gaming. They are NOT the same thing. They are what they are because the author wanted them that way. I mean, Khelben got away with it because someone decided that's how it would go.

We can adventure in our favorite settings but if the GM acts as an author, I don't think that's a good, shared storytelling experience, which is what I want.

quote:
We know the world, people, and many other things are not black and white, so why not try to live through the people we RP to try and experience the good, the bad, and the ugly? :)

I completely get having a simple system for a simple game: 100%. My angle here is discussing the stuff that could possibly be done in game, that we read about in book. All of those amazing things that make us love and hate characters, but instead, we can do that for our own characters.

As to your point about playing heroes having an adventure, I get that. Consider though, how many stories in the Realms include a hero having to deal with some loss, fear, challenge, etc., that makes them that much more awesome, that much more believable.

As to the player panicking, etc., do you feel that could be corrected by a DM that is focusing more on the story and how that plays into it, as opposed to some mundane die roll that is meaningless?


And here, it's what the system allows by RAW. To be clear, most of the players that I have had, don't like to give their characters negative traits. They view those as things that can be used against them, instead of something to overcome. It takes a certain level of maturity, on both the player and GM, to do that well in DND because it lacks mechanics that can be drawn upon to help with it.

I contrast that to Alternity, my favorite system, that for example has Perks and Flaws, and is a point buy character creation system. In this system, like most similar to it, taking a drawback gives you points to make up for the drawback. And it also has a defined game term of what it means to have that drawback. The player doesn't go in blind.

Yes, it can be role played but I have found too often that it feels capricious when not backed up by some mechanics.

Similarly, my players did not like Fate and having to give themselves a penalty to earn fate points. Or they did not like using Light Side points in FFG's Star Wars because it then gave me Dark Side points. They would rather not gain the bonus of using the force so I can't use the dark side.

That's not to say that I disagree with the premise that flaws aren't memorable. They are. Indeed, those same players, when we played Exalted, and they truly were the best of the best with archery, got bored at always hitting. They got bored at success! So, it helped them understand that there has to be somewhat of a struggle in role playing but not so much that it's not fun.

I agree, your character in a wheel chair sounds cool and memorable. I'm glad you and your group got it to work.

Thanks for the reply!

edg


Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring
Go to Top of Page

evildmguy
Acolyte

USA
33 Posts

Posted - 07 Mar 2020 :  19:16:37  Show Profile  Visit evildmguy's Homepage Send evildmguy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Learned Scribe cpthero2,

You bring up many points and I will try to address them. I'm going to simplify this and hopefully still be clear.

On the nature of good and evil.

I think your questions are good but I think it's irrelevant. Detect Good and Evil detect against alignment, an attribute that all creatures have. It's meta but that's what it is. And since it's meta, it's correct. That's not to say it can't be hidden, behind Non Detection, or even appear to be something else, as some magical alignments allow. But if the spell works on a creature, it gives the part of the alignment it can.

I think it has to be this way for a game. If a person casts Detect <part of alignment> and maybe it works and maybe it doesn't, or worse yet it gives a false positive, it will never be used. There is no point to cast it if you can't trust it.

Now, is it good for story telling? Yes. I don't know of any gods that have less than average WIS. What that means is the gods know who and what they are. They know they are evil or that their ways are evil. At best, maybe they think of themselves in an office (a la Incarnations of Immortality) but they know what they are. They understand their areas of influence and they work to promote them.

Next, you speak about regional laws. You go so far as to say an eye for an eye is a good practice. No. No, it's not. It's lawful, it's not good. We get to semantics on this but an eye for an eye is nearly a death sentence unto itself. Assuming they live through the procedure, assuming they survive without infection or other complications, losing an eye and surviving is the only thing that might allow them to have a "normal" life. Losing any appendage, i.e. making it so they can't work, means they have become beggars and then it's only as good as the charity they receive. Further, if you are rich, you just pay for a regenerate and a week later, no big deal.

Karsus: I do apologize as I wasn't clear. I just him as a high functioning sociopath before casting the Avatar spell, and CE after casting it. Then it would depend on whether he is repentant or not after realizing what he had done. If he had survived, of course.

We were both wrong about Chauntea. I did not do enough reading. Chauntea does not accept any evil worshippers, as per 2E Faiths & Avatars. 3E Faiths and Pantheons further clarifies that her clerics but be good or N, that's it. Interestingly, F&A has Silvanus accepting anyone but FaP only accepts the neutral alignments. (CN, LN, NE, N, NG) My assumption is that NE is this case would be eco terrorists as they work to preserve nature at any cost.

That answers your question of who can worship them, or at least gives a guide. (To be clear, F&A only talks about worshippers while FaP talks about clerics in terms of alignment restrictions.) So they do allow for different alignments. As to how, well, again, how someone decides to follow the tenants of the gods can vary.

Yes, for this reason, I have been trying to avoid real world arguments as best as I can. I don't have a good idea of how a person can make up for a bad deed in the real world. What I do know is that the game allows for it, via Atonement or working it out with the DM.

