Actually alot of really good authors do mine hitory and facts for story and world building. One of my favorites is Tamora Pierce. All of her world is based off of real world people and places. I am trying to emulate that in a way to provide more realism to my own D&D Campiagn. I also ignore alignments because they are stupid. Ideaology is far more fascinating to play with.
Start publishing on
DD Comics!
Advertise with us
Harkovast- the forum
Harko-rant! I hate elves but I hate hobbits more.
Actually alot of really good authors do mine hitory and facts for story and world building. One of my favorites is Tamora Pierce. All of her world is based off of real world people and places. I am trying to emulate that in a way to provide more realism to my own D&D Campiagn. I also ignore alignments because they are stupid. Ideaology is far more fascinating to play with.
Alignments represent ideology. For example, if you view the killing of children as OK, you are (probably your culture as well) evil. If your government supports this, it is Lawful Evil. If it is caused by terrorists/ guerrilla fighters then Chaotic Evil.
Alignemnt defines your morals compared to our modern American morals.
You cannot have a Paladin that believes torture is acceptable EVER. It goes against what a Paladin IS. Ideology makes a paladin a paladin. Every other class (except the obviously evil/chaotic ones (blackguard, rogue)) can have any views and not be effected, so other than those classes I guess it doesn't matter that much in the end.
Cthonic, dont try and defend the alignment system.
Its broke and it cant be fixed.
For example, in the real world people are not just "lawful" or "chaotic". People follow some rules and break others. Some people would never breka the law in their lives and obey authority without question but always try to cheat at games.
A guy can be kind to his family and treat them with love and then go out an murder other people. Is this character roleplaying badly? after all, if hes evil alignment, he was breaking character by being nice to people!
Also, even if you dont believe its a load of crap (in which case you are wrong, but lets move on from there), what purpose does it serve? It just limits my characters to two dimensional good/bad people who cant have depth or change their behaviour based on experience etc.
I dont need to write good and bad on my character sheet to remind me how to roleplay.
For another example of how alignment works, look at all the people you know, what alignments are they? Do you know lots of "evil" people? Or people who are always chaotic all the time and aren't in a mental hospital?
Its crap, its out dated, get rid of it!
Never! In face, we shall go back to the old system of 3 alignments! Lawful = good, Neutral = Random NPCs, and Chaotic = Evil!
So there!
Heh. I actually still have a rulebook that uses those alignments.
And the alignment system does allow for variations in just how lawful/chaotic good/evil you are. I know neutral good people. I would class myself as lawful evil, but that's because I like nasty and mean beurocracy.
You can be chaotic all the time (being REALLY random and silly one day, completely normal the next) and not be in a hospital. It's Chaotic Neutral that are insane, see?
I am the defender of the outdated! Rally behind me, Baldur's Gate! Cast your overpowered defensive spells and see how long it takes to break their spirit!
So Cthonic, does that mean you own the first set of advanced D&D or the white box first edition? Actually I think fist edition never had alignments. I'll ask my dad, who owned Blackmoore castle in which the first dungeon ever took place. My dad who was a close personal friend of Dave Arneson, one of the original creators of D&D. Now that I'm done throwing names out there.
I'm not saying that the alignment system does not have it's merits. It does give people a general idea of how to act in character. But, the idea itself is too simplistic for me and often leads to long arguments as to whether or not a character is allowed to do something based on their alignment. Each person has a different veiw of alignment. Like you said a paladin that tortures cannot be lawful, but look at history. We had inquisitions and crusaders both were lawfully sanctioned killers and torture. They were veiwed as evil only by those who were victim of it. heck if a paladin's religion allows him to torture those whom he thinks are holding back information he should be allowed to without suffering the penalties of alignment change.
Snowhunter you've got connections to the roleplaying aristocracy! Impressive!
I dont like alignment.
I prefer to just have a description of what the characters believe and what they will and will not do.
To me that just seems to most logical and sensible way to describe people.
I guess Fly is talking about Snarf from the Thundercats. Not entirely sure what that has to do with this conversation, but she's so cute it doesn't matter.
