PDA

View Full Version : Why alignment is terrible. A brief essay.



Cyclone231
2009-05-05, 04:05 AM
Alignment is a system designed to represent the sort of Red Team-Blue Team simplicity of Hollywood movies, where Red Team eats orphans and Blue Team feeds orphans. Then, for some incomprehensible reason, they ended up doubling the number of axises, but making the new one named after the function of the old one.

Blah blah, a million years later and the alignment system still pisses people off because it is: a) not clear and b) not very good. Are people good or evil based upon utilitarianism, consequentialism or deontology? How does the alignment system interact with insanity, manipulation, deception, false expectations or self-deception? These questions are never answered, and they make every alignment debate more about whether the posters involved are consequentialists or deontologists than anything else.

Solution: either simplify your settings morality to the point of being absurd and two-colored, or throw out the alignment system. Happy to help.

kamikasei
2009-05-05, 04:13 AM
I'm not sure this qualifies as an essay...

Or to put it another way, what's this thread for?

AslanCross
2009-05-05, 04:15 AM
I agree that it leads to endless debates on forums, but among my players I have not had any long-winded debates on alignment, ever.

EDIT: Redundancy edit. :P

Myou
2009-05-05, 04:44 AM
In my game alignment is vital, because without an external and absolute morality the players would be unable to kill anything.

None of us actually like the D&D good vs. evil method, but without it the game sucks.

And if you're letting players argue with you over alignment you're doing it wrong.

Satyr
2009-05-05, 04:59 AM
In my game alignment is vital, because without an external and absolute morality the players would be unable to kill anything.

Why? The real world has no external, absolute morality as well and that has never stopped people from killing each other, for more or less justified reasons.
Any gamemaster or player who is worth to even talk to should be able to come up with a basic motivation for a conflict which is more complicated than the color scheme of a chessboard. There is really no excuse for those who aren't (and who can measure their age with two digits).

The way I see it, the D&D alignment system fails in every single regard I could come up with. It is an annoyance when it becomes solidly implemented into the game mechanics, but even then, their is a workaround, that isn't that complicated.

Weimann
2009-05-05, 05:00 AM
I do agree that the concept of "good" and "evil" is way to hard to properly encompass in such a simple system, nevermind with definitions of the traits that are way to rigid (in fact, trying to "define" them in any meaningful way is almost certainly impossible due to their subjective nature).

I see alignment as a help to create a personality. The simplification of the vast infinity of attitudes, philosophies and ideals into 9 groups helps overview the spectrum in a handy way, and serves as a base for developing a deeper personality.

Of coruse, I haven't played D&D to any greater extent, but I look at alignment more as a fleeting framework that you personally can check against when choosing actions, more than a list of dos and don'ts. I sometimes did stuff that might not be very typical for my listed alignment, but hey, I'm only human dwarven, right? ^^

ZeroNumerous
2009-05-05, 05:01 AM
In my game alignment is vital, because without an external and absolute morality the players would be unable to kill anything.

Uh..

Player 1: "Hey, that guy has shiny stuff. Lets go take his stuff."
Player 2: "But wait! We can't do that, that's evil."
Player 3: "You do realize he's not real, right?"
Player 2: "Oh, ya. Ok."

Without absolute morality, the DM is allowed to ask the question "Why" and get a response that isn't "Because they're Evil/Good/Lawful/Chaotic/True Neutral" from his players.

weenie
2009-05-05, 05:02 AM
In my game alignment is vital, because without an external and absolute morality the players would be unable to kill anything.

Wait, what? :smallconfused:

Aris Katsaris
2009-05-05, 05:10 AM
Alignment is a system designed to represent the sort of Red Team-Blue Team simplicity of Hollywood movies, where Red Team eats orphans and Blue Team feeds orphans.

You make it sound as if the concepts of good and evil was invented by Hollywood.

Even in real life there are people that kill children, and people that try to protect them. These sorts of people weren't invented by Hollywood.


Then, for some incomprehensible reason, they ended up doubling the number of axises, but making the new one named after the function of the old one.

The "incomprehensible reason" are the concepts of the good scoundrel (Robin Hood, Han Solo) and the law-abiding villain.

Eloel
2009-05-05, 05:13 AM
Who told you to have morally-inappropriate alignments?
Just grab a convenient alignment for yourself, and play on it, don't pick character concept before alignment!

bosssmiley
2009-05-05, 05:14 AM
Alignment is a system designed to represent the sort of Red Team-Blue Team simplicity of Hollywood movies, where Red Team eats orphans and Blue Team feeds orphans. Then, for some incomprehensible reason, they ended up doubling the number of axises, but making the new one named after the function of the old one.

Might I humbly suggest that before making such sweeping statements about what alignment is (or isn't) in D&D that you take the time to

learn the history of your own hobby (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/search/label/alignment). :smallannoyed:

D&D is an adventure game; it is not a philosophical debate (and that goes double for "Planescape"). Alignment debates are - and long have been - a specimen example of fan-wank. Look back through old issues of Dragon and you'll see the Forum section clogged with people barking up the wrong tree. :smallamused:

If anyone wants me, I'll be with the surveying team laying out more dungeon.

Lappy9000
2009-05-05, 05:21 AM
If anyone wants me, I'll be with the surveying team laying out more dungeon.Gar, I dinnae know how thay e'pect us to get tha' elementals to finish that antechamber if tha' dem taskmaster dinnae even speak Terran....

By Pelor's Beard, don't tell me the gnomes have formed another worker's union....

Theresssss a break up in the lower chamberssssssss. We losssssst another group of workersssssss.


Good luck with that. It's so hard to find good help these days.

Satyr
2009-05-05, 05:32 AM
D&D is an adventure game; it is not a philosophical debate (and that goes double for "Planescape"). Alignment debates are - and long have been - a specimen example of fan-wank.

So... because the tradition is rooted in an overtly simple, superficial approach, people aren't supposed to think about it?
The history of the game really doesn't matter for the stupidity of the concept - only because the same stupid crap is around for a longer time doesn't mean that it becomes any better.

Berserk Monk
2009-05-05, 05:36 AM
If you're good, you like to help people.

If you're evil, you like to hurt people.

Wow. That's really complicated.

McGonigle
2009-05-05, 05:50 AM
In my game alignment is vital, because without an external and absolute morality the players would be unable to kill anything.

None of us actually like the D&D good vs. evil method, but without it the game sucks.

Yeah the lack of an external and absolute morality stops players killing things? There are a large number of games without an external and absolute morality and I have never heard any examples of GM's struggling with the players killing things.

Indeed I find DnD works fine without any notice of the morality rules, or with everyone just playing true neutral.

weenie
2009-05-05, 05:58 AM
What about a guy who beats up people for money, that he needs to feed his family? Is he good? Evil? Neutral? Does knowing what alignment he is make the game any better or is it a needless oversimplification that just makes people argue?

I've started ditching alignments completely in my games and it made playing d&d much more fun for me.

Saph
2009-05-05, 06:00 AM
I like alignment. It's been the source of more fun discussions between me and my friends than any other feature of D&D. We've spent many entertaining and highly geeky hours assigning alignments to real-life people we know. :)


Solution: either simplify your settings morality to the point of being absurd and two-colored, or throw out the alignment system. Happy to help.

Actual solution: if you don't like the alignment system, don't make it a part of your character. Write 'Neutral' or 'Unaligned' in the box and forget about it.

I wish people like Cyclone and Satyr would stop lecturing other people about why they shouldn't play with alignment. I've heard it a thousand times before and it gets kind of annoying after a while. Is it really so hard to understand that other people might find a system fun even if you don't?

- Saph

Myou
2009-05-05, 06:05 AM
You all seem to be unable to comprehend the idea that you can combine alignment-based justification with story-based justification.


Why? The real world has no external, absolute morality as well and that has never stopped people from killing each other, for more or less justified reasons.
Any gamemaster or player who is worth to even talk to should be able to come up with a basic motivation for a conflict which is more complicated than the color scheme of a chessboard. There is really no excuse for those who aren't (and who can measure their age with two digits).

The way I see it, the D&D alignment system fails in every single regard I could come up with. It is an annoyance when it becomes solidly implemented into the game mechanics, but even then, their is a workaround, that isn't that complicated.

That was a thinly veiled insult.

The real world also has incredible amounts of misery and suffering.
Some of us, however, do not find conflicting interests to be justification for killing. My players and I are simply not comfortable killing even fictional enemies just because our characters are at odds with them.


Uh..

Player 1: "Hey, that guy has shiny stuff. Lets go take his stuff."
Player 2: "But wait! We can't do that, that's evil."
Player 3: "You do realize he's not real, right?"
Player 2: "Oh, ya. Ok."

Without absolute morality, the DM is allowed to ask the question "Why" and get a response that isn't "Because they're Evil/Good/Lawful/Chaotic/True Neutral" from his players.

Player 2: "Yes, but I don't exactly feel happy about pretending to murder people at random. I was kind of hoping that I might be able to feel good about my character as a person."

Without absolute morality the game becomes a story about a band of roving murderers. That or you never fight anything.


Yeah the lack of an external and absolute morality stops players killing things? There are a large number of games without an external and absolute morality and I have never heard any examples of GM's struggling with the players killing things.

Indeed I find DnD works fine without any notice of the morality rules, or with everyone just playing true neutral.

Struggling? No.

The DM and players not feeling happy? Yes.

If you want to play with everyone TN then good for you, but some people actually like to play a good person.

Myou
2009-05-05, 06:08 AM
I like alignment. It's been the source of more fun discussions between me and my friends than any other feature of D&D. We've spent many entertaining and highly geeky hours assigning alignments to real-life people we know. :)



Actual solution: if you don't like the alignment system, don't make it a part of your character. Write 'Neutral' or 'Unaligned' in the box and forget about it.

I wish people like Cyclone and Satyr would stop lecturing other people about why they shouldn't play with alignment. I've heard it a thousand times before and it gets kind of annoying after a while. Is it really so hard to understand that other people might find a system fun even if you don't?

- Saph

It's wonderfully refreshing to read your post, thank you Saph. :smallsmile:

kamikasei
2009-05-05, 06:10 AM
Without absolute morality the game becomes a story about a band of roving murderers. That or you never fight anything.

Or you fight things that are trying to kill you or third parties without good cause, and kill them because you're justified in doing so even if you can't get a metaphysical credit report on the blackness of their souls.

Talic
2009-05-05, 06:14 AM
I believe there's a middle ground between having no system to describe your character's general beliefs, and having one that clarifies every nuance of every theistic system.

No, it's not perfect. Neither is HP, AC, or a myriad of other abstract concepts.

We're not playing "complete and total verisimilitude and realism, with the exception of dragons, magic, and broadswords".

It's fantasy. Suspend the disbelief. Realize that no, it's not perfect. But it's pretty good. Good enough to justify people essaying points about it.

There is magic that assesses the burden on people's soul, or their likelihood to support freedom over order.

Stop thinking about it so much.

Omegonthesane
2009-05-05, 06:17 AM
Or you fight things that are trying to kill you or third parties without good cause, and kill them because you're justified in doing so even if you can't get a metaphysical credit report on the blackness of their souls.

If it were up to me I'd leave in the Law VS Chaos axis precisely _because_ it's more "Red VS Blue" than the Good VS Evil axis - you have instant sides if you want an in-universe war, and can justify saints and bastards on both sides. Good VS Evil might be a COMPELLING conflict but it isn't a CONVINCING one, and it isn't necessary to make a conflict compelling or fun to RP.

Talic
2009-05-05, 06:18 AM
If it were up to me I'd leave in the Law VS Chaos axis precisely _because_ it's more "Red VS Blue" than the Good VS Evil axis - you have instant sides if you want an in-universe war, and can justify saints and bastards on both sides. Good VS Evil might be a COMPELLING conflict but it isn't a CONVINCING one, and it isn't necessary to make a conflict compelling or fun to RP.

I disagree. If it's not compelling, or fun... What's the point? It's a GAME. The whole point is fun.

ZeroNumerous
2009-05-05, 06:21 AM
My players and I are simply not comfortable killing even fictional enemies just because our characters are at odds with them.

And yet you are. "They're Evil and I'm Good" is just "I don't like them" written in a way to make you feel better about yourself.


Without absolute morality the game becomes a story about a band of roving murderers. That or you never fight anything.

So you're not murdering people because they're Evil? It's acceptable to murder people who don't share your views? The only difference between my scenario and yours is that mine involves monetary rewards.


If you want to play with everyone TN then good for you, but some people actually like to play a good person.

You can go ahead and play a Good person. But that doesn't make you a good person. It just makes you a murderous tyrant with good publicity.

Michaelos
2009-05-05, 06:32 AM
The real world also has incredible amounts of misery and suffering.
Some of us, however, do not find conflicting interests to be justification for killing. My players and I are simply not comfortable killing even fictional enemies just because our characters are at odds with them.


You are correct. The evil people in the game act that way, and justify killing you because they are at odds with you. In general, good aligned PCs in my games are trying to do the right thing, and while they are doing that, people are trying to kill you, so you fight back.



Without absolute morality the game becomes a story about a band of roving murderers. That or you never fight anything.


After getting past the rat levels, my plots always seem to end up with enough people who have had their plans interefered with that the PC's are attacked by people with such frequency that they barely have time to shop and sell their wares, let alone rove around murdering people.

At this point, they've gone all the way up to stopping A god's plans. Gods have all sorts of potential for revenge.

The rat levels are slightly different because no one knows who the PCs are yet, so there aren't as many people who have reasons to attack them. But there are plenty of monsters at that tier who attack the PC's just because they're hungry, or because they're skeletons and zombies who kill things because they are powered by evil.

So really, the PCs being roving murderers is not required in the game.

Myou
2009-05-05, 06:36 AM
Or you fight things that are trying to kill you or third parties without good cause, and kill them because you're justified in doing so even if you can't get a metaphysical credit report on the blackness of their souls.

Except that we don't belive that it's 'ok' to kill people who attack you. It's just the leser of two evils. Why would we choose to put ourselves in that position?


And yet you are. "They're Evil and I'm Good" is just "I don't like them" written in a way to make you feel better about yourself.

So you're not murdering people because they're Evil? It's acceptable to murder people who don't share your views? The only difference between my scenario and yours is that mine involves monetary rewards.

You can go ahead and play a Good person. But that doesn't make you a good person. It just makes you a murderous tyrant with good publicity.

No, it's pretending that in the world we're imagining there's such a thing a absolute morality, and that it's right to destroy evil.

No, the difference is that in your scenario you're killing people for fun. In mine the players only kill people when they have no choice, and it's moraly right to do so.

You seem to have completely missed the point.

Omegonthesane
2009-05-05, 06:41 AM
I disagree. If it's not compelling, or fun... What's the point? It's a GAME. The whole point is fun.

I messed up my wording. I meant to say that Good VS Evil is not necessary to make a conflict compelling or fun to RP.

weenie
2009-05-05, 06:44 AM
I believe there's a middle ground between having no system to describe your character's general beliefs, and having one that clarifies every nuance of every theistic system.

No, it's not perfect. Neither is HP, AC, or a myriad of other abstract concepts.

We're not playing "complete and total verisimilitude and realism, with the exception of dragons, magic, and broadswords".

It's fantasy. Suspend the disbelief. Realize that no, it's not perfect. But it's pretty good. Good enough to justify people essaying points about it.

There is magic that assesses the burden on people's soul, or their likelihood to support freedom over order.

Stop thinking about it so much.

The main difference is, that removing HP or AC and will hurt the game, whilst removing alignment wouldn't and could actually make it more fun.

Also I must say that I don't really buy in the whole good&evil concept. People who spend their whole lives helping others and not doing anything for themselves are not good, but insane in my book. The same goes for people who murder others for no particular reason of course.

But the biggest problem for me is that alignment isn't only a description of a character's personality, but it's an universal fact. That just seems wrong.

horseboy
2009-05-05, 07:06 AM
If you're good, you like to help people.

If you're evil, you like to hurt people.

Wow. That's really complicated.Yes it is. Especially when you ask "which people".
The problem then becomes even more of a pain when you realize that your actions matter the least when determining your character's alignment.
Without absolute morality the game becomes a story about a band of roving murderers. That or you never fight anything.There's nothing wrong with never fighting anything. Though you may want a system that's not about killing things and taking their stuff. But no, I've had fun in VtM games that never left the night club. (But don't tell anyone)

Matthew
2009-05-05, 07:18 AM
Alignment is a tool. You have to learn how to use it and for which jobs it is useful. Screwdrivers are terrible at banging nails, hammers are terrible at screwing in screws. If you do not find it suitable for your games, dump it and feel free to explain why, but blanket statements about the utility of the concept are bound to be contested.

I dumped alignment about fifteen years ago, not long after I started playing. I brought it back about ten years ago, having gotten over myself, and realised its role in the game was subjective, and not absolute.

kamikasei
2009-05-05, 07:24 AM
Except that we don't belive that it's 'ok' to kill people who attack you. It's just the leser of two evils. Why would we choose to put ourselves in that position?

I guess I don't see why you need an alignment system saying "these people belong to Team Evil" to be able to say, "these people are up to No Good. Someone has to stop them, even if it means killing them. And I guess it falls to us."