If anything, I'm trying to find out what motivates different people, beyond alignment, so that I can show the differences to my players. For example, we had a campaign set in Waterdeep. To me, Waterdeep's overall alignment is CG. Yes, they have laws, but they all seem to believe that anyone can improve their station in life with hard work. That's rugged individualism, which I put as CG. Now we are about to be up near Sundabar, which is mostly dwarves, who are more lawful in general and I'm hoping to contrast that more.

Thay: I think the more I read about how they have tried to setup Thay, the more I don't like it. Internally, yes, they could have slaves, be horrific to them, and get away with it because if the slaves don't know any better, they wouldn't try for anything else. I do think that would stop travelers from coming to Thay. Why would anyone go to Thay, knowing that at any moment, you might be declared a slave? Yes, I know, greed and profit are a big motivator, but I'm not so sure. Maybe if they had setup a buffer place where merchants could go, know they weren't subject to Thay's laws and could trade, it might happen more.

Further, I also don't like that Szass Tam ends up being the most powerful. I think at that point, the other zulkirs would work together to bring him down. I mean, destroy Szass. They would not want someone to have that much power. It's not that I don't like Thay, and as a boogeyman, it serves its purpose, but I do think the internal structure needs work. I much prefer Golarion's Runelords over Thay. Indeed, I'm tempted to make Thay more like that internally.

A fair point on neutral gods.

I think this is a potential bit point of digression. I mean, are the gods like the Greek gods? We do have some gods that have risen and fallen in FR but not near as much as Golarion or even the Greeks. The Greek gods had their areas of influence but then also had human emotion that could rule them, hence all of the demigods that existed. I'm not sure what to think of the FR gods. Some gods, like Jergal, are listed as always having existed. Jergal was never mortal. Same for some of the other gods. But Azuth and Velsharoon were mortal once and managed to ascend. Then there is the creation story between Selune and Shar and allowing other deities into power. (Don't get me started on AO. No AO for me. Awful idea.)

The other problem is that FR is in this weird place of "evolution" with regards to the gods. Gods were used to explain things that people didn't understand. But FR is a world that has real world physics. In other words, take away the gods, and everything still happens. Rivers still flow. Crops still grow. At the same time, we have Eldath, the god of rivers and peaceful place. Um, why? Who worships a river when it's not directly needed? I mean, sure, we have had realm changing events but no rivers have ever moved! And it's not just Eldath. Why would a god of script (Deneir) come into being when we already have a god of knowledge? Does the god of knowledge inspire people to create new things or does Gond?

Finally, I must mention that at one point, it was said that gods only had power based on how many worshippers they had. That's also silly. Again, when eighty percent are involved in agriculture, Chauntea would be this powerhouse, and the rest would be demi powers at best. I mean, take Bane. A god of tyrants. Only the tyrant or the tyrant wannabe is going to worship Bane. How many is that, world wide? I mean, okay, maybe people think it would be fun, and just those thoughts kinda give Bane power, but it would have to fluctuate a lot!

So, gods. I think they have bailiwicks, or areas of concern, or domains, however these domains first came into being, and then that's how we got the gods. I think most gods are happy with their domains but it's the "evil" gods that seek to gain more power. I mean, you can't have a god of tyrants who isn't trying to rule the gods, right? Or murder them. Or steal from them. Or destroy everything. Therefore, I think the gods are more concerned about their domains and how it works or how it is being treated. The nature gods want balance so their domains prosper. Not that I haven't thought of changing some gods alignments. Auril, for example. Again, in a world where natural laws are obeyed regardless of a god, most nature gods should be neutral, imo. A storm, whether a tornado (Talos) or blizzard (Auril) isn't evil. It just is. It's up to us to adapt to them. But that's not the rules of FR, so I work with what I have.

I hope that answered most of the questions. As to what appeases the gods, again, that has varied a lot. I think the evil ones would accept blood sacrifices. I think the good ones accepted blood sacrifices at one point but it was animals, not humans or demihumans. I also think it allows for different interpretations and still fall within a gods domain. Mystra (LN) only cares about the furthering of magic and not destroying magic, not what is done with it. Azuth seems to be the academic side, especially in a time before sorcerer's and warlocks, depending on which version of game you use. Mystra wants you to create a spell, Azuth wants you to share it.

Is attacking an evil nation evil? It depends on how it is done but I would lean toward yes. Specific strikes, targeting the leaders who called for the attacks make it better but it's still murder or assassination. But just attacking cities to get the leaders, regardless of casualties? Definitely evil.

As for how I see neutrality playing itself out, among mortals, I think it's probably impossible to truly play. It's described as acting without "prejudice or compulsion" but as emotional creatures, we can't make decisions without our emotions. What do you want to eat? Well, depends on how you are feeling, what time of day it is, if you are willing to cook or order or shop, etc. Those all play off of feelings. I personally see TN as survivors. They live in the moment, making the best decision they can with what they know. They don't get involved with many others but they do have friends and care about them. I see CN as being hedonists. They live in the moment and are mercurial. They do what they want to do, without thinking of consequences. Again, this isn't blind. They can have friends and understand they might want to share but again not much foresight. I see LN as being concerned about following the laws as written to the best of their ability. They are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

Good discussion! Thanks!

edg

Go to Top of Page

Zeromaru X
Great Reader

Colombia
2441 Posts

Posted - 07 Mar 2020 :  22:09:00  Show Profile Send Zeromaru X a Private Message  Reply with Quote
1. As I understand it, the alignments actual forces in the D&D multiverse, with a certain grade of sentience and self-awareness (as seen in the creation myths of 2e and 3e), not philosophies. As such, the alignments are the ones who govern the "degrees of evil, good, etc.", and not the PCs or NPCs. I feel this limits roleplaying and imposes a lot of absurd rules against the players, so I don't use the Gygaxian alignments in my games.