Anyway, I thought I should put my 2 cents in about alignment in DnD:
It should stay, and to really enjoy the game it should be used. Even if for nothing more then as a little reminder to the player as to how the character should usually act. In actuality, the character isn't you, so he/she shouldn't act like you. Unless you wanna play yourself, but that defeats the point of the game. That said, alignment isn't as restricting as everyone makes out. A good person may do an evil act, but that doesn't automatically make them evil, just like an evil person doing a good act doesn't make them good.
Let's break down each element of the alignments (also, let's ignore 4th edition cuz it sucks):
Lawful: All too often the "law" part causes confusion. Being lawful has little to do with obeying traffic signals and not jaywalking. Lawful characters are the most driven of all characters. They tend to weigh the consequences of their actions, but rarely second-guess themselves. They have a firm grasp on their emotions and don't allow them to dictate their actions. These qualities make them ideal leaders, but they are too headstrong to be worthwhile followers and will eventually angle for a leadership position. They often follow some form of code, such as a paladin's divine doctrine, knight's code of chivalry, or even an assassins "no women, no children" rule. This code may often supersede the actual laws of the land.
Chaotic: A much simpler world view then Lawful. Chaotic characters are driven by their emotions. They do what feels "right" at the time. They are impulsive and often careless. Generally regarded as "loose cannons". These traits make them very poor leaders and only tolerable followers. However, if the leadership pleases them they can be very loyal. The gut reaction of many chaotic adventurers has saved the day time and again, and the ability to make split-second decisions can be invaluable.
Neutral(first position): The natural followers as they are forever second-guessing themselves. Though not devoid of opinions, they are more then willing to allow the other members make the tough decisions. They are slow to act, and overly cautious, but often see options that the others may miss. Because of their analytical ability they make ideal diplomats and good strategists. Since they are not overly motivated, but loyal nonetheless, they often find themselves "second-in-command".
Good: This character listens to his/her conscience. They are capable of distinguishing right from wrong with pristine clarity, and feel immense guilt when they deviate from the correct path. They often will attempt to atone for their sins. They are also the most likely to make a self-sacrifice.
Neutral(second position): While still possessing a conscience, they can be selectively deaf to it. They can feel guilty for an evil act, but are able to justify it to themselves. Even so, a neutral character is more likely, and would prefer, to do good as opposed to evil. They just understand that an evil act is sometimes more expedient or convenient.
Evil: A very complicated and multi-faceted alignment. It is important to note that not all evil characters consider themselves evil. They usually think they are misunderstood, or everyone else is unreasonable. The "mwahahaha! I'm sacrificing babies and burning villages just because!" level of evil is quite rare since they tend to find themselves swinging from a noose in short order. Evil characters are generally devoid of a conscience and do evil acts simply because it serves their need. They may also do good deeds because it may serve their purposes. They really don't differentiate between the two. Although they are exceedingly unlikely to do anything that requires risk or effort in which the payout isn't worthwhile since they are usually greedy and self-centered. It's only in very rare cases that they will have a "devotion to evil", usually evil clerics, anti-paladins, or demons.
True Neutral: Often confused with the "I can do whatever the hell I want" alignment. Basically a WTF alignment that should almost never be used since it's so impractical. This character is fanatically neutral, holding no strong opinions other then the belief that he/she holds no strong opinions. Forever obsessing about the balance between good and evil, they are completely unreliable since they are so inwardly focused.
Wordweaver I still don't understand why I cant make characters and just say what my character is like?
When I write characters for my comic I dont give them an alignment. I give them a personality. They can be in some ways good, some ways bad, and some ways a mix.
Why do I need to stick a label on which moral team they are in?
Real people cannot be classified in this simplistic way, why should the characters be?
Simple reason?
Detect evil/good/law/chaos.
