"Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

[mattie_p]

I have a P-Chem exam Monday.

Gah! Good luck! I survived a semester of that, barely.

[noparlpf]

Gah! Good luck! I survived a semester of that, barely.

Thanks. It'll probably be fine (even though we just missed a full week due to the hurricane), it's just intimidating.

[mattie_p]

Thanks. It'll probably be fine (even though we just missed a full week due to the hurricane), it's just intimidating.

I am totally not making this up. I remember our P-chem teacher trying to instruct us using haiku. Yeah, it was a weird semester.

[noparlpf]

I am totally not making this up. I remember our P-chem teacher trying to instruct us using haiku. Yeah, it was a weird semester.

Hahaha. What. XD

[willpell]

The problem is: why would you want to ?
Surely you would want to trash the head band, and then the head which is wearing it. Only you don't.

There's this Alignment called "Good"....

[Amphetryon]

There's this Alignment called "Good"....

The vast majority of those with that Alignment and a Player Character Class are not averse to killing their enemies, though. It comes with the whole "violent hobos" shtick.

[willpell]

The vast majority of those with that Alignment and a Player Character Class are not averse to killing their enemies, though. It comes with the whole "violent hobos" shtick.

For the most part this is because the GM isn't enforcing penalties for violating your alignment. In my campaign, anyone who wants to call themselves Good had better be prepared to take most of their enemies (not things like undead or demons, but anything that could theoretically be innocent or redeemable) prisoner, not kill them. So removing an item to make an opponent less dangerous, without permanently harming them, fits right in. The fact that most GMs will allow you to call yourself Good and then kill everything that moves is...well, I'd better not launch into a full rant or I'll wind up breaking the TOS. Suffice to say I don't approve.

[Heliomance]

I am totally not making this up. I remember our P-chem teacher trying to instruct us using haiku. Yeah, it was a weird semester.

For the most part this is because the GM isn't enforcing penalties for violating your alignment. In my campaign, anyone who wants to call themselves Good had better be prepared to take most of their enemies (not things like undead or demons, but anything that could theoretically be innocent or redeemable) prisoner, not kill them. So removing an item to make an opponent less dangerous, without permanently harming them, fits right in. The fact that most GMs will allow you to call yourself Good and then kill everything that moves is...well, I'd better not launch into a full rant or I'll wind up breaking the TOS. Suffice to say I don't approve.

It's really quite hard to non-lethally disable someone who is attempting to lethally disable you. There is a reason the law allows the definition of "reasonable force" in self defence to progress all the way up to lethal force - because sometimes - and in the case of your classic adventurer, most of the time - it really is kill or be killed.

[willpell]

It's really quite hard to non-lethally disable someone who is attempting to lethally disable you. There is a reason the law allows the definition of "reasonable force" in self defence to progress all the way up to lethal force - because sometimes - and in the case of your classic adventurer, most of the time - it really is kill or be killed.

Right, so if the Good adventurer is down to his last 10 or 20 hit points (depending on class), he can probably justifiably say that he had no choice but to Power Attack his assailant into negatives for his own safety. But if the fight was just starting and he had like 80 HP (and no reason to suspect the opponent could throw a death attack or something similarly unstoppable), he probably shouldn't be attacking to kill at that point. It would be if the police raided a drug lab and shot everyone there on sight just in case one of them might reach for a bunsen burner and a tank of gas; the police department would have one heck of a lawsuit on their hands.

[Heliomance]

It's not quite the same situation, because IRL our offensive capability far exceeds our defensive capability. A single shot is enough to kill someone IRL, so you need to be very careful (and people are far more likely to just surrender if you win initiative). In game, a single shot isn't going to kill them unless they're vastly lower level than you, or you're vastly optimised. And in a struggle between equals, you need to match or exceed your enemy's force level or you'll lose.

[Wookie-ranger]

cut for length

I generally agree with the overall problem that, by modern morals and ethics the alignment system is completely useless. I am not going into the whole problem about alignment here, as this would probably consume ALL space in the GITP server.

Morals change over time and are very different from one area to another. They are very flexible. IRL example: Is slavery evil? yes! Was Tomas Jefferson (one of the founding fathers of the US) a good person? most would say, yes. Yet he owned hundreds of slaves... oh....

