How does having an alignment system affect your game? [Archive] - Page 2

waterpenguin43

2009-12-05, 10:03 PM

Alignments are a broad background for you, and there is a deceptively large amount of free personality space in them.
For instance, here are three Lawful Evil character examples:
Character A: Character A is a robber and and a thug. He tries to steal from anyone who looks like they might have a decent amount of money. Occasionally it gets nasty and he kills them by accident. He feels a small amount of remorse, but he needs the money for his wife, captured by the duke of another land, so he keeps mugging people without mercy.
Character B: Character B is a very malific noble. He organizes troops, tortures prisoners, and assasinates other nobles when he deigns it necesarry. He has an especially intelligent imp for an advisor, which takes the form of his pet raven.
Character C: Character C is a misguided ex-paladin, who lost her powers when she listened to a devil, who sayed that a friendly visiting king was evil. She slaughtered him and lost her powers. She has gone insane now and believes that the gods did not actually take her powers, and she still has them and is recovering them by being a blackguard. She still listens to the devil, who is magically disguised as a celestial.
The main problem with alignment is the fact that people can't agree on what is what, but that is also true in real life, so it actually adds realism and you follow your own moral compass, doing what you believe is good or evil or lawful or chaotic. As with my ex-paladin example above, certain times your moral compass is so far away from the regular one that you cannot posibly be good or whatnot, also mirrored in real life.

Stephen_E

2009-12-05, 10:11 PM

Yes, its still evil. In D&D, or at least as I see it in D&D, good and evil aren't about what's culturally excepted, they're about empathy and callousness, kindness and cruelty. Though being too kind to an inrepentant mass murderer isn't being a good person, its just called being stupid. And while a good person can have reason to be cruel in very limited circumstances rape is still always evil. Treating people as things, that's what sin is.

So even under your own definition you promptly turn around and make exceptions. Not impressed.

Stephen E

Stephen_E

2009-12-05, 10:17 PM

Volkov

2009-12-05, 10:21 PM

I dare you all to attempt to morally justify this. Cruelly torture a small, innocent child until he dies in front of his parents who should be bound to stop any attempt at rescue, bring him back to life, and repeat the process again and again. Because I like to use this to show how rotten to the core a BBEG is.

My gut feeling tells me someone is going to take me up on this.

Stephen_E

2009-12-05, 10:36 PM

I dare you all to attempt to morally justify this. Cruelly torture a small, innocent child until he dies, bring him back to life, and repeat the process again and again.

My gut feeling tells me someone is going to take me up on this.

You are placing value in innocence (as do I).
If you remove that value your scenario starts becoming much easier to justify.

There is a novel - Sentience by Terry A Adams
It has two sets of scenes where a relatively innocent young women is first tortured and then patched up in a torturously excruitating way rather than let die.
Both are justified within the novel, and while both are pretty unpleasant, I'd be loath to claim either was evil.

Stephen E

Volkov

2009-12-05, 11:02 PM

You are placing value in innocence (as do I).
If you remove that value your scenario starts becoming much easier to justify.

There is a novel - Sentience by Terry A Adams
It has two sets of scenes where a relatively innocent young women is first tortured and then patched up in a torturously excruitating way rather than let die.
Both are justified within the novel, and while both are pretty unpleasant, I'd be loath to claim either was evil.

Stephen E
Do it in front of his parents, and make sure his parents are powerless to do anything about it.

jmbrown

2009-12-05, 11:07 PM

So far we have two people who quite happily condemn almost everyone in the last several thousand years as evil. Why? Because they did things that modern society tends to view as evil.

That on it's own emphasises one of the problems with having an alignment system for what is in essense generally mediaval worlds, but been played by people from a quite different society.

Stephen

Not just medieval but fantasy. I mentioned in my first post in this topic that D&D is a fantasy world far removed from our own with moral extremes. But we are modern people and we put what we know in our writing. It's difficult to justify something in the modern world like Odysseus massacring the suitors that disrespected his household when any man was in the right centuries ago.

Times change and viewpoints change. The alignment system isn't a problem if you consciously make an effort not to apply what you expect someone in the present to handle a situation in fiction.

Tiktakkat

2009-12-05, 11:21 PM

If every time the player meet orcs, or are sent to deal with orcs, there are no orc children or infants anywhere, this may break suspension of disbelief.

Why?
I can think of dozens of fantasy stories and adventure concepts where no children would be present, or if present need to be fought.
How does not having them suspend any aspect of disbelief?

And it's not just orc babies, its orc (or kobold, or drow) non-combatants in general. Even if you impose a ruling that baby anything with a non-Always alignment, always detect as Neutral, you are frequently going to run into things which it might be questionable to kill, even if they are Evil.

Why?
As above, where is it stated that some minimum percentage of encounters, combat or non-combat, must somehow involve the mates and children of the general adversaries?