Good and evil are a matter of perspective in my games, and depends most on a cultural point of view. What one culture sees as a evil act, another culture can see it as a "good" act (see, Mulhorand and slavery, that is an evil act in any sane culture but the Mulhorandi see it as a "good" thing). As such, in my games there can be gold dragons doing evil stuff and red dragons that are actually good guys.

2) I guess we implement the Lawful/Chaos/Neutrality (or Unaligned, as I like to call it; as true "Neutrality" cannot be defined realistically in our minds, there always be bias in favor/against something) similarly.

If by "in its current definition" do you mean the canonical "law/chaos/neutrality are actual forces that govern the cosmos and impose their wills over it", then no, I don't consider it valuable. But that's my opinion on the matter.

3 & 4) Those are... touchy questions for me. In my games, I downplay that kind of stuff. When I play D&D, I do it to relax and have a fun time. I don't want to remind people of the bad stuff they already live in their real lives just because I want to add a bit on unnecessary realism in a fantasy game.
´
As for your question, while such stuff can be hallmarked, I feel it should be downplayed if it became a source of distress for some players.


5) Already answered, lol

6) Something that I really like about 4e is the fact that it allowed us to play evil paladins from the start, without any shenanigans.

Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world...
Go to Top of Page

cpthero2
Great Reader

USA
2285 Posts

Posted - 09 Mar 2020 :  19:20:07  Show Profile  Visit cpthero2's Homepage Send cpthero2 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Seeker evildmguy,

As always, I greatly appreciate the dialogue!

quote:
On the nature of good and evil.

I think your questions are good but I think it's irrelevant. Detect Good and Evil detect against alignment, an attribute that all creatures have. It's meta but that's what it is. And since it's meta, it's correct. That's not to say it can't be hidden, behind Non Detection, or even appear to be something else, as some magical alignments allow. But if the spell works on a creature, it gives the part of the alignment it can.


You are correct that, as written, those alignments are immutable. My focus here was to speak to the broken nature of that and see if people do utilize another system, and if so, how do they implement it?

It sounds, if I am correct, that you likely use the system for alignment as per the current system?

quote:
I think it has to be this way for a game. If a person casts Detect <part of alignment> and maybe it works and maybe it doesn't, or worse yet it gives a false positive, it will never be used. There is no point to cast it if you can't trust it.


This is a interesting point. This Saturday past, three characters converted to the active worship of Leira, from the Triad. According to a detect 'x' from the party's Healer's (3.5) Coutal, they were discovered as evil. However, a relative alignment system popped them as evil relative to the Healer's moral code. So, in this case, if someone else uses it, they may detect something else completely, depending on their own moral outlook. It does make for a lot more work, but I feel prepping well for a session can help with a lot for that. The payoff is the enjoyment, IMO, of a more in depth and challenging set of encounters on many levels.

quote:
Now, is it good for story telling? Yes. I don't know of any gods that have less than average WIS. What that means is the gods know who and what they are. They know they are evil or that their ways are evil. At best, maybe they think of themselves in an office (a la Incarnations of Immortality) but they know what they are. They understand their areas of influence and they work to promote them.


Yeah, I see your point there. What I am working to drive a stake down the middle on is the range of good and evil. Would a deity know the difference between the evil that let's say Fzoul Chembryl is, and the evil of some local petty lord in Impiltur who is abusive, is etc.? I argue there is a difference between those two kinds of evil. If there is a difference, how is it rated, classified, and understood? When it is understood, would deities be able to discern the nuance between those two? If so, then there is more to a persons actions, as it relates to the gods, than there is in the current alignment system.

On the other hand, if the gods are dominantly monolithic, then it begs the question of just how much influence do they have in choice, if they compel people to conform to a dichotomy of moral behavior?

quote:
Next, you speak about regional laws. You go so far as to say an eye for an eye is a good practice. No. No, it's not. It's lawful, it's not good. We get to semantics on this but an eye for an eye is nearly a death sentence unto itself. Assuming they live through the procedure, assuming they survive without infection or other complications, losing an eye and surviving is the only thing that might allow them to have a "normal" life. Losing any appendage, i.e. making it so they can't work, means they have become beggars and then it's only as good as the charity they receive. Further, if you are rich, you just pay for a regenerate and a week later, no big deal.