What is good and what is evil cannot be judged without context. In the context of the modern western world where almost everyone lives in relative safety and does not need to worry (much) if they will see food this week it is easy to be a good person. But when the only thing between you and death by freezing is the warm blanket of your best friend, morals become more... fluid.
The standard D&D world is very unforgiving. A commoner makes almost nothing, and still needs to grow some of his or her own food to survive (yes i know, and the cleric down the road could cast create food and water all day long). The 'justice' system is some good cities might as well employ as many executioners as prison guards, if the crooks actually surrender at all; and given that they know that they will most likely die anyway, they more often then not take their chances in battle (Wrecked Ashore, p.10)



In most games I play, and all that i run, the alignment system is more of a RP element then a hard set rule. Nothing is changed, spells still work the same, and you need a really good rp reason for ignoring class restrictions.
But i am not telling my PCs how to play their game! that's what is is after all, their game.

[Telok]

The alignments have been dysfunctional since the beginning of AD&D.

I prefer to just chuck them overboard and substitute magical auras (Light, Dark, Order, Chaos) that map to alignments but have no ability to screw up the RP. Of course I also insist that divine classes actually worship something divine, a god or something similar. I am highly offended by lawful good clerics who worship the cause of "being nice to little kids" and get the Death and Destruction domains from it.

[toapat]

I am highly offended by lawful good clerics who worship the cause of "being nice to little kids" and get the Death and Destruction domains from it.

Considering that your 2 chosen domains are supposed to in some way correlate to your cause, that isnt supposed to happen. If your cause is being nice to kids, then you should be restricted to the Artifice, Creation, Good, and Nobility domains.

The absorbing Spell Energy Rules of Magic of Faerun state that you may use any action to ready the absorb, not just a standard action. This means that with a high enough Con, there is a person who can beat the Mailman.

[CardCaptor]

I just read all 37 pages of this thread. What am I doing with my life? As for alignments, I always figured that they were screwy because the Gods wanted them to be screwy, as the Gods represent ideals. I mean, if spells like Detect Law/Chaos/Good/Evil exist, doesn't that mean its because the Gods and the Forces That Be are quite arbitrary?

[Amphetryon]

For the most part this is because the GM isn't enforcing penalties for violating your alignment.

What penalties, RAW, is a CG Barbarian supposed to suffer for not pulling his punches before trying to determine the intentions and moral outlook of his adversary? What RAW-dictated consequence is there supposed to be for a LG Fighter/Rogue full-attacking the person she leaps from the shadows toward without first having someone in her party cast Detect Evil? Could you point me to the relevant rules a DM should cite when imposing a crunch-related penalty on a NG Sorcerer who casts Fireball on the people holding Captain MacGuffin hostage, rather than trying Diplomacy?

Links to relevant passages in the SRD, or page references in the Rules Compendium, would be appreciated in your reply. Thanks.

[Wyntonian]

What penalties, RAW, is a CG Barbarian supposed to suffer for not pulling his punches before trying to determine the intentions and moral outlook of his adversary? What RAW-dictated consequence is there supposed to be for a LG Fighter/Rogue full-attacking the person she leaps from the shadows toward without first having someone in her party cast Detect Evil? Could you point me to the relevant rules a DM should cite when imposing a crunch-related penalty on a NG Sorcerer who casts Fireball on the people holding Captain MacGuffin hostage, rather than trying Diplomacy?

Links to relevant passages in the SRD, or page references in the Rules Compendium, would be appreciated in your reply. Thanks.

Spoiler

Show

That said, if there's some severe negligence going on (killing the cook in the inn "because he had a knife"), yeah, you might end up with enforced alignment changes.

[Wookie-ranger]

From SRD:

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

This is the PROOF the point that the alignment system was never designed to be a restrictive.

[ravagerofworlds]

The following quote comes from the SRD, a little after the straitjacket section.

Good Vs. Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

If you are doing DnD 3.5, please turn your PHB to page 104, upper left hand paragraph which states "Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions."

We use a tick-tock system (1-5 Pos / 6-10 Neutral / 9-15 Neg) for G-N-E and L-N-C axes very similar to Political Compass. Do a neg action on the cartesian x-y axis, get a tock. Do a positive action, get a tick. So Robin Hood (CG) might be displayed as Robin Hood C (12) G (3).

[noparlpf]

What penalties, RAW, is a CG Barbarian supposed to suffer for not pulling his punches before trying to determine the intentions and moral outlook of his adversary? What RAW-dictated consequence is there supposed to be for a LG Fighter/Rogue full-attacking the person she leaps from the shadows toward without first having someone in her party cast Detect Evil? Could you point me to the relevant rules a DM should cite when imposing a crunch-related penalty on a NG Sorcerer who casts Fireball on the people holding Captain MacGuffin hostage, rather than trying Diplomacy?