If someone's going to unleash a necromatic plague on the nation or sacrifice a thousand toddlers to summon an archdemon, are you really going to say "I'm not comfortable fighting, even killing, to stop this guy" until your paladin tells you "it's okay, he pings Evil!"?

edit: I also don't really understand the quote above specifically. If you're attacked by people who seem to have every intent of killing you (undead, orc raiders, human bandits etc.) aren't you (in a game setting) justified in defending yourself with lethal force? Even if the people are objectively Evil, shouldn't you use restraint where possible? When you say "why would we put ourselves in that position", what are you referring to? Why would we adventure, knowing it means going to dangerous places inhabited by those who would happily murder us without provocation? Why would we resist evil, knowing that it may lead people to try to kill us with provocation (but not what you would call "good reason")?

Satyr
2009-05-05, 07:25 AM
I wish people like Cyclone and Satyr would stop lecturing other people about why they shouldn't play with alignment. I've heard it a thousand times before and it gets kind of annoying after a while. Is it really so hard to understand that other people might find a system fun even if you don't?

Oh, I understand a diversification of interests and pleasure, but as you said yourself, there is a certain fascination and fun in participating in actually pointless discussions for the sake of it.
So... it's okay for you to do so but not for those who, like Cyclone or myself, think that the whole alignment is not the best idea around? I smell double standards.


That was a thinly veiled insult.

How could it be, when it was neither veiled, nor an insult? (You recognized the introductory phrase and who the adressee of the message was, right?)



The real world also has incredible amounts of misery and suffering.

This is sadly so. And some of this misery was created with the best intents, sometimes even for the people who later suffered for the consequences.


Some of us, however, do not find conflicting interests to be justification for killing. My players and I are simply not comfortable killing even fictional enemies just because our characters are at odds with them.

And some of us are also able to differentiate between fictional and real people and their suffering. Yes, in the real world, mere comflict of interest does rarely if ever justify violence (if the interest is somewhat vital, that certainly does not apply), but in fiction, characters are no persons. They are only instruments who contribute to an overall story. The "how" of this contribution is certainly up to debate, but the "if" is not.


Without absolute morality the game becomes a story about a band of roving murderers. That or you never fight anything.

How? I can hardly remember a group I played in or with in the last decade or so which was either, and they certainly had no absolute morality. And one probably could play a band of roving murderers in a setting with objective, clear-cut absolute morals just by making the characters not care about them.


We're not playing "complete and total verisimilitude and realism, with the exception of dragons, magic, and broadswords".

It's fantasy. Suspend the disbelief. Realize that no, it's not perfect. But it's pretty good. Good enough to justify people essaying points about it.

So... if I may paraphrase: "Yes, it is stupid, but it is your fault to think about it and point it out, as you are supposed to play along and accept the lack of inner logic because of reasons I don't tell."

I can't say I could disagree any more. Just because something is fantasy it does not include the right or excuse to insult anybody's intelligence, not even your own one. I mean, do you really belief that fantastic elements and an intellectual approach (or just the lack of obvious stupidity) contradict each other?

afroakuma
2009-05-05, 07:42 AM
Oh, I understand a diversification of interests and pleasure, but as you said yourself, there is a certain fascination and fun in participating in actually pointless discussions for the sake of it.
So... it's okay for you to do so but not for those who, like Cyclone or myself, think that the whole alignment is not the best idea around? I smell double standards.

It's the aggression, Satyr. The tone. For those who like playing with alignment, you're just constantly belittling it, and them.

Myself, I don't understand why this debate ever occurs, and I really don't see the point in starting yet another thread on it. Nobody's going to stumble along, read it, rethink the way they play the game and then thank you for opening their eyes and making them a better person.

Saph
2009-05-05, 07:57 AM
Oh, I understand a diversification of interests and pleasure, but as you said yourself, there is a certain fascination and fun in participating in actually pointless discussions for the sake of it.
So... it's okay for you to do so but not for those who, like Cyclone or myself, think that the whole alignment is not the best idea around?

Satyr, I have never once heard you describe D&D with the phrase "not the best idea around". Your normal words for describing anything about D&D that you don't like (which seems to be most of it) are "stupidity" and "insulting to the intelligence". Given that insulting people's intelligence in the form of telling them how stupid their activities are seems to be high on your list of favoured pastimes I'm not sure why you consider it a bad thing, but that certainly doesn't stop you from repeating it on a frequent basis.

I don't care if you dislike alignment, but please stop implying that I'm intellectually inferior to you for not sharing your opinion. You say you understand differing interests? Then act like it.

- Saph

Talic
2009-05-05, 08:05 AM
The main difference is, that removing HP or AC and will hurt the game, whilst removing alignment wouldn't and could actually make it more fun.In your opinion. However, that opinion is incorrect. Alignment is part of the game. Does cutting out an appendix hurt? You are saying removing part of something won't damage it, and marketing it as a completely worthless aspect of the game. I disagree.

The game goes to quite a few lengths to show that some things in the D&D multiverse are universally good and evil (this is portrayed in many other mythological sources). Heroes, villains, right, wrong, good, evil. It's central to many, many hero stories. And the ones it's not central to? They're the greek definition of hero, which is basically "big abilities, big deeds".

The moral concept of good and evil is one that man has long struggled with. As long as a group can come to an agreement on what is good and evil in a specific world, it can be a useful acting tool.

This isn't even going to mention the wide variety of protective and offensive spells that are based on alignment. Those would be damaged by removing alignment.

In short, this "painless" removal will leave a jagged hole full of loose ends. May be better for you.

Not me. So stop trying to force your views on me.

Also I must say that I don't really buy in the whole good&evil concept. People who spend their whole lives helping others and not doing anything for themselves are not good, but insane in my book. The same goes for people who murder others for no particular reason of course.Luckily the book doesn't say you have to be a flawless example, hm? It's a fluid system that's guided as much by guesstimation as anything. People make mistakes. They have off days. 75 good acts and 3 evil ones don't make an evil character... any more than the converse would make a good one.

But the biggest problem for me is that alignment isn't only a description of a character's personality, but it's an universal fact. That just seems wrong.Because it is. Wrong. Alignment is a universal measurement of someone's behavior. Does it seem wrong that your tires are at 35 or 37psi? Does it seem wrong that your jug of milk has a gallon in it? No? Then accept that it's a way to measure ethos, imperfect as it may be, for the purposes of those crazy people like me who want to be able to apply certain effects that are based on moral fiber. It's not a padlock on a character. It's a scale. And it's neither right nor wrong, unless you make it out to be. It is what it is.

weenie
2009-05-05, 08:47 AM
In your opinion. However, that opinion is incorrect. Alignment is part of the game. Does cutting out an appendix hurt? You are saying removing part of something won't damage it, and marketing it as a completely worthless aspect of the game. I disagree.

Yes, in my opinion. I thought this was what we were doing here.. Sharing opinions and stuff..


This isn't even going to mention the wide variety of protective and offensive spells that are based on alignment. Those would be damaged by removing alignment.

Some of the spells and abilities would easily be converted(Smite evil -> smite anything), and some would have to be removed(Detect evil). I tried it and it made the game more fun for me. I know that removing alignments requires a few changes to the system, but I still think it's for the best.


Not me. So stop trying to force your views on me.

Not really forcing anything on anyone here..


Luckily the book doesn't say you have to be a flawless example, hm? It's a fluid system that's guided as much by guesstimation as anything. People make mistakes. They have off days. 75 good acts and 3 evil ones don't make an evil character... any more than the converse would make a good one.

What I was trying to say is that I don't think there's good and evil in the real world, don't really see how this addresses my statement..


Because it is. Wrong. Alignment is a universal measurement of someone's behavior. Does it seem wrong that your tires are at 35 or 37psi? Does it seem wrong that your jug of milk has a gallon in it? No? Then accept that it's a way to measure ethos, imperfect as it may be, for the purposes of those crazy people like me who want to be able to apply certain effects that are based on moral fiber. It's not a padlock on a character. It's a scale. And it's neither right nor wrong, unless you make it out to be. It is what it is.

Alignment is actually a measurement of someone's personality. And this is what bothers me most. "So paladin, what do you think about that guy?" "Evil. Ok, let's kill the sick f***." I really think determining someone's personality should take more effort than measuring the length of a stick..

I know that games can still be fun even with alignment mechanics, but I prefer to play without them.

Roderick_BR
2009-05-05, 09:32 AM
(..._
Blah blah, a million years later and the alignment system still pisses people off because it is: a) not clear and b) not very good. (...)
c) People doesn't know how to play with alignment. My group never, ever had problems with alignment. In fact, we rarely remembers it's there, unless some player starts playing his character TOO differently from what he was in character creation, or when checking magical effects. My friend once played a barbarian dwarf and a cleric dwarf, both CG, and still vastly different from each other, and had no problems.
I always find out that the problem falls under people that think too much about it, or just want an excuse to kill anyone at any time, like a videogame.

Salvonus
2009-05-05, 09:39 AM
Phew! It's getting hot in here. :smallconfused: Maybe everyone should just take off all their clothes. :smallwink:


In your opinion. However, that opinion is incorrect. Alignment is part of the game. Does cutting out an appendix hurt? You are saying removing part of something won't damage it, and marketing it as a completely worthless aspect of the game. I disagree.

Uh, mate, I think the whole "your opinion is incorrect" mentality is kind of what some people are having a problem with in this thread. Might want to tone that down. Honestly, all you need to do is splice your last sentence with your second one - "I disagree with that opinion."

It's not a fact that removing alignment will ruin the game. That's like saying that house rules are a bad thing, and that everything should be played according to strict RAW. The amusing bit is that Unearthed Arcana is kind of like an "appendix" for 3.5e, and yet it is comprised entirely of optional houserules - some of which actually replace core mechanics like HP or rolling d20s! By the logic applied there, the pseudo-appendix (yeah, you can argue that it's not - that's not really my point! :smalltongue:) for D&D, Unearthed Arcana, is actively damaging the game by advocating the alteration of certain core mechanics.

There aren't any facts when it comes to "fun", as the individual experience is completely subjective. It's one thing to say that "the way I play the game brings me the most enjoyment for X, Y, and Z reasons", and something completely different to say "your opinion on what makes the game fun is incorrect".

This isn't directed just at you, bud, and I'm not intending to single you out or anything - it's directed at the whole thread. The only "incorrect" way to play D&D is to not have fun while doing it. (Actually, if someone likes to complain a lot, I guess that statement doesn't hold true. :smallbiggrin:)

I mean, heck, the first time I played D&D, it was a totally bizarre "bastardization" of 1e or something (I dunno, it had THAC0s and was pretty basic). We rarely stuck to the rules, houseruled our own systems for various things, and had wonderfully messed up items like an infinite healing potion and a sword that was +10 vs. Dragons. Also, I believe that we instituted a rule whereby you could make a saving throw vs. dying (once we leveled high enough, the player with the Crown that gave an ungodly bonus to saving throws was effectively immune to death :smalltongue:) and that drinking wine healed you. This was all at a low level. It was enough to make a veteran of D&D cringe, and yet it was fun. Isn't that what counts? :smallsmile:

I have to wonder why people can't just have these discussions like this (obviously paraphrased, as nobody talks this nicely to eachother):
Person A: "Hi guys, I'd like to talk about alignment and how people deal with it in their games! See, personally, I don't like to use alignment in my games for reasons X, Y, and Z. I think this is a really fun way to play the game! What about you guys - how do you handle alignment, eh? :smallsmile:"
Person B: "Ooh, Person A, those are some interesting points you have there. I tend to disagree, though, at least for my personal enjoyment of the game! See, I enjoy the alignment system for reasons X, Y, and Z. "
Person A: "Hm, those are also some pretty convincing arguments, mate. However, have you considered point Q about X and point E about Y?"
Person B: "Hey, point Q is actually a pretty solid argument from the perspective of my enjoyment of the game. However, I still think that it doesn't detract from the fun to a particularly significant extent, for reason W."
--[Finer discussion on the various points raised and how alignment interacts with various campaigns.]--
Person C: "OMG WTF PERSON A [editor's note: or B, as the case may be] U LOSER UR DOIN IT WRONG(tm)."
Person A+B: "... please go away."

If anyone is offended by my words or find me a little too preachy, I'm truly sorry. That's not my intent. :smallredface:


A few other tangential points:


The game goes to quite a few lengths to show that some things in the D&D multiverse are universally good and evil (this is portrayed in many other mythological sources). Heroes, villains, right, wrong, good, evil. It's central to many, many hero stories. And the ones it's not central to? They're the greek definition of hero, which is basically "big abilities, big deeds".

I dunno, mate. In my view, at least, a game has to be an organic entity, not a static set of rules. Each player and DM brings their own special touch to things. I can't say I agree with the notion of the "game" as this untouchable and unchangeable entity, even when you're working with a pre-established setting like Generica [Default D&D, since it isn't really Greyhawk from what I can see], FR, or Eberron. Why wouldn't playing without absolute morality be fun for some people? Does it really matter what the "game" shows? The whole point of house-rules is to pick and choose what D&D mechanics you like. The whole point of fluff sourcebooks is so you can adapt it for your own use. At least, that's the way I see it. :smallsmile: You're obviously entitled to your own view of things, although I would like to understand your reasoning. :smalltongue:

As an interesting (and irrelevant) aside, Greek heroes and gods were rarely what could be considered "Good" in D&D terms. :smalltongue:


The moral concept of good and evil is one that man has long struggled with. As long as a group can come to an agreement on what is good and evil in a specific world, it can be a useful acting tool.

I think that's actually where [i]some of the people who dislike alignment are coming from, to be honest. To my mind, playing out that moral struggle with each character and the world surrounding them would be exceptionally enjoyable. What is Good? What is Evil? When the universe has no "rules of morality", it becomes an even greater struggle - a heroic one, even. While you can play out that conflict within the alignment system, the simple existence of a universal Truth and alignment-detecting magic takes a lot of the lustre out of proceedings. It removes a lot of the moral struggle when a cheap magic item will tell you in absolute terms whether or not an action is Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic.

Obviously, this is dependent on the individual game and players involved. While alignment can be a useful tool in morality-centric struggles, the lack of a universal truth is what would make it truly interesting for me. While you "lose" the dimension of "alignment", you gain the dimension of "morality struggle". A Paladin who can smite anyone could actually be a more interesting character, as they struggle to determine what the "truth" of "Good" is - after all, it's part of the Paladin mentality to think of a Universal Truth, so, even if there isn't one in the game world, they would strive to find or create one. "Morality struggle" adds a "realistic" dimension of character development, which is what I think a lot of the "anti-alignment" crowd likes.

(Disclaimer: This is not to say that "morality struggle" is impossible under an alignment-based system. However, it would be devalued somewhat because alignment-morality has a set of universally defined truths. Furthermore, as I mentioned, 1000 gp buys you a moral compass.)


This isn't even going to mention the wide variety of protective and offensive spells that are based on alignment. Those would be damaged by removing alignment.

In short, this "painless" removal will leave a jagged hole full of loose ends. May be better for you.

Does it really leave jagged holes? Sure, it's a bit of work to make sure that alignment-based mechanics don't pop up from time to time, but it can be done with a bit of effort. It's just like any

I'm not sure I'd consider it "damage", but rather "a system with new and different possibilities". Consider, for example, the RAW definition of Necromancy as an evil, evil act. What if I want to play a character that is "Good" in views and deeds, but raises an army of undead to help her combat evil? The Universal Truths at work in D&D have determined her to be automatically Neutral, or even Evil. This means that she's restricted from all sorts of feats, items, and PrCs, just because her intentions (or the particular corpses she revives) don't mean a thing to the Universal Truths at play. Playing without alignment allows for characters such as her to be played with much less hassle; indeed, I think that her "morality struggle" would be more interesting to play out when there isn't a Universal Truth to fall back on.

Also, I can't say I've met an alignment-dependent spell or effect that I actually am fond of or makes me think "Wow, that's so cool!". :smalltongue: Maybe I'm missing some... Let me know, actually, if I am. I'm talking about stuff where alignment is absolutely vital to proceedings - not a PrC with Good/Evil requirements, since that is easily mutable. Even stuff like Exalted status can exist without alignment - you still have an "Exalted" code to live up to, it's just that it would be the morality of a particular religion or group of people rather than a Universal Truth. You can still draw power from your own moral code, even if it's not a set of Universal Truths - I mean, this is a game with bloody DRAGONS; surely a set of overwhelming convictions could exact near-supernatural power (Even in RAW D&D - hello, Clerics of a Cause!).


Not me. So stop trying to force your views on me.

Bud... He was just stating his opinion. Nowhere did he say "you should believe this" or "you're stupid/wrong/incorrect if you don't agree with me". He questioned whether or not alignment is vital to the game. That wasn't an attack on you.

I mean, he even said "could make it more fun". Weenie wasn't speaking in absolutes. Please calm down, mate; this is how arguments start.


Luckily the book doesn't say you have to be a flawless example, hm? It's a fluid system that's guided as much by guesstimation as anything. People make mistakes. They have off days. 75 good acts and 3 evil ones don't make an evil character... any more than the converse would make a good one.

If you ask a lot of people on these boards, alignment isn't particularly fluid. I remember this discussion recently about how a Good government would have to systematically remove all Evil people from society because, according to the definition of alignments, they would basically always murder or otherwise seriously harm an innocent.

