Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think alignment should be treated as an attribute.

What do I mean by "attribute"? An attribute is an objective fact about a character. A character's strength attribute does not describe how that character thinks or feels about being physically strong or weak. It is an objective rating of how strong the character actually is. Now, one could roleplay a character with a high STR rating like a weakling. That would not change the fact that the character is actually strong.

Applying this concept to alignment implies that Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are objective phenomenon in the world of the setting. (I will capitalize these terms when referring to alignment.) For example, one could imagine Lawfulness to be something like gravity in that it is a fact about how things in the universe exist. Extending the metaphor, it could be said that the regularity of night following day and so on is a Lawful aspect of (fantasy) nature.

The concept is easily applied to persons, i.e., subjects, without becoming necessarily subjective. For example, a number of Chaotically-aligned persons living in proximity to each other would tend not to associate in stable patterns. One readily thinks of the ever-shifting vicissitudes of orcish or Drow society, which as stable tropes of the genre already (at least) approach objective status.

It is no more difficult to treat Good and Evil in the same sense. One should remember that moral relativism is a recent and perhaps fragile, passing notion. Not long ago and for a long time before, good was widely understood as an orientation toward the Summum Bonum. Hence the ancient Christian principle that the world is good in and of itself, that is, as a matter of its very nature, given its fundamental relationship to its benevolent Creator. One finds similar notions of objective morality in many non-Christian traditions, such as Confucianism.

By contrast, there is a widespread notion that alignment stands for a character's individual viewpoint. This strikes me as the source of much of the criticism I have seen regarding alignment; namely, that it is both too broad and too narrow. I agree. If alignment describes how a particular character views the world then the categories are inadequate in number and sophistication: there are only nine rote perspectives covering the personal outlook of every possible person?

The implication for Neutrality is particularly instructive because under this interpretation being Neutral evidently implies non-alignment. It is the non-outlook of non-sentient beings, as anyone who has perused a Monster Manual can attest. Characterizing a person as Neutral has inspired all manner of mental gymnastics. For example, perhaps alignment is an ideal to which the character imperfectly cleaves. Thus the Druid seeks to be more perfectly aligned with non-sentient life, which seems to fit. But then are ants and goats also trying to achieve Neutrality? For they, too, "have" alignment. The conclusion that alignment is one thing for one set of beings and another thing for another set of beings evinces the essentially post hoc quality of this rationalization.

Nonetheless, alignment-as-ideal is a particularly popular approach. And it has unsurprisingly generated a notorious problem: the Paladin must either look the other way or else become an obstacle whenever fellow adventurers risk violating her ideals. In the former case, the objection is that her player is not roleplaying her alignment. In the latter case, the objection is that the Paladin is more trouble than she is worth or she/her player becomes a target for metagame teasing.

Alas, the Paladin seems to have been designed under the assumption of alignment-as-ideal: being a Paladin is contingent upon "living up to" the Lawful Good alignment. This seems inspired by so many images of knightly romance and yet still fails to satisfy. To wit, if alignment is an ideal then anyone, or at the very least anyone of Lawful or Good alignment, should qualify to be a Paladin and, over the course of their career, gradually attain (or fail to attain) the Lawful Good alignment. After all, there are less-than-perfect knights who are not so Evil as to be Anti-Paladins.

Alignment-as-ideal seeks to depict a character's self-awareness concerning values and motivations (and therefore be a roleplaying tool) but the two axes of alignment form too limited a set of possibilities to reflect such a complex perspective. This in turn points to the overarching problem with alignment-as-viewpoint described above. Rephrased, the trouble is that a character's outlook changes not only very gradually over a long period of time but even from moment to moment. An adventurer constantly confronts and is confronted by novel, outlook-challenging situations.

If alignment is considered to be an attribute, however, a different image of the Paladin emerges: "Paladin" is not a profession so much as a personal expression of the character's nature. Note that nature is not the same as personality. One's nature is question of who one is rather than what one is like, which is to say, how one behaves. A person may behave according to or against one's nature, as in the example above of the character with a high STR rating who is played as a weakling.

