Alignment confused DM (player perspective)

[DrOctagonapus12]

So my DM has been throughly convinced that LG means that as long as THE CHARACTER thinks an action is evil or unholy, it must be smote. To this end, he has created a sect of the church of St. Cuthbert that are essentially the Ordo Mallus of 40k.

While I understand the almighty properties of rule zero, this causes problems when dealing with unholy and holy weapons, namely, the fact that many of his NPCs should be evil, yet use holy weapons with no problems.

On a related note, he seems to enjoy creating constructs that have intelligence but no alignment, though they do good acts (bury the dead out of respect, spare lives, ect.)

Pose arguments that I may use in dissuading him from doing anything else ludicrous.

[Vitruviansquid]

I... actually, I'm in agreement with the DM here. Alignment has nothing to do with the physical actions of a character but rather the mindset of the character when he's performing that action.

[PaladinBoy]

... almost every villain, ever (with some exceptions), tends to think their actions are justified. It takes a particularly screwed up person to do something knowing that it's wrong and evil. Some manage, yes, but this still leaves plenty of villains who do their evil deeds for what they think are good reasons, sometimes for things that are in fact good reasons.

Point out to your DM that by his definition of LG, which is dependent on the perception of the individual committing these acts, leaves room for absolutely insane evil to still be called Good.

[erikun]

Errr....

What is the problem here? That you can't Protection from Evil against the "badguys"? That the party paladin is in danger of falling for thinking the church is acting evil? That you don't like being called CN when you're trying to do good?

Honestly, if your DM wants to go by wierd definitions of alignment and it's not affecting the party, I say go with it. You could present arguments along the lines of "If the Paladin was insane and thought orphan babies were evil, would he still be LG after burning down the orphanage?" but if your DM responds with "Yes," then presenting arguments really isn't going to change anything. Just settle down are realize you're campaigning in a world with baby-slaughtering paladins supported by the church.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Let us suppose I am an anarcho-capitalist. I believe that the action of paying taxes is evil and unholy. To this end, I smite anyone who engages in tax-paying, whether laborers or tax collectors. Am I Lawful Good?

[AstralFire]

There's nothing inherently wrong with what he's doing. It's not kosher with D&D as normal, but it doesn't break balance or anything.

[DrOctagonapus12]

They enjoy the killing. We've tried to talk him down to LN at best, which would mean that they would at least give a moment to listen to reason before killing us.
The main problem that is caused by this is that the DM (through past actions with this group) has made players afraid to play certain classes (read: spellcasters, warlocks, binders, ect.).

[AstralFire]

How is this causing someone to be afraid of a particular class?

[DrOctagonapus12]

Ironically enough, a Paladin DID burn down an orphanage who thought the children were evil, and he DID remain LG.

[erikun]

Yeah, I'm not sure how unusual alignment interpretation causes someone to not play a class. If anything, it can guarantee that anyone with alignment restrictions never falls. It certainly wouldn't affect a spellcaster.

It sounds like your best bets are either break out the psionics (which doesn't care about alignment or demonic possession or the like) or rotate DMs. If the campaign isn't fun for the people involved, there is something wrong.

(Although if it is fun, by all means continue.)

[PaladinBoy]

... If a Paladin managed to get away with burning down an orphanage, then I seriously doubt that your DM is going to listen to any argument, no matter how well reasoned. About the best you can do is try to relate this to historical examples and hope that he doesn't just dismiss the reason as actually evil or the act as in fact morally justified (although if you pick the right historical atrocities, the latter should be unlikely).

This also depends on historical examples... and I can't seem to think of any, unfortunately.

[Vitruviansquid]

They enjoy the killing. We've tried to talk him down to LN at best, which would mean that they would at least give a moment to listen to reason before killing us.
The main problem that is caused by this is that the DM (through past actions with this group) has made players afraid to play certain classes (read: spellcasters, warlocks, binders, ect.).

Of course, you have to differentiate whether they enjoy killing because they're sadists, which would mean they're clearly evil, or they enjoy killing because it makes them think they made the world a safer place, which is clearly good.

[Foryn Gilnith]

they enjoy killing because it makes them think they made the world a safer place, which is clearly good.

One's thoughts on what is moral do not necessarily constitute grounds for moral action. See Godwin for an example. And this.

Suppose I am an orc warlord. I fear that my tribes' traditional rape-and-pillage lifestyle is being threatened by encroaching civilization and their many adventuring parties that go out to avenge the sacking of towns. So I muster my forces, and for the sake of making the world a safer place for my hearty young warrior boys to grow in, kill everyone I think might be an adventurer.

Is my alignment Good?

[holywhippet]

Let us suppose I am an anarcho-capitalist. I believe that the action of paying taxes is evil and unholy. To this end, I smite anyone who engages in tax-paying, whether laborers or tax collectors. Am I Lawful Good?

No. Lawful requires you to act within the rules and laws of your society. Since the ruler of the land calls for taxes to be paid it is unlawful to defy him.

Good/evil depends on why you are refusing the taxes. If it's because you just don't want to pay them - that's evil. If it's because the ruler is demanding an unfair amount then you could argue you have a good alignment.

[Vitruviansquid]

Well, no. But this example isn't counter to my interpretation of what alignment means.

In the intent of the orc warlord, there is a clear "better you than us" logic that is the very definition of what it means to be evil. Besides which, he is acting with the intention of defending a clearly evil "rape-and-pillage" lifestyle.

edit: in response to Foryn

[Foryn Gilnith]

Preface: I may use some hostile language, given the nature of alignment debates. I apologize.


In the intent of the orc warlord, there is a clear "better you than us" logic that is the very definition of what it means to be evil.
There was a clear "better you than us" logic with the paladins who enjoyed killing. It is better that these people that we think are unholy should die than that people that agree with what we think suffer somewhat.


Besides which, he is acting with the intention of defending a clearly evil "rape-and-pillage" lifestyle.