Besides, I'm not sure that the basic rules actually are about guesstimation. I mean, the Phylactery of Faithfulness is basically a 100% accurate tool for telling you exactly how an action will affect your alignment. That seems pretty absolute to me. The alignment system has differing degrees of immobility for different people.

Actually, it sounds like you're deviating a bit from the game definition by making it a more fluid system. I guess you might call that cutting out a [tiny] part of the game. :smallwink:

(I mean no offence, mate, just a friendly jibe. Don't take it seriously! :smalltongue:)


Because it is. Wrong. Alignment is a universal measurement of someone's behavior. Does it seem wrong that your tires are at 35 or 37psi? Does it seem wrong that your jug of milk has a gallon in it? No? Then accept that it's a way to measure ethos, imperfect as it may be, for the purposes of those crazy people like me who want to be able to apply certain effects that are based on moral fiber. It's not a padlock on a character. It's a scale. And it's neither right nor wrong, unless you make it out to be. It is what it is.

Again, I think you need to reevaluate what Weenie said. At no point did he claim you were "crazy" - he was just offering his opinion on matters. When it comes to "fun", aren't both of your opinions valid?

As I mentioned before, the "padlock" argument seems built around the question of moral ambiguity and, as I termed it, "morality struggle". In a world where you have a cheap way of determining the Universal Morality of every action you might choose to undertake ("Would it be chaotic evil to go to the grocery store and laugh at morbidly obese people getting stuck in the aisles?"), the whole question of "right or wrong" can actually be devalued (for some players).

I don't really understand what you're getting at with "right or wrong"... If you're playing a game where you're the "Good" heroes, isn't an "Evil" act wrong? It seems to me that it alignment is centred around the idea of right and wrong, unless you all play neutral characters. In fact, my impression of alignment is that it was basically a mechanical representation/simplification of right and wrong so that moral ambiguity was reduced. D&D can be a bit of a dungeon crawl, after all, and "morality struggle" would probably get a bit tiresome if all you're interested in is killing monsters in a CRPG-like minimal plot setting.

Speaking of which, I see Weenie just posted. I'm too tired to go through and edit the above message, though. :smallwink:

So, my own question for all you out there: If you remove alignment from your game, what alignment-dependent mechanics (including those from splatbooks!) do you need to modify?

Some seem pretty simple. Smite Evil -> Smite Opposition. Incarnate -> Just make the Chaos/Law/Evil/Good Incarnate paths a selectable option. Holy Word-esque spells -> Get rid of those things, because they're bloody broken anyway.

P.S. Bwahaha! Now there is a "short essay" for you guys.

Mephit
2009-05-05, 09:46 AM
Fixed the title.

Not the argument as much as the attitude of the OP bothers me, really.
Representing your opinion as a fact, then pretending you've actually put any research or effort into the subject, while your 'essay' is just 2 parahraphs of silly personal arguments is not a good example of argumentation, sir.

And why does this need a new thread? :smallannoyed:
Honestly, none of these arguments are very new, and the OP's findings aren't any things that really need to be on a first page.

Ehra
2009-05-05, 10:40 AM
I disagree. If it's not compelling, or fun... What's the point? It's a GAME. The whole point is fun.

When done right, Law vs Chaos is just as compelling, if not more so, as Good vs Evil. The Law vs Chaos axis in DnD was inspired by Michael Moorcock's work, read the Elric saga sometime and you'll see what I mean.

I would actually prefer an alignment system if it went simply with Law vs Chaos. Or, at the very least, get rid of one of them so we don't have a (imo) poor attempt at merging the two systems. Moorcock came up with Law vs Chaos as a replacement for Good vs Evil, they weren't meant to be combined. Law and Chaos taken to extremes would both end in humanities destruction. Chaos would pretty much cause the breakdown of everything while Law would basically end in complete stagnation of all life. The closest thing to "good" in his world was "neutral." Under this system players would still have a "cosmic conflict" going on but you won't have to deal with issues like the subjectivity of good and evil. Law and Chaos, as Moorcock described it, is pretty unambiguous.

However, people also need to realize that the current system is NOT meant to apply to our world. Good and Evil are real, tangible forces in DnD (or at least the Forgotten Realms). There's no subjectivity to it in DnD, you're either on one side or the other (or neutral). Personally I think a simple Law vs Chaos system would be better and more interesting as far as role playing goes, but the current alignment system is still fine. It works as well as you let it work.

edit: Also, this "but that's just YOUR OPINION!" stuff needs to stop. No duh it's just their opinion, what you post after that is also just YOUR OPINION. This is an online forum, it should be a given that when it comes to a discussion like this that everyone is posting their opinion. Is your self esteem really that low that you need everyone to constantly reassure you that they're just posting their opinion and not scientific fact? Are you worried that someone else posting their opinion might invalidate your own? Come on, if the only argument you can come up with is "well that's just your opinion" then you don't have an argument.

Matthew
2009-05-05, 11:17 AM
edit: Also, this "but that's just YOUR OPINION!" stuff needs to stop. No duh it's just their opinion, what you post after that is also just YOUR OPINION. This is an online forum, it should be a given that when it comes to a discussion like this that everyone is posting their opinion. Is your self esteem really that low that you need everyone to constantly reassure you that they're just posting their opinion and not scientific fact? Are you worried that someone else posting their opinion might invalidate your own? Come on, if the only argument you can come up with is "well that's just your opinion" then you don't have an argument.

Well... (and this is just my opinion :smallwink:), I find it hugely helpful in online debates when people draw lines between subjective and objective statements. It is one thing to say, "I do not like X because of Y," but it comes across completely differently when somebody says "X totally sucks because of Y." The endless online flame wars are invariably the result of somebody representing something as a statement of fact, rather than as an avenue for debate.

In this case, for instance, nobody has bothered to discuss what alignments actually are, what edition we are talking about, outline specific problems, and how to combat them, etcetera. Indeed, we have one poster claiming that alignment = personality, which I consider to be a complete misunderstanding, but clearly one he believes to be true.

In short, no, I don't think self esteem is the issue, but clarity of communication between strangers with similar hobbies in a limited medium.

Guancyto
2009-05-05, 12:21 PM
Alignment, as a system, is silly.

That's okay because D&D, as a system, is silly.

That's all right because it doesn't need to be serious. Smite the necromancer and take his stuff. He was Evil, you're entitled. Gather the commoners of the world, get them all in a line, and create a railgun that fires clubs - so it has infinite, free ammunition. There are rules wherein you can travel at infinite speed by hugging your friends, but (if I remember right) you need a PrC to throw dirt in someone's face.

The real problem is when people start ascribing real-world morality (where it does need to be serious) to alignment or vice versa. I remember one time in a serious discussion of "is this action right" someone brings up "it's Lawful Neutral." He might as well have said, "it's three radishes and a banana."

The alignment system and actual ethics/morality do do not mix well, and the more of one you put in your game the less the other will be involved. There is nothing wrong with either approach, because it's all about what you enjoy.

horseboy
2009-05-05, 02:33 PM
I dumped alignment about fifteen years ago, not long after I started playing. I brought it back about ten years ago, having gotten over myself, and realised its role in the game was subjective, and not absolute.Absolute is an aspect of it "Objective". Had the system be subjective and it therefore possible that the orc attacking my city be just as Lawful Good as my paladin, but be LG in the way of the orcs rather than the way of humans, you'd have a far more useful system. The orc kills her father and takes the human woman not because he's "evil" but because he's protecting her. Her old protector was far too weak. He then takes her back to his cave where he feeds her well, keeps the other orc's grubby paws off her, and hey, he only hits her when she's insolent. Yeah, if alignment worked like that I'd be all over it like white on rice. But it doesn't. In order to be a "Lawful Good" orc I have to completely forsake my culture and embrace humanity's. Making it a humanocentric excuse for human manifest destiny. For someone who enjoys playing non-humans this gets really old, really fast.

I think that's actually where some of the people who dislike alignment are coming from, to be honest. To my mind, playing out that moral struggle with each character and the world surrounding them would be exceptionally enjoyable. What is Good? What is Evil? When the universe has no "rules of morality", it becomes an even greater struggle - a heroic one, even. While you can play out that conflict within the alignment system, the simple existence of a universal Truth and alignment-detecting magic takes a lot of the lustre out of proceedings. It removes a lot of the moral struggle when a cheap magic item will tell you in absolute terms whether or not an action is Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic.I'd agree with this. One of Evil's greatest abilities is the soft, Siren's Call. When you can Detect who's Evil you know not to listen to them, because they're EVIL and up to shenanigans. Then of course, it's somehow my fault, that I'm "doing it wrong" by using the information I've gained to "see" Evil but I'm not supposed to pay attention to them being Evil. I don't like the idiot ball, it smells of stinky cheese and Deus ex.

Matthew
2009-05-05, 02:53 PM
Absolute is an aspect of it "Objective". Had the system be subjective and it therefore possible that the orc attacking my city be just as Lawful Good as my paladin, but be LG in the way of the orcs rather than the way of humans, you'd have a far more useful system. The orc kills her father and takes the human woman not because he's "evil" but because he's protecting her. Her old protector was far too weak. He then takes her back to his cave where he feeds her well, keeps the other orc's grubby paws off her, and hey, he only hits her when she's insolent. Yeah, if alignment worked like that I'd be all over it like white on rice. But it doesn't. In order to be a "Lawful Good" orc I have to completely forsake my culture and embrace humanity's. Making it a humanocentric excuse for human manifest destiny. For someone who enjoys playing non-humans this gets really old, really fast.

Actually (and interestingly) that is pretty close to how alignment was intended to work according to Dragon #38 and Gygax's "Good Isn't Stupid, Paladins & Rangers..." But that was not really my point, which was that there are not "nine ways to behave", but nine points, and a character will be somewhere between them all. The ones he is closest to are his alignment. Pretty straightforward stuff.

Dacia Brabant
2009-05-05, 03:15 PM
In order to be a "Lawful Good" orc I have to completely forsake my culture and embrace humanity's. Making it a humanocentric excuse for human manifest destiny. For someone who enjoys playing non-humans this gets really old, really fast.

Um, there are plenty of human societies in this game that are anything but Lawful Good: the Scarlet Brotherhood controlled lands in Greyhawk, Thay, Zhentil Keep and a bunch of other places in Forgotten Realms, and though I'm not up on it I'm sure Eberron has its share, and those are just the pre-fab settings. Humans are probably not the best examples to follow for that; of all the "racial societies" (definitely a problem that cultural diversity is only a human thing, but then again most characters are human so there you go) the halflings are generally the closest to Lawful Good, and dwarves are up there too.

So I'm not sure why orcs have to be humanocentric to be Good, unless what you mean is Good defined by us real-world humans who say taking from others by force or fraud is wrong. If that's the case then, well, yeah of course but what's so bad about that?

Zhalath
2009-05-05, 03:25 PM
My players tend to say that they're an alignment, but in game context, we tend to toss it out. I just let their actions speak for themselves, and occasionally tell them they gained or lost karma (which means absolutely nothing, but helps them keep their character's persona in mind).

MeatShield#236
2009-05-05, 03:30 PM
*Sigh* Um, people, DnD is a role-playing GAME. In an IMAGINARY world. Yes, the alignment system is simple and flawed, but who really cares? The point of the game, of any game, is to HAVE FUN, not to go online and say everyone who disagrees with your opinion is a moron.

So, it might be worth discussing in a civil, friendly debate. But people, is really worth getting people angry and insulting everyone? Over a GAME?

MeatShield#236
2009-05-05, 03:33 PM
*Sigh* Um, people, DnD is a role-playing GAME.* In an IMAGINARY world.* Yes, the alignment system is simple and flawed, but who really cares?* The point of the game, of any game, is to HAVE FUN, not to go online and say everyone who disagrees with your opinion is a moron.So, it might be worth discussing in a civil, friendly debate.* But people, is really worth getting people angry and insulting everyone?* Over one, tiny portion of a game?

Dairun Cates
2009-05-05, 03:42 PM
*Sigh* Um, people, DnD is a role-playing GAME. In an IMAGINARY world. Yes, the alignment system is simple and flawed, but who really cares? The point of the game, of any game, is to HAVE FUN, not to go online and say everyone who disagrees with your opinion is a moron.

So, it might be worth discussing in a civil, friendly debate. But people, is really worth getting people angry and insulting everyone? Over a GAME?

Agreed.

I think alignment is sufficient for getting a base idea of a character's ethical identity without restraining it. I can name at least 5 ways to play a chaotic neutral character that are completely different off the top of my head, and even more for true neutral. Even Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil can have their variations.

BUT...

Who cares, really? It IS just a game. Don't take it so seriously.

horseboy
2009-05-05, 03:45 PM
So I'm not sure why orcs have to be humanocentric to be Good, unless what you mean is Good defined by us real-world humans who say taking from others by force or fraud is wrong. If that's the case then, well, yeah of course but what's so bad about that?
Ideally an LG character would be one that strives to be all that their culture considers "Good and Noble". But with Alignment being Objective that means there's only one way to be LG. LG is defined in a very humanocentric manner. That's why humans and their allies are "Good" and anyone who opposes them are "Evil". Thus creating the Red Team Blue Team mentality.

Eldan
2009-05-05, 03:47 PM
Actually, we have a simple way to handle alignment at the table: I have a little sheet in front of me, with the names of the characters. From time to time I make little marks next to the names (C,L,E,G). They don't know their own alignment, mostly, I just know if for rule purposes. It keeps them from saying all the stupid "but my alignment is X, therefore I have to do Y" stuff.

Nero24200
2009-05-05, 03:50 PM
You know...in a D'n'D setting an abstract alignment system actually makes sense.

Think of it this way...in RL the english word for good origonally came from the word God, and was to mean "God likes".

So when it says in the bible "And God created man and God says it was Good" it really means "God created man and god liked what he had done".

Now whether or not God actually exists in RL is another debate all-together, but in a D'n'D setting believing in a God grants powers. Actual physical powers which are visable and obvious to any who watch. It even says in Complete Champion that characters need not always worship a god, but aetheists just plain wouldn't exist.

Now if you have Gods which, by their very definition of existance, are "Good", then isn't their view absolute in determining what is actually Good? Now gods either like somthing, dislike it, or lie somwhere in the middle. If the god in question is good, then liking it means that the subject in question is good, if the god doesn't like it, then it's evil.

Just by looking at the origins of the word "Good" we can already see a simplistic way in which alignment does fit perfectly in a D'n'D setting, primarily because unlike in RL the forces of Good and Evil have a very active role. If a cleric falls from grace he knows it. If a paladin decides to spontainous stop saving and eats a baby he activly loses his powers.

In a world of active goods, the alignment system does make sense. And since the game is based on the assumption that divine magic exists, an alignment system built directly into it makes sense to. Don't want alignment? Really you should get rid of divine magic as well.

snoopy13a
2009-05-05, 04:21 PM
Ideally an LG character would be one that strives to be all that their culture considers "Good and Noble". But with Alignment being Objective that means there's only one way to be LG. LG is defined in a very humanocentric manner. That's why humans and their allies are "Good" and anyone who opposes them are "Evil". Thus creating the Red Team Blue Team mentality.

No, it isn't defined in a humanocentric manner. Good is defined as: "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings."

It just so happens that the elves, dwarves, halflings, and humans usually form cultures where good is the ideal.

Evil is defined as: "hurting, oppressing, and killing others."

The humans, elves, halflings, etc are not opposed to orcs and goblins because they are orcs and goblins but rather because orcs and goblins try to kill and oppress. If orcs and goblins were peaceful then they'd be left alone (at least by good cultures).

If you want to have a game where the orcs and goblins are altruistic and respect others and the humans and elves are evil oppressors then go for it. However, to rationalize that the maruading orc is "good" because orcs are supposed to exploit the weak in favor of the strong is wrong. Paragons of an evil culture are evil. Good is clearly defined as being altruistic and respectful. Good and evil in DnD isn't defined by one's behavior in respect to the race's ideal, it is defined by beliefs and actions.

Matthew
2009-05-05, 04:46 PM
Think of it this way...in RL the English word for good originally came from the word God, and was to mean "God likes".

I think that is a folk etymology. According to the online etymological dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?), the words God (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=god&searchmode=none) and good (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=good) come from distinct linguistic roots.

Thane of Fife
2009-05-05, 05:09 PM
I'd agree with this. One of Evil's greatest abilities is the soft, Siren's Call. When you can Detect who's Evil you know not to listen to them, because they're EVIL and up to shenanigans. Then of course, it's somehow my fault, that I'm "doing it wrong" by using the information I've gained to "see" Evil but I'm not supposed to pay attention to them being Evil. I don't like the idiot ball, it smells of stinky cheese and Deus ex.

Hmm, I think that this is supposed to be largely done by making those who can detect alignments fairly rare - 3.x may have shiftd the paradigm a bit, but I think that the default is intended to be that most people can't tell who's evil and who isn't. The priests and paladins who can are being protected by their faith/raw goodness/whatever. I'm not really sure why wizards can do it.

On the subject, though, there's no reason to assume that evil-doers know that they're evil. You could, for example, have an orc tribe where the shaman assures them all that they're good, and that killing elves (or whatever) is the right thing to do. Then when one gets captured by do-gooders, he can roar that their false gods are just out to destroy him - they've obviously fooled these hopeless saps. It's alignment brainwashing.