I mean, there are HUNDREDS of games that do things just as you suggest, the alignment adds another facet to DnD. I think it takes something away from the game if you don't use it. If you act outside your alignment too often then it changes, and there are drawbacks for being certain alignments. Another reason is that adventurers aren't normal people, they are exceptional people, therefore they have exceptional personalities. Most real people wouldn't strap on armor and willingly trudge through a monster infested death-trap for the off chance of scoring some sparkly swag. You'd have to be a little bit touched to do this.
Plus playing alignments is fun. Taking that out is like taking the fireball spell out. Good gosh! Why be a mage if ya can't drop napalm on a troop of orcs?
Wordweaver, you can replace those detect spells with a simple detect thoughts. Detect thoughts tells you the basic surface thoughts of the person which should give you a good measure of their intentions. I've taken the smite evil ability and made it into a general smite. Similar to the knights challenge abliity the smite ablility only works if the opponent is your level or higher, in other words considered a worthy opponent by your god. The protection spells can also be made into protection selective spells that protect you from specific creatures.
Your expamle of how evil is defined is very good, however the many people I play with have a very simplistic notion of how to play evil. One player was trying to play an evil elf that was trying to bring a demon back into the world. Another person I played with had no idea how to play evil other than killing other random characters for no reason. I mean these are so simple and unreasonable uses of the evil alignment. Like I said before alignments can be a very good tool for giving you a general idea of what your character is like, but they are not nessary to the game. White box original rules didn't even have alignments and those rules are still playable by todays standards.
I still cant understand why I need to have every character defined as good an evil.
Unless I am playing the roleplaying version of Pro Wrestling, I dont think characters should always be so simplistic.
Also morality becomes a bit of a joke in a world where I cna detect alignment.
If we argue over any topic, a simple spell will answer it for us.
"Is it okay to eat meat?"
Not a complex philosophical question like in our world.
Just cast the spell while eating meat. If it doesn't cause you to show up as evil, then it must be okay!
Guy likes the nazis would never happen.
They would find themselves showing up on their own detect evil spell and would thus get no support. After all, they believed they were the good guys. If a simple spell could have declared with 100% certainty that they were not, their regime would not have existed!
Why do I need spells that tell me who is good and bad anyway? I dont have those in the real world.
No one in Harkovast gets a spell like that (though later on, they will really really wish they had!)
Actually, Vast, the Detect Evil spell doesn't tell you whether or not what you are currently doing is good or evil. It simply tells what a persons alignment is, which is a culmination of every act they have ever done. A single act, unless it's extraordinarily evil (or good), is unlikely to alter a character's alignment.
This, of course, makes it extremely difficult for me to assign alignments to the characters in Harkovast. I don't have access to the whole of their experiences, I only have their current actions to judge by.
Snowhunter. Detect Thoughts doesn't work well as a means of determining a person's overall philosophy of life. All you get is a snippet of thought from one moment in time. Having an evil thought doesn't make you evil, acting on one does. Even a saint may have an evil thought. On the other side of the coin, evil people aren't always thinking evil thoughts. Remember, evil people don't usually think that they are evil, so their surface thoughts aren't gonna be: "I'm gonna kill all of them while they sleep, then kick some puppies, cuz I'm evil. Mwahahahaha!" Also, not everything that is evil can think, or has thoughts that are understood by the spellcaster.
Another thing that's important to note while playing D&D: Good and evil are not designations made by mortals, they are determined by the gods. This is why only clerics and paladins can detect them, for everyone else it's speculation. Taking out the alignments takes away from these two classes since a great deal of their power is derived from the idea that there is good and evil.
Wordweaver but by that logic, if good and evil in that world are predetermined, I cna cast detect evil on people and if you show up as evil, I should lock those people up.
They dont need a trial, because they are evil and shave clearly done evil before and will do it again.
That is a situation so freakish and wierd that I cant even get my head round it.
It is like magic eugenics crossed with magic secret police, except it would actually work!
If evil people dont think they are evil, this leads to an amusing parrallel to being gay when someone uses a spell and finds out!
"No! I'm not evil! Yeah I stole a FEW things, but Iwas just experimenting, it was the 60's!"
or
"Mum, dad, I can't live a lie anymore! I'm evil!"