So can a Lawful Good character be played as evil? Of course, just ask anyone who has objected to a Paladin's moralizing interjections. The seeming contradiction unravels upon realizing that "Lawful Good" means something objective while "evil" (as opposed to Evil) means something subjective. Roleplaying the character with the high STR rating as a weakling is a function of imaging how the character sees herself and is seen by others and NOT of her STR rating. The exact same could apply to alignment. We are familiar with the Paladin who grimly "does what she must." It has even become a definitive mechanic: Smite Evil.

Now the question arises, can alignment understood as an attribute fulfill the traditional job of alignment, to guide roleplay? First, any approach to alignment does a poor job of guiding roleplay and it will increasingly show its insufficiency to the task the harder one leans on it to do so. That said, the traditional attributes can and do already guide roleplay by suggesting types. The player who chooses to roleplay the character with a high STR rating as a weakling is playing against type while another player who chooses to play the character with a high INT rating as a savant is playing to type.

I propose that this is also as much as can be reasonably expected of alignment and conclude that expecting it to do more, to serve as even an entry point to the sophisticated inner life of a character, is bound to end in disappointment. As an attribute, alignment is liberated from the resulting critique and can do what it seems in every other instance (for example, as regarding magic) to actually be for: describing an aspect of the "reality" of the setting.

An attribute is a mechanism to resolve tasks.
"Can I break the door"
"Do a test based on the STR, if you succed, you will be able to break the door"

So, yes you could represent alignment with a number, but I'm not sure It would help players roleplay better, nor will it make the game more fun.

It sounds interesting and I suppose it could serve as something to roll against should the player try to do something that the DM thinks would be really out of character.

Player: "My paladin will steal the food from this poor family and kill their pets"

DM: "Erm... ok... roll against your lawful good score"

Player: "... damn, seems like I failed that"

I feel like, in this forum, I am always bringing up HackMaster 4th edition. However, having played and GMed it for at least 8 years and it being my first RPG, it's what I fall back to.

HackMaster 4th Edition used Honor as an "attribute". You got bonuses if your character was with the "Great Honor" range, and penalties if you were in "Low Honor" range. You were awarded Honor points at the end of each session.

Honor was affected by your actions. Your class, your race, and your alignment were all taken into account. A thief "nicking" some loot from either a character or NPC would garner them honor. More if they were evil.

In fact, alignment came into play the most often for honor awards (with the exception for healing by clerics and most damage dealt in a single blow). It was also a "tangible" or "Usable" system, where you could literally "burn" honor to roll your "honor die" to add a bonus to a particularly important roll.

While you were free to role play your character however you wished, it was a mechanic that would certainly penalize you if you acted outside of the "expected" range of your alignment. Sure, it could be gamed like any other system, but I enjoyed it.

I have always liked (and still use) the Chaosim system of alignment measurement -

The GM assigns points to you after each session depending on your behaviour and this can be for multiple alligments - so you might increase your score to say both Chaos and Balance, but loose points from Law in one session then have lots of Law points in the next.

It can be quite fun to see where a players character is going.....

so for instance;

Action..........................................Chaos.........Balance........Law
Binds an Elemental.................. -.................-1...................-
Frees someone from captivity..+1..............-.....................-1
Gives Charity..............................-...................+1................. -
Heals someone mortally ill....-...................+1...................-
Kills an Elemental....................+D8............-1....................+3
Kills a Demon............................-..................-..................... +D6
Loves another...........................-..................+3....................-
Makes something unique......+1...............+3................... -
Murders.....................................+4...............-........................-
Raises a skill above 90%.......-.................-........................+3
Refuses Charity........................-................. -.......................+1
Steals something important..+4..............-....................... -1
Takes revenge...........................+1............. -.......................+1
Tells a significant lie.................+1..............-......................-
Tells a significant truth..............-................+1................... +1
Sires a Child..............................+D4...........+1...................-

A person with only a Balance Allegiance will be a void when viewed through Witch Sight
A person with Balance, Law and Chaos points will have a central black area with competing red and white flames dancing around their aura, with the strengths and covering of the colours depending on the ratio between them.
A person with a low Balance and high Chaos will blaze red with a small central black spot.
A person with a low Balance and high Law will blaze white with a small central black spot.
A person with just a mixture of Chaos and Law will have competing colours, with the strengths and covering of the colours depending on the ratio between them.