The paladins are acting with the intention of defending a clearly evil "burn-the-heretic" lifestyle (IMO).

@holywhippet: What if I have a deity (imagined or not) that declares the ruler of the land illegitimate? Would not my duty to Law bind me to serve the higher power? And if, as per the OP definition of LG, I am obligated to smite anything evil or unholy, would not my divine duty force me to overthrow the illegitimate government? The ruler is unholy since he defies my god, the taxes are unholy since they support the unholy ruler, the taxpayers are unholy because they support unholy taxes...

[Hiest, monkey]

alignment is not defined by belief, as was stated before.

It is defined by actions.
A good character who, without deluding himself, and using all the knowledge available to himself unknowingly commits an evil act remains good, because he was trying to do good, without having to justify.

Any action that requires justification to a good or lawful character before a character can commit it with a clear conscience is an evil or chaotic action and continued choices of such actions, without any sort of guilt or penance is in no way lawful or good.

Example: a Paladin that recklessly sets fire to a demon's corpse because he is fully assured that it will destroy the demon, and ends up burning down an orphanage because of wind condition, or because he was careless with the matches is still an unfallen paladin. Note that such a character would by wracked by guilt and woul dtry to attone regardless of class requirements.

Opposing example: If a paladin decides that following the creed of his order is not sufficient to destroy all evil, and knowingly takes on tactics opposing his alignment (razing towns etc.) will lose his paladin status. This paladin may or may not know that his course of action is the most riteous or correct, and may or may not feel guilty, but they no longer count as part of their alignement.

Personally I'm a bigger fan of the "Rifts" alignment system, and think that beyond classifying populations, or determining clearly evil people, alignments have no place in casual DnD. Good role-playing replaces an arbitrary code defined by a paragraph in a little read section of the PHb

[DrOctagonapus12]

@Foryn:
There is a major NPC Paladin/Grey Guard (We're a gestalt campaign) who kills not only anything he thinks is evil, but anything and anyone who comes into contact with evil...lovely guy.

[AshDesert]

I'd say a simple solution to this is an old saying, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Just because you think what you're doing is Good, doesn't make it Good.

I forget what series it was, but one of the characters was motivated by a desire to make the world a better place by killing every evil man in the world. He knew that if he ever succeeded, he would have to kill himself, because he would no longer be a good man.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Grey Guard. lol.
IC, I think your best bet would be to be an actual Good entity. Go grassroots. Do good deeds, spin them up for the peasantry, and rally a nonviolent march against the Grey Guard begging him to spare the poor, hungry serf children. Stage it as a spectacle, so that if it turns violent, you can easily spread the news all across the NG and CG world.

[Vitruviansquid]

Preface: I may use some hostile language, given the nature of alignment debates. I apologize.


There was a clear "better you than us" logic with the paladins who enjoyed killing. It is better that these people that we think are unholy should die than that people that agree with what we think suffer somewhat.



The paladins are acting with the intention of defending a clearly evil "burn-the-heretic" lifestyle (IMO).

Well I have earned my just desserts for defending a system that I didn't believe in in the first place. You are indeed correct.

But let me point out that, following this logic, the basic difference between good and evil would boil down to what skin color (human or green) commits a particular deed.

Neither does this seem like a workable model for the alignment system.

[chiasaur11]

Grey Guard. lol.
IC, I think your best bet would be to be an actual Good entity. Go grassroots. Do good deeds, spin them up for the peasantry, and rally a nonviolent march against the Grey Guard begging him to spare the poor, hungry serf children. Stage it as a spectacle, so that if it turns violent, you can easily spread the news all across the NG and CG world.

I'd go all the way into Captain Carrot Ironfoundson sickeningly good, complete with incredible charisma.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Weird thing: I don't actually have any logic to follow, let alone extrapolate to anti-orc racism (though those damn greenskins deserve it. :P). I'm just trying to poke holes in the original statement, "LG means that as long as THE CHARACTER thinks an action is evil or unholy, it must be smote". I'm presenting situations with a heavy slant against the statement, but not actually analyzing them with any logic, just leaving the reader to draw conclusions based on the example (with a heavy dose of my bias, of course).

Isn't manipulation fun? No, not really.

[Kroy]

I'd say a simple solution to this is an old saying, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Just because you think what you're doing is Good, doesn't make it Good.

I forget what series it was, but one of the characters was motivated by a desire to make the world a better place by killing every evil man in the world. He knew that if he ever succeeded, he would have to kill himself, because he would no longer be a good man.

Serenity? You know, the guy with the sword...

[Vitruviansquid]

Weird thing: I don't actually have any logic to follow, let alone extrapolate to anti-orc racism (though those damn greenskins deserve it. :P). I'm just trying to poke holes in the original statement, "LG means that as long as THE CHARACTER thinks an action is evil or unholy, it must be smote". I'm presenting situations with a heavy slant against the statement, but not actually analyzing them with any logic, just leaving the reader to draw conclusions based on the example (with a heavy dose of my bias, of course).

Isn't manipulation fun? No, not really.

Well then.

Good luck with your campaign, Dr.Octagonapus. :thog:

[DrOctagonapus12]

The great Irony of the situation is that the party is evil...really REALLY evil.

We have (in no particular order), a Vampire Soulknife/Soulbow (Magnificent
bastard), a Werewolf alchemist/rogue (considers everyone a potential science
experiment), a werewolf ranger/rogue (likes infecting people), a half-drow
ranger/rogue (assassin), a Human Fighter/rogue (serial killer), Human Spellthief/rogue (wizard hunter), Human Cleric/fighter (likes human sacrifice) and an Intelligent Item Psion/Psychic warrior (loves power).

[Tyndmyr]

Let us suppose I am an anarcho-capitalist. I believe that the action of paying taxes is evil and unholy. To this end, I smite anyone who engages in tax-paying, whether laborers or tax collectors. Am I Lawful Good?

I'd say chaotic. You're rebelling against law. Yes, I know, the bit about personal moral code...if we follow that, then EVERYONE is lawful.