Seems an appropriately evil thing to do.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-05-05, 05:36 PM
Why Trolls Complain About Alignment: A Brief Essay
The alignments are intentionally vague, so as to support many different archetypes. Some gamers want to scientifically define alignment, which is fine. Deontological, consequantialist and utilitiarianist alignment can all work great. Except that some gamers want to scientifically define alignment, but lack the imagination to do so. All these gamers can do is present alignment as a false dilemma:

either simplify your settings morality to the point of being absurd and two-colored, or throw out the alignment system.
...and hope that others are so severely lacking in imagination and critical thought to realize the absurdity of a troll post.

Folks, if you don't like alignment, feel free to lose it. But don't pretend it's some kind of impossible concept; that just demonstrates an unhealthy intolerant obsession with it. In all my years playing the game, I've never once seen alignment cause confusion or debate [except on the net.] Happy to help.

Oslecamo
2009-05-05, 05:39 PM
I'd agree with this. One of Evil's greatest abilities is the soft, Siren's Call. When you can Detect who's Evil you know not to listen to them, because they're EVIL and up to shenanigans. Then of course, it's somehow my fault, that I'm "doing it wrong" by using the information I've gained to "see" Evil but I'm not supposed to pay attention to them being Evil. I don't like the idiot ball, it smells of stinky cheese and Deus ex.

Or you simply pick up any of the numerous ways trough wich you can hide your alignment and go out there lying.

Yada yada yada siren's call is cool and stuff, but it's not suposed to be something easy to do and easily acessible by every evil grunt out there wich can speack. If a villain wants to get away with lying, he gets the proper tools for the job.

After all he's not facing Bob the farmer. He's facing Sir Guain the sorcerer wich bends reality with his sheer force of will. You want to trick him with just words? What's next? You'll want to kill him with a wooden stick? Good luck with that.

BRC
2009-05-05, 05:48 PM
At some point, I'll actually read this thread. For now, Let my post, what I see as two statements that make alignments work.

1) Alignments represent tendencies, not Absolutes. Let's say there is a stop sign. If the intersection is totally clear, it's a lawful act to obey the sign, a chaotic one to disobey it. Somebody who obeys the eight out of ten times, even though the intersection is completely clear, is lawful. Alot of people say "I can't do X action, because I'm X alignment". But they can, because alignments are not absolutes. This is the really big one for making
2) Actions dictate alignment, not the other way around. If a PC says they are NG, but they ignore cries for help from villagers, grabs the magic sword instead of making sure the Orc dosn't kill their party members, ect, then they become TN. But it's not "Now you are True Neutral, you can do evilish things". It's "You've been true neutral for some time, it's just now that we've realized it".
3) Alignments represent Intent, not Outcome. A doctor who, while trying to save a patient, accidentally uses a medicine they are allergic too and kills them, is not evil, merely incompetent. The only time Outcome really matters is with Paladins, who have the universal force of Law and Good watching over their shoulders with it's finger on the "Fall" button. A paladin who, believing he's caught up with the notorious serial killer with a "Dead or Alive" bounty on his head from the local duke, but actually just killed a schoolteacher who looked something like said serial killer still falls for commiting an evil act, though his alignment remains Lawful Good, because his intent was to follow the dukes directive in punishing an evil criminal. At the same time, if a Bandit kills a traveler, that is an evil act. Even if said traveler was on his way to poison a well, and by killing him the bandit saved hundreds of lives, the bandit didn't know that, and didn't kill him because of that, so it's still evil.
Edit: One thing I forgot to add. With the last point, Evil represents either an Intent or a Willingness to make the world a worse place. A Bandit who kills travelers and takes their money could be evil either because he wants the world to be a worse place, and kills to achieve that, or because he wants the money, and dosn't mind killing people to get it.

chiasaur11
2009-05-05, 05:49 PM
Or you simply pick up any of the numerous ways trough wich you can hide your alignment and go out there lying.

Yada yada yada siren's call is cool and stuff, but it's not suposed to be something easy to do and easily acessible by every evil grunt out there wich can speack. If a villain wants to get away with lying, he gets the proper tools for the job.

After all he's not facing Bob the farmer. He's facing Sir Guain the sorcerer wich bends reality with his sheer force of will. You want to trick him with just words? What's next? You'll want to kill him with a wooden stick? Good luck with that.

Well, technically, I have a wooden stick AND my honor.

Hey, it worked for the last guy.

Jerthanis
2009-05-05, 05:57 PM
However, people also need to realize that the current system is NOT meant to apply to our world. Good and Evil are real, tangible forces in DnD (or at least the Forgotten Realms). There's no subjectivity to it in DnD, you're either on one side or the other (or neutral). Personally I think a simple Law vs Chaos system would be better and more interesting as far as role playing goes, but the current alignment system is still fine. It works as well as you let it work.

Agreed about Law and Chaos, but this is my biggest problem with D&D alignment. The fact that Good and Evil are real, tangible forces means you can be a Good person without being a good person, simply through your circumstances or allegiances. Without subjectivity, the concept of "good" is meaningless. If it's inherently a good act to do X, even if X were to, in Y situation, cause harm to individuals, then the "good" act is necessarily causing harm to individuals.

Alignment doesn't measure separately things like intent, methods, guilt, circumstances, or consequences/repentance, and if you're talking about morals, I don't see why you wouldn't.

horseboy
2009-05-05, 05:58 PM
No, it isn't defined in a humanocentric manner. Good is defined as: "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings."

It just so happens that the elves, dwarves, halflings, and humans usually form cultures where good is the ideal.

Evil is defined as: "hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Because "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." and "hurting, oppressing, and killing others." are not always mutually exclusive. If I kill someone, cut off the hand of another and hold a blade to the throat of a third to protect someone else I've fulfilled the definition of both terms. Why are the humans the one that are good? Because their gods say they are. So? Competent evil never jumps out and shouts "Booga booga! I'm EVIL!"


The humans, elves, halflings, etc are not opposed to orcs and goblins because they are orcs and goblins but rather because orcs and goblins try to kill and oppress. If orcs and goblins were peaceful then they'd be left alone (at least by good cultures). Perhaps in a Tippyverse where there is no shortage of resources and no one has a wont for anything. More realistic worlds don't work that way.

afroakuma
2009-05-05, 06:05 PM
Because "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings." and "hurting, oppressing, and killing others." are not always mutually exclusive.

Of course not. But this would be an example of wanting to have clear-cut lines where there are none. Do you honestly want to have a single paragraph clearly outlining exactly what will always be considered a "Good" act?

You are expected to employ your judgment. If I hurt or kill another to protect someone, then it's ambiguous and must be judged based on independent criteria. More importantly, though, unless I have just committed some great personal sacrifice or some irredeemably heinous act, this one action won't matter one whit in determining whether my alignment shifts.

horseboy
2009-05-05, 06:24 PM
At some point, I'll actually read this thread. For now, Let my post, what I see as two statements that make alignments work.

1) Alignments represent tendencies, not Absolutes. Let's say there is a stop sign. If the intersection is totally clear, it's a lawful act to obey the sign, a chaotic one to disobey it. Somebody who obeys the eight out of ten times, even though the intersection is completely clear, is lawful. Alot of people say "I can't do X action, because I'm X alignment". But they can, because alignments are not absolutes. This is the really big one for making
They're not Absolute in that context. They are Absolute in the context of "There is one way to be Alignment XY". The problem then becomes when more times are presented to a character when, to be internally consistent, he chooses one over the other without the day to day choices being represented that would more strongly solidify them into another alignment.


After all he's not facing Bob the farmer. He's facing Sir Guain the sorcerer wich bends reality with his sheer force of will. You want to trick him with just words? Yes, otherwise there's really no point in a great many moral delimas.
What's next? You'll want to kill him with a wooden stick? Good luck with that.Yes. It only takes 5 lbs of pressure to crack a skull. I can provide that with a wooden stick. Without the danger of death in combat there is no thrill. But that's a totally different topic.

Of course not. But this would be an example of wanting to have clear-cut lines where there are none. Do you honestly want to have a single paragraph clearly outlining exactly what will always be considered a "Good" act?

Well, when I suffer mechanical consequences (loss of class abilities, loss of XP) for unspecified acts then yes, yes I do want clear-cut lines. Cause DM and I am human. We're going to come to a disagreement and without them, one of us is going to be pissed off.

afroakuma
2009-05-05, 06:28 PM
Well, when I suffer mechanical consequences (loss of class abilities, loss of XP) for unspecified acts then yes, yes I do want clear-cut lines. Cause DM and I am human. We're going to come to a disagreement and without them, one of us is going to be pissed off.

If you're playing a paladin, then I'd expect the DM to provide you with the lines he'll be monitoring, or a very good briefing on what generally to avoid. If your DM plans to force you to fall, then your DM is probably being a jerk.

Similarly, if your character is on the edge of switching, your DM should probably be dropping hints as to that fact. If, rather, you've always been playing lawful neutral but chaotic good is written on your sheet, then you and your DM should be able to come to an agreement involving an eraser.

BRC
2009-05-05, 06:42 PM
They're not Absolute in that context. They are Absolute in the context of "There is one way to be Alignment XY". The problem then becomes when more times are presented to a character when, to be internally consistent, he chooses one over the other without the day to day choices being represented that would more strongly solidify them into another alignment.


What do you mean "There is only one way to be Alignment XY". Let's conjure up a hypothetical example, Officer Fred. Officer Fred is a nice guy who believes in straight, clean living. He cheerfully gives directions to people, he enforces the law to the best of his ability, he's never got so much as a complaint registered against him and everybody thinks he's a great guy. For these purposes, Officer Fred is Lawful Good.
Now, does that mean that everybody must be exactly like Officer Fred to be LG. What about the nice newspaper salesman who always follows the law and, in the afternoon, runs a basketball program for troubled youth. Is he any less LG than Officer Fred. He dosn't go chasing after criminals, but he still feels strongly that the law should be followed, and he does as much as he can to make the world a better place.

Matthew
2009-05-05, 07:13 PM
If you're playing a paladin, then I'd expect the DM to provide you with the lines he'll be monitoring, or a very good briefing on what generally to avoid. If your DM plans to force you to fall, then your DM is probably being a jerk.

In AD&D, paladins can only fall if they "knowingly and willingly" commit an evil action. An unfortunate omission in D20/3e, as I think the intent was the same.

TheCountAlucard
2009-05-05, 07:21 PM
Why alignment is terrible...Nah, nah, nah, alignment isn't terrible; horses are terrible. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itdPgNLwzH8)

Zhalath
2009-05-05, 07:30 PM
Now, reading all this stuff about "objective alignment", and how this doesn't exist, and blabbidy blabbidy blah, gets me thinking: what if we don't call them "good" and "evil"? ? What if we do label them as "blue" and "red", or "light" and "shadow", or "turkey" and "chicken"? Would this argument exist? Would there be such squabbling over what constitutes actions of such? I wouldn't think so.

I think the major issue here is, "good" and "evil" are loaded words. Because of everything we are exposed to, they have a lot of connotations and meanings to us. We strive for "good" action, and back away from "evil", but yet, we question what they truly mean, what is actually good and actually evil? And here we have D&D, with its own answer to these questions. And now the problem is, you disagree. Now, I'm not saying your discontent with the system is wrong ( Chaos=/= Evil :smallamused:), but that is why there is an issue, because you don't like the answer that D&D provides. It doesn't answer all your own concerns. It doesn't fill the gnawing hole inside you that wants an answer to morality.

But the truth is, there isn't one objective answer to the questions of morality, just as there is no objective good and evil. D&D's alignment system isn't designed to hold up these philosophical and moral questions. It's not designed to be a be-all, end-all solution to what is right and wrong. D&D's alignment system exists for the sole purposes of 1)rules, for things like holy smite and detect evil, and 2) to give you an excuse to burst into a monster's home, kill it and its family, and take all its stuff. D&D doesn't hold philosophical debate. It holds battles with monsters.

What you see in alignment, whether it's an absolute system that holds you back or a bunch of letters written next to your made-up height and weight is entirely your interpretation. You can work it whatever way you want. That's the beauty of D&D, that it's so alterable (morphic). By all means, do what the first guy says, change it, or throw it out. It's in your hands now.

Now, if you're reading this, you actually read this post, instead of skipping it. I'm sure I've said things that have been said before, but I am also certain that they needed repeating. Thank you for your time.

Dairun Cates
2009-05-05, 08:05 PM
What do you mean "There is only one way to be Alignment XY".

Yeah. I agree that that's kinda silly. Taking it to an even more distinct extreme.

You have one character that believes that forces in the universe need to be in perfect balance and harmony in order for existence to make sense and therefore seeks to alter these inherent imbalances and fix them where they exist.

You have another character that is in constant conflict with his duty towards society and his desire for his own selfish goals. He often slips down the side of temptation and gives into baser instincts but also has been known to help when needed. All in all, a decent person, but not really a paragon.

A TRUE mercenary who just does the jobs and gets paid. He works for whoever pays the most but doesn't go out of his way to commit good or evil or find clients that hire him to do such.

A whimsical character that likes to do silly things but all in all doesn't want to break the established order of things.

A character that achieves good ends by somewhat evil methods. A black ops government agent that works for and often above the law.

Someone who is apathetic and just doesn't care.

A character that seeks to become as powerful as possible so others will accept them as worthwhile.

All of these characters can easily be argued to be and role-played as True Neutral characters. These are VERY different characters though. Alignment is not the crutch some people make it to be. It is merely an abstraction and guideline.

Ehra
2009-05-05, 08:10 PM
Why are the humans the one that are good? Because their gods say they are. So? Competent evil never jumps out and shouts "Booga booga! I'm EVIL!"

Aas best as I can tell, "Good" and "Evil" in DnD is defined by the Gods, not mortals. Everyone then picks their side, even if it's subconsciously. You could be an atheist in DnD but if you embody all of the traits that the God of Murder admires then, for all intents and purposes, you're Evil. It's not that the Gods "say" humans are good, because there are plenty of evil humans. It's just that Good humans will worship Good Gods.... that's just how it works.

As has been said before, DnD's "Good vs Evil" is more like "Blue vs Red." And why shouldn't it be? It's a game based heavily on killing stuff and looting their treasure. By real world standards that would make pretty much everyone Evil, but that's no fun and gives us no variety so, instead, we've got the DnD system. Could it be better? Sure, but still makes perfect sense if you take it in its own context.

Talic
2009-05-05, 08:24 PM
Yes, in my opinion. I thought this was what we were doing here.. Sharing opinions and stuff..Only when they're not being marketed (incorrectly) as fact.

Some of the spells and abilities would easily be converted(Smite evil -> smite anything), and some would have to be removed(Detect evil). I tried it and it made the game more fun for me. I know that removing alignments requires a few changes to the system, but I still think it's for the best.Alters the mechanics of the game. Smite becomes more powerful, for one. Also removes distinctions between classes that actually CAN smite anything.


What I was trying to say is that I don't think there's good and evil in the real world, don't really see how this addresses my statement.. You're welcome to disagree with multiple centuries of literature, mythology, art, culture, history, and example.

The concept of evil is best summed up as immoral or amoral behavior. To say that it doesn't exist would imply that there is no moral behavior.

However, morals are nothing more than established rules of correct behavior. Regardless of where they come from, they represent society's view of what is "right". As society does typically establish rules of what is proper and right behavior, it's safe to say that morality does exist, and as it varies from location to location, it is safe to say that society's view of morality is subjective.

But in D&D, there is another view established. There are beings and deities that represent their ethos, and put a defining characteristic upon it. The planes of Mechanus, based on pure order. The hells and the abyss, based on ordered and chaotic acts of depravity, respectively. Elysium, planes representing that which is considered good. That establishes absolute morality in D&D ('absolute' meaning that there is one accepted view of D&D morality within a specific game. That is the DM's.)

To argue against the concept of alignment as a bulky and unwieldy system is one thing. To argue against it on the grounds that it doesn't exist in reality starts skirting sensitive board topics. I've limited my statements above to general, non-defined society, and left all other implications out of it, to comply with this board's policies on political and religious discussion.


Alignment is actually a measurement of someone's personality. And this is what bothers me most. "So paladin, what do you think about that guy?" "Evil. Ok, let's kill the sick f***." I really think determining someone's personality should take more effort than measuring the length of a stick..Personality? Absolutely. Personality encompasses far more than the ethical considerations of good and evil. It's like describing a liquid as oil. Does that mean you can cook with it? Heat a home? Lubricate a car? No, it doesn't fully define the term. Just as good and evil don't fully define a personality (even adding in the lawful/chaotic doesn't, as there are thousands of examples of differing personalities within each basic ethos).

On a side note, the alignment you described above is commonly referred to as "Lawful Stupid (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupidChaoticStupid)". It's countered by "Chaotic Stupid" where people do evil because that's what it is, and are blatant about it.

In actuality, most D&D societies don't have a specific rule concerning "being good". Paladins are no more justified in attacking evil simply for being evil than you do for putting olive oil in your car. There is overpowering and irredeemable evil in D&D (in most worlds, demons/dragons/etc) that can be attacked on those grounds, but that's largely due to the immutable nature of these creatures as representatives of their alignment. That said, BoED has brought other ways to deal with those as well. This even further removes the "Lawful Stupid" compulsion of drawing swords whenever you pick up a blip of evil.