 M_Stress wrote:
An attribute is a mechanism to resolve tasks.
"Can I break the door"
"Do a test based on the STR, if you succed, you will be able to break the door"

So, yes you could represent alignment with a number, but I'm not sure It would help players roleplay better, nor will it make the game more fun.

I totally agree. The fact that alignment is not a number, but is role played is important.. So important, that it is part of the very point of role playing. If your rolling a dice to determine role playing, go play another game with no role play element. Alignment is nature, just like you said but making it an attribute won't help that. In real life and roleplay, we all have a nature that we act within, and sometimes outside of. Good people do bad things, sticklers break rules, and even that donkey-cave you work with may have a good moment. Alignment is the nature of how individuals act, and they can play for or against that type. A lot of the problem with alignment is when people start becoming things like "lawful stupid" , which creates negative effects on the game and metagame. Rolling helps negate this possibility, but what if you rolled a 1 for bluff

I think alignment does a LOT. It obviously can not just put a label on the total life of a character, but with any decent backstory, a character will have an an aggregated set of choices and actions that generally fall into that. Or, perhaps it was a major defining moment. PC's are defined by choices that are not made at random. Rolling means that the point of roleplaying, playing a role would just be gone. Most games are based on rolling, some even have player controlled rolling and choice, but roleplaying games have the aspect of a game that is played completely without dice or stats. That is what makes roleplaying games good.

 M_Stress wrote:
So, yes you could represent alignment with a number, but I'm not sure It would help players roleplay better, nor will it make the game more fun.

Of course it wouldn't make it less fun either, as that doesn't really determine fun one way or the other. I'm also curious where you got that it should be represented by a number, as that isn't stated anywhere in the text, just that alignment should be less mercurial and more concrete, like attributes are.

 M_Stress wrote:
So, yes you could represent alignment with a number

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I suppose it could serve as something to roll against

 Dr. Serling wrote:
The fact that alignment is not a number, but is role played is important.

Who said anything about an alignment rating? I define attribute for the purposes of my discussion in the third sentence.

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm also curious where you got that it should be represented by a number, as that isn't stated anywhere in the text, just that alignment should be less mercurial and more concrete, like attributes are.

Reading Comprehension: A+

I always come into discussions like this thinking that alignment is a good idea because it gives roleplaying guidelines that have direct mechanical advantages in the game. Then I remember "detect evil" and how many plot ideas it ruins. Then I wonder who the heck is assigning "good/evil/law/chaos" axis on the world anyway. Then I decided that I don't like alignment so much after all.

What I wrote addresses why those issues come up and how they can be avoided by thinking of alignment in a different way.

I prefer the five fold color wheel alignments of MtG to the Lawful-Chaos vs Good-Evil axes. When working on the Skirmish Game and connected RPG for the setting I'm developing I'm taking inspiration from MTG in that regard rather than D&D.

The White Character seeks Unity. He is tied to Order and Morality. (Which is more interesting than "Good")
The Blue Character seeks Perfection. He is tied to Logic and Technology. (Which is more interesting than "Lawful")
The Black Character seeks Power. She is tied to Parasitism and Amorality. (Which is more interesting than "Evil")
The Red Character seeks Freedom. She is tied to Impulse and Chaos. (Which is more interesting than "Chaos")
The Green Character seeks Balance. He is tied to Instinct and Interdependence. (Which is more interesting than "Neutral")

Your Paladin or Cleric is most likely going to be White. Your Wizard is probably going to be Blue. Your Druid is probably going to be Green. Your Barbarian or Sorcerer is probably going to be Red.