Good, evil...I dunno. The tricky thing about that, is it presupposes they are absolute.

[Vitruviansquid]

Here's another scenario to shake one's faith in DnD's alignment system (har har).

You have a character, Alice, who's the big sister of Bob. Now, they were both orphaned in a wildfire, which was deeply traumatizing to them both, especially Bob, who was physically crippled forever by the fire.

Now Alice is a very compassionate, kind, and caring older sister who would always put Bob above herself. That's definitely good points right there, since it's altruistic, self-sacrifice, and all that jazz... yet Alice is also so single-mindedly set on protecting Bob that she would do horrible, awful things, like savagely beat and torture anyone who threatened Bob, even if... say, Bob was eventually possessed by a devil with a clearly evil alignment.

Is Alice good because she puts others above herself? Is she evil because she puts another above herself in such an extreme fashion that it's actually detrimental to society as a whole?

[Foryn Gilnith]

Oh, so that's the problem. Your enemies get to be ***** and still use Holy weapons. I wouldn't worry too much over it. Just pretend they have a class feature that gives them 7 extra damage per hit, or something. Almost as if they got a +3 attack bonus and spent it all on power attack. Meanwhile, sneak around and gank people for XP, and enjoy the combat challenge.

How intelligent and free are those constructs? If they can think worth half a damn, they might be Good; but if they're being forced I'd be less inclined to think them worthy of a Good alignment.

@vitruvian: Alice is evil. She only puts a single familial relation above herself, which undermines the magnitude of her supposed altruism. And then, for the sake of her beliefs ("love") and her family, she decides to screw over the rest of the world through torture, aiding demonic influence on Oerth, et cetera. The one person she is quite altruistic towards does not balance the dozens with whom she acts massively selfish.

Or, to put her into a category that's more useful, she's an "acceptable" target for killing, who may or may not take piddly amounts of extra damage from Smite Evil.

[DrOctagonapus12]

@vitruvian: Alice is LE. Definite moral code, followed strictly, but does evil things. Lawful Evil.

@Foryn: They have full free will, with instructions that are to be followed without exception. I thought LG (ACTUAL LG) but was told TN.

[horseboy]

I'm going to agree with the DM here.

There's actually quite a bit of history on his side. In fact the Mace of St. Cuthbert used to drop your Cha to 3 and turned you into a zealot who went around smacking evil people upside the head with it. Compound that with how the original paladin archetypes actually have more in common with a Space Marine than the modern view of social worker, I really don't see the problem. \

And yes, this is EXACTLY why I hate the concept of "absolute" alignments. It doesn't hold up to any scrutiny, it has no actual meaning and there's no way you can actually use it for a measure.

[Foryn Gilnith]

And yes, this is EXACTLY why I hate the concept of "absolute" alignments. It doesn't hold up to any scrutiny, it has no actual meaning and there's no way you can actually use it for a measure.

Could you elaborate on this? Specifically, on what "absolute" alignments (with scare quotes) means? I was cooking up a rebuttal before I realized I wouldn't actually know what I was arguing against.

[Vitruviansquid]

@Foryn: I don't see how you can argue that Alice is acting out of selfishness, seeing as she gives no thought to herself. Then let's say numbers do matter: you're more Good if you're altruistic to more people. So... let's take an example from The Ones who Left Omelas:

There's a city where everybody lives a perfect life. Their utopian society however, depends on the fact that one child must live in complete misery (let's say misery powers all their machines that allow them to have a utopia). Then are you Good for forcing this child to be miserable in order for the rest of society to profit from his misery?

@DrOctagonapus: Lawful? If anything, I would've labelled her Chaotic, since she only follows her own laws (assuming that you're not allowed to savagely beat people in the street in most societies)

[DrOctagonapus12]

@Vitruvian: Lawful doesn't mean that you follow the rules of society, it means you are trustworthy and have honor, both of which are shown by your description of Alice. She just values one life above all others. Hence the evil bit

[Foryn Gilnith]

@Foryn: I don't see how you can argue that Alice is acting out of selfishness, seeing as she gives no thought to herself.
She gives no thought to others' feelings, either, seeing as she tortures them. And while she doesn't seek benefit for herself, per se, she is willing to harm others to advance her beliefs at the expense of their beliefs (and lives). Intellectual selfishness, in a way.


The Ones who Left Omelas
Ah, that story. Fine taste.


There's a city where everybody lives a perfect life. Their utopian society however, depends on the fact that one child must live in complete misery (let's say misery powers all their machines that allow them to have a utopia). Then are you Good for forcing this child to be miserable in order for the rest of society to profit from his misery?
It depends. Does the thing work? If it does, that's an adequate solution. You eliminate all the misery of a common world and force it onto an individual - but an individual can only be so miserable. The net total of happiness is increased, and the utopian society can meanwhile research an alternate energy source for their utopia machines. So ya, good-ish. Depends on what the ultimate goal is defined as, which is a massive headache. Creating such a definition in a context larger than, say, a gaming group would be difficult.
IMO that wouldn't work, as people who become aware of the utterly miserable child would become quite disillusioned with the utopia, and eventually cause enough societal turbulence to overthrow the status quo. Not to mention the difficulty of acquiring functional utopia machines.

In short: I think it's completely implausible, I think that in a universe where it was plausible it would be fairly good, I don't have the authority to declare it as good or not and not have others disagree.
EDIT: But why do you care? Are you going to use Holy Smite on the guys running the utopia machines? Alignment only matters for people, and then only if they're targeted by alignment-based magic.

[AshDesert]

Serenity? You know, the guy with the sword...

Wow, I feel dumb now. 3 hours of sleep FTL :(

[Vitruviansquid]

Well, Doctor, I would have to ask, is it an honor code if it's "harm Bob and I'll beat you with a stick until you slip into a coma?" The way I see it, most honor codes exist because they're societally sanctioned, as in "yeah, using chemical weapons would help us win wars, but I think everyone can agree that it'd just be a **** move, so I won't use chemical weapons."