"Well….Have you ever tried not being evil, honey?"
Removing alignment does not remove classes at all.
Clerics can have a belief system they have to follow, as can paladins, you just have it be their religious code rather then "THE CODE OF GOOD/EVIL". All clerics and paladins would believe their code was the most holy and righteous one, but they wouldn't get a cosmic "you are good" badge from heaven.
That actually gives mroe opportunities for interesting situations, such as two religions in conflict that both think they are the good guys (you know, like happens in our world!)
If the bad guys know that they are evil and deliberately try to be eivl, they just end up seeming like comedy panto villians or dick dastardly!
They end up saying lines like this one from Hordac on he-man-
"Skeletor, I see that your evil is almost equal to my own!"
Of course, a character who thinks evil is the right thing to do believes doing evil is good and thus….ah crap!
Who said anything about predetermined? Your actions dictate your alignment. You chose an alignment when you create a character because you have an idea of how that character has behaved up until the point at which he/she has decided to become an adventurer.
Just because someone is evil doesn't mean that they have done something illegal. So you can't just lock up someone simply for being evil. In many ancient societies it was the evil people who made the laws. Heck, that might be true today too.
You've heard of the saying "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" right? An evil person might have a goal which may be considered noble. Hitler wanted to unify Germany and instill a sense of nationalistic pride. Nothing evil in that. The problem was in his methods.
Even if there were a spell in our world that could say without a doubt that a person was evil or good, people wouldn't necessarily accept it. Even in D&D the result of the spell is only available to the caster. The rest of the party accepts the results because the DM generally tells the player "You feel a strong aura of evil emanating from the place" out loud.
And yes, Skeletor is an inane concept of evil that only exists in Saturday morning cartoons.
This discussion has gotten more philosophical that I had intended.
Anyway, going back to why use alignments in D&D. Why use any of the rules in D&D? I mean, if you think alignments are unrealistic, how realistic is Raise Dead? Fireball? Evasion? Zombies? Dragons? Quivering Palm? Hit Points?
Why use any of the rules in D&D?
Haha, had to quote that :O
But yeah I agree, the alignment system isn't the greatest problem in D&D. Do they still waste people's time with having your your goddamned eye colour on your character sheet? Seriously, why?!?!
Because the first thing I wanted to know when I saw Han Solo in Star Wars is his height, eye colour and bloody weight of all things… Give me his Bra size too while your at it will ya?
Wordweaver even if an evil person has not broken the law, if you can cast a spell that literally tells you instantly if they are a good or an evil person, that sort of makes our whole concept of innocent till proven guilty a bit meaningless.
My main problem is that I can see things that alignment does to detract from the game, but I cant see anyway in which it adds anything useful.
It just makes everyone a bit more simplistic and unrealistic.
Wordweaver, I argee that the detect thoughts spells will not work as neatly as a detect evil or detect good spell, however a person would automatically distrust someone that was the evil alignment. Which defeats the purpose of your definition of the use of the evil alignment. I mean by your definition one person could be in the evil alignment just because they are selfish and put themselves before others. Which means that they are not automatically going to take out the party, but if they are known to be evil everyone will distrust them anyway. A detect thoughts spell will never perfectly tell you everyones deepest thoughts, feelings or philosophy, but it can tell you what they are thinking right now which might give you an indication of if they are trustworthy or not. If the first thing a person thinks is I'll get them to trust me so I can do something else later, might not be trustworthy. If the persons first thoughts are oh good an adventuring party I hope they'll let me join, might be more trustworthy. I like having some uncertainty because it gives people the chance to put more thought into they're role-playing.
Also if the definitions of good and evil come from the gods and no one thinks that they are evil (meaning that the gods also do not think of themselves as evil, which they wouldn't) then aligments would only matter by the perspective of your god. anyone following a god opposed to yours would be evil. Anyone following your god or one of you gods allies would be good. Those following neutral gods or following no gods would be neutral. For example the follower of a demon god would label themselves as good, opposition as evil, and neutral people as neutral.