White isn't Good just because it believes it is. Left to its own devices it will destroy all individualism and freedom and basic humanity. It isn't interested in those.
Black isn't Evil because it doesn't believe in evil. It believes in its own survival and success at the expense of everyone else's. That's its understanding of the world.

Good is probably found in moderation. Walking a five fold path. Evil in allowing oneself to commit entirely to any of these goals because they have a huge cost attached to them.

While I think having a White Knight with clear guidelines about how they will behave is useful for game play, the wider repercussions of those actions are inevitably gray and the people playing the game have to decide that for themselves as individuals or as a group. When the Black Knight kills to protect his self interest is that worse than when the White Knight kills to protect the public interest?

I have always been of the firm belief that Alignment should be roleplayed, not statted. As such, "Alignment" should not exist as DnD portrays it.

Have each player state their goals and driving forces of a character to you, the GM. When they want to do something that is contrary to what they described to you, have them give you a quick sales pitch as to why their character would do such a thing.

I feel like a simple, but powerful, tweak to the D&D system (which should probable be the 'AD&D system' if we're being pedantic as I think most versions of D&D until everything was merged for 3.0 were just Law vs. Chaos) would be to make something I've seen described online official:

Alignment is flexible for most creatures, and the noted alignment is a guideline, not a straightjacket.

"Outsiders" and similar may be an exception to this. If we're talking about the Demonic Entities from the Plane of Evilness, evil may be a core component of their existence, and inseparable. Call these entities 'Innately aligned' or similar.

For Paladin-types and similar, it can be noted that anything that is not innately aligned is at least theoretically redeemable. They can be taught to truly change their ways. If this was an official rule, it could add some interesting material to the latest round of the "Paladins vs. Orc Babies" question.

Planesape makes this a bit more suspect, as there's a few Outsiders in that setting's canon that have drifted a bit away from the core, but in some cases this could be explained as effects of powerful magic, a curse, or a really long con.

For role-playing purposes, only innately aligned and those with special codes (Paladins, etc.) have any requirement to maintain an alignment. For everyone else, it's a tendency that they should be assumed to drift to, but circumstances or recent experience may make them go against it. The Lawful Neutral guy might be persuaded to act in a chaotic fashion if it's to save a loved one, for example.

An interesting idea is that 'Innately aligned' might always read as their Innate alignment despite their actions speaking differently. Some characters might straddle this boundary: So as Tiefling might be noted as 'Innately Aligned' to Lawful Evil, but the character acts Chaotic Good. Sucks for them.

For many games, and homebrew campaigns, alignment may not be necessary but in many of the premade settings for D&D Good and Evil are quantifiable, tangible things and not the debatable, moral relativism of our modern age. The problem being that the alignment matrix is somewhat vague, which is why I think Manchu is calling for an overhaul to make it more precise.

I'm reminded when people want to ply atheists in these settings, which makes no sense. You can play a character that doesn't care about the gods, or doesn't follow one, but there wouldn't be anyone that doesn't believe in them at all since they actively take a role in day to day life, unlike in our world where there is obliviously room for debate. Our modern ideology doesn't fit in this and, I imagine, supposed to be part of the fun. If anything making people step out of our current malaise and adopt attitudes that don't particularly exist encourages role playing.

I never liked alignments when it comes to pen and paper. Video games with their limited set of choices may be different, but I could never get into the concept for something as open ended as a real rpg.

I guess it was probably because WoD was the first real setting I got into, and after that defining a character by alignment for Dnd just seemed so forced and contrived. Like in WoD I came up with a living breathing character who by the nature of the beast was forced to be represented by some abstract stats and all but the core of them was an individual I created.