Well she's giving thought to another's well-being (Bob) while giving no thought to her own. I mean, the root word of "selfishness" is "self," it seems logical to me that as long as she isn't acting for the interest of her*self*, she's not being selfish.

As for the Omelas example, it begs the question of when the good slips into evil. One child is good... two children are good... ten children becomes neutral? ALL children becomes evil?

[Foryn Gilnith]

Without more details on how complete the utopia is, I can't say. More suffering children increases the instability of the already implausible situation, which makes it more likely that the utopia will crumble and make all the "good" done transitory and worthless.

[DrOctagonapus12]

The honor code has to have a reason to exist other than "Do what feels good." That's all the real stipulations that "honor" has...in my and my DM's opinion.

[Vitruviansquid]

Then what about this as a rule for alignments:

Alignments conform to the paradigms of the specific campaign.

and the corollary (hope I'm using that word correctly >_>)

A campaign should have an internally consistent interpretation of alignments.

This appears to me both sensible and practical.

[horseboy]

Could you elaborate on this? Specifically, on what "absolute" alignments (with scare quotes) means? I was cooking up a rebuttal before I realized I wouldn't actually know what I was arguing against.

Sorry, "Objective" was chatting with someone I hadn't seen since Jr. High on Facebook while ordering my mother's headstone while writing that.

It only works for Red Team/Blue Team play. Trying to actually get it to work with moral dilemmas and it's just epic fail because it actually has no clear definition.

[good_lookin_gus]

Well she's giving thought to another's well-being (Bob) while giving no thought to her own.

or anyone else on the planes of existence. If they're cave dwelling hermits, I guess she could remain good. Once she steps outside and starts playing an active role in the lives of others, it's far less likely to be the case. You specifically said:


she would do horrible, awful things, like savagely beat and torture anyone who threatened Bob

If you do horrible, awful things like the aforementioned, you are not good. You're probably not even neutral.

[dsmiles]

So my DM has been throughly convinced that LG means that as long as THE CHARACTER thinks an action is evil or unholy, it must be smote. To this end, he has created a sect of the church of St. Cuthbert that are essentially the Ordo Mallus of 40k.

While I understand the almighty properties of rule zero, this causes problems when dealing with unholy and holy weapons, namely, the fact that many of his NPCs should be evil, yet use holy weapons with no problems.

On a related note, he seems to enjoy creating constructs that have intelligence but no alignment, though they do good acts (bury the dead out of respect, spare lives, ect.)

Pose arguments that I may use in dissuading him from doing anything else ludicrous.

Let me try this one...LG...
1. Lawful = You uphold the law...of whatever area you are currently in.

2. Good = You follow the path to the "greater good."

3. Lawful Good = You uphold the laws that are right and just and good. Evil must be opposed at all costs. Generally, LG characters have some kind of code of behavior (sometimes a personal one, sometimes the tenets of a faith, sometimes the oath to a kingdom/empire) that they uphold. I distinctly remember the paladin's Detect Evil ability (I can't remember which edition) detecting evil intent. Thus, Graznok the Terrible (just out for a beer) won't detect as evil, whereas Joe Schmoe the farmer (who plans on stealing his neighbor's cow) will.

4. If the alignment system is subjective in nature (I believe this is covered in the DMG or BoED) Holy and Unholy weapons basically don't work. You can't have absolute good and absolute evil in a subjective alignment system, because what I think is evil, and what you think is evil may not be the same, even though neither of us is a sociopath.

5. An objective alignment system is basically saying that ultimate good and ultimate evil are clearly defined concepts and everyone understands them. Good characters do good, neutral people either don't care or go about slaying powerful entities of law, good, chaos, and evil equally to "uphold the balance," and evil people don't care what the tenets of good and evil are (but they know the difference), they're going to do what they want regardless of consequences.

Respect for the dead isn't a "good" act per se, it is a (and I use this term in the broadest sense) human act, and the creators of these intelligent constructs programmed some type of humanity into their AI. Sparing lives is generally a "good" act, and as such (if these constructs are in the regular habit of doing so) they should be listed as Neutral with Good Tendancies (or to take it one step further Neutral Good).

And followers of St Cuthbert generally smite anything that moves anyways. In a back issue of dragon, it gave alternate rules for Cuthbertian paladins...they smite Chaos, but that's a whole different discussion.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

[horseboy]

4. If the alignment system is subjective in nature (I believe this is covered in the DMG or BoED) Holy and Unholy weapons basically don't work. You can't have absolute good and absolute evil in a subjective alignment system, because what I think is evil, and what you think is evil may not be the same, even though neither of us is a sociopath. Sure they can. They'd just be dedicated to a certain tenant. It would be dedicated to St. Cuthbert, so that all his enemies would feel his righteous sting.


5. An objective alignment system is basically saying that ultimate good and ultimate evil are clearly defined concepts and everyone understands them. And if that part of your statement were true and there were clear definitions involved then yes, you would be right. However, given the 35+ years of Gygax's poor communication skills and a VERY large values dissonance drift over that same time that is not true. Indeed a couple decades ago the concept of "The Greater Good" itself was considered evil as it was the justification used for untold human rights atrocities.

[valadil]

I... actually, I'm in agreement with the DM here. Alignment has nothing to do with the physical actions of a character but rather the mindset of the character when he's performing that action.

Please tell me one instance of a sane person committing an act he believes to be evil.

Nobody does evil on purpose. It gets justified away.

When discussing alignment, the most evil person people usually bring up is Hitler. Even he must have justified his actions as being part of a greater good. In this DM's world, Hitler would be a lawful good character. I just can't agree with that.

[Mikeavelli]

Hooray! An Alignment Thread!

D&D Alignment suffers from both being a relativist "Your intentions matter" alignment system, and an absolute "Good is good because of Universal truths" system

At the same time!