I appreciate that outlook! :) To bring the full context of what I identified though, was utilizing Calimshan as an example of a society that does use an eye for an eye approach, while other places do not. Here is what I mentioned before, below:

cpthero2 quote: 04 Mar 20 @ 17:51:35
quote:
For example, the deity Hoar worked within the Law domain with the Triad before other things happened (like Tyr dying). Now, in some places like Calimshan, an eye for an eye is legitimately lawful, and a good practice. However, in a place like Waterdeep, they don't consider that practice tolerable as a punishment. Some people might consider torturing to death the perpetrator of the crime for the same thing being done to the victim as legitimate. Followers of Hoar may as well find that to be acceptable. In Calimshan, Tyr would find that following the Law and go along with it vis-a-vis his followers. So, the question then is, if following the law brings about unjust outcomes to one person, but they are not unjust to another, who is right? If colloquially we use justice as an analogy for goodness in how we go about things, then the outcomes should always be consistent across the board, as law would need to be consistent as well. However, we know this to not be true. (cpthero2, 04 Mar 20, @ 17:51:35)


I personally don't agree with an eye for eye. However, I think it would be hard to argue that the nation of Calimshan, their people, and their government find the practice of an eye for an eye punishment to be other than good. In the real word here, Iran and Saudi Arabia use those punishments to this day as they have for thousands of years. I would imagine they don't describe themselves as anything other than good. That's my point though: good and evil is not black and white. It depends on who you ask. A northerner from let's say, Baldur's Gate, or Neverwinter may find that to be unreasonable, and mayhaps consider it evil; however, that just shows there is not one form of ethics, morals, values, principles, and law around the world of Toril. So, it does beg a relevant question: if some people, any people, in the world of Toril would consider an "eye for an eye" approach to be evil, but some (in Calimshan for example) do not, how can we have two kinds of evil but only one way to have the deities adjudicate that through their dogma, magic, etc.?

quote:
Karsus: I do apologize as I wasn't clear. I just him as a high functioning sociopath before casting the Avatar spell, and CE after casting it. Then it would depend on whether he is repentant or not after realizing what he had done. If he had survived, of course.


No sweat. I figured, but that's why I wanted to ask. :) I can see your point about his motives and outlooks on the consequences. It is an interesting thing though: he is now just a bubbling boulder since his deat

quote:
We were both wrong about Chauntea. I did not do enough reading. Chauntea does not accept any evil worshippers, as per 2E Faiths & Avatars. 3E Faiths and Pantheons further clarifies that her clerics but be good or N, that's it. Interestingly, F&A has Silvanus accepting anyone but FaP only accepts the neutral alignments. (CN, LN, NE, N, NG) My assumption is that NE is this case would be eco terrorists as they work to preserve nature at any cost.


Great catch! Though, I find this particularly confounding upon further inspection. While I acknowledge that the lore is accurate as you stated, the concept appears flawed. Chauntea, by taking an active stance to forbid worship by evil people, appears to be denying the idea that evil people are a part of the world in a manner that includes the Earthmothers portfolio, which is largely farming. Certainly there must be an enormous amount of "evil" people that farm, especially presupposed upon the notion that I articulated above regarding the ethics of law and how there appear to be more than one way to define evil, or variations of evil in my "eye for an eye" example.

quote:
Yes, for this reason, I have been trying to avoid real world arguments as best as I can. I don't have a good idea of how a person can make up for a bad deed in the real world. What I do know is that the game allows for it, via Atonement or working it out with the DM.


Well, you are right there. I am more taking aim at the issue of whether or not that system in place should be considered by DM's for an alteration in their normal game play to allow for that kind of real world ambiguity if you will? If not, to me, it seems powerfully contrived and controlled in a way that belies free will. Then again, maybe characters don't have free will in the Realms, and that is a way to explain it away?

quote:
If anything, I'm trying to find out what motivates different people, beyond alignment, so that I can show the differences to my players.


I 100% agree there. That's exactly why I have thoroughly enjoyed this conversation so much: it explores what I feel is a broken system, which I think we're identifying well in our discussions about it.

quote:
Thay: I think the more I read about how they have tried to setup Thay, the more I don't like it. Internally, yes, they could have slaves, be horrific to them, and get away with it because if the slaves don't know any better, they wouldn't try for anything else. I do think that would stop travelers from coming to Thay. Why would anyone go to Thay, knowing that at any moment, you might be declared a slave? Yes, I know, greed and profit are a big motivator, but I'm not so sure. Maybe if they had setup a buffer place where merchants could go, know they weren't subject to Thay's laws and could trade, it might happen more.


BAM! You hit the nail on the head so hard it's crying. That's the kind of thing about it. It seems like designers and authors write Realms material in a way that it's like, "Well, there are people that do stuff, and we don't always agree, but be open to different cultures and just kind of you know, do your thing there." Which is odd to me, as like you said: why would anyone go there? I wouldn't. No frickin' way! There are countries in the real world that we wouldn't go to because we know you would be screwed by going there, so we avoid it.

quote:
I think this is a potential bit point of digression. I mean, are the gods like the Greek gods? We do have some gods that have risen and fallen in FR but not near as much as Golarion or even the Greeks. The Greek gods had their areas of influence but then also had human emotion that could rule them, hence all of the demigods that existed. I'm not sure what to think of the FR gods. Some gods, like Jergal, are listed as always having existed. Jergal was never mortal. Same for some of the other gods. But Azuth and Velsharoon were mortal once and managed to ascend. Then there is the creation story between Selune and Shar and allowing other deities into power. (Don't get me started on AO. No AO for me. Awful idea.)