Links to relevant passages in the SRD, or page references in the Rules Compendium, would be appreciated in your reply. Thanks.

Actually I remember a couple of Dragon Magazine flaws (for Lawful and Good characters only) that do just that. One requires you to properly issue a challenge before attacking something; another gives you a penalty for attacking creatures of the opposite sex; another gives you a penalty for fighting an unarmed creature.
Of course, that's not core rules, or mandatory in any way, so this isn't exactly pertinent.

[TypoNinja]

Actually I remember a couple of Dragon Magazine flaws (for Lawful and Good characters only) that do just that. One requires you to properly issue a challenge before attacking something; another gives you a penalty for attacking creatures of the opposite sex; another gives you a penalty for fighting an unarmed creature.
Of course, that's not core rules, or mandatory in any way, so this isn't exactly pertinent.

Even LG characters can still run the spectrum, as each diety has different ideals. "Paladins, Lawful Good, and violent about it" is a lot different from a wandering priest who helps who he can, or go right the other end of the spectrum and grab a Disciple of Peace.

The portfolio of a a worshiped Deity can drastically change what is considered acceptable behavior. A LG worshipper of Thor, and a LG Worshipper of Pelor are going to have vastly different outlooks.

Anyone with a War domain is going to be more accepting of a violent solution, and that's just the easiest way that the varying priorities of a Deity could change someones outlook.

[Lord_Gareth]

How did this thread turn into an alignment debate?

Look, every source that talks about alignment in D&D agrees that Good holds Mercy as one of its highest virtues. However, they also talk about violence in a Good context. Yes, a Good character should be prepared to spare an enemy that has surrendered and offer them fair treatment and fair quarter. But none - zero - of those sources say that Good characters need to deliberately hold back at all times when fighting Evil or defending the innocent. When heading into a hostile situation like a bandit camp, a dungeon, an evil temple, whatever, a Good character can reasonably expect that his enemies are going to fight to kill and that he needs to do the same. If a Good character chooses to put himself at risk by choosing not to do that, that's on him - but most adventurers have party members or innocent hostages to worry about as well.

The Player's Handbook defines good as being altruistic, kind, respectful of life and concerned with the dignity of sapient beings - even Good's enemies. Yes, not killing one's enemies is a Good thing to do, but that doesn't make killing them evil by default. Why did you kill this person? How? Are they a person to you or just an obstacle? Did you kill them out of hate or to prevent further evil? These questions help define what a Good alignment means in the context of D&D's incredibly deadly world.

And those are my two cents.

[Boci]

It would be if the police raided a drug lab and shot everyone there on sight

No, more likely it would be like SWAT raiding the warehouse of a terrorist cell and shooting to kill from the start. Or soldiers entering hostile territory and using lethal force against the enemy soldiers.

And funnily enough those things are both allowed.

[nedz]

It would be if the police raided a drug lab and shot everyone there on sight just in case one of them might reach for a bunsen burner and a tank of gas; the police department would have one heck of a lawsuit on their hands.

This might be a violation of LAW, hence the potential suit.
Now if drugs are EVIL, in the setting, this would be a GOOD act.

[TypoNinja]

This might be a violation of LAW, hence the potential suit.
Now if drugs are EVIL, in the setting, this would be a GOOD act.

There's also the fact that in your typical D&D setting violence, even lethal applications of it, is generally considered a more acceptable solution, and is used sooner. The Mayor of Random Thorp Twenty-Seven never hires you to arrest the local Goblin marauders, he just wants them dead.

Most actions of an adventuring party are downright barbaric by today's standards, but by the setting are typical and expected.

Morals are relative to the community judging them.

[nyarlathotep]

Right, so if the Good adventurer is down to his last 10 or 20 hit points (depending on class), he can probably justifiably say that he had no choice but to Power Attack his assailant into negatives for his own safety. But if the fight was just starting and he had like 80 HP (and no reason to suspect the opponent could throw a death attack or something similarly unstoppable), he probably shouldn't be attacking to kill at that point. It would be if the police raided a drug lab and shot everyone there on sight just in case one of them might reach for a bunsen burner and a tank of gas; the police department would have one heck of a lawsuit on their hands.