In actuality, BoED has a lot of organic "Lawful Goods" that see evil as opportunity for instruction/mentoring/conversion/what-have-you. This requires first learning more about the circumstances of the evil (A.K.A. roleplaying). In short, just because Paladins HAVE Detect Evil and Smite Evil, doesn't mean the two abilities are required to be used in tandem with each other.

Matthew
2009-05-05, 08:25 PM
As has been said before, DnD's "Good vs Evil" is more like "Blue vs Red." And why shouldn't it be? It's a game based heavily on killing stuff and looting their treasure. By real world standards that would make pretty much everyone Evil, but that's no fun and gives us no variety so, instead, we've got the DnD system.

Be careful about confusing "real world standards" with "modern real world standards". Killing people and taking their stuff as a "good" act was pretty much par for the course in medieval Europe. Of course, not everybody agreed, but than that is par for the course in the modern world as well.

Dairun Cates
2009-05-05, 08:27 PM
In actuality, BoED has a lot of organic "Lawful Goods" that see evil as opportunity for instruction/mentoring/conversion/what-have-you. In short, just because Paladins HAVE Detect Evil and Smite Evil, doesn't mean the two abilities are required to be used in tandem with each other.

Wait... Just because you have an ability DOESN'T mean you should use it at every chance? Ooooooooooh.

Maybe I should stop having my rogue sneak attack EVERYTHING with vitals.

Talic
2009-05-05, 08:30 PM
Wait... Just because you have an ability DOESN'T mean you should use it at every chance? Ooooooooooh.

Maybe I should stop having my rogue sneak attack EVERYTHING with vitals.

Just as that's not the typical "ideal" way to play a rogue, and expending every spell slot on the first fight isn't the optimal way to play a wizard.

These are mechanics, which should not be confused with roleplaying considerations. The two aren't inherently linked.

But then, I think that you know that.

Trizap
2009-05-05, 08:36 PM
1. alignment is just a mechanic in a game, not worth getting angry over.

2. its intentionally vague so its open to individual interpretation so that you have more fun

4. characters personality > characters alignment

3.
good: helps people
evil: hurts people
lawful: plays by rules
Chaotic: doesn't play by rules

alignment basically boils down to this. no reason to complicate it further.

Innis Cabal
2009-05-05, 08:40 PM
Might I humbly suggest that before making such sweeping statements about what alignment is (or isn't) in D&D that you take the time to

learn the history of your own hobby (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/search/label/alignment). :smallannoyed:

D&D is an adventure game; it is not a philosophical debate (and that goes double for "Planescape"). Alignment debates are - and long have been - a specimen example of fan-wank. Look back through old issues of Dragon and you'll see the Forum section clogged with people barking up the wrong tree. :smallamused:

If anyone wants me, I'll be with the surveying team laying out more dungeon.

Wait.....what? So because its an adventure game on the tin means it has to be one for everyone? Thats pretty rigid. Almost like the alignment system.

Its a game. But that dosn't mean it can't be used for more or less what ever you want it to be.

sonofzeal
2009-05-05, 09:03 PM
1. alignment is just a mechanic in a game, not worth getting angry over.

2. its intentionally vague so its open to individual interpretation so that you have more fun

4. characters personality > characters alignment

3.
good: helps people
evil: hurts people
lawful: plays by rules
Chaotic: doesn't play by rules

alignment basically boils down to this. no reason to complicate it further.
I'd add..

5. a setting with angels and demons is going to require at least some basic handling on the existence of good and evil

6. adding "law" and "chaos" as a separate axis, while still failing to capture nuances, is at least more expressive than a straight good-evil system.

7. it's just a game, so we should really just relax.

Fiery Diamond
2009-05-05, 09:16 PM
Enter Fiery Diamond. Because he is a fiery guy, he feels right at home in this heated atmosphere. :smalltongue:

Anyway, I would just like to first thank the glorious people of this thread: Saph, Salvonus, and BRC. I love you guys; you have good things to say. Kudos to Saph for trying to point out the demeaning tone of some people so that they can adjust how they approach things. As for the others...


"Short essay."

Wow. I personally play with alignment, but you gave quite a convincing and civil argument for playing without it, so much so that I might consider trying it out. You also were very civil (did I say that already?) and presented everything you said in a calm and respectful manner. I think I just became your fan. I haven't seen such a well-spoken person on these forums in a long time.


At some point, I'll actually read this thread. For now, Let my post, what I see as two statements that make alignments work.

1) Alignments represent tendencies, not Absolutes. Let's say there is a stop sign. If the intersection is totally clear, it's a lawful act to obey the sign, a chaotic one to disobey it. Somebody who obeys the eight out of ten times, even though the intersection is completely clear, is lawful. Alot of people say "I can't do X action, because I'm X alignment". But they can, because alignments are not absolutes. This is the really big one for making
2) Actions dictate alignment, not the other way around. If a PC says they are NG, but they ignore cries for help from villagers, grabs the magic sword instead of making sure the Orc dosn't kill their party members, ect, then they become TN. But it's not "Now you are True Neutral, you can do evilish things". It's "You've been true neutral for some time, it's just now that we've realized it".
3) Alignments represent Intent, not Outcome. A doctor who, while trying to save a patient, accidentally uses a medicine they are allergic too and kills them, is not evil, merely incompetent. The only time Outcome really matters is with Paladins, who have the universal force of Law and Good watching over their shoulders with it's finger on the "Fall" button. A paladin who, believing he's caught up with the notorious serial killer with a "Dead or Alive" bounty on his head from the local duke, but actually just killed a schoolteacher who looked something like said serial killer still falls for commiting an evil act, though his alignment remains Lawful Good, because his intent was to follow the dukes directive in punishing an evil criminal. At the same time, if a Bandit kills a traveler, that is an evil act. Even if said traveler was on his way to poison a well, and by killing him the bandit saved hundreds of lives, the bandit didn't know that, and didn't kill him because of that, so it's still evil.
Edit: One thing I forgot to add. With the last point, Evil represents either an Intent or a Willingness to make the world a worse place. A Bandit who kills travelers and takes their money could be evil either because he wants the world to be a worse place, and kills to achieve that, or because he wants the money, and dosn't mind killing people to get it.

Yes, yes, yes yes yes. Very well said. I salute you for representing much of the way I think about alignment.


What do you mean "There is only one way to be Alignment XY". Let's conjure up a hypothetical example, Officer Fred. Officer Fred is a nice guy who believes in straight, clean living. He cheerfully gives directions to people, he enforces the law to the best of his ability, he's never got so much as a complaint registered against him and everybody thinks he's a great guy. For these purposes, Officer Fred is Lawful Good.
Now, does that mean that everybody must be exactly like Officer Fred to be LG. What about the nice newspaper salesman who always follows the law and, in the afternoon, runs a basketball program for troubled youth. Is he any less LG than Officer Fred. He dosn't go chasing after criminals, but he still feels strongly that the law should be followed, and he does as much as he can to make the world a better place.

Yes, yes, yes yes yes. I salute you for... wait, did I say this already?

Next, I would like to address Jerthanis.


Agreed about Law and Chaos, but this is my biggest problem with D&D alignment. The fact that Good and Evil are real, tangible forces means you can be a Good person without being a good person, simply through your circumstances or allegiances. Without subjectivity, the concept of "good" is meaningless. If it's inherently a good act to do X, even if X were to, in Y situation, cause harm to individuals, then the "good" act is necessarily causing harm to individuals.

Alignment doesn't measure separately things like intent, methods, guilt, circumstances, or consequences/repentance, and if you're talking about morals, I don't see why you wouldn't.

I must respectfully disagree with you assessment. It is my opinion that rather than being able to be a Good person without being a good person, it is instead possible to be a good person without being a Good person. A Good act does not define a Good person. Nor is it easy to see what a Good act is, the way I play. For example:

Joe loves money. He loves the way it looks and feels. He likes having it. In fact, he would do anything for money. He doesn't really need to get lots more money, but he wants it anyway. But Joe doesn't like getting his hands dirty, and the sight of blood makes him sick. He's also a bit of a coward, and doesn't like braving danger. Joe decides to accept a particular job helping someone out; nothing big, just act as an assistant to a kind-hearted doctor helping out sick people - he just hands the tools and does some paperwork, steering clear of getting involved where he would have to handle the patients or watch them bleed. He's satisfied, because he gets lots of money, and that's all that matters.
(My assessment- without knowing more about him, I would say he's probably Neutral, and not a particularly good person. I wouldn't like to know him. His action of helping the doctor appears to be a Good act to other people - but in reality it is a Neutral act, because he doesn't really care all that much about the patients. The act would be described thus: "Joe assists a doctor because he wants to get money, not caring about the patients," not thus: "Joe assists a doctor.")

Bob loves people. He likes the warm fuzzy feeling inside when he helps someone out, and he is honestly concerned for others' welfare. He doesn't really care one way or the other about money, but of course he doesn't think there's anything wrong with getting it; after all, you have to eat. But Bob doesn't like getting his hands dirty, and the sight of blood makes him sick. He's also a bit of a coward, and doesn't like braving danger. Bob decides to accept a particular job helping someone out; nothing big, just act as an assistant to a kind-hearted doctor helping out sick people - he just hands the tools and does some paperwork, steering clear of getting involved where he would have to handle the patients or watch them bleed. Bob gets paid and accepts the money, but he's satisfied because he helped cure sick people, albeit indirectly.
(My assessment- Bob is Good, and a good person. He may not be completely selfless, but he does go out of his way to help people. His action of helping the doctor is a Good act, and would be described thus: "Bob assists a doctor in order to help sick people," not thus: "Bob assists a doctor.")

Tom likes being happy. Whether it's money, food, or just the company of friends or even friendly strangers, he just wants to enjoy himself. Tom is naturally friendly to everyone, as that helps enable him to be happy. If there's something he can do to help you, so long as it isn't an inconvenience, he will, since you'll be grateful to him and maybe become another friend. He never goes out of his way to take on jobs helping others though, because that's too much effort. Because of this, he respectfully declines the offer to help out the kind-hearted doctor.
(My assessment - he's Neutral, but a good person. Declining the job offer is a Neutral act. The act would be described thus: "Joe refuses to assist a doctor because he considers it too much effort," not thus: "Joe refuses to assist a doctor.")

Edd enjoys feeling superior to other people. It doesn't really matter how - fame, wealth, prestige, height, skill, or even personal value. When other people don't acknowledge him as superior, it makes him angry. Sometimes when he doesn't get acknowledged, he will go out of his way to deny them something, just to show that he really is needed. When the kind-hearted doctor comes to him for help after being rejected by several other people, he feels slighted at being treated as a last resort. Therefore, he stubbornly refuses to help, guessing that people will end up suffering because the doctor needed an assistant. It would serve the doctor right.
(My assessment- Edd may not be a serial killer, but he is certainly Evil. He's not the worst embodiment of Evil, but his spitefulness goes too far to be considered Neutral. Declining the job offer is an Evil act. The act would be described thus: "Edd refuses to assist a doctor in spite, with the intent of having people suffer," not thus: "Edd refuses to assist a doctor.")



I have seen people argue about whether intent and motivation matter in alignment for whether an action is Good or Evil. I don't differentiate between action and motivation - the motivation is part of the action. Two people could do what looks to others like the same thing, but they would be completely different actions, as shown above. I deliberately did stuff that wasn't far out there and cliched, just so that I could show how I see Good and Evil play into everyday people, those who are not heroic or villainous. In the above examples, I have two Neutral people, one of whom is rather unsavory and the other is a great guy. The unsavory character did what appeared to be Good, while the great guy took the opposite action, but because of the intent and motivation, both actions were Neutral. The Good person performing the same action as the unsavory character made it a Good action because of why he did it, and the Evil person performing the same action as the great guy made it an Evil action because of why he did it. On the other hand.... (more examples)


Deceit Girl, a teenager who loves pretending to be assaulted (often by first forcefully trying to seduce her victims) so that she can watch as her victims get torn apart by people trying to protect her, has cornered her latest victim, George, who is a law enforcement man who devoted his life to saving others, and was currently out of uniform. She had set things up so that all of the circumstances made it look as though George had beaten her and was trying to take advantage of her. George is completely bewildered and couldn't figure out what was going on. There are no other officers in the vicinity.
(Preliminary, unnecessary assessment- Deceit Girl is Evil. George is Good.)

Situation A: Joe (from the previous examples) comes along. She begins screaming and otherwise making herself look in distress, while trapping George in a position that appears to compromise his integrity. Because he is coward he continues on by, pretending he never saw it.
(Assessment of Action- Evil. If he had gone to get help, which was almost certainly too far away to be of help if this had been an assault, the action would be Neutral. The fact that George was innocent is irrelevant to Joe's action.)

Situation B: Bob (from above) comes along. She begins screaming and otherwise making herself look in distress, while trapping George in a position that appears to compromise his integrity. Bob, though a coward, knows that help is too far away, so he runs over and, trembling, throws George away from her, which causes minor injury to George. He stands in front to protect her, but doesn't further attack George. This gives George a chance to figure out what was going on.
(Assessment of Action- Good. Even though he injured an innocent man, it was only a minor injury because he didn't continue to attack him. He also believed that the innocent man was doing Evil and was striving to protect someone, placing himself in what he thought was considerable danger. If Bob had continued to pummel George to avenge the evils he thought the man was committing, the action would have been Neutral, since George was innocent.)

Situation C: Tom (from above) comes along. She begins screaming and otherwise making herself look in distress, while trapping George in a position that appears to compromise his integrity. Though he doesn't normally like to go out of his way, he can't ignore this injustice. He isn't sure what to do, though, so he starts yelling and threatening George, acting aggressive but trying not to get too close in case George turns on him. This gives George a chance to figure out what was going on.
(Assessment of Action- Good. Even though he didn't actually do anything, he didn't abandon the situation either. He ended up neither attacking the innocent (the perceived evil) or abandoning the evil (the perceived victim). The reason this action isn't Neutral is that he was trying to help, and through that actually ended up helping George figure out what was going on, albeit unknowingly.)

Situation D: Edd (from above) comes along. he begins screaming and otherwise making herself look in distress, while trapping George in a position that appears to compromise his integrity. Edd sees an opportunity to prove his superiority and get someone to act grateful to him, and he doesn't waste it. He tears George off of her and flings him away, proceeding to be the snot out of him. Then he turns to her, expecting to be thanked.
(Assessment of Action- Evil. If George had actually been what he appeared to be, this action would have been Neutral, but because George was innocent, this action is Evil. Edd didn't really care about helping Deceit Girl, just about having her acknowledge him for saving her. He beat up an innocent man for his own selfish reasons, even though he didn't know that George was innocent. If he had known that George was innocent, his action would still be Evil, it would just be more Evil.)




Oh, and I didn't include Law-Chaos because that's more difficult, and my examples took almost two hours to type anyway.

Talic
2009-05-05, 09:51 PM
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterAlignment

That sums it up nicely.

horseboy
2009-05-05, 10:05 PM
What do you mean "There is only one way to be Alignment XY".
That when faced with a moral quandary each alignment has an answer. Sure you can try and come up with a 10th option, but then comes the inevitable argument about which alignment it belongs to.


But the truth is, there isn't one objective answer to the questions of morality, just as there is no objective good and evil. D&D's alignment system isn't designed to hold up these philosophical and moral questions. It's not designed to be a be-all, end-all solution to what is right and wrong. D&D's alignment system exists for the sole purposes of 1)rules, for things like holy smite and detect evil, and 2) to give you an excuse to burst into a monster's home, kill it and its family, and take all its stuff. D&D doesn't hold philosophical debate. It holds battles with monsters. Except D&D does hold philosophical debate. The alignment system claims Objective Good and Evil. If it didn't claim objective then there really wouldn't be that much of a problem.

Asbestos
2009-05-05, 10:14 PM
Perhaps in a Tippyverse where there is no shortage of resources and no one has a wont for anything. More realistic worlds don't work that way.

Yeah, but even in worlds where everyone could live perfectly fine and peacefully there is going to be someone that can live even better by taking stuff from someone else. For example... all the evil jerks in Riverworld. That's where goblins and orcs fit in. They don't take and kill because they can't subside on their environment if they managed themselves reasonably, they take and kill because they think that's the way to get stuff. Goblins, with their quick reproduction, might actually not have the local resources to support themselves... if they didn't try to control their reproduction. But they don't care, they're goblins, its their right to just go invade the village next door because they went and had 20 babies a piece and need stuff, they don't care that they have to go kill and steal from other sentient beings.

Renegade Paladin
2009-05-05, 10:39 PM
Except that we don't belive that it's 'ok' to kill people who attack you.
I'd just like to interject here to say that if someone were to actually try to kill you, your tune would change in a remarkable hurry.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

Fiery Diamond
2009-05-05, 11:27 PM
Aw... no one wanted to comment on what they thought of my perceptions... I feel lonely now...

Faulty
2009-05-05, 11:56 PM
Are people good or evil based upon utilitarianism, consequentialism or deontology?

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, so this sentence is semi-redundent.