My look at their petty way of being tells me it is a lot like the Greek gods: basically super children with super powers. I've heard that 5e is looking to pull them back and make them be as they should be: omnipotent beings, not meant to be understood that creates a mystery for mortals that is always beyond them. I think your point about demigods is great. It is those almost transitioning from mortal to god, caught in the middle a bit if you will.

quote:
The other problem is that FR is in this weird place of "evolution" with regards to the gods. Gods were used to explain things that people didn't understand. But FR is a world that has real world physics. In other words, take away the gods, and everything still happens. Rivers still flow. Crops still grow. At the same time, we have Eldath, the god of rivers and peaceful place. Um, why? Who worships a river when it's not directly needed? I mean, sure, we have had realm changing events but no rivers have ever moved! And it's not just Eldath. Why would a god of script (Deneir) come into being when we already have a god of knowledge? Does the god of knowledge inspire people to create new things or does Gond?


Fantastic point! haha I love the Eldath example. I honestly feel it would be better if they actually had an effect on the world, and I've long pondered about making it that way in my Realms. Otherwise, it is a little useless, in some cases, isn't it?!

quote:
Finally,...


Great points for sure on the rest of your commentary subsequent. It is a bit bizarre when you do consider the origins of the gods, but more importantly the interface with the world. It is massively confounding. I by default leave them to be more mysterious and powerful in general. If an actual god or its avatar shows up, it's time to pay respect or just not exist anymore. An aspect or somthing else is a little different though.

This is why I've brought up the issue in this forum because underlying all of this chaos that has happened all the way back from 2e to now, is this lack of consistency and sense about these all powerful beings. I do know I am definitely looking for more discussion on the matter. I think the more people talk about it, show the cracks, and consider options, the better we can all make this fantastic world with buy-in from everyone. :)

Thank you again for the awesome commentary. It is greatly appreciated!

Best regards!





quote:
Originally posted by evildmguy

Learned Scribe cpthero2,

You bring up many points and I will try to address them. I'm going to simplify this and hopefully still be clear.

On the nature of good and evil.

I think your questions are good but I think it's irrelevant. Detect Good and Evil detect against alignment, an attribute that all creatures have. It's meta but that's what it is. And since it's meta, it's correct. That's not to say it can't be hidden, behind Non Detection, or even appear to be something else, as some magical alignments allow. But if the spell works on a creature, it gives the part of the alignment it can.

I think it has to be this way for a game. If a person casts Detect <part of alignment> and maybe it works and maybe it doesn't, or worse yet it gives a false positive, it will never be used. There is no point to cast it if you can't trust it.

Now, is it good for story telling? Yes. I don't know of any gods that have less than average WIS. What that means is the gods know who and what they are. They know they are evil or that their ways are evil. At best, maybe they think of themselves in an office (a la Incarnations of Immortality) but they know what they are. They understand their areas of influence and they work to promote them.

Next, you speak about regional laws. You go so far as to say an eye for an eye is a good practice. No. No, it's not. It's lawful, it's not good. We get to semantics on this but an eye for an eye is nearly a death sentence unto itself. Assuming they live through the procedure, assuming they survive without infection or other complications, losing an eye and surviving is the only thing that might allow them to have a "normal" life. Losing any appendage, i.e. making it so they can't work, means they have become beggars and then it's only as good as the charity they receive. Further, if you are rich, you just pay for a regenerate and a week later, no big deal.

Karsus: I do apologize as I wasn't clear. I just him as a high functioning sociopath before casting the Avatar spell, and CE after casting it. Then it would depend on whether he is repentant or not after realizing what he had done. If he had survived, of course.

We were both wrong about Chauntea. I did not do enough reading. Chauntea does not accept any evil worshippers, as per 2E Faiths & Avatars. 3E Faiths and Pantheons further clarifies that her clerics but be good or N, that's it. Interestingly, F&A has Silvanus accepting anyone but FaP only accepts the neutral alignments. (CN, LN, NE, N, NG) My assumption is that NE is this case would be eco terrorists as they work to preserve nature at any cost.

That answers your question of who can worship them, or at least gives a guide. (To be clear, F&A only talks about worshippers while FaP talks about clerics in terms of alignment restrictions.) So they do allow for different alignments. As to how, well, again, how someone decides to follow the tenants of the gods can vary.

Yes, for this reason, I have been trying to avoid real world arguments as best as I can. I don't have a good idea of how a person can make up for a bad deed in the real world. What I do know is that the game allows for it, via Atonement or working it out with the DM.

If anything, I'm trying to find out what motivates different people, beyond alignment, so that I can show the differences to my players. For example, we had a campaign set in Waterdeep. To me, Waterdeep's overall alignment is CG. Yes, they have laws, but they all seem to believe that anyone can improve their station in life with hard work. That's rugged individualism, which I put as CG. Now we are about to be up near Sundabar, which is mostly dwarves, who are more lawful in general and I'm hoping to contrast that more.