Here's to me part of the difference. First of all you are assuming that the PCs know in character how many hitpoints they have and how much damage the enemy can deal. If we assume that they should also know that enemies can and will critical from time to time which can result in a near instant kill if say the enemy is a scythe wielding cultist or a greataxe wielding orc.

Furthermore even if we don't assume that are you saying that they have to attempt to apprehend enemies even when they are actively trying to kill them? If an enemy surrenders then yes a good character is entirely beholden to allow them to live even if it is just until their trial and execution, and killing someone in cold blood after surrender is grounds for an alignment change. However if you're saying that even in the middle of a life or death fight you are required to apprehend rather than kill I see no reason that the principle shouldn't apply to undead as well, even in core we have an example of undead that aren't evil (ghost) but as undead they detect as evil regardless. For all you know you're killing the all important tomb guardian mummy who is trying to keep the a demon lord imprisoned within his pyramid. Personally for me if the PCs killed just a guardian after he tried to violently attack them/drive them away, I might consider their actions stupid or ill informed but no evil. They would only be evil if they consiously knew "hey this mummy is guarding the tomb and is just trying to scare us away, we should kill him to loot it". Misunderstandings even lethal ones happen and they aren't an indicative of someone's alignment because they're accidents. The only time I would consider them evil is if someone had a history of willful neglect.

[Sith_Happens]

How did this thread turn into an alignment debate?

At this point, I'm more surprised when a thread doesn't turn into an alignment debate.

[Lord_Gareth]

At this point, I'm more surprised when a thread doesn't turn into an alignment debate.

...You have me there, I suppose.

[willpell]

As for alignments, I always figured that they were screwy because the Gods wanted them to be screwy, as the Gods represent ideals.

"Ideal" and "Screwy" are pretty nearly opposites. I know that some players like to run with Gods in the Greek mold who are spoiled and petty at the best of times, and still call them Good, but I don't accept that in my game. To me, your ability to live up to your alignment is determined by your power, the options you command; if you have the ability to wound, knock out, or capture someone, and you choose to kill them instead because it's marginally more convenient, you are Not Good IMO. And gods by definition are incredibly powerful, so they have even less excuse for not serving the greatest possible good with all their might. There may be some disagreement on the particulars, of course, but in general I take a very dim view of any situation that's at all arguable.

Could you point me to the relevant rules a DM should cite when imposing a crunch-related penalty on a NG Sorcerer who casts Fireball on the people holding Captain MacGuffin hostage, rather than trying Diplomacy?

The RAW are dysfunctional; that's the whole point of this thread. Those penalties should exist, but Wizards didn't pay to create them, so they must be adjudicated on the spot by a DM. And that's exactly what I'm liable to do in my game.

From SRD:
This is the PROOF the point that the alignment system was never designed to be a restrictive.

You quote one section as "proof" while ignoring dozens of other sections which serve as equal "proof" in the other direction. "The following statement is true. The preceding statement was false." If you quote only part of that extremely simple system of rules, you completely change the meaning conveyed by the whole.

If you are doing DnD 3.5, please turn your PHB to page 104, upper left hand paragraph which states "Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions."

Okay, so what happens when your character puts on a cursed Helm of Opposite Alignment and is forced to roleplay his character exactly the opposite way that he normally would allow? Or when a spellcaster casts Morality Undone to make you Evil, forcing you to behave accordingly? "Alignment is only a guideline" DOES NOT WORK according to the rules. It is prescriptive, not merely descriptive, even if the opposite should be true.

We use a tick-tock system (1-5 Pos / 6-10 Neutral / 9-15 Neg) for G-N-E and L-N-C axes very similar to Political Compass. Do a neg action on the cartesian x-y axis, get a tock. Do a positive action, get a tick. So Robin Hood (CG) might be displayed as Robin Hood C (12) G (3).

This sounds like a very neat idea, albeit an excessive amount of work.

There's also the fact that in your typical D&D setting violence, even lethal applications of it, is generally considered a more acceptable solution, and is used sooner. The Mayor of Random Thorp Twenty-Seven never hires you to arrest the local Goblin marauders, he just wants them dead.

And thus he is Not Good. Or at least not aware that goblins are sentient creature with their own culture, who are just trying to survive and have as much right to do so as humans. No doubt he's bought into the propaganda spewed by Lawful Neutral human-supremacist clerics who claim to be Good and sponsor murderous "Paladins" to promote the ideal that the greater Good is to kill Always Chaotic Evil enemies on sight, but the entire thing is really a long-term ploy of a deep-cover Lawful Evil diabolic agent, who is working to corrupt the very definition of Law to be more Evil-compatible and break the faith of the Good by turning them into xenophobic killers, keeping agents of Good busy killing each other while Evil advances various schemes which result inevitably in its complete domination.