In various materials, and spread out across the fanbase, the D&D alignment system embraces both contradictory models of ethical thinking, and leaves nerds on the interwebs to figure out what the hell they mean by it. It leaves a great deal of free space for DM's and Players to assign their own definitions.

[hr]

That said, your DM is categorically wrong in his definition of alignment, because it doesn't agree with my definition of alignment. You can inform him that I've declared a holy war against him, with the intention of burning away his heretical teachings from the world.

[MickJay]

[...]

Agreed, there's enough fluff to support practically every statement about the way D&D alignments are supposed to work. What the players should do is have a brief chat with their DM and agree on what kind of morality their campaign world is supposed to use.

[mikeejimbo]

That said, your DM is categorically wrong in his definition of alignment, because it doesn't agree with my definition of alignment. You can inform him that I've declared a holy war against him, with the intention of burning away his heretical teachings from the world.

The DM is Evil and you are Good, of course.

[hamishspence]

Please tell me one instance of a sane person committing an act he believes to be evil.

Fiction-wise, the Operative from Firefly is a good example "What I do is evil, but it must be done."

The phrase "Necessary evil" is a common one- and may apply here.

I think the rule is "intentions matter, but only up to a point"

Some acts are implied to be intention and context based- such as killing evil beings.

Others, are described as "always evil" in BoED and FC2- such as torture.

BoED stresses that for "good acts" intentions are the determining factor- a sufficiently selfish intent can move a normally Good act into Neutral.

At the same time, it stresses that for "evil acts" such as torture, no amount of good intentions will make it non-evil.

[Krow]

I'm in agreement with the above post. Intent is only part of the factor. Then again, the alignment system is a bit interpretative and clunky... :smallcool:

[hamishspence]

True.

BoED gets a lot of flak- mostly for ravages (holy poisons) and Sanctify the Wicked (like a helm of opposite alignment, only better- accused of being Holy Mindrape)

Still, it also had a few sensible points. Like:
"Being evil on its own, is not grounds for on-the-spot execution"

No Radardin Detect=Smite, in other words.

And it resolves the Orc Baby dilemma with a simple answer- no- it is not ok to slaughter orc children.

[cZak]

As many posters have demonstrated, there are too many circumstantial possibilities that make the differences in societal and racial make ups to construct a black and white system of what is good/ evil or law/ chaos.


Just as it makes no sense to have a deity or ideology premised on the utter destruction of everything or the eternal torment of its followers.
The promise of short term power vs eternal torment... not buying that. There might be a few (leader types or those willing to sacrifice others), but the general populace is not getting in line for that.
One or two ideologies like this would be fine (Tharizdun), just to provide for the crazy and insane few with this mentality, or the despondent or revenge seekers. But what is the recruiting line for followers of Shar, who intends to obliterate everything?


There have been many writers who developed societies with very diverse opinions on cultural alignments:
Fictional writers Robert Jordan's White Cloaks, Gygax's deities of Greyhawk; Cuthbert vs Pholtus: two extremely lawful good organizations who could come to blows with little provocation and Ehlonna vs Obad-Hai: two nature oriented deities whose followers could not stand each other.
Non-fictional writers Clauswitz and Keegan about the history of warfare in our own civilizations.


For the OP
The basis of 'protection vs XXXX' or 'smite XXXX' is granted by the deity for the purpose of furthering that ideology. If furthering is done, then it works; if not, it doesn't. And the DM determines what the deity thinks.
If another deity determines that the paladin of another god should be affected by 'Smite evil', then it happens.

The DM has to kind of be on the outside looking in. When the character, associated with a good organization, smites someone or uses a holy weapon on someone he believes to be evil. Take into consideration the differences in the ideology of the smiter vs the smitee.

[Alex Star]

Good and Evil in D&D do not suffer from the same moral ambiguities that we suffer from in this world. I explained this once before in the "familicide" dicussion on the OotS board. However, I shall do so again here.

Morality in the world in which we exist is defined by our social constructs which is both framed by and contributes to the framing of our morality. Slavery and Indentured servitude were once seen as perfectly good practices, as were brutal executions for heinous crimes, and intimate relationships between adults and children. However, over time our morality has shaped and been shaped by our social constructs. Such things are now seen as evil.

However this is not the way D&D works. Good and Evil are clearly defined by the gods who rule over thier domains. There is no disambiguity over whether a black dragon is good or evil and should you slaughter 10,000 of them the good gods would rejoice whatever your methods.

In our world the defining line of Good/Evil is where we set it. In D&D it's where your God tells you it is. And those definitions provided by the Gods are clear and concise. Do this for it is good, Don't do that for it is Evil. And these statements are not in doubt the Gods routinely interact with mortals and clearly make thier presence known in everyday life.

If Lathandar says burning an orphanage is Good then it's Good, if he says you are Evil for disagreeing and the God of Evil follows that same logic then guess what? You're evil

[olentu]

Good and Evil in D&D do not suffer from the same moral ambiguities that we suffer from in this world. I explained this once before in the "familicide" dicussion on the OotS board. However, I shall do so again here.

Morality in the world in which we exist is defined by our social constructs which is both framed by and contributes to the framing of our morality. Slavery and Indentured servitude were once seen as perfectly good practices, as were brutal executions for heinous crimes, and intimate relationships between adults and children. However, over time our morality has shaped and been shaped by our social constructs. Such things are now seen as evil.

However this is not the way D&D works. Good and Evil are clearly defined by the gods who rule over thier domains. There is no disambiguity over whether a black dragon is good or evil and should you slaughter 10,000 of them the good gods would rejoice whatever your methods.

In our world the defining line of Good/Evil is where we set it. In D&D it's where your God tells you it is. And those definitions provided by the Gods are clear and concise. Do this for it is good, Don't do that for it is Evil. And these statements are not in doubt the Gods routinely interact with mortals and clearly make thier presence known in everyday life.