Talic
2009-05-06, 12:14 AM
Aw... no one wanted to comment on what they thought of my perceptions... I feel lonely now...

They were good perceptions. I don't agree with all of them, but I do agree with the notion that the alignment of actions is based on intent AND outcome, whereas the alignment of people is based on intent, NOT outcome.

Oslecamo
2009-05-06, 01:11 AM
They were good perceptions. I don't agree with all of them, but I do agree with the notion that the alignment of actions is based on intent AND outcome, whereas the alignment of people is based on intent, NOT outcome.

Completely false by RAW. An evil spell is always an evil act(fiendish codex, where it says that casting enough evil spells will doom you to hell no matter how many orphans you may save with it). And there are plenty of villains out there who think they're doing the right thing for the right reasons and still get the evil alignment because of all the terrible acs they've commited.

Just because you think you're working for the greater good doesn't mean you're not standing in a pile of inocent corpses and the only one who benefited and will benefit from it is you.

Actually that would be an horrible way to represent alignment, because now we can have psychotic sadic assassins wich are good because they think they're doing everyone a favor by releasing them of the suffering of life, and pain is actually good for the soul.

Talic
2009-05-06, 11:50 PM
Completely false by RAW. An evil spell is always an evil act(fiendish codex, where it says that casting enough evil spells will doom you to hell no matter how many orphans you may save with it). And there are plenty of villains out there who think they're doing the right thing for the right reasons and still get the evil alignment because of all the terrible acs they've commited.

Just because you think you're working for the greater good doesn't mean you're not standing in a pile of inocent corpses and the only one who benefited and will benefit from it is you.

Actually that would be an horrible way to represent alignment, because now we can have psychotic sadic assassins wich are good because they think they're doing everyone a favor by releasing them of the suffering of life, and pain is actually good for the soul.

Every point you make is correct. And yet, you're wrong. You misunderstand.

If you knowingly cast a spell with the [evil] descriptor, you've done an evil act. Yes. Regardless of anything else, yes. It may be mitigated *LESS* evil, but it's still evil.

If you believe you're good, that doesn't make you good. "Intent" is based upon knowing what a good action is, and striving for it. If unknown/unknowable actions cause the action to benefit an evil cause, that's not on you. That's on whoever set up the action to do that.

Believing that killing is good, or the like, is a total strawman, and twisted depiction of what I actually said. By twisted, I mean "complete and utter falsehood".

EDIT: Oh, and 95% of the time "greater good" is evil. So "greater good" is a misrepresentation.

Satyr
2009-05-06, 11:59 PM
It's the aggression, Satyr. The tone. For those who like playing with alignment, you're just constantly belittling it, and them.


Satyr, I have never once heard you describe D&D with the phrase "not the best idea around". Your normal words for describing anything about D&D that you don't like (which seems to be most of it) are "stupidity" and "insulting to the intelligence". Given that insulting people's intelligence in the form of telling them how stupid their activities are seems to be high on your list of favoured pastimes I'm not sure why you consider it a bad thing, but that certainly doesn't stop you from repeating it on a frequent basis.

I don't care if you dislike alignment, but please stop implying that I'm intellectually inferior to you for not sharing your opinion. You say you understand differing interests? Then act like it.

Now, that actually caused me to think for a moment and question my own position and argumentation to this. This whole self-reflective whining is a bit annoying, but there you go. The results of stereo critique.

I know that my average style in a discussion probably appears much more aggressive than average and often more aggressive than intended. With a frightening regularity, I see the elements of humor I try to put to mellow it a bit up fail horribly. That is a question of style, not necessarily substance. I do not intent to insult anybody, especially not directly. "You are stupid" is a phrase I rarely use, and even rarer I use something like this honestly and directly. Not because I am not thinking that people are truly showing off how rarely they reflect on things, but why should I point out the obvious? If I truly want to insult someone I consider to be intellectually inferior, I just quote him or her word for word.

Now, I really think that alignments in the way I recognized them are not a very well thought-through concept. This is mostly in 3rd edition D&D, as I started playing D&D by then, and so the whole evolution of the concept since the days of the very beginning isn't that interesting for me. Not because it's bad or uninteresting, but because it doesn't feel attached.

Why I think that alignments are stupid greatly depends on the way of the presentation as an objective, cosmic constant within the setting. This causes three problems (at least) and which forms a discrepancy I am not able to solve.

The first one is the idea of objective morals. There is just no such thing. Objective morals is a tautology. Morals are basically always a convention and a result of the social, societal and normative rules an individual move in. They change over time, are dependant on the circumstances and the overall society and its normative values. The same behaviour which can be considered to be morally dubious in one society can be seen as a wise or necessary decision in the other, or even in the same society after some time (just see how child education has changed in the last 30 to 40 years or so and you can see a paradigm shift and a change of the associated social values).

Not even within one single society you have identical normative moral values. Different groups of a larger society will have their own, sometimes identifying moral ideas, which can greatly differentiate. This process of differentiation goes all the way down to an individual level.

Now, this is all very obvious, I think. But this shows how the very premise of the - objective - alignment system is faulty and does not correspond at all with the daily life of the involved players. Yes, in a fantasy setting, the framework of what is generally accepted is a bit larger than in other fiction. But even in such a framework, an obvious derail without an explanation from what is regarded as normal is still contrived.


As a side note: As I already said, morals are conventions and change over time and through the change of the societal circumstances. Morals are not a static concept, but always a reflection of the time and circumstances they develop in. In the same way we as the players are a product of the society we live in, our morals develop and the normative values we prefer and use for orientation. But these are the values and morals of HEREANDNOW, and in a way it is quite pretentious to just transfer the own moral ideas and assumptions into a completely different context is odd, and sometimes inappropriate. I will not stress this point any more, but it should be mentioned, I think.


Now for the second problem: Morals are a complex issue. There is a myriad of different moral ideas, issues and problems out there. Some of them are "good", some of them cringe-worthy or highly problematic and the vast majority is pretty ambivalent. Overall, there is no simple underlying structure, there are very different sources of normative values and moral guidelines - religions, social organisations, family, life circumstances, political events and affiliation, peer groups, economic status, social class... there is a multitude of influences, a multitude of different regards, a multitude of different ideas. The morals of every single individual depend on these influences and the development of a moral compass derives from this multitude. The contemporary moral assumptions of an individual is the sum of these different influences.

Morality is a complex system, with many facettes, many different aspects and very fine differentiations. The alignment system shoehorns all this complexity, all this wonderful and fascinating source for plots, motivations and whole campaigns into nine neat little boxes and mashes it together into them and simplifies it into the extreme. This oversimplification of morals may look useful at first view, but really it's a stabilizer wheel at best., and it certainly does not pay respect to the complexity of the issue at hand. On a very superficial level, this may work, but as soon as the superficiality is not enough anymore, it fails.



The third problem is the overgeneralization of the system. The idea that societies - instead of individuals - can be categorized and even morally judged - on the hand of very broad and simplistic terms unites both a pretentious and a self-centred perspective. This is effectively the world view behind 19th century colonialism and its sense of mission. To make it even worse, it is more often than not based on the ethnic background of people, because outdated philosophy is just not complete without a hint of racism. I said it above: Moral is a subjective, individual category. Even with an identical cultural background, the idea of a morally adequate life differ widely among people. I am not even talking about actual behaviour yet, only about the perception and concept of a "good" behaviour, the implementation of the general normative values in the catalogue of individual regards.

Morals are a result of many, many factors, from sociocultural upbringing to personality and current conventions. Due to this multitude of influences, a generalisation of them will always fall short. The most relevant or even only relevant object of discussion about morals is the individual, not without the social and societal environment, but not on a broadly generalised level. This falls seriously short.

The fourth problem - and the last one I want to discuss here - is the assumption that people are static or even consequent in their regards of moral behaviour or practices; they aren't. I am not talking about 'take away their food and security and see how the world's nicest family turns into the Lord of the Flies', I am talking about double standards (which everyone has), different moods, different behavior within and outside of close social contacts and so on.

People are so easy manipulable on a lower level, because in many non-essential questions, situational "moral" decisions are highly variable and often depending on almost arbitrary minimal influences.

To sum it all up, the alignment system as it is present has serious shortcomings. It is a contrived, overtly simplified and superficial system with some eerie resemblances to ideologies share by people no one wants to associate with. Now, I would not hesitate to call the combination of contrivance, oversimplification and superficiality stupid.


Now the standard response - or at least a very common one - to the problems mentioned above is the idea that one should not think about it too much, because "it is just a game" or "it is not supposed to be reflected'. I am very grateful for this response. There is nothing as helpful to prove that something is indeed stupid as the claim that it fails if it is not lacking thought or reason.



Now, the next issue would be the question of association, or to out it bluntly, "Am I stupid because I like stupid things?" The answer is, quite simply, no. The intellectual quality of an item and the emotional quality are two different categories, which ar sometimes linked and sometimes not. What is indeed problematic is the assumption that one quality necessarily requires the other one. A mature person should be able to reason about his or her preferences, independently of their actual quality. "I like it, therefore it's good" is a terribly egocentric (and unreflected) line of thought, and the counterpart, "I hate it, therefore it must be dumb" is none the better. Personal preferences should not blur the mind for the appraisal of an issue's problems.

averagejoe
2009-05-07, 12:55 AM
Man, without the internet I wouldn't even know to have an opinion about the alignment system. It's hardly noticeable, really, and has yet to impact my fun in a significantly positive or negative way.


Aw... no one wanted to comment on what they thought of my perceptions... I feel lonely now...

Well, in fairness they were more than ten or twenty words, a.k.a. really long.

However, I find your point of view to be offensive. Not everyone named Joe is a money hungry coward. :smallannoyed:

Jerthanis
2009-05-07, 01:30 AM
I must respectfully disagree with you assessment. It is my opinion that rather than being able to be a Good person without being a good person, it is instead possible to be a good person without being a Good person. A Good act does not define a Good person. Nor is it easy to see what a Good act is, the way I play. For example:

...

Oh, and I didn't include Law-Chaos because that's more difficult, and my examples took almost two hours to type anyway.

This is clear and elucidating, Particularly Tom and his Neutral, but good personness, and I appreciate the time and effort you've put into your response. I understand and agree with the idea that motivation is a part of the action... but if Bob threw George away from Deceit Girl, and George hit his head on the sharp metal corner of a dumpster and died... Bob probably wouldn't be thinking about how it was still a good act because it was unintentional, and not his motivation in the act... he'd be thinking, "I just killed someone! My god, how will I live with myself?"

This is why I opt to play without putting those two letters at the top of my character sheet, and opt to plan stories as a DM without considering the alignment of my villains (beyond putting them in interesting conflicts with the PCs)... because the issues of whether an action is good or not is superceeded in the minds of the people who are a part of that action by the far more interesting conflicts they make in their minds and emotions that have little to do with good and evil. If Good and Evil come up in my games, they are an in-character coping mechanism for the characters to take to try to understand the world around them philosophically, which is why I like keeping the objective, tangible moral forces as background elements, if they exist at all. They are Bob's coworker Joe telling Bob afterwards, "You had no choice, it wasn't your fault" and Tom telling him "You did the right thing, you shouldn't feel bad." when he accidentally kills George, a good person.

Also, I'd like to point out that in all your example situations, I can't help but speculate on how the Law-Chaos axis would determine the outcome of those actions... who would be punished for their actions? Which situations would punish the Evil characters and reward the Good ones? Do we judge a system of Laws by that criteria, or some other? THAT is where the interesting conflict springs to my mind unbidden... while the goodness or evilness of the actions largely wash over me, leaving me unimpressed and uninspired.

Incidentally, a character I've been playing in a D&D game recently was injured, and a character has a spell that heals good people and burns evil people, and they asked me what my alignment was and I said, "I dunno, probably TN" and someone said, "No way, NG" and another popped in and said, "CN, no question"... so... I've seen characters played without the player thinking of their character in terms of the 9 alignments provoke different responses from different people when called on to define with that system.

Oslecamo
2009-05-07, 03:45 AM
If you believe you're good, that doesn't make you good. "Intent" is based upon knowing what a good action is, and striving for it. If unknown/unknowable actions cause the action to benefit an evil cause, that's not on you. That's on whoever set up the action to do that.

Hmmm, no. Let's check the dictionary again:

in·tent Pronunciation (n-tnt)
n.
1. Something that is intended; an aim or purpose. See Synonyms at intention.
2. Law The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.
3. Meaning; purport.


Intent doesn't imply that you actually know what you're doing. If Bob the assassin believes killing random people is good and kills random people, then he has good intentions. But the act is still evil. The intent of an action and the action itself are completely separated. It happens all the time.



Believing that killing is good, or the like, is a total strawman, and twisted depiction of what I actually said. By twisted, I mean "complete and utter falsehood".


You have no right to call a fallaccy when you're not even using the basic definition of words.

Of course you do know what a strawman is right?



EDIT: Oh, and 95% of the time "greater good" is evil. So "greater good" is a misrepresentation.
Now this is a true strawman (hint:google it, since you clearly still don't know what it is).

99.99% of time you can't swim on lava and hope to survive. If you're gonna pull every other media sistem out there togheter with real life history we're not going anywhere. I'm using greater good in the true sense of the word, not on the corrupted depictions that may happen.

Talic
2009-05-07, 03:47 AM
I know that my average style in a discussion probably appears much more aggressive than average and often more aggressive than intended. With a frightening regularity, I see the elements of humor I try to put to mellow it a bit up fail horribly. That is a question of style, not necessarily substance. I do not intent to insult anybody, especially not directly. "You are stupid" is a phrase I rarely use, and even rarer I use something like this honestly and directly. Not because I am not thinking that people are truly showing off how rarely they reflect on things, but why should I point out the obvious? If I truly want to insult someone I consider to be intellectually inferior, I just quote him or her word for word. Why should you want to insult someone at all?

Now, I really think that alignments in the way I recognized them are not a very well thought-through concept. This is mostly in 3rd edition D&D, as I started playing D&D by then, and so the whole evolution of the concept since the days of the very beginning isn't that interesting for me. Not because it's bad or uninteresting, but because it doesn't feel attached. Perfectly valid opinion.
Why I think that alignments are stupid greatly depends on the way of the presentation as an objective, cosmic constant within the setting. This causes three problems (at least) and which forms a discrepancy I am not able to solve.

The first one is the idea of objective morals. There is just no such thing. Objective morals is a tautology. Morals are basically always a convention and a result of the social, societal and normative rules an individual move in. They change over time, are dependant on the circumstances and the overall society and its normative values. The same behaviour which can be considered to be morally dubious in one society can be seen as a wise or necessary decision in the other, or even in the same society after some time (just see how child education has changed in the last 30 to 40 years or so and you can see a paradigm shift and a change of the associated social values). Society's perception of morality does change from time to time. D&D, however, is a system where there are powers that hold more authoritative sway over objective good and evil than man. If you feel this is different from the way things are IRL, and that causes a discontinuity for you, that's well and good. Delving too deeply into this area leads to IRL theology, which is best left alone. In other words, alignment exists at the whim of the forces in D&D that determine where you go when you die. Based on campaign settings, that could be Alignment planes, ruled by ideology. It could be the Elven or Dwarven pantheons. It could be the Dragon Above and the Dragon Below. But the concept of alignment exists because there are beings in D&D that say it does.


Not even within one single society you have identical normative moral values. Different groups of a larger society will have their own, sometimes identifying moral ideas, which can greatly differentiate. This process of differentiation goes all the way down to an individual level. And in the absence of an authoritative right or wrong, your argument holds sound. However, if there is a presence that does hold sway over that, it doesn't. This leads to how heavy you want deific hands in your D&D.

Now, this is all very obvious, I think. But this shows how the very premise of the - objective - alignment system is faulty and does not correspond at all with the daily life of the involved players. Yes, in a fantasy setting, the framework of what is generally accepted is a bit larger than in other fiction. But even in such a framework, an obvious derail without an explanation from what is regarded as normal is still contrived. Obvious? Hardly. It may be obvious from your point of view, but what people identify with in D&D is hardly obvious, and based on their own perceptions of that morality. Yours are different from your detractors in this, I'd wager. For example, what if someone else here believes that morality IS objective, and it's only the views of individuals and society that is flawed? After all, when many people disagree over fact, all that means is that someone (or everyone) is wrong.

Your argument falls apart on the level that it may be unproven fact. For example, say objective morality exists. Now, your argument sounds like, "the molecular composition of water isn't set in stone. After all, throughout history, many different people have had many different beliefs on what water is made of, so there must not be a common correct answer."

Absence of proof of an objective morality isn't proof of absence of the same. And therein lies why your point is not obvious. Because it's not proof. It's opinion, based on incomplete information.


As a side note: As I already said, morals are conventions and change over time and through the change of the societal circumstances. Morals are not a static concept, but always a reflection of the time and circumstances they develop in. In the same way we as the players are a product of the society we live in, our morals develop and the normative values we prefer and use for orientation. But these are the values and morals of HEREANDNOW, and in a way it is quite pretentious to just transfer the own moral ideas and assumptions into a completely different context is odd, and sometimes inappropriate. I will not stress this point any more, but it should be mentioned, I think.As the entire argument is dependent on the first sentence, shown to be a subjective opinion, it therefore follows that the remainder is equally an opinion, and no more or less grounded in fact than any other view here.

