It was an interesting read. Thank you. I've listed some good bits and observations below:
wrote: However, in my home games I’ve always preferred to challenge the players to think about their actions – to have things be less clear-cut than “We’re good, they’re evil, beating them up is the right thing to do.” From the start, film noir was called out as a major influence of Eberron, and a noir story relies on a certain level of moral ambiguity and shades of gray. It shouldn’t always be easy to decide who the villain is in a scenario… or if killing the villain will solve a problem.
This is also something I would like to promote. I like scenarios where both (or more) parties are in the wrong. Whom will you support? Which bad choice will you make?
wrote:Alignment is a spectrum. Round up ten “evil” people and you’ll find that their behavior and histories are radically different.
The alignment notions seem sensible here. It's a reason enough to read the article if you're interested in discussing how alignments could work. One might even find some character ideas here. Even if a paladin detects that someone is evil, they might actually do more harm than good by killing that person. I am all for that kind of complexity. Paladins who rely on their evildar are thus, in my opinion, committed to a fatal flaw that might become their undoing.
wrote: Expanding on this: one of the rulers of the Five Nations is a good-aligned monarch who seeks to restart the Last War. Another is an evil leader who seeks peace. Restarting the war will result in the deaths of tens of thousands of people – how can a “good” monarch support that? Again, in Eberron alignment doesn’t represent someone’s actions on a global scale: it reflects the manner in which they pursue those goals. The good ruler believes that a just war is possible and that a united Khorvaire will prosper under her rule. She won’t condone torture, the mistreatment of civilians, and so on. She will treat her prisoners and emissaries fairly. Of course, her ministers and generals may engage in evil behavior in the name of the war; she will be horrified when she hears of it. Meanwhile, the evil king pursuing peace has a noble goal, but will do absolutely anything to achieve it. Torture? Oppressive martial law? Assassination? Anything. He’d kill members of his own family if he had to. So in both cases, the personal alignment tells you how they conduct their personal affairs, but nothing about the big picture.
Another good bit.
wrote:This is a key point with the Church of the Silver Flame. They are devoted to fighting supernatural evil: demons, undead, lycanthropy, etc. These are the things to fight with sword and spell. HUMAN evil is something that should be fought with compassion, charity, and guidance. Per Flame creed, you defeat mortal evil by guiding people to the light, not by killing them.
This part might explain how Ms. Trissa acts, perhaps. I really like the unerring devotion thing she's got going on. All the same, I find smite-happy paladins very distasteful (in general). My problem with the alignment system is that there are 'acceptable targets' such as goblins who are totally okay to kill. D&D basically says there are races who are automatically evil and who should be put to the sword because they are a nuisance. That is the kind of thing I do not enjoy at all. If fiends can change, why not the level 1 goblins near your starting village? They might have already done a lot of evil and they might be willing to do a lot more before they're done, but if you're in a position where you can slay them all, are you not also in a position where you can negotiate with them? It's a matter of taste, of course. I am alright with people playing trigger happy characters in general, but I treat it as a character flaw in the campaigns I run - something I also want my players to know.
Going further, what we define as 'good' and 'evil' actually says a lot about the values we hold as players. More often than not, these values are negotiated from a position of power: they favor the straight white man more likely than they favor anyone else. It is probably not too hard to find examples of 'good' or 'evil' that is not quite agreeable if you belong to a minority (the wholesale slaughter of goblins being an example I used here).
wrote: It is possible for the angel to fall or the demon to rise (as shown by the Quori bound to the kalashtar), but in these cases the spirit will typically physically transform to reflect this change. An angel that falls from Syrania will become a fiend or a radiant idol, for example. So when you meet a devil, you can generally be pretty sure itÂ’s lawful evil, because thatÂ’s what it means to BE a devil.
This kind of lore can actually be a pretty smooth solution to outsiders having free will and being able to change alignments. You could, for instance, start as a succubus and then work your way 'up' towards becoming a slaad. I imagine this would not be a very popular solution for playable characters, however (if you picked a succubus, you probably also want to keep playing a succubus - otherwise you'd gone for the slaad right away).
