Alignment Rules (D&D 3.5)

[ConBrio]

I remember reading that if your DND character is into BDSM that is considered evil.

[zook1shoe]

I remember reading that if your DND character is into BDSM that is considered evil.

Because that's thought to be cruel and cruelty is always evil

[Kajhera]

The sadism and masochism spells are both [Evil], if that's what you mean. I think the second's [Evil] just for symmetry. I was kinda sad about having to sell the pair of knives that granted them both to the wielder to an artificer so they wouldn't corrupt anyone else, but their wielder man, he ... went kinda beyond 'into it' into 'serious addiction', so if there was any chance any of that was from the knives ... better safe than sorry.

[Libertad]

I remember reading that if your DND character is into BDSM that is considered evil.

Yes, they said as much in the Book of Vile Darkness.

Monte Cook even made the "Nipple Clamp of Exquisite Pain," quite possibly the most infamous aspect of the book.  The magic item converts pain into pleasure.

To be honest, I can see the Nipple Clamp being put to good use: imagine that a person is in constant pain or about to die a slow, agonizing death.  The Nipple Clamp can help alleviate that pain, like medical marijuana.

[InnaBinder]

I remember reading that if your DND character is into BDSM that is considered evil.

Yes, they said as much in the Book of Vile Darkness.

Monte Cook even made the "Nipple Clamp of Exquisite Pain," quite possibly the most infamous aspect of the book.  The magic item converts pain into pleasure.

To be honest, I can see the Nipple Clamp being put to good use: imagine that a person is in constant pain or about to die a slow, agonizing death.  The Nipple Clamp can help alleviate that pain, like medical marijuana.

The particular book from which the Nipple Clamp stems is written with a very strong Judeo-Christian morality slant, with the indication that suffering is good for the soul, and that the bad things which happen to a person in this life are only important in how we endure them in preparation for the afterlife*.  To the particular variety of that POV the book espouses, using the Nipple Clamp is 'wrong' because it is twisting - perverting - the suffering sent to test the person in pain, invalidating the test.

*I fully recognize not all folks of those faiths believe the above to be true.  I'm addressing how the BoVD/BoED presents the issues.

[veekie]

So basically those two books made alignment worse than ever, by confusing the issue, creating mirror counterparts(Ravages hah!), and generally having no quality control.

[Kajhera]

Yeah.

[Libertad]

The particular book from which the Nipple Clamp stems is written with a very strong Judeo-Christian morality slant, with the indication that suffering is good for the soul, and that the bad things which happen to a person in this life are only important in how we endure them in preparation for the afterlife*.  To the particular variety of that POV the book espouses, using the Nipple Clamp is 'wrong' because it is twisting - perverting - the suffering sent to test the person in pain, invalidating the test.

*I fully recognize not all folks of those faiths believe the above to be true.  I'm addressing how the BoVD/BoED presents the issues.

But suffering sucks.  Many people with family members in incurable pain will gladly break the law to bring relief and comfort to them.  Unless the Clamp is made from the souls of unborn children or something like that, I can see a big demand for this item.

The whole "suffering" thing I must have missed, but it makes no sense: there's many Good deities of pleasure and comfort.  The idea of the forces of Good holding suffering as noble doesn't mesh well with a lot of settings.

[veekie]

That there is the Judeo-Christian morality slant, where one faith's norms(no, not even laws, merely perceived norms) is treated as the law for all that is good.

[Necrosnoop110]

That there is the Judeo-Christian morality slant, where one faith's norms(no, not even laws, merely perceived norms) is treated as the law for all that is good.

I can't follow what you are saying here.

Peace,
Necro

[Kajhera]

 Nipple Clamps of Exquisite Pain are evil only in that they are crafted with an evil spell, Masochism, which is only evil because it's twin sister to Sadism, which, yes, rewards you for cruelty, not just sexual kink, and apparently it's very important to be symmetrical.

As a paladin, if it detected as evil, I'd actually attempt to redeem the item. There are some very vague rules for that in Book of Exalted Deeds. It could probably be done with a spell like Empryeal Ecstasy or Sublime Revelry from the Pleasure domain, which also grant immunity to pain, or - from spells I actually have access to - Ease Pain.

Considering the effect is doable with Good spells, it's pretty evident the spell is one of those that's arbitrarily marked evil and the item should be completely redeemable.

That there is the Judeo-Christian morality slant, where one faith's norms(no, not even laws, merely perceived norms) is treated as the law for all that is good.

I can't follow what you are saying here.

Peace,
Necro

I'm pretty sure that's a good thing. xD

[veekie]

Basically, they are assuming that customs(like the poison thing, the undead thing, and the destruction of evil) of one faith define good and evil. Yet in the books that should clarify the matter, they do not do it properly. And the setting is polytheistic.

You could actually get a lot more consistency out of the thing if you explained the rationale behind each evil action.

Example:
Poison, along with crippling enemies, can be evil because it can lead to extended suffering, which is a greater evil than a clean death. It is not evil when used to prevent suffering in the long term, but is unlikely to be an inherently good act. It can be irresponsible, because poison misused may be afflicted upon innocents.

Etc, along with clearing up the role of intent and inherently dark powers(stuff powered by the energy of cosmic Evil for example).