The suggested "no orc babies" bit seems like its a "Never throw anything at the players that they might ask moral questions about"- which is just a reversion to "black and white" gaming.

So?
Just because the morality is black and white does not mean you cannot walk the line between them, or even cross the line into less than saintly activity. It just means that the morality is obvious to the audience. What is wrong with that?

(the Lord of the Rings movie solved "No orc babies" by saying there are no orc babies- they come into being fully grown. Which may be an interesting option- but it doesn't fit with D&D as written)

Not exactly. It said those particular enhanced orcs were spawned fully grown, there are references to orcs having families in Tolkien. The movie simply acknowledged what the books did, that fighting orc babies was not something particularly heroic and worthy of inclusion in the saga.

Consider fantasy fiction in general. How much of Gold and Silver Age fantasy involved hunting down children?
Conan killed how many children in the course of his adventures?
Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser?
John Carter?
Corwin of Amber?
Harold Shea?

Quite a few villains in those, and other stories, did, but it was not part of the general job description of the heroes. There is a reason for that.

and in MM4, which outlines orc society, it says the most common exception to Often Chaotic Evil, is Chaotic Neutral. Not Neutral Evil.

That is nice, but hardly of significant relevance.

House ruling detect evil back to the AD&D version is an option, but it is not entirely consistant with most of the game material. Especially since there is no Know Alignment spell: it appears to have been subsumed into the 4 Detect spells.

Just telling the ex-AD&D players that what they have is the equivalent of 1/4 of Know Alignment - and to treat it as such, makes more sense to me.

Then you are stuck with Evildar and the problems it causes.
I would rather recreate the know alignment spell at that rate.

"self defense" can seem like a pretty iffy claim when the being that is attacked for "being evil" is not doing anything, nor is it even aware you are there till attacked.

Not doing anything at the moment.
Obviously it must have done something at some point in time to be Evil in the first place, impure thoughts alone are far from sufficient.
Should murderers not be pursued simply because they are not murdering anyone at the moment?

It might be valid in AD&D, but not 3rd ed as written.

Well actually, it is, saccharine pseudo-morality of the BoED notwithstanding. And particularly if you include:

Kobolds are a player race in Races of the Dragon- and a bit less evil than some people might think.

Kobolds in Races of the Dragon are one of the most egregious examples of the inverted morality of excusing excess on the part of those claiming to be "victims" that I have ever seen. It is worse than the pap of the BoED, and that is saying something.

It's like "Objective Morality". If it's so objective then why are there so many arguments. If they're so universal then why are there so many arguments.

Why?
Because most people never want to be judged Evil for their sins, they only want people to consider the Evil of others.
Sometimes they just want to try and assert a system whereby what they do is always acceptable, but if anyone does something against them it is always Evil.
Neither proves any flaw in the so-called "universal" morality, only the flaws in the person seeking the exemption for their own transgressions.

As for your example of The Agent in Serenity, you are missing some critical things.
First, there is no difference between his "internal" and "external" alignments. He is Lawful Evil, plain and simple. That he works for a Lawful Good organization in no way changes that. The Alliance is not a paladin, it is allowed to associate and employ individuals of any alignment.
Second, taking the Alliance as a Lawful Good organization, consider the excesses it is capable of in the name of the "greatest good for the greatest number". Between the Unification War with the obviously Chaotic Good Independents, and the Pax chemical killing 30 million people and leaving the 30,000 survivors as Reavers.

Stephen_E

2009-12-06, 01:01 AM

Why?
Because most people never want to be judged Evil for their sins, they only want people to consider the Evil of others.
Sometimes they just want to try and assert a system whereby what they do is always acceptable, but if anyone does something against them it is always Evil.
Neither proves any flaw in the so-called "universal" morality, only the flaws in the person seeking the exemption for their own transgressions.

The people espousing "universal moraility" have trouble agreeing on what those universal morals are excpt in the broadest terms, or in small groups.

As for your example of The Agent in Serenity, you are missing some critical things.
First, there is no difference between his "internal" and "external" alignments. He is Lawful Evil, plain and simple. That he works for a Lawful Good organization in no way changes that. The Alliance is not a paladin, it is allowed to associate and employ individuals of any alignment.
Second, taking the Alliance as a Lawful Good organization, consider the excesses it is capable of in the name of the "greatest good for the greatest number". Between the Unification War with the obviously Chaotic Good Independents, and the Pax chemical killing 30 million people and leaving the 30,000 survivors as Reavers.

I never said he worked for a LG organisation. That would require the Alliance be LG, which IMO it isn't, as you note yourself.

I said that his external alignment was LG in that he was trying to create a LG society. Beleiving that working with the alliance would do so doesn't make the Alliance a LG organisation. People do make mistakes.