'Alignment' seeks to nail down too much of the characters personality and even worse give their moral proclivities tangible, real world repercussions. It's silly to me. It's one of the reasons I could get into those types of games.

Discussing alignment in a fresh way is difficult because most players already dismiss it. Indeed, merely seeing the word seems to trigger a prepared statement: "I don't like alignment because [various good arguments]." All these good arguments assume a certain definition of alignment, that it is a character's moral viewpoint. Frustratingly, the good arguments opposing that definition also tend to reaffirm it. As a result, many players seem to myopically discard alignment altogether.

I recently proposed treating alignment as an attribute in order to supplant the "moral viewpoint" concept with a "moral nature" concept. Judging from the responses, players have difficulty imagining that alignment should do something other than guide roleplay even (or especially) considering they already think alignment does that poorly. My use of the word "attribute" also proved unhelpful. Many responses (not unfairly) assumed treating alignment like an attribute means reducing alignment to a numerical rating, ostensibly for the purposes of rolling some kind of "alignment check."

Perhaps the Third Edition mechanic of monster type/subtype would be a less confusing metaphor for the "moral nature" concept of alignment that I am actually proposing. This mechanic boils down to a keyword-based taxonomic system that both categorizes (type) and describes (subtype). Importantly, for the sake of the comparison to hand, this system cosmologically locates monsters (e.g., outsider type v. extraplanar subtype). That is, all monsters have a place in the order of the universe, or else beyond it.

Third Edition distinguished between alignment-based subtypes as applicable to "species" and alignment as applicable to an individual. This is because Third Edition incorporated the moral viewpoint concept of alignment. Using the moral nature concept of alignment renders the distinction meaningless: similar to type/subtype, alignment describes an individual's participation in the transcendent structure of the universe.

In this way, characters don't just "have opinions." Rather their alignment is matter of being actors on the cosmic stage, even at low levels, or at least being the vectors of cosmic action. A chaotic PC does not just resent rules. Rather, the very principle of chaos manifests through her being in the material world. That is not to say that the PC must be roleplayed as some kind of agent of chaos. She may reject her nature and strive for internal and external order. Or she may be oblivious to her nature. In any case, her nature abides.

Needless to say, I would be in favor of randomly determining PC alignment.

So, you're suggesting that rather than being encouarged to play to alignment, a character has an innate alignment, the same way he has height, weight, race, and language?

I think that makes characters more cinematic, actually, although a lot of rule sets seems to dislike character playing against type.

 Manchu wrote:
In this way, characters don't just "have opinions." Rather their alignment is matter of being actors on the cosmic stage, even at low levels, or at least being the vectors of cosmic action. A chaotic PC does not just resent rules. Rather, the very principle of chaos manifests through her being in the material world. That is not to say that the PC must be roleplayed as some kind of agent of chaos. She may reject her nature and strive for internal and external order. Or she may be oblivious to her nature. In any case, her nature abides.

Needless to say, I would be in favor of randomly determining PC alignment.

I like this idea and think it would be a great campaign/homebrew that I might run sometime.

 Polonius wrote:
So, you're suggesting that rather than being encouarged to play to alignment, a character has an innate alignment, the same way he has height, weight, race, and language?

I think that makes characters more cinematic, actually, although a lot of rule sets seems to dislike character playing against type.

Yes, that's exactly the idea. Can you explain more about what you mean by cinematic? Also, do you think (any edition of) D&D generally discourages playing against type? Let's set the paladin aside for a moment.

 pretre wrote:
I like this idea and think it would be a great campaign/homebrew that I might run sometime.

Thanks. I am glad you picked up on (or seemed to by commenting from the perspective of someone running a game) how this use of alignment pulls in the DM as the world-narrator whereas the moral viewpoint concept focuses almost exclusively on the person playing the PC.

 Manchu wrote:

 pretre wrote:
I like this idea and think it would be a great campaign/homebrew that I might run sometime.