If Lathandar says burning an orphanage is Good then it's Good, if he says you are Evil for disagreeing and the God of Evil follows that same logic then guess what? You're evil

The definitions of good and evil are not really dependent on the gods.

[Alex Star]

The definitions of good and evil are not really dependent on the gods.

they are solely dependent upon the gods. Last I checked paladins only get spells if papa god says it's cool. Ditto with clerics.

And since the gods are a mannifestation of rule 0 and the DM can say whatever he wants is good or evil then yes good and evil is solely dependent on the will of the gods in D&D whether that will is to follow the PHB to the letter or otherwise

[olentu]

they are solely dependent upon the gods. Last I checked paladins only get spells if papa god says it's cool. Ditto with clerics.

And since the gods are a mannifestation of rule 0 and the DM can say whatever he wants is good or evil then yes good and evil is solely dependent on the will of the gods in D&D whether that will is to follow the PHB to the letter or otherwise

Except perhaps in the forgotten realms or some other campaign setting clerics and especially paladins have no need for a god.

Though of course this in no way changes the fact that the gods do not define what is good, evil, lawful, or chaotic barring any specific exceptions.

[Alex Star]

Except perhaps in the forgotten realms or some other campaign setting clerics and especially paladins have no need for a god.

Though of course this in no way changes the fact that the gods do not define what is good, evil, lawful, or chaotic barring any specific exceptions.

Last I checked Ao the All-Father was the only only true God in FR and the lesser dieties are Agents of his will. Nonetheless good and evil in your campaign world are determined by the DM. Not by your morality.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Alignment is determined by the DM, yes. Alignment is not determined by my opinion, yes.
Alignment is not determined by gods, and you haven't the right to come in, condescendingly claim it is, and shift the goalposts later. :smallannoyed:

[olentu]

Last I checked Ao the All-Father was the only only true God in FR and the lesser dieties are Agents of his will. Nonetheless good and evil in your campaign world are determined by the DM. Not by your morality.

Well that is true insomuch as every part of the rules can be determined by the DM. This of course seems to really be of no consequence unless you original point is that rule 0 exists. If that was not your original point then the fact that rule 0 exists and thus houserules can change anything is in my opinion rather tangential to whether the gods define morality. This would be since one would assume default D&D without stated houserules and having a defined morality based on the gods is clearly at odds with the houserule in the original post as that is more morality defined by each individual.

[Tyndmyr]

Oh, but DM has good/evil defined by gods...by your own personal code of ethics....and by concrete lists of good/evil actions.

It all depends where you look.

[Alex Star]

Alignment is determined by the DM, yes. Alignment is not determined by my opinion, yes.
Alignment is not determined by gods, and you haven't the right to come in, condescendingly claim it is, and shift the goalposts later. :smallannoyed:

It's not a shifting of the goalposts. All NPC's are effectively manifestations of the DM.

The purpose of the statement is try and quantify that unlike the real world where Humans determine whether or not their actions are Good or Evil someone else is Definitively Judging the morality of your actions in D&D.

This is not an opinion. D&D is not a republic it's a Dictatorship, granted it's one where the players can choose not to play, but they can not choose to change the world the DM decides to create for them.

In this way the "Gods" so-to-speak in D&D are the Defining Factor in Alignment.

If your "Paladin" falls from grace whether or not he worships a God and no longer has the use of his Paladin powers it is NOT because he suddenly decided that he was acting out of alignment. It IS because someone else decided it.

In this way the definitions of Good/Evil are definitively judged by NPC's/The DM/The Gods.. or whatever other language you choose to describe it.

Furthermore, even if your particular gaming group has a voting procedure used to determine alignment based issues or any other issues for that matter it is still someone other than an individuals conscience making definitive judgment on the morality if your actions.

[AmusingSN]

I don't particularly like how ambiguously gray the alignment system is in D&D, especially since there are so many game mechanics that are based on it.

When I run D&D I use the following system for alignments.


Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic

Lawful is telling the truth and keeping's one word, and preferring to solve problems with teamwork.

Neutral is mostly keeping one's word, but breaking it if necessary, and tending to solve problems with whatever tactic fits the situation.

Chaotic is deceiving, breaking one's word, and prefering to solve problems with individual actions.

Good-Neutral-Evil

Good is opposing/defying evil, whenever it rears its ugly head.

Neutral is not really liking evil, but will tolerate it if its not harming one's friends, families or community.

Evil is eating the flesh of sapient beings or worshipping supernaturally evil creatures (evil aberrations, magical beasts, outsiders, dragons, etc.), or extreme sadism (torture for pleasure's sake).


Most NPCs in my settings are neutral, but they also tend to be reasonably pleasant, helpful, law-abiding people.

But seriously, this alignment system works well, is well defined, and allows people to easily play their alignments and to understand that when they "detect evil" that the person who is evil is really actually *evil*, not just cheating at cards or something stupid like that.

[Mike_G]

The only real solution to Alignment:

KILL IT!!! KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The concept of a nine category absolute morality rules on which nobody ever agrees has caused more arguments than who should control the Holy Land.

[Darcand]

@vitruvian: Alice is LE. Definite moral code, followed strictly, but does evil things. Lawful Evil.

Alice is actually CN. Chaotic in that she is aware of the laws and willing breaks them without remorse. Nuetral in that she doesn't commit savage beatings and torture for personal gain or out of sheer malice, she does it in defense of her family. When Alice begins beating and killing over ever increasingly minor wrongs (i.e. name calling vs robbery) or begins to take matters into her own hands premptively she will have slipped into evil.

If we define her actions as evil we have to explain how good adventures have been killing bandits all these years without just paying them off.

[good_lookin_gus]

Alice is actually CN. Chaotic in that she is aware of the laws and willing breaks them without remorse.

That's perfectly valid, but so is Dr.O's opinion. Law vs. Chaos is (IMHO) much harder to define, and we don't actually know too much about the character.