[solara]

Part of the reason the rules are so messed up is everyone has their own preconceptions, and few people take the time to hash out exactly how things will work in their game. For instance, in the IRL game I'm in that we play occasionally, slavery is very common and not evil (slaves get a wage and can buy themselves back, are treated well, etc). This is because it doesn't work in the way it did most recently, and more importantly because the DM wants that as part of the verisimilitude of the world without causing issues for good-aligned, or at least non-evil, characters. That's a discussion that HAS to happen or you get really big issues, with players that understand what's going on being really angry at players that are assuming a different model of slavery.

The other issue what I like to call the "Batman Fallacy" (the name comes from this illustration) - any action viewed from a certain perspective can be viewed as any alignment, but the alignment system views each action as having a single alignment(though obviously some actions are harder to look at as good or evil). Now, considering the huge number of actions characters take, what perspective are we considering their alignment from? How seriously do we weigh each act? Can we count all actions? Whatever. What it boils down to is this: most characters can be considered any alignment, with the correct perspective and actions:

The chaotic sorcerer that kills whatever comes near him? Well, he follows a very set pattern, and patterns are lawful. The righteous paladin saving damsels by slaying hordes of evil orcs? Definitely just killed more things that she saved, and maybe even bystanders. Even Lex Luthor, who stole 40 cakes - that's as many as 4 tens, and that's horrible - could have stolen them because they were poisoned, or so he could give them to starving orphans. Who knows? Does it matter? The alignment system doesn't take into account - can't really take into account - perspective in this way. And, since I love to play Batman-esque paladins, I've had to do a lot of thinking along this line.

[veekie]

The chaotic sorcerer that kills whatever comes near him? Well, he follows a very set pattern, and patterns are lawful.

Actually, this rather irks me in the definitions of Law and Chaos. You're talking personality drivers rather than mathematical Order and Chaos, they'd only be the same if you're clinically insane or an embodiment of the madness of Law and Chaos. Lawful characters uphold and obey strictures and restrictions, Chaotic characters strive against them. Nothing to do with ADHD Chaos or  OCD Order.

[Kethrian]

True, but there are people out there whose idea of Law and Chaos are just that off the mark.  Hence the preconceptions.

[Libertad]

The chaotic sorcerer that kills whatever comes near him? Well, he follows a very set pattern, and patterns are lawful.

Actually, this rather irks me in the definitions of Law and Chaos. You're talking personality drivers rather than mathematical Order and Chaos, they'd only be the same if you're clinically insane or an embodiment of the madness of Law and Chaos. Lawful characters uphold and obey strictures and restrictions, Chaotic characters strive against them. Nothing to do with ADHD Chaos or  OCD Order.

I think that was a problem in Planescape, where ultimate Chaos had two different aspects: the Slaadi were random for the sake of being random.  There is technically nothing preventing a Slaadi from becoming an iron-fisted tyrant for a moment if we are to assume that ultimate Chaos is random in every sense of the word.

I thought that the Free League faction of Sigil made a better manifestation of Chaos than the giant frogs.  The Free League is anti-authoritarian to the extreme, like anarchy.  Their ideal society is one where everyone's free to do their own thing as long as it doesn't involve oppressing or controlling another.  Naturally, the faction is highly disorganized and leading them in an endeavor is like trying to herd cats on crack.

The Free League wasn't random: far from it.  Yet from a certain perspective they were fully Chaotic.  D&D is trying to accommodate very different viewpoints on what constitutes Law and Chaos, so we get a weird jumble of Lawful and Chaotic exemplars who may as well have nothing in common.

[veekie]

I'd make an exception for exemplars, they after all, can represent more than Ethical Law/Chaos, but Fundamental Law/Chaos(which encompasses physical, mental and spiritual Chaos). Anything with actual people however...

[solara]

The chaotic sorcerer that kills whatever comes near him? Well, he follows a very set pattern, and patterns are lawful.

Actually, this rather irks me in the definitions of Law and Chaos. You're talking personality drivers rather than mathematical Order and Chaos, they'd only be the same if you're clinically insane or an embodiment of the madness of Law and Chaos. Lawful characters uphold and obey strictures and restrictions, Chaotic characters strive against them. Nothing to do with ADHD Chaos or  OCD Order.

Sorry. It was really late when I thought up that one. I guess the better example is a character that's "chaotic" because they ignore/disobey laws frequently, yet they do so because of an intense personal code that they generally follow. Such a character's actions would be characterized as chaotic, so if you judge them by actions they are "chaotic" yet their personality and intent - perhaps even the effect of their actions - are lawful and ordered. Their order just isn't the order imposed by law. The alignment system has no way to deal with such a character, and seems to have not really anticipated lawful characters that ignore laws (because, honestly, some laws are dumb, or wrong).

[archangel.arcanis]

I can't believe no one has asked the simple question that really defines this debate: What alignment is Batman?

Seriously if you have ever seen one of those arguments you see how completely inept the alignment system is at defining what is or isn't good/evil and lawful/chaotic. It is all black and white which is made worse by the fact that the books periodically define some thing as one or the other with no real logic to it, often in direct conflict with what it should be as in the above examples.

[InnaBinder]

I can't believe no one has asked the simple question that really defines this debate: What alignment is Batman?

Seriously if you have ever seen one of those arguments you see how completely inept the alignment system is at defining what is or isn't good/evil and lawful/chaotic. It is all black and white which is made worse by the fact that the books periodically define some thing as one or the other with no real logic to it, often in direct conflict with what it should be as in the above examples.

Solara already provided a link to the "9 Alignment Batman" illustration.  I'm fairly confident that any attempt to define his alignment would quickly devolve - in no small part because different artists and writers have given Batman a different moral compass whenever they were involved in the project.