Thus at the end he let the Serenity go. Not because his internal alignment suddenly good, although it was possible that he might become so, but because he no longer saw what he'd been doing for the Alliance as contributing to the LG/LN world he wanted to create.

Stephen E

hamishspence

2009-12-06, 11:26 AM

It's the "in the broadest terms" that is the important bit. The basic rules as to what kind of behaviour is "more likely to be wrong than right"

Most of the the time, even when someone is saying "X act isn't always evil" they will also say "but only very special circumstances can justify it"

I find the idea that "No act is evil in itself- it is entirely intent, consequences, or the norms of that culture, that determine whether it is morally good, neutral or evil" to be unusual in the extreme.

That is to say, the claim that, "for every act, you have to justify its being evil or good."

Instead of "for some acts, you begin with the assumption that it is evil, and then the burden of proof is on the person claiming it to not be evil in this case"

The acts for which this assumption should be made, are generally, ones in which harm to a person (physical or emotional) is intrinsic to the act.

Such as violence, or killing, or stealing.

The most commonly accepted justification:

"Cause harm to prevent more, worse harm."

But "My culture doesn't think its harmful"?

Volthawk

2009-12-06, 12:59 PM

IMHO, alignment is more how other people see you.

Foryn Gilnith

2009-12-06, 01:09 PM

hamishspence

2009-12-06, 01:25 PM

Then you are stuck with Evildar and the problems it causes.
I would rather recreate the know alignment spell at that rate.

Isn't "Evildar" killing anything that pings, without any other evidence?

Reverting to the old way, seems like simply cementing the notion that Evildar is The Right Way.

Of course, you could characterize the old AD&D version as
"deserve-to-die-dar"

and the new version as "evildar"- and say the first is a perfectly useful gaming tool, and the second not.

However, it's the same problem- player scanning around and killing things that ping- with no concern for any other factors.

Saph

2009-12-06, 02:20 PM

This debate has turned me off alignment. I don't hate it with even the fury of a dim, dying lightbulb; but based on a few examples provided by Mike_G (among others) I can see how it can impede play even in a very functional group. I'm still happy with my group's take on alignment, though.

I wouldn't worry about it, honestly. This is the Internet - people go out of their way to find things to argue about. I've yet to see alignment cause an actual problem in a D&D game, no matter the edition. If you approach it with the right attitude it's a fun part of the game.

Tiktakkat

2009-12-06, 02:45 PM

The people espousing "universal moraility" have trouble agreeing on what those universal morals are excpt in the broadest terms, or in small groups.

If they agree in the broadest tems, then they have a universal standard.
If they agree only in small groups, they establish the proportion between those who manage to aspire to a theoretical perfection and those who just muddle on through.

I never said he worked for a LG organisation. That would require the Alliance be LG, which IMO it isn't, as you note yourself.

Read what I said again.
The Alliance is a Lawful Good organization.
Lawful Good is just a lot nastier than most people want to accept.

I said that his external alignment was LG in that he was trying to create a LG society. Beleiving that working with the alliance would do so doesn't make the Alliance a LG organisation. People do make mistakes.

There is no such thing as an external alignment. You are creating a false dichotomy. Your alignment is not divided just because you work with someone of a different alignment, or for a goal that is not absolutely compatible with your particular behavior.

Thus at the end he let the Serenity go. Not because his internal alignment suddenly good, although it was possible that he might become so, but because he no longer saw what he'd been doing for the Alliance as contributing to the LG/LN world he wanted to create.

You watched the end of a different movie than I did.
He let them go because he became disillusioned with the Lawful Good world the Alliance was trying to create. He saw the amount of raw destruction that had happened, and likely would occur again, attempting to create it. He realized that he was not unique, and that there were many more Lawful Evil people just like himself involved in the leadership of the Alliance. He saw only one single act, hunting down and silencing River Tam regarding Miranda incident, as no longer contributing to creating the Lawful Good world he desired, and so unilaterally abandoned that mission.
His alignment did not change, the alignment of the Alliance did not change, only a single goal and the actions required for it were changed.

Isn't "Evildar" killing anything that pings, without any other evidence?

No, Evildar is just the enabling device.
Absolutism is the force that drives you to kill anything that pings without needing other evidence to justify maintaining your alignment.
The two are inextricably linked, but the second is mandatory for the first to become destructive to game cohesiveness.

Reverting to the old way, seems like simply cementing the notion that Evildar is The Right Way.

No.
Absolutism is the Right Way to interpret the alignments.
It does not establish it as the Right Way to play the game.
Again, the two are distinct.

Of course, you could characterize the old AD&D version as
"deserve-to-die-dar"

You could, except this is where you come upon a major disconnect concerning the alignment system.

Single alignment parties were never mandated, encouraged, or even generally suggested, with the sole focus of the game being to attempt to destroy every other alignment.

You should, as player and DM, interpret the alignment system as a set of absolute factors.
You should