Morals are relative to the community judging them.

They really aren't. If an entire community agrees that the color of leaves and grass should now be referred to as "red", this does not actually change the color of the leaves and grass, nor does it change what the word "red" means in every other language. It just means the entire community believes in a false ideal. It's very fashionable for every culture to assume that their ideal is true and every contradictory one is false, and it isn't true just because they say so - but that doesn't mean it isn't capable of being absolutely true, especially in a world where good and evil are objective.

are you saying that they have to attempt to apprehend enemies even when they are actively trying to kill them?

If it is at all feasible for them to do so, then yes. Their superiors will question them after the battle on whether all those fatalities are strictly necessary, and whether the diplomatic consequences and the probability of continuing racial tensions and so forth are all worthwhile. You can't just think about the orc you kill today; you have to think of the great-grand-children of his third cousin twice removed five thousand miles away, who may receive a vision from Gruumsh saying that a young orc who was destined to someday become a great unifier to his people was once callously murdered by a racist human paladin who is even today still hailed as a hero, and therefore the orc race has an obligation to wipe out the evil humans which he is now charged with achieving. Actions have consequences, and being Good and/or Lawful is all about figuring out how those consequences will affect you in the future.

even in core we have an example of undead that aren't evil (ghost) but as undead they detect as evil regardless.

This is one of the most glaring failures in the rules. Many undead have no particular reason to be Evil; I'm particularly fond of the example of a Holy sword which inflicts negative levels on anyone Evil who wields it - and if you die of negative levels, you immediately rise as a Wight! So a Good weapon can kill an Evil person and turn them into an Undead, which will detect as Evil. And an Unholy weapon will kill a Good person and turn them into an Undead, which will also detect as evil. The bottom line is that the rules are screwy.

Misunderstandings even lethal ones happen and they aren't an indicative of someone's alignment because they're accidents. The only time I would consider them evil is if someone had a history of willful neglect.

If it was legitimately a mistake, sure I'll forgive it. But the entire default murderhobo paradigm counts as "a history of willful neglect" IMO, and I'm not shy about showing in-game how wrong it can go.

[Amphetryon]

The RAW are dysfunctional; that's the whole point of this thread. Those penalties should exist, but Wizards didn't pay to create them, so they must be adjudicated on the spot by a DM. And that's exactly what I'm liable to do in my game

Actually, pointing out areas where the rules are silent is not, by my reading, the point of this thread. While this is also just by my reading, I failed to note the RAW you were citing in your counterpoint; that something "should" happen is not the same thing as pointing out what the RAW says that something is, barring plain language exceptions like what should happen when your Character is dead. So, again, what does the RAW say "should" happen when a CG Barbarian charges forward in a rage?

[mattie_p]

Found as a result of golem manual research in the Simple Q/A Thread:

Per the monster entry requires CL 11th; animate objects, commune, resurrection,

Clay Golem Manual: The book contains animate objects, bless, commune, prayer, and resurrection. (prayer removed by errata, bless untouched though)

Moderate conjuration, divination, enchantment, and transmutation; CL 11th; Craft Construct, creator must be caster level 11th, animate objects, commune, prayer, resurrection;

So the clay golem manual has a bonus bless spell that does nothing and costs nothing to add to it

Per the monster entry requires CL 16th; cloudkill, geas/quest, limited wish, polymorph any object, (removed by errata)

Iron Golem Manual: The book contains cloudkill, geas/quest, limited wish, and polymorph any object.

Strong conjuration, enchantment and transmutation; CL 16th; Craft Construct, creator must be caster level 16th, cloudkill, geas/quest, limited wish, polymorph any object;

PAO was removed from the monster entry, but never removed from the DMG golem manuals. So it costs more to make the book than necessary, presumably

Per the monster entry requires CL 14th; antimagic field, geas/quest, symbol of stunning, slow (added by errata)

Stone Golem Manual: The book contains geas/quest, limited wish, polymorph any object, and slow.

Strong abjuration and enchantment; CL 14th; Craft Construct, creator must be caster level 14th, antimagic field, geas/quest, symbol of stunning; slow (added by errata)

They really like adding PAO to golem manuals, don't they?