So, let's face it alignments are really only there to give another descriptor to your character. Alignment only really matters for the players because they desire a guidline to follow. Not to metion all players meta-game from time to time and it really screws over the party balance when one person decides to be evil in a good-aligned party. When that happens everyone is trying to find a way to find out the evil party member's "dirty little sercret". It detracts from the game and forces us to define good and evil actions within the party. I remember in one campaign we had one evil character that was secretly planning the killing of every one else in the party. We actually had to help this character keep her alignment secret because she was so bad at doing so. Not only that but when she screwed up so bad that we would be forced to find out the DM cheated to keep her secret. Heck I had a unicorn for a mount which has a constant magic circle against evil going, and detect evil at will. There should have been no way for me to miss that her character was evil. I mean what was the point of doing aligments in that campaign when it didn't seem to matter anyway.
RED_NED, Alignment is part of the rules, character description is not. You do not have to describe your character's hair color, eye color, weight, sexual orientation, embarassing birthmarks, ect…
Character description is for fun. You can make your character look as wild and crazy or as normal as you like. It can be a useful tool for imersing yourself more fully into the setting, but like alignment it is not necessary. Your character could look exacly like you have, your name and act just like you if you like. Smoe peole like these details and some people don't it depends on your perference.
All this alignment talk got me to thinking about a concept that my fiance and I were thinking about a while ago. A character who is gereally selfish and evil in nature, but he is doing all the right things for the wrong reasons. To keep the populance happy (because a happy population results in less storming of the castle) he has bettered the economy and healthcare. He hates competition so he eliminates other evil people to keep them from taking power from him. He has hired mercenaries and other knights to protect his realm and forbids them from abusing the people, because he has to protect his assets. Now technically he should be called evil because all of his actions are done for selfish purposes, but the poeple he rules over will call him good hearted.
Haven't heard from you in a while Cthonic, nice to have you back!
I am Chaotic Awesome.
Though some claim I am Neutral Furry, these are untrue rumours!
Snowhunter according to Sartre there is no love but the deeds of love. By that he meant that there is no such thing as being good except in doing good.
Sartre would say that your example of the selfish man is actually an example of a good person. Though he thought of bad reasons to do things, his actions were good.
But of course, philosophers in DnD are out of a job straight away because a simple spell every cleric knows renders all moral arguments null and void.
Wow, I was gonna make the same Satre comment "You are but the sum of your actions" or what ever that goggle eyed french wierdo said haha :P
Your actions in game should shape the character and personality you have. Ive seen in D&D games people have been told they cant do X, Y and Z because of their alignment. You should be able to do whatever you want in a game, and the sum of your actions denote what kind of person you are. Act like a dick and your Alignment is Chaotic Dick or whatever :P
No red ned, that's not realistic!
For the game to be realistic everyone is predetermined as good adn evil at the start and if you try to change you are punish with exp loss making you weaker.
The same way that if someone behaves differently in real life they learn more slowly and become weaker then your friends….oh wait…thats complete nonsense isn't it?
Advertise with us
DDComics is community owned.
The following patrons help keep the lights on. You can support DDComics on Patreon.
- Banes
- JustNoPoint
- RMccool
- Abt_Nihil
- Gunwallace
- cresc
- PaulEberhardt
- Emma_Clare
- FunctionCreep
- SinJinsoku
- Smkinoshita
- jerrie
- Chickfighter
- Andreas_Helixfinger
- Tantz_Aerine
- Genejoke
- Davey Do
- Gullas
- Roma
- NanoCritters
- Teh Andeh
- Peipei
- Digital_Genesis
- Hushicho
- Palouka
- Cheeko
- Paneltastic
- L.C.Stein
- Zombienomicon
- Dpat57
- Bravo1102
- TheJagged
- LoliGen
- OrcGirl
- Fallopiancrusader
- Arborcides
- ChipperChartreuse
- Mogtrost
- InkyMoondrop
- jgib99
- Call me tom
- OrGiveMeDeath_Ind
- Mks_monsters
- GregJ
- HawkandFloAdventures
- Soushiyo