Thanks. I am glad you picked up on (or seemed to by commenting from the perspective of someone running a game) how this use of alignment pulls in the DM as the world-narrator whereas the moral viewpoint concept focuses almost exclusively on the person playing the PC.

Definitely. I think it takes alignment and makes it more interesting part of the character sheet and of the character. I could imagine my players running with the idea and doing their own thing.

I"m pretty sure that 2nd ed AD&D (the only edition I really played) had rules for DMs to force alignment changes when character played against type, with pretty harsh XP penalties.

I probably should have said something instead of cinematic, but I feel that having a character that is, say, Lawful Good, occasionally making hard choices and doing evil or chaotic things, out of necessity or perhaps for the greater good, makes things interesting. My favorite D&D novel character, Raistlin from Dragonlance, is a great example of this. He's pretty hardcore evil, yet he often engages in amazingly good acts.

It also seems like it gives characters a philisophical goal, not a moral straight jacket. My Chaotic Good ranger really feels that the laws of man are harmful, and genuinely wants Good to triumph over evil. That has nothing to do with his penchant for crime, or his ability to be a good teammate, or even if he'd lie, steal, or murder to advance his goals.

So I'm assuming you see Good/Evil as part of world creation, such that it could even be like middle earth: where Good and Evil are black and white. The DM would define what good and evil are in that world, and the characters would slect their paths.

I like the idea of the innate nature. I kind of think of Hellboy (not that I read the comics, so just the concept) an inherently Lawful Evil person who does good thing because that is who he is. I'm sure his nature tugs at him mightily at times, but he does what he does despite that.

For the test run, I would not recommend random alignment generation UNLESS you have a lot of confidence that your players thoroughly understand the concept. The last thing this is supposed to do is encourage OOC-justified behaviors. I can imagine players saying "it's not my fault I was born evil." Then again, that particular brand of metagaming is nicely countered by the DM focusing on narrating realistic consequences, which tends to pull the player back into character.

When applied properly, I imagine this moral nature concept could drive genuinely interesting characterization. It is also open to DM rulings. For example, can a character striving against her alignment change it? How? The best answer will always be "it depends" rather than some rote screed. The idea is that alignment can be as much or as little as you want to make of it outside of the baseline cosmological function (as per spells). A given character, even including a paladin, may not feel any interest in her alignment. Usually, such a player would be criticized for not playing alignment properly. I have always been frustrated by those types of discussions.

I had more of the idea of assigning narratively significant alignments to each PC.

 Polonius wrote:
The DM would define what good and evil are in that world, and the characters would slect their paths.

That's one method but I don't think it is necessary.

In my view, "good" or "chaotic" are just tags that mark the PC for interactions with other things in the world. So for example, a PC who is Neutral Evil cannot use a sword only usable by Lawful Good PCs. It would not matter how noble, just, helpful, and/or merciful the Neutral Evil PC tries to act. The sword still rejects him as long as his alignment is not Lawful Good. Meanwhile, the sword would accept even a grim "burn the witch first, aks questions later"-style paladin.

This is how I envision alignment being objective without being simplistic and constraining.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
The DM would define what good and evil are in that world, and the characters would slect their paths.

That's one method but I don't think it is necessary.

In my view, "good" or "chaotic" are just tags that mark the PC for interactions with other things in the world. So for example, a PC who is Neutral Evil cannot use a sword only usable by Lawful Good PCs. It would not matter how noble, just, helpful, and/or merciful the Neutral Evil PC tries to act. The sword still rejects him as long as his alignment is not Lawful Good. Meanwhile, the sword would accept even a grim "burn the witch first, aks questions later"-style paladin.

This is how I envision alignment being objective without being simplistic and constraining.

But do you feel that there are still traits or charcteristics behind Good and Evil, or are they simply opposites?

Most Fantasy/Mythological Morality is based on the idea that there is an intended heirarchy or design, and that it is good to further that, and evil to subvert it. So Elves are good because they are supposed to live forever in the forests, and Orcs are evil simply because they try to stop that.