Now for the second problem: Morals are a complex issue. There is a myriad of different moral ideas, issues and problems out there. Some of them are "good", some of them cringe-worthy or highly problematic and the vast majority is pretty ambivalent. Overall, there is no simple underlying structure, there are very different sources of normative values and moral guidelines - religions, social organisations, family, life circumstances, political events and affiliation, peer groups, economic status, social class... there is a multitude of influences, a multitude of different regards, a multitude of different ideas. The morals of every single individual depend on these influences and the development of a moral compass derives from this multitude. The contemporary moral assumptions of an individual is the sum of these different influences. The moral outlook of each individual differs, yes. Prove that by that, there are not people that are correct and incorrect. The beauty of D&D alignment is that it leaves the view open to interpretation. You can impose your own beliefs upon the alignment system, and it works just fine. You can make-believe with a different one, and it still works. It's flexible. It is my belief that is intentional.

Morality is a complex system, with many facettes, many different aspects and very fine differentiations. The alignment system shoehorns all this complexity, all this wonderful and fascinating source for plots, motivations and whole campaigns into nine neat little boxes and mashes it together into them and simplifies it into the extreme. This oversimplification of morals may look useful at first view, but really it's a stabilizer wheel at best., and it certainly does not pay respect to the complexity of the issue at hand. On a very superficial level, this may work, but as soon as the superficiality is not enough anymore, it fails.
Life is a complex system, as is the human body. HP is a wonderful system. To take the complexities of that human body and simplify it into a number may look good on paper, but as soon as you need a less superficial system, it fails.

The point is that it SHOULD be simple. It's not calculus, and not philosophy. Alignment is a measure of a couple basic ethos's. Law and Chaos, and Good and Evil. Define them as you will. This doesn't mash everything into 9 boxes, any more than assuming everyone in robes is a monk is true.

All it does is provide a tool, that can be useful, but is not intended to hog-tie roleplaying in favor of determining enemies by their alignment. I've made many people in my campaigns that the Good party was allied with, that were evil. I've used chaotic people to try to put a king in power. These are not straight jackets. They are tools, nothing more or less. Is a toolbox any less valuable if you add a wrench to it? No. It's not taking anything away. It's just adding a measurement, that, in my opinion, you are far too concerned over.


The third problem is the overgeneralization of the system. The idea that societies - instead of individuals - can be categorized and even morally judged - on the hand of very broad and simplistic terms unites both a pretentious and a self-centred perspective. This is effectively the world view behind 19th century colonialism and its sense of mission. To make it even worse, it is more often than not based on the ethnic background of people, because outdated philosophy is just not complete without a hint of racism. I said it above: Moral is a subjective, individual category. Even with an identical cultural background, the idea of a morally adequate life differ widely among people. I am not even talking about actual behaviour yet, only about the perception and concept of a "good" behaviour, the implementation of the general normative values in the catalogue of individual regards. There is generalization in D&D, yes. It runs rampant in all the mechanics. That is because it's designed to be a game, and people shouldn't require courses in anatomy, theology, physiology, anthropology, and economy in order to play a game. It's kept simple to appeal to crowds.

Please, however, refer to forum posting guidelines before posting comments claiming that a concrete objective morality is based on racial injustice. That's a very hot-button issue, and IMO, is better left out of the mix entirely.


Morals are a result of many, many factors, from sociocultural upbringing to personality and current conventions. Due to this multitude of influences, a generalisation of them will always fall short. The most relevant or even only relevant object of discussion about morals is the individual, not without the social and societal environment, but not on a broadly generalised level. This falls seriously short.Bear in mind, the factors you believe influence morality are your opinion, and, while perfectly valid, please realize that there are other equally valid opinions, including a belief in objective morality, that is not defined by society, but instead discovered by it. Along that journey are many missteps, not unlike when man believed that rotting meat spontaneously created maggots. Is that true? Well, not the meat part. But the opinion? Who knows? That's why it's opinion.

The fourth problem - and the last one I want to discuss here - is the assumption that people are static or even consequent in their regards of moral behaviour or practices; they aren't. I am not talking about 'take away their food and security and see how the world's nicest family turns into the Lord of the Flies', I am talking about double standards (which everyone has), different moods, different behavior within and outside of close social contacts and so on.People are influenced by their environment, and adapt? Much like alignment can change. Under it all, people generally have one set of beliefs that rings true. Their differing behavior around different people is generally a function of how much they censor themselves.


To sum it all up, the alignment system as it is present has serious shortcomings. It is a contrived, overtly simplified and superficial system with some eerie resemblances to ideologies share by people no one wants to associate with. Now, I would not hesitate to call the combination of contrivance, oversimplification and superficiality stupid.To sum up, Godwin does not a solid argument make, and a logical presentation of opinions does not qualify it as fact.

In other words? Live and let live.


Now, the next issue would be the question of association, or to out it bluntly, "Am I stupid because I like stupid things?"
The real question is, in my opinion... Is calling someone else's personal views stupid the best way to win them to your cause? Do you really think that? REALLY?

That, IMO, comes off as less-than-cool.

Especially when you consider that your views are opinions based on observation, and you use that opinion to dismiss other, equally valid, opinion... as stupid. A bit of a double standard.

Also note: You started as, "I think this is stupid."
You finished as, "This IS stupid... but you're not dumb for thinking so."

You've changed your assertation of opinion to one of fact, which is incorrect, and the real interesting part? I feel patronized merely by reading it.

You have yet to give us a single actual FACT on why alignment is stupid is fact.

You have you have justified your opinion that it is, however. Then, nobody's criticizing you for wanting to play without alignment, so there's no real need for the justification.

Saph
2009-05-07, 05:41 AM
The first one is the idea of objective morals. There is just no such thing. Objective morals is a tautology . . .

Now, this is all very obvious, I think.

I don't think it's obvious. I don't believe morals are just a convention, and most other people don't either.

I've met a lot of people who say that morals are conventions. But in my experience, if you look closely, it usually turns out that they mean everyone else's morals. When you bring the subject around to something that matters to them, they change their philosophical stance pretty quick.


Now, the next issue would be the question of association, or to out it bluntly, "Am I stupid because I like stupid things?"

A better question would be "Why are you using the word 'stupid' at all?"

- Saph

Talic
2009-05-07, 06:58 AM
Hmmm, no. Let's check the dictionary again:

in·tent Pronunciation (n-tnt)
n.
1. Something that is intended; an aim or purpose. See Synonyms at intention.
2. Law The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.
3. Meaning; purport.


Intent doesn't imply that you actually know what you're doing. If Bob the assassin believes killing random people is good and kills random people, then he has good intentions. But the act is still evil. The intent of an action and the action itself are completely separated. It happens all the time.
No. Bob has the intent of doing good. However, he kills random people, which, as much as he, in his deluded little world wants to believe... is not good. Actions and intents are only completely seperate when someone is completely dissassociated from reality. Which is conveniently, the improbable situation you've placed here. Reductio ad absurdium. Thanks for creating a situation so far removed from reality as to have absolutely zero bearing on anything.

You have no right to call a fallaccy when you're not even using the basic definition of words. I have the right to do whatever I like, thank you very much. You have combined false beliefs with intent above. But, even then, above, that random assassin may be doing evil acts, but he would not necessarily be an evil person, much in the way that wolves aren't evil. If they are incapable of determining the moral consequences of the action, then it doesn't matter what the action is. Being evil implies knowing what evil is. THOSE two are seperate. So, you define intent, and then completely misapply it. 0 for 2, there.

Of course you do know what a strawman is right? Yes. It's when you misrepresent my views, in order to create something a bit easier to argue. Usually done when I'm right, and you need to create a situation where I'm not.

Now this is a true strawman (hint:google it, since you clearly still don't know what it is).I'd like you to not make assumptions to my knowledge. If you don't want to listen to that request, then I politely refer you to the forum rules and guidelines for posting, more specifically, the section on Flaming. Please, and thank you. Hostility isn't needed.

Xenogears
2009-05-07, 08:26 AM
Id have to say that the worst part about alignment in DnD is that WotC doesn't even seem to know what they mean. Especially with Law and Chaos though. Everytime I think I've got a good working definition for those two they toss in a new class or PrC that only allows either Law or Chaos and it just confounds everything.

Example: So law means they favor society over the indivudual and chaos is the opposite. Okay pretty simple. Fleshwarper (Lords of Madness) rolls in. Okay so apparently no one can be a lawful grafter? Why can't I decide to modify people bodies as a way to improve society? So now chaos just means different from traditional standards?

DeathQuaker
2009-05-07, 08:42 AM
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.

Emphasis mine. This is from 3rd Ed, but I think the intent in other editions is the same.

If believe the concept of alignment is restrictive or think alignment is anything other than a roleplaying guideline, then you are disagreeing with, misunderstanding, or completely disregarding the rules as written.

Fact of the matter is, like other posters here, I've only ever seen alignment cause debate in threads like this. In actual gameplay, no one's ever had an issue with it. I've occasionally seen players say, "He's doing this because he's chaotic/evil/lawful/good" as part of an effort to explain a particular choice, but those were cases where in context, the player was basically saying, "I'm following the roleplay guidelines I've laid out for my own character." And these things have come up only rarely (something like, "But why won't you do what the chieftain says?" "I don't like authority figures. The character's Chaotic, remember?") It's been used in these cases in fact to end an argument, rather than start one.

Furthermore, the control of alignment should always be in the player's hands. Therefore if the player is feeling restricted by it, then either there's a control freak GM that needs to have a kind but firm talking to, or the player is letting a miscomprehension of what's written in the Player's Handbook get in the way of playing when it's actually supposed to be just a tool for him to get a handle on his character.

If it did cause an actual problem in gameplay, my solution would indeed be to eliminate the system, but if all it does is cause arguments like this where no game is actually being played, I don't really see the point of worrying about it too much. :smallsmile:

Xenogears
2009-05-07, 09:42 AM
The only alignment related gameplay problems I've encountered are classes and PrC's that restrict certain alignments from joining them for no reason that I can tell. Is there a reason I can't be a lawful fleshwarper? A good assassin? RPing is never a problem because of alignment that I've found but sometimes I want to play a character combination that just isn't allowed because of arbitrary and confusing alignment restrictions. Like a Barbarian Paladin. Or an Exalted Druid Monk.

Satyr
2009-05-07, 01:32 PM
Why should you want to insult someone at all?
[...]
The real question is, in my opinion... Is calling someone else's personal views stupid the best way to win them to your cause? Do you really think that? REALLY?


A better question would be "Why are you using the word 'stupid' at all?"

Because I believe it's better to be blunt but honest instead of polite but basically dishonest.


But the concept of alignment exists because there are beings in D&D that say it does.
[...]
And in the absence of an authoritative right or wrong, your argument holds sound. However, if there is a presence that does hold sway over that, it doesn't. This leads to how heavy you want deific hands in your D&D.


That would open a complete different can of worms - if more powerful beings dictate the moral compass of their inferiors and therefore the inferiors moral path is predetermined, it is completely and utterly not possible to judge these predetermination on a moral base; a moral behavior necessarily requires a free will and the freedom to decide what you want to do. If what you are saying works that way, the alignment is even more meaningless as with the problems I already described.


Obvious? Hardly. It may be obvious from your point of view, but what people identify with in D&D is hardly obvious, and based on their own perceptions of that morality. Yours are different from your detractors in this, I'd wager. For example, what if someone else here believes that morality IS objective, and it's only the views of individuals and society that is flawed? After all, when many people disagree over fact, all that means is that someone (or everyone) is wrong.

The beauty of a contextual, relative moral is that it pretty much includes the explanation of individual beliefs, may they be as absolute as they come, without contradicting itself. An absolute moral perspective does not and are basically tautologic (as it is basically "I am right and if you disagree you are wrong because you disagree with me"). I don't think that anyone is able to have an absolute moral belief and being able not to be basically intolerant.


Your argument falls apart on the level that it may be unproven fact. For example, say objective morality exists. Now, your argument sounds like, "the molecular composition of water isn't set in stone. After all, throughout history, many different people have had many different beliefs on what water is made of, so there must not be a common correct answer."

Wrong. Morals are not static but evolve over time, and between different cultures. Sociocultural changes also lead to changes of the normative values, thus the moral superconstruction of the society follows the social change an adapts to it. As therefore moral is a fluid concept that depends on the time, place and social environment, it cannot be objective as in that case, why should it change and why has it to adapt?
The molecular construction of water, however, is pretty much static and does not change much (yes, I know it changes under certain circumstances, but it isn't water anymore afterwards).

On another level I guess there is anything in the inbetween relationship of people which could be totally objective. Any issue can be more or less subjective, but in social questions, total objectivity seem very unlikely to me.


As the entire argument is dependent on the first sentence, shown to be a subjective opinion, it therefore follows that the remainder is equally an opinion, and no more or less grounded in fact than any other view here.


I don't think it's obvious. I don't believe morals are just a convention, and most other people don't either.

So... you don't believe that moral beliefs and concepts are changing throughout time, place and social circumstances? That the morals of HEREANDNOW are the same as There, or Then? Well in this case you are very obviously wrong. Or do you think that there is one true, good moral that is true and many, many other beliefs who are wrong?
Just take one very simple example: Slavery. The idea that someone can fully and completely own an other person and can more or less do whatever he or she wants with the subject looks quite disgusting to a modern
We today also don't think that people killing animals in a public spectacle with a comparatively high risk of permanent injuries or death for the people who actually do the killing is a good and proper form of entertainment. Back in the Roman Empire, this was slightly different.


The moral outlook of each individual differs, yes. Prove that by that, there are not people that are correct and incorrect.

First of all, when the moral outlook of each individual differs, than the moral outlook in general is subjective, as it depends on each individual. That is pretty much
A moral outlook is correct when it is accepted and anticipated by the social environment of the individual. It is not correct when the rest of the society deems them so. Sometimes the two stances overlap, creating controversies within a society.
Every attempt to judge the moral comnpass of other people is pretentious. I don't do that (and judge their intellectual capacities instead. No one is beyond double standards and inner paradoxes).


Absence of proof of an objective morality isn't proof of absence of the same.

And since you cannot disprove that I have a second head, therefore I could have a second head. What does that prove? Nothing, but my second head and the existence of an objective moral are both very, very unlikely.


The beauty of D&D alignment is that it leaves the view open to interpretation. You can impose your own beliefs upon the alignment system, and it works just fine. You can make-believe with a different one, and it still works. It's flexible. It is my belief that is intentional.

Are you sure that we are talking about the same system? Yes, you can adapt the system to include different variants, but only because you can houserule it, doesn't mean that it isn't a problem. I houseruled it as well, and for my purposes, it works now.


Life is a complex system, as is the human body. HP is a wonderful system. To take the complexities of that human body and simplify it into a number may look good on paper, but as soon as you need a less superficial system, it fails.


Actually, the HP system is not an exclusive measure for physical statuses and the forth by far. It is one essential part of it, but not the only one. There is also fatigue, non-lethal damage, diverse statuses, ability damage...


The point is that it SHOULD be simple. It's not calculus, and not philosophy. Alignment is a measure of a couple basic ethos's. Law and Chaos, and Good and Evil. Define them as you will. This doesn't mash everything into 9 boxes, any more than assuming everyone in robes is a monk is true.

There is one thing to make it simple and another one to make it overtly so. A degree of abstraction is a necessity for a roleplaying game, that should be pretty self-evident. But, there are good and ba simplifications, and the latter ones are those were the attachement between the original item and the simplification is so loose, that it is almost or completely inexistant. I would argue that this is all too true for the D&D alignment system.


That is because it's designed to be a game, and people shouldn't require courses in anatomy, theology, physiology, anthropology, and economy in order to play a game. It's kept simple to appeal to crowds.


Don't you think there is a difference between you don't need a certain knowledge and that this knowledge is actually a hindrance for the item at hand?



Bear in mind, the factors you believe influence morality are your opinion, and, while perfectly valid, please realize that there are other equally valid opinions, including a belief in objective morality, that is not defined by society, but instead discovered by it. Along that journey are many missteps, not unlike when man believed that rotting meat spontaneously created maggots. Is that true? Well, not the meat part. But the opinion? Who knows? That's why it's opinion.

Sorry, but here I have to disagree. Not every opinion is equally valid, and an opinion can be completely and utterly wrong.
And yes, there is no opinion - probably not even a fact- that is beyond doubt, but there are those which are more or less likely to be true. Otherwise, you should argue that the Flat Earth Society should be invited to geologist congresses to present their opinion.

afroakuma
2009-05-07, 02:27 PM
Satyr, I feel I must ask:

A) Are you a philosophy major, by any chance?

B) Has alignment actually interfered in such a gross, reprehensible manner as you describe in any game you have ever played?

I haven't read a response yet that's stated that having the D&D alignment system has ever caused these kinds of arguments and difficulties in-game. The worst I've ever heard is someone who's been told they can't be a good assassin, or an evil paladin. The entire thread is specious; do you believe you are enriching those who play with alignment by berating them at length for the horrors their system perpetrates against theoretical constructions?

I have never experienced problems dealing with alignment, nor is it the set of shoeboxes you seem to believe. Take Roy and Miko from OOTS; both lawful good, but with interpretations differing almost word for word.