Thay: I think the more I read about how they have tried to setup Thay, the more I don't like it. Internally, yes, they could have slaves, be horrific to them, and get away with it because if the slaves don't know any better, they wouldn't try for anything else. I do think that would stop travelers from coming to Thay. Why would anyone go to Thay, knowing that at any moment, you might be declared a slave? Yes, I know, greed and profit are a big motivator, but I'm not so sure. Maybe if they had setup a buffer place where merchants could go, know they weren't subject to Thay's laws and could trade, it might happen more.

Further, I also don't like that Szass Tam ends up being the most powerful. I think at that point, the other zulkirs would work together to bring him down. I mean, destroy Szass. They would not want someone to have that much power. It's not that I don't like Thay, and as a boogeyman, it serves its purpose, but I do think the internal structure needs work. I much prefer Golarion's Runelords over Thay. Indeed, I'm tempted to make Thay more like that internally.

A fair point on neutral gods.

I think this is a potential bit point of digression. I mean, are the gods like the Greek gods? We do have some gods that have risen and fallen in FR but not near as much as Golarion or even the Greeks. The Greek gods had their areas of influence but then also had human emotion that could rule them, hence all of the demigods that existed. I'm not sure what to think of the FR gods. Some gods, like Jergal, are listed as always having existed. Jergal was never mortal. Same for some of the other gods. But Azuth and Velsharoon were mortal once and managed to ascend. Then there is the creation story between Selune and Shar and allowing other deities into power. (Don't get me started on AO. No AO for me. Awful idea.)

The other problem is that FR is in this weird place of "evolution" with regards to the gods. Gods were used to explain things that people didn't understand. But FR is a world that has real world physics. In other words, take away the gods, and everything still happens. Rivers still flow. Crops still grow. At the same time, we have Eldath, the god of rivers and peaceful place. Um, why? Who worships a river when it's not directly needed? I mean, sure, we have had realm changing events but no rivers have ever moved! And it's not just Eldath. Why would a god of script (Deneir) come into being when we already have a god of knowledge? Does the god of knowledge inspire people to create new things or does Gond?

Finally, I must mention that at one point, it was said that gods only had power based on how many worshippers they had. That's also silly. Again, when eighty percent are involved in agriculture, Chauntea would be this powerhouse, and the rest would be demi powers at best. I mean, take Bane. A god of tyrants. Only the tyrant or the tyrant wannabe is going to worship Bane. How many is that, world wide? I mean, okay, maybe people think it would be fun, and just those thoughts kinda give Bane power, but it would have to fluctuate a lot!

So, gods. I think they have bailiwicks, or areas of concern, or domains, however these domains first came into being, and then that's how we got the gods. I think most gods are happy with their domains but it's the "evil" gods that seek to gain more power. I mean, you can't have a god of tyrants who isn't trying to rule the gods, right? Or murder them. Or steal from them. Or destroy everything. Therefore, I think the gods are more concerned about their domains and how it works or how it is being treated. The nature gods want balance so their domains prosper. Not that I haven't thought of changing some gods alignments. Auril, for example. Again, in a world where natural laws are obeyed regardless of a god, most nature gods should be neutral, imo. A storm, whether a tornado (Talos) or blizzard (Auril) isn't evil. It just is. It's up to us to adapt to them. But that's not the rules of FR, so I work with what I have.

I hope that answered most of the questions. As to what appeases the gods, again, that has varied a lot. I think the evil ones would accept blood sacrifices. I think the good ones accepted blood sacrifices at one point but it was animals, not humans or demihumans. I also think it allows for different interpretations and still fall within a gods domain. Mystra (LN) only cares about the furthering of magic and not destroying magic, not what is done with it. Azuth seems to be the academic side, especially in a time before sorcerer's and warlocks, depending on which version of game you use. Mystra wants you to create a spell, Azuth wants you to share it.

Is attacking an evil nation evil? It depends on how it is done but I would lean toward yes. Specific strikes, targeting the leaders who called for the attacks make it better but it's still murder or assassination. But just attacking cities to get the leaders, regardless of casualties? Definitely evil.

As for how I see neutrality playing itself out, among mortals, I think it's probably impossible to truly play. It's described as acting without "prejudice or compulsion" but as emotional creatures, we can't make decisions without our emotions. What do you want to eat? Well, depends on how you are feeling, what time of day it is, if you are willing to cook or order or shop, etc. Those all play off of feelings. I personally see TN as survivors. They live in the moment, making the best decision they can with what they know. They don't get involved with many others but they do have friends and care about them. I see CN as being hedonists. They live in the moment and are mercurial. They do what they want to do, without thinking of consequences. Again, this isn't blind. They can have friends and understand they might want to share but again not much foresight. I see LN as being concerned about following the laws as written to the best of their ability. They are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

Good discussion! Thanks!

edg




Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring
Go to Top of Page

evildmguy
Acolyte

USA
33 Posts

Posted - 10 Mar 2020 :  02:37:20  Show Profile  Visit evildmguy's Homepage Send evildmguy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Learned Scripts cpthero2 and Zeromaru X,

What I have learned (and had to relearn and relearn) is that it's best to discuss RAW on message boards and the internet in general. We can even discuss RAI as well. The moment we start going too far down what we do, though, then it can feel more personal when someone disagrees with it. I figure that as long as your group is having fun, you are doing it right.