Elves and goblins are a lot more morally ambiguous in traditional myth than the Tolkien version which is the basis of most modern fantasy RPG.

In dungeons and dragons at least, alignment is a part of the system, with many mechanics hinging on it. However, I don't like my players to pigeon hole themselves with that sort of thing, so I keep alignment hidden.

In the first few sessions, I try to throw in a few "moral choice" situations, usually of minor importance, and watch how players react. Then I assign them an alignment based on that. This alignment is likely to be neutral at first, and if they are consistently good or evil or so on, I'll shift that axis around. If a generally lawful good character has a moment of weakness and commits an evil act, I probably won't alignment shift them straight away. The players don't find out their alignment until an effect that works on alignment hits them.

With Paladins, I tend to alter the core rules very slightly. Rather than requiring them to be Lawful Good, I instead ask them to give me 3 to 4 tenets of their religion that they cannot break- sacred vows that show their conviction to their cause or deity. If they break these vows they lose their paladin powers. Generally, people who want to play a lawful good paladin will take vows that fit that mold, which will functionally "force" them to play as a lawful good character in any case. Edit: Just wanted to add: I find this has an advantage over the alignment method- often, I've seen paladin players and the GM argue over whether something was Lawful Good or not. This method means that it should be pretty clear if an act breaches the Paladin's oaths, and there will be less of an argument over it since the player is required to make a choice that he knows goes against his tenets. This tends to make any "fall from grace" more significant and dramatic for all involved.

Finally, I have to say the one thing that's given me fits with this is "detect evil" and similar spells. My solutions have been varied, but here they are:
1. Detect evil functions as "detect people who are opposed to your values"
2. Detect evil functions as written, but there is a gentleman's agreement that it doesn't get used on PCs.
3. Detect evil does not function.

Of these, I prefer 1. But actually, I prefer how detect evil works in 5th edition, where it allows you to detect the presence of supernatural evil like demons, undead or evil dragons. That is a much better approach.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Elves and goblins are a lot more morally ambiguous in traditional myth than the Tolkien version which is the basis of most modern fantasy RPG.

Yeah, but when you look at the Greek Myths, the Gods were good because they were gods, even when they were unreprentent jerks.

Or the Giants in Norse Myth. Even Gilgamesh was mostly good because he was the hero. he wasn't a hero because he was good.

 Polonius wrote:
But do you feel that there are still traits or charcteristics behind Good and Evil, or are they simply opposites?

Most Fantasy/Mythological Morality is based on the idea that there is an intended heirarchy or design, and that it is good to further that, and evil to subvert it. So Elves are good because they are supposed to live forever in the forests, and Orcs are evil simply because they try to stop that.

Good question. Let me rephrase your ideas a bit: First, good and evil could be only defined by their relationship to each other (like left and right). Second, one is an arbitrarily posited quality and the other is simply its opposite or lack (like hot and cold). The first option is closer to what I am thinking of purely because Goodness (the alignment) and goodness (the moral quality) may be different.

Let's say a certain village is controlled by a paladin, i.e., a Lawful Good NPC. It is her practice to use detect alignment on every newborn child. If the child detects as Evil, she has it drowned. I don't think it is up to the DM to tell the players -- much less the PCs -- whether this is good or evil. It's a matter of perspective. Moreover, simply knowing that the paladin has a Lawful Good alignment does not explain her motivations.

A larger issue is dropping the dualistic mindset. Alignment is not "this or that" but rather "more like this than that." There are nine alignments, not just two. One technique useful in escaping the good/evil dualism is thinking of the alignments (and again this is just a metaphor) as astrological signs. Person A may feel being a Sagittarius is extremely meaningful while Person B does not even know her sign.

That brings up another question -- do PCs know their alignment? I think they clearly can, in some way, given spells like Detect Alignment. I would say that alignment is a thing PCs can find out and that what they find could surprise them. DMs could even consider keeping alignment secret until the information becomes available in-game.