You don't believe the D&D alignment system is flexible? Take the quote posted above, direct from the 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.

That is built into the very core of the game. I can have a lawful good slaver, if that's how the world works. I can have a chaotic evil healer (Dr. House, anyone?)

I'm sorry, but I honestly cannot see your difficulties with the alignment system from either a storytelling or gameplay basis. You seem to be attacking it on the basis that it is a low finite number of terms.

From a storytelling basis, I have never seen harm in alignment, though my NPCs certainly do not expound on their lawful neutrality in conversation. From a gameplay basis, alignment serves two purposes: restricting selections (as does race and sometimes gender) and letting you know which color laser(s) will hurt you.

GoC
2009-05-07, 02:52 PM
No. Bob has the intent of doing good. However, he kills random people, which, as much as he, in his deluded little world wants to believe... is not good. Actions and intents are only completely seperate when someone is completely dissassociated from reality. Which is conveniently, the improbable situation you've placed here. Reductio ad absurdium. Thanks for creating a situation so far removed from reality as to have absolutely zero bearing on anything.

How about a more real situation?
Country X has been conquered by country Y. The invaders are not nice people (massacres ect). Person A sets off bombs in an attempt to drive off the occupying forces. Many civilians die as a side effect.
The morality of Person A's actions depend on how likely they are to drive out the invaders. A complete unknown. His intentions however are good.

DISCLAIMER: Any similarity to real world events in history is complete coincidence.

afroakuma
2009-05-07, 03:08 PM
I would actually call that for neutral or even evil. Good would put the value of those civilians' lives and the possibility of taking the lives of less malevolent invaders ahead of one's own personal beliefs. Neutral would assume they were taking an appropriate course for their society and justify the collateral deaths based on potential success. Evil would actively disregard harm to one's own people or possible reprisals against them arising from his actions because of a desire to take action.

Note that these would be the alignments of the corresponding action, not necessarily of the perpetrator. An "ends justify the means" Lawful Good, deluding herself slightly with regards to how right it is for her to make such decisions independently, would still commit an evil act in the latter case; a paladin would certainly fall for it, but I wouldn't necessarily shift the character's alignment.

SlyGuyMcFly
2009-05-07, 03:48 PM
That would open a complete different can of worms - if more powerful beings dictate the moral compass of their inferiors and therefore the inferiors moral path is predetermined, it is completely and utterly not possible to judge these predetermination on a moral base; a moral behavior necessarily requires a free will and the freedom to decide what you want to do. If what you are saying works that way, the alignment is even more meaningless as with the problems I already described.

Determining the moral compass, (ie, the gods have decided what Good and Evil are) is not the same as forcing a predetermined path (mortals are free to act Good or Evil as they please/were educated to/whatever).



Wrong. Morals are not static but evolve over time, and between different cultures. Sociocultural changes also lead to changes of the normative values, thus the moral superconstruction of the society follows the social change an adapts to it. As therefore moral is a fluid concept that depends on the time, place and social environment, it cannot be objective as in that case, why should it change and why has it to adapt?
The molecular construction of water, however, is pretty much static and does not change much (yes, I know it changes under certain circumstances, but it isn't water anymore afterwards).


If this was about the real world, I´d mostly agree. Morals do change.
However, we´re talking about a fantasy world where the gods are proven, in a conclusive manner, to exist. And these gods have defined Good and Evil. What anybody else thinks on the matter is completely and utterly irrelevant.

That doesn´t mean that the morals of societies and the people living in them are static. The various sociocultural changes a civilization may go under can change a societies moral and ethical outlook, but this is a shift in the societies general alignment, not in what Good and Evil mean.
In other words, a person´s opinion on what is good and evil can change, but what is Good and Evil will remain immutable.







And since you cannot disprove that I have a second head, therefore I could have a second head. What does that prove? Nothing, but my second head and the existence of an objective moral are both very, very unlikely.

Well, it would be possible to determine the existance or non-existance of your second head by empirical means. Unless of course you insist that your head will evade any and all methods of observation, both direct and indirect. The difference between you possibly imagined head and objective morality in DnD is that in DnD there IS proof of objective morality. Anyone with Detect Evil can tell you someone is Evil, and even give you an idea of how Evil.


-------

And now I´ll give my actual opinion on the matter :smalltongue:

The way I see it, you have to distinguish between Good and Evil and good and evil. Capital Good and Evil are objective. Lower case good and evil are subjective. The way it works is by removing the positive and negative connotations from Good and Evil (as others have said, you could call it Red and Blue. Or Rock and Funk). On the other hand good and evil retain connotations, but for clarity´s sake sake can be called right and wrong.


It works out like this: Helping refugees arriving from a recently conquered, pillaged and razed city is Good.
Pete the Paladin views aiding said refugees as right, keeping in line with his Good alignment. Pete believes that he must aid these people in their moment of greatest need.
Barry the Blackguard on the other hand, views this aid as wrong. This is consistent with his Evil alignment. Barry thinks that if the refugees where unable to protect their own city, they may as well starve.

This is how I accomodate for the fact that Evil people willingly do Evil acts. It is Evil, but it is also the right thing to do. Thus, objective morality with enough wiggle room for people with opposing alignments to both genuinely believe they are doing the right thing.:smallsmile:


Edit:


Note that these would be the alignments of the corresponding action, not necessarily of the perpetrator. An "ends justify the means" Lawful Good, deluding herself slightly with regards to how right it is for her to make such decisions independently, would still commit an evil act in the latter case; a paladin would certainly fall for it, but I wouldn't necessarily shift the character's alignment.

This bears repeating because it very, very, very important to keep in mind. People can, and will, commit actions that don´t correspond to their alignment. Big deal.

Juggernaut1981
2009-05-07, 06:28 PM
Also I must say that I don't really buy in the whole good&evil concept. People who spend their whole lives helping others and not doing anything for themselves are not good, but insane in my book. The same goes for people who murder others for no particular reason of course.


This, if nothing else I have read in a forum on alignment, describes the thinking of someone with a D&D3.5 "Evil" alignment. "Doing things for other people as your primary goal is insane". It comes with the idea that you are neglecting yourself and you are at least as important or maybe more important than the person you are helping.

OP: Welcome to Neutral Evil-ville, Population: You.

There is a perfectly valid way to describe alignment that makes sense, is functional from a game perspective and can be applied universally. It is based on the idea that your "alignment" is "how you think things in the world should or do work".

If you think the world is predictable, ordered and that things such as laws, honour, promises, trust are valuable because they help create more order. If you subscribe to "cause and effect" type ideas. Then you are Lawful.

If you think that the world is constantly changing and that yesterday's events are unconnected to today's events. If you think that the way you solved a situation yesterday probably won't work today. Then you are Chaotic.

If you think it's somewhere in the middle and the world needs a healthy dose of order and change. That things from yesterday could work the same today, but they don't have to. Then you are Neutral (along Law-Chaos).

If you think that generosity, respect for life, protection of the weak and that people should help others are important things. Then you are Good.

If you think that people should look out for themself first, and everyone else second. Then you are Evil.

If you think that some people deserve generosity, respect, protect and others don't deserve those things. Then you are Neutral.

I do think there should be an "Unaligned" alignment, especially for animals and other beings who aren't particularly self-aware. Zombies, Skeletons, Automatons, Animals, Vermin etc would all be likely to be "Unaligned" since all they respond to are "fight or flight" and "hungry, not hungry. They do not "think" about what solutions worked yesterday or today, they simply act.

GoC
2009-05-07, 07:14 PM
I would actually call that for neutral or even evil. Good would put the value of those civilians' lives and the possibility of taking the lives of less malevolent invaders ahead of one's own personal beliefs. Neutral would assume they were taking an appropriate course for their society and justify the collateral deaths based on potential success. Evil would actively disregard harm to one's own people or possible reprisals against them arising from his actions because of a desire to take action.

Then tweak things a bit.
Make Person A and his team be very very skilled. Have it be the death of one civilian in exchange for a great likely-hood that the invading army (who rapes and murders and pillages) would retreat.

afroakuma
2009-05-07, 07:32 PM
Then tweak things a bit.
Make Person A and his team be very very skilled. Have it be the death of one civilian in exchange for a great likely-hood that the invading army (who rapes and murders and pillages) would retreat.

One? Modified Trolley problem.

Now, is this one still collateral? Or is it known that this one civilian will have to die as a component of their plan?

We're still in "likelihood" territory, which lands it firmly in Neutral territory. A Good team would try to explore options with greater success and less potential risk to innocents, while a Neutral team is focused on one plan, heedless of collateral risk as long as it is within their means, can be accomplished promptly and offers a good outlook for success in their own aims.

Yes, it is for the discernable good of their society, and they would be damaging an evil, but in the process, they are taking a risk on behalf of the populace without consent of same, still risk reprisal if they do not succeed, are willing to sink to the same level as their foes (arson and destruction within their own land) and view even one innocent death as an acceptable price to pay for what is essentially a calculated gamble.

Once again, a Good team would look for a third option. You're certainly Lawful for trying to protect your people from invading foes, despite your choice of means, but the act itself is ultimately Neutral.

Now, once again, the team may be Lawful Good, but the act is not.

Saph
2009-05-07, 08:24 PM
I've met a lot of people who say that morals are conventions. But in my experience, if you look closely, it usually turns out that they mean everyone else's morals.


Because I believe it's better to be blunt but honest instead of polite but basically dishonest.

Case in point. First you say that morals are subjective, then you try to claim credit for being "honest". You're willing to treat other people's morals as convention, but not your own.

More to the point, using the word "stupid" in every sentence does not make someone honest. It just makes them unpleasant company.

- Saph

strawberryman
2009-05-07, 09:43 PM
Time to throw my hat in.

I believe there are a lot of good, valid points presented here, and believe it could be a lot worse on terms of crap-flinging, but I'll not get into that and instead dive into the debate.

For the real world, I believe that Satyr is about right on, in that morals are by and large determined by society. Everyone has their own views, and I believe there is no actual guiding hand or babysitter to anything that sheds anything in a positive or negative light outside of how civilization as a whole reacts to it. Everyone has different ideals to what "good" and "evil" are, and there's no extraterrestrial or supernatural force that is backing any which side up. I may be wrong and not seeing the reality, but that's what I believe. Now, time to use myself as an example. I value life, so I think killing is wrong. But I think that in some cases the death penalty may be called for if confinement and repentance (not just in the religious sense) for what I view as past wrongs is completely out of the question (I.E. A violent serial killer that even in solitary confinement is a constant pain, and is showing no signs of regret). I am by no means a follow-the-law-by-the-letter citizen, as I have probably committed some form of crime at some point in my life, and I am fairly critical of laws I think as pointless or oppressive. I don't go out of my way to help my fellow man, but I don't try to hurt them either. What am I? I'm positive at this point that there will be differing answers between large numbers of people in review of this question, for those who would acknowledge it. That's because everyone is different, but there are no cosmic forces setting up lists of what and will not get you smote by lightning. Again, merely my viewpoint.

But on the other side of the coin, as stated in the base D&D universe there are such forces that actively throw in for mortal matters. There are defined values. Those cosmic laws prevent someone who is killing babies for the sake of the greater good by lowering the population from using Holy powers to do so. Is it perfect? No. Is anything, really?

But here's the cool thing, if you don't like something in D&D, it's stated in just about every book published by WotC that you can change it. And if you can't change it because you aren't the DM, you can just not play with that group and find someone else who agrees with you. It all really boils down to your preferences. And you can get into an argument over why you really don't like the alignment system because it pigeonholes and doesn't portray morality the way you like it, but because we're all different there's going to be at least one person that probably disagrees with you on some level. And that should be all right.

As for me, I'm with the crowd that thinks the alignment system is fine if you don't treat it as a rulebook and just play your character how you want to play them.

No doubt I'm going to be rebuked by someone, but I'm okay with that and can only really express that I mean no offense!

Berserk Monk
2009-05-07, 10:02 PM
Yes it is. Especially when you ask "which people".

No it doesn't.

The person you're helping doesn't matter, just that you're helping them. Everyone should get help if they need it. Saying someone shouldn't just because they've done wrong is prejudice.

Jerthanis
2009-05-07, 10:23 PM
One? Modified Trolley problem.

Now, is this one still collateral? Or is it known that this one civilian will have to die as a component of their plan?

We're still in "likelihood" territory, which lands it firmly in Neutral territory. A Good team would try to explore options with greater success and less potential risk to innocents, while a Neutral team is focused on one plan, heedless of collateral risk as long as it is within their means, can be accomplished promptly and offers a good outlook for success in their own aims.

What if Person A had a plan that would likely kill thousands of innocents, decided it was too costly, and eventually through careful planning and expertise, managed to think of a plan that would likely only cause one death, but was unable to eliminate the possibility of that final innocent death? Is he then Good, despite risking the death of an innocent life? My gut reaction would be, "Of course it's good, if by causing that innocent to die, he preserves the lives of more innocents!" but is that the measure of goodness? The total net gain or loss of life and happiness? What consolation does that bring to the man who knows a Good Person would be alive if not for his actions and beliefs? What then makes it evil for a person to make miserable a minority if the majority is led to happiness and longterm prosperity? If that's evil, then can no one pretend to be good if their goals ever misalign with anyone else's happiness or life ever? That is why I believe it is the choices of the individual, and what matters to them that make for interesting roleplay, rather than hitching a personality to something as banal as "sides" in a conflict.

Zeful
2009-05-07, 10:26 PM
No it doesn't.

The person you're helping doesn't matter, just that you're helping them. Everyone should get help if they need it. Saying someone shouldn't just because they've done wrong is prejudice.

Except that's not what horseboy was getting at. Who are you helping? If you are helping yourself, or your actions benefit you in someway is that good? Conversely is harming one's self, or placing one's self in harms way evil?

Satyr
2009-05-08, 04:50 AM
Are you a philosophy major, by any chance?

Oh no. I am student of history, anglsitics/americanistics and pedagogics/didactics for education. When everything works out, I will have a teaching degree for secondary schools for history and English in two or three years.
I try to be an intellectual, though ("someone who has read some of the classics and feels remorse for all the classics he hasn't read").


Has alignment actually interfered in such a gross, reprehensible manner as you describe in any game you have ever played?
I was once involved in a very tiresome discussion about the moral standards and normative values of a fictional setting derive from, especially if these normative values are a) those of the players and derive from the metalevel or b) those of the societal norms of the setting itself, basically the question "Can you transfer your own personal values to a fictional setting where the social and cultural norms differ widely from those we as players are living with?"
Apart from that, this is mostly an intellectual tug-of-war for me.


Case in point. First you say that morals are subjective, then you try to claim credit for being "honest". You're willing to treat other people's morals as convention, but not your own.

Not really. I just like to apply the moral conventions I believe in. Only because these values are conventional doesn't mean they are meaningless.


Well, it would be possible to determine the existance or non-existance of your second head by empirical means. Unless of course you insist that your head will evade any and all methods of observation, both direct and indirect. The difference between you possibly imagined head and objective morality in DnD is that in DnD there IS proof of objective morality. Anyone with Detect Evil can tell you someone is Evil, and even give you an idea of how Evil.

What I targeted at was that the burden of proof lies with the positive claim; lobbing the burden of proof is not an arguement, it is a pretty bad defensive strategy for the times you have little faith in the quality of your argumentation.

afroakuma
2009-05-08, 08:46 AM
Oh no. I am student of history, anglsitics/americanistics and pedagogics/didactics for education. When everything works out, I will have a teaching degree for secondary schools for history and English in two or three years.
I try to be an intellectual, though ("someone who has read some of the classics and feels remorse for all the classics he hasn't read").

Good for you! I am given to understand that there is a demand for secondary English skills in Germany.


I was once involved in a very tiresome discussion about the moral standards and normative values of a fictional setting derive from, especially if these normative values are a) those of the players and derive from the metalevel or b) those of the societal norms of the setting itself, basically the question "Can you transfer your own personal values to a fictional setting where the social and cultural norms differ widely from those we as players are living with?"

In a game, though?

I'd side with B) on that one, incidentally. Verisimilitude demands it. Not to mention more humorous arguments for which I would have to refer to religion.

The answer to the question is, "Insofar as the social and cultural norms of the fictional setting are the same as those in the real world, the same values can broadly be applied on major cultural issues. This jurisdiction is left to the DM, however, as the players represent characters who don't have the same information and/or experience on these issues as themselves."

An example would be Star Wars; the society at large (the Galactic Republic) considered slavery immoral, but certain cultures and regions (Tatooine) practiced slavery widely. Though we as outsiders could look on their version of slavery as compared to examples from our own history and find it either more humane (discernably) or more severe (debatably), characters within the fictional universe can only call it like they see it. If there were a character originating on Tatooine who spent his time trying to gather evidence of abuse, cramped quarters, substandard food and reprehensible living conditions, said character (per the rules of the universe) would have no basis for doing so. That would be the player inserting their real-world morals, values and derived experience into a character whose world provides no justification for same.


Apart from that, this is mostly an intellectual tug-of-war for me.

That's what I guessed.

Thoughtbot360
2009-05-08, 10:50 AM
Actual solution: if you don't like the alignment system, don't make it a part of your character. Write 'Neutral' or 'Unaligned' in the box and forget about it.

*Hugs Saph*