Nuetral in that she doesn't commit savage beatings and torture for personal gain or out of sheer malice, she does it in defense of her family. When Alice begins beating and killing over ever increasingly minor wrongs (i.e. name calling vs robbery) or begins to take matters into her own hands premptively she will have slipped into evil.

Unless she has been enchanted or coerced, there is malice in her actions. She has a choice to cease or continue using violence against someone who is no longer a threat. The choice to continue is an evil one.


If we define her actions as evil we have to explain how good adventures have been killing bandits all these years without just paying them off.

Well, the bandits in adventure games usually fight back. If they don't, then yeah, the adventurers that kill them should seek atonement.

[Saph]

The concept of a nine category absolute morality rules on which nobody ever agrees has caused more arguments than who should control the Holy Land.

Nobody agrees about Good and Evil in real life. Why do you expect RPGs to be different? :P

For that matter, RL has the exact same disagreements about objective vs relative morality. The only difference is that disagreements about D&D morality cause message board arguments, while disagreements about RL morality cause things like political campaigns and civil wars.

[Mike_G]

Nobody agrees about Good and Evil in real life. Why do you expect RPGs to be different? :P

For that matter, RL has the exact same disagreements about objective vs relative morality. The only difference is that disagreements about D&D morality cause message board arguments, while disagreements about RL morality cause things like political campaigns and civil wars.


RL doesn't attach mechanical penalties, nor have spells to determine where a person falls on the theoretically absolute but really as subjective as the DM's views spectrum.

And it isn't even a spectrum. Just nine categories.

[Devils_Advocate]

So my DM has been throughly convinced that LG means that as long as THE CHARACTER thinks an action is evil or unholy, it must be smote.
What does it mean for a character to "think an action is evil or unholy"? Does it mean to think that the words "evil" and "unholy" describe the action? Assuming that alignment is not determined by one's opinions on semantics, precisely what sort of beliefs does this phrase describe?

One problem with the alignment system is that it potentially causes characters to use moral terminology in bizarrely different ways from how psychologically normal humans use it in real life. If you decide that objective morality means that everyone actually has the same moral compass, that's even weirder.

I suggest replacing "Evil" with "Cruel" and "Good" with "Kind". That's actually still awfully vague, but it's sufficiently less vague that it's a significant improvement, which sort of illustrates how screwed up things were to start with. (I'd also suggest replacing "Law" with "Honor" and "Chaos" with "Independence".)

Personally, I'd say that Good characters help others, Evil characters harm others, Lawful characters submit to restrictions that others wish to place upon their behavior, and Chaotic characters avoid restrictions that others wish to place upon their behavior. This, too, is vague, but it roughly indicates the direction in which I would try to take the alignment system were I to attempt to refine it.

[Saph]

And it isn't even a spectrum. Just nine categories.

*shrug* There has to be a balance between accuracy and simplicity. Alignment's best understood as an X-Y graph. The nine categories are just summaries. You could include more than nine if you wanted, or replace the categories with numbers, but that wouldn't necessarily make the definitions better ones.

[Mike_G]

*shrug* There has to be a balance between accuracy and simplicity. Alignment's best understood as an X-Y graph. The nine categories are just summaries. You could include more than nine if you wanted, or replace the categories with numbers, but that wouldn't necessarily make the definitions better ones.


Or, you can just drop the whole concept.

Been there, bought the T-shirt.

The game still works fine. Now you fight Orcs because they raided your village and violated your sister, or fight Drow because they kidnapped your kinfolk to sacrifice to Lolth. Not because they ping when a Paladin gives them the hairy eyeball.

You know, for a real reason.

[Saph]

You know, for a real reason.

Caring about Good and Evil is a real reason. Don't assume that just because it doesn't work for you, it's worthless for everyone else.

[Mike_G]

Caring about Good and Evil is a real reason. Don't assume that just because it doesn't work for you, it's worthless for everyone else.


Killing someone because they don't agree with your version of Good is pretty much Evil. This is at best Kipling's White Man's Burden where we have to civilize the Darkies and the Irish, and at worst, it's a witchburning crusade or a land grab to nick the land from the dusky savages.

Killing someone who's acts are evil to you is good to you. If those acts are repugnant to most of society, you'll probably get a pass. But we aren't all operating from the same playbook, so what's good in one man's eyes may not be in another's. That's why a mechanically relevant system causes issues.

The OP wouldn't have a big issue if Smite Evil and Holy Weapons weren't in the picture. They would just be a nasty religious order who do bad things in the name of a greater good. That's more interesting than them having an "official" Alignment.

[olentu]

It's not a shifting of the goalposts. All NPC's are effectively manifestations of the DM.

The purpose of the statement is try and quantify that unlike the real world where Humans determine whether or not their actions are Good or Evil someone else is Definitively Judging the morality of your actions in D&D.

This is not an opinion. D&D is not a republic it's a Dictatorship, granted it's one where the players can choose not to play, but they can not choose to change the world the DM decides to create for them.

In this way the "Gods" so-to-speak in D&D are the Defining Factor in Alignment.

If your "Paladin" falls from grace whether or not he worships a God and no longer has the use of his Paladin powers it is NOT because he suddenly decided that he was acting out of alignment. It IS because someone else decided it.

In this way the definitions of Good/Evil are definitively judged by NPC's/The DM/The Gods.. or whatever other language you choose to describe it.

Furthermore, even if your particular gaming group has a voting procedure used to determine alignment based issues or any other issues for that matter it is still someone other than an individuals conscience making definitive judgment on the morality if your actions.

Er while the DM runs the npcs that does not make the DM a npc. So while in an out of game sense someone must decide the rules on alignment someone must also decide all the other rules of the game. So it would be the designers and not the npcs that make the base rules and the DM and not the npcs that makes such houserules unless you are saying that the in game constructs that are referred to as npcs made up the rules of the game.



That being said as a default the gods really have no say on alignment. If one removes all the gods paladins will still fall because that is how the mechanics of paladins work.