For myself, I don't like alignment for exactly the reasons that both of you said, directly and indirectly. If dragons are color coded for our convenience, it's too easy to put them label them and make them at most two dimensional. By having that sympathetic red dragon and zealously greedy gold, it gives more perspectives and options. I explain it that they are still mortal, still have a soul, and still have a choice.

Now, angels and demons? Regardless of whether or not they follow alignments, and again, I like the myths that Pathfinder created, I do think they need to be defined by something and unable to bend. Then when you make that exception, you understand how big of a deal it was that the entity changed its perspective after millenia of millenia of being something else.

I don't strictly use alignment. I want them to write something down and use it as a guideline but we discuss the guidelines. I like PF2 for the ideas of how to define what is most important, what is second, and how that plays out so you can't put a character into a situation where they have to betray something, whether friends or beliefs. I also talk to my players and see what they want to do.

quote:
However, a relative alignment system popped them as evil relative to the Healer's moral code. So, in this case, if someone else uses it, they may detect something else completely, depending on their own moral outlook.


So, again, while I understand what you are trying to do with your description, it doesn't work for me in the DND/PF context. Switching back to RAW/RAI by allowing each individual and each god and each moment and each person to inform the alignment response from a spell, you have basically created the social bubble. Us v Them. Tribalism. If the person casting the spell saw them do something they didn't like, the spell would reveal them as evil. Good if they did something the caster liked, neutral if they didn't like them. That isn't helpful information, imo. This is making it gamist but as it is a game, I think we need that.

I completely disagree with the notion that an eye for an eye is good or just. I can understand the perspective of saying that a thief losing their hand, or being branded on lesser offenses, is acceptable to society because most of society doesn't rob or steal. The lawful person can't consider stealing so think it just to punish harshly hoping that it stops others. It's just unthinkable to lawful people to consider not following the laws, and therefore have to worry about such laws. It doesn't make it right or good though. (It's also been shown that it doesn't actually work to deter crime.) That relative moralism leads us to justify slavery, torture, and more. The whole point of Les Miz is that Javert has that revelation and finally understands ValJean's perspective and then realizes that just following the law might be lawful but it isn't right or good.

So even as I cry out against relative moralism with people, does it apply to farming? Is an evil farmer one who abuses the land, his animals, and only thinks of short term profit? Is the good farmer one who rotates the crops, keeps the land fertile, his animals happy, and wants to leave it as good as it was or better for his heirs? I say all of this to say I understand why Chauntea doesn't allow evil worshippers. You can't really be for the land but allow it to be abused.

So what does that do to the lands in Thay? Again, here is where it breaks down.

Sadly, I will end here and hope to pick up a few stray thoughts later.

edg
Go to Top of Page

cpthero2
Great Reader

USA
2285 Posts

Posted - 10 Mar 2020 :  03:11:33  Show Profile  Visit cpthero2's Homepage Send cpthero2 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Seeker evildmguy,

Thank you again as always for your insights!

quote:
The moment we start going too far down what we do, though, then it can feel more personal when someone disagrees with it.


I can completely appreciate what you mean there. For me, that is why I crave people disagreeing with me. I hope that something will come along, challenge my way of thinking, and help me better understand not only a different perspective, but hopefully allow me to see where maybe I can improve something about my outlooks, if they are off track. It's why discussions about values, morals, etc. are so raw. I appreciate all of your contribution thus far. It's been great!

I can also appreciate why you feel that the complicated nature of this topic can be too much to apply to the game too, so I don't find that insensible. I think, as someone said, it is an issue of how someone interprets the ROI in the situation for both the DM and the players.

I do hope you return at some point with your input. It is very much appreciated!

Best regards,




quote:
Originally posted by evildmguy

Learned Scripts cpthero2 and Zeromaru X,

What I have learned (and had to relearn and relearn) is that it's best to discuss RAW on message boards and the internet in general. We can even discuss RAI as well. The moment we start going too far down what we do, though, then it can feel more personal when someone disagrees with it. I figure that as long as your group is having fun, you are doing it right.

For myself, I don't like alignment for exactly the reasons that both of you said, directly and indirectly. If dragons are color coded for our convenience, it's too easy to put them label them and make them at most two dimensional. By having that sympathetic red dragon and zealously greedy gold, it gives more perspectives and options. I explain it that they are still mortal, still have a soul, and still have a choice.

Now, angels and demons? Regardless of whether or not they follow alignments, and again, I like the myths that Pathfinder created, I do think they need to be defined by something and unable to bend. Then when you make that exception, you understand how big of a deal it was that the entity changed its perspective after millenia of millenia of being something else.

I don't strictly use alignment. I want them to write something down and use it as a guideline but we discuss the guidelines. I like PF2 for the ideas of how to define what is most important, what is second, and how that plays out so you can't put a character into a situation where they have to betray something, whether friends or beliefs. I also talk to my players and see what they want to do.

quote:
However, a relative alignment system popped them as evil relative to the Healer's moral code. So, in this case, if someone else uses it, they may detect something else completely, depending on their own moral outlook.