[DrOctagonapus12]

Wow, this topic has grown into a monster.
All I really made this for was a good argument that I hadn't used yet to get my DM to validate me rolling 2d6 extra on damage.
What I got was a rather well thought out (for an online forum) discussion of the ambiguity of morality. Lovely.

[erikun]

Welcome to the D&D Alignment Controversy. It's one that gets played out on internet forums throughout the world every time a D&D alignment question is asked.

Mind you, it's not bad to look through, but after seeing hundreds of them, most people aren't interested in getting involved in another one.

On topic, if your DM thinks that a Paladin can act like Hitler, Vlad the Impaler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler), and participate in the Rwanda Genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide) yet still maintain LG status, I don't think there's anything you can say that will convince him otherwise.

[SimperingToad]

Take the chart of the alignments as a map. Each area of the map is of a different color. Your alignment shows you where on the map the miniature has been placed. You are not required to keep the mini on the color 'X', and may move it about to another color if you wish. But, if you do move it, you cannot say that you are still on the space of color 'X'.

If you wish to keep the mini in the 'X' color, then all that is necessary is to not move the mini.

When choosing an alignment, if you like the color 'red', then choose 'red' and not 'blue'. If you find later that 'red' is not to your liking, there is nothing to prevent you from going to 'blue'. But, you cannot honestly say that you are in the 'red' area any longer.

Now, if a DM spills Kool-Aid all over the map through such things as: "well, 'green' thinks that it's 'blue', so colors suxorz and aren't needed", then what happens? The colors run and mix, and no one knows on which color their mini is placed. Sound familiar?

'Green' is 'green'; 'red' is 'red'; 'blue' is 'blue'. Why? Because alignments were made to be absolutes to quantify 'lawful' from 'chaotic' actions, and 'good' from 'evil' ones. They are a map showing where the character has been placed by the player within the cosmology of the campaign world. What the individual thinks of it's own actions is irrelevant. Attempting to force it to be so doesn't show that alignment rules don't work. Rather, it shows a lack of understanding of that section of the rules.

Use a map the way it was intended, and there are few problems finding where you are.

[Nero24200]

The game still works fine. Now you fight Orcs because they raided your village and violated your sister, or fight Drow because they kidnapped your kinfolk to sacrifice to Lolth. Not because they ping when a Paladin gives them the hairy eyeball.

You know, for a real reason.

To be fair, most paladins (well, ones that stay LG) don't just attack creatures for comming up evil.

And well, as much as I would like alignment removed personally, it does create problems because it's hard-wired into the game. Clerics and Paladins are the ones messed up the most by this, but theres also Protection From X and Summoning spells as well, not to mention enhancments like Holy.

The sad truth is, remove alignment and a large segment of the game is removed as well, so it's not always an option.

[Mojo_Rat]

Generally Speaking, ive always found its Consistant behaviour tha defines a characters Elignment. If your LG and continuously do Evil acts thinking they are good ones you are still Evil.

Secondly the Description given by the OP of this church sounds strongly LN or Lawful Evil. Ultimately the ends justify the means is most often associated with LE.

Though i never Saw St Cuthburt as being totally blind to the side effects his priest smiting people might have on sociaty.

[Qubanz]

Frankly your DM (And many with him.) sound like well.... MORONS to me.

Lawful Good needs a GOOD part to be good. If not it's Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil.

An order that fanatically follows it's rules and kills both evil and good with equal fervour in accordance to that rule is at best Lawful Neutral.

It doesn't matter what someone THINKS they are. Some can epitomize evil, and think of themselves as noble saviours. That doesn't make them noble saviours. (Unless you think Hitler was a noble saviour maybe, because that was certainly how he saw himself. Hitler literally thought the holocaust was him doing god's work!)

You can't be Lawful Good without being Good, why is this so hard for some people? Because of what people say they are or think they are? It's ACTIONS that matter people, not words or thoughts.

Or is it because of the whole 'what if law and good are in conflict?' thing? I can see that is a somewhat tough question, but still good should win out. If it doesn't the character is really Lawful Neutral at heart, isn't it? If the Law is the most important thing, and good and evil are subjective to it. That's Lawful Neutral.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Wow, this topic has grown into a monster.
All I really made this for was a good argument that I hadn't used yet to get my DM to validate me rolling 2d6 extra on damage.
What I got was a rather well thought out (for an online forum) discussion of the ambiguity of morality. Lovely.
Yeah, welcome to Alignment: the Internet Edition. Ya can't even mention the word without precipitating a bickerfest -- even in 4e discussions, where alignment doesn't even matter. :smallsigh:

Anyway, let me get this straight: You and your party are all Evil. You have an unholy weapon that you want to use against the DM's [comically] infallibly Good NPCs. Tell me what I'm not understanding here, because I don't see a logistical problem.

[Mike_G]

To be fair, most paladins (well, ones that stay LG) don't just attack creatures for comming up evil.


Actually, many do. And if you do try to do the whole "falling" thing, it turns into an Ethics and Morals 101 discussion.

Morals are too subjective in the player's minds to have people not disagree when the DM's different interpretation robs them of class features.



And well, as much as I would like alignment removed personally, it does create problems because it's hard-wired into the game. Clerics and Paladins are the ones messed up the most by this, but theres also Protection From X and Summoning spells as well, not to mention enhancments like Holy.


It's really not a problem. You can easily reflavor stuff to Smite Heretic, which works agaisnt enemies of the PC's faith, but not everyone, you can apply the Protection spells only against appropriate stuff like Demons, Devils, and so on, and we changed the Paladin's Detect to a scaling bonus to Sense Motive. They are good at seeing through lies, but can't automatically ID the bad guys in a room at will all freaking day.

This works fine. It's not such a big deal.



The sad truth is, remove alignment and a large segment of the game is removed as well, so it's not always an option.

My experience is completely contrary to this.

You can still play the crusading agent of goodness, you just have to choose how to apply that goodness, by judging a creature's acts, not reading the letters on his jersey.