So, again, while I understand what you are trying to do with your description, it doesn't work for me in the DND/PF context. Switching back to RAW/RAI by allowing each individual and each god and each moment and each person to inform the alignment response from a spell, you have basically created the social bubble. Us v Them. Tribalism. If the person casting the spell saw them do something they didn't like, the spell would reveal them as evil. Good if they did something the caster liked, neutral if they didn't like them. That isn't helpful information, imo. This is making it gamist but as it is a game, I think we need that.

I completely disagree with the notion that an eye for an eye is good or just. I can understand the perspective of saying that a thief losing their hand, or being branded on lesser offenses, is acceptable to society because most of society doesn't rob or steal. The lawful person can't consider stealing so think it just to punish harshly hoping that it stops others. It's just unthinkable to lawful people to consider not following the laws, and therefore have to worry about such laws. It doesn't make it right or good though. (It's also been shown that it doesn't actually work to deter crime.) That relative moralism leads us to justify slavery, torture, and more. The whole point of Les Miz is that Javert has that revelation and finally understands ValJean's perspective and then realizes that just following the law might be lawful but it isn't right or good.

So even as I cry out against relative moralism with people, does it apply to farming? Is an evil farmer one who abuses the land, his animals, and only thinks of short term profit? Is the good farmer one who rotates the crops, keeps the land fertile, his animals happy, and wants to leave it as good as it was or better for his heirs? I say all of this to say I understand why Chauntea doesn't allow evil worshippers. You can't really be for the land but allow it to be abused.

So what does that do to the lands in Thay? Again, here is where it breaks down.

Sadly, I will end here and hope to pick up a few stray thoughts later.

edg


Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring
Go to Top of Page

cpthero2
Great Reader

USA
2285 Posts

Posted - 22 Oct 2020 :  22:07:51  Show Profile  Visit cpthero2's Homepage Send cpthero2 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Master Zeromaru X,

My apologies for not getting back to you earlier. I completely skipped over your reply, though, not on purpose! ;)

quote:
1. As I understand it, the alignments actual forces in the D&D multiverse, with a certain grade of sentience and self-awareness (as seen in the creation myths of 2e and 3e), not philosophies. As such, the alignments are the ones who govern the "degrees of evil, good, etc.", and not the PCs or NPCs. I feel this limits roleplaying and imposes a lot of absurd rules against the players, so I don't use the Gygaxian alignments in my games.
Good and evil are a matter of perspective in my games, and depends most on a cultural point of view. What one culture sees as a evil act, another culture can see it as a "good" act (see, Mulhorand and slavery, that is an evil act in any sane culture but the Mulhorandi see it as a "good" thing). As such, in my games there can be gold dragons doing evil stuff and red dragons that are actually good guys.


Well, I find it hard to disagree with that perspective! haha

quote:
2) I guess we implement the Lawful/Chaos/Neutrality (or Unaligned, as I like to call it; as true "Neutrality" cannot be defined realistically in our minds, there always be bias in favor/against something) similarly. If by "in its current definition" do you mean the canonical "law/chaos/neutrality are actual forces that govern the cosmos and impose their wills over it", then no, I don't consider it valuable. But that's my opinion on the matter.


Yeah, I meant it in the canonical sense. I don't apply it in the same sense either, obviously, as based upon my response.

quote:
3 & 4) Those are... touchy questions for me. In my games, I downplay that kind of stuff. When I play D&D, I do it to relax and have a fun time. I don't want to remind people of the bad stuff they already live in their real lives just because I want to add a bit on unnecessary realism in a fantasy game. As for your question, while such stuff can be hallmarked, I feel it should be downplayed if it became a source of distress for some players.


Gotcha, so essentially the fun factor is the criteria for how much of that is in the game. If, hypothetically, you had a group of method actors as players that wanted to experience all of the range of the Realms, good, bad and the ugly, would you DM it in that way, as with my previous examples?

quote:
6) Something that I really like about 4e is the fact that it allowed us to play evil paladins from the start, without any shenanigans.


Yes! While I don't play 4e, I have had paladins playable in all circumstances no matter what. All it is, is a more martial cleric on average. Now, the trick is: how do you mechanically facilitate a paladin of Mask? Weird for me at least.

Best regards,


Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring
Go to Top of Page

cpthero2
Great Reader

USA
2285 Posts

Posted - 07 Nov 2020 :  00:28:53  Show Profile  Visit cpthero2's Homepage Send cpthero2 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Senior Scribe keftiu,

I almost forgot to ask (doing some followups from my "followup list"):

quote:
5: I don’t believe in Alignment for anything other than cosmic beings (and even that’s dicey), and would be perfectly content if it was thrown out for good in a hypothetical 6e. I also don’t think it necessarily needs a replacement, other than maybe broadly stating what each character’s motivations and personality are.


So how do you deal with alignment beyond cosmic beings? The regular folk that view things differently from Semphar and Cormyr, as a DM?

Best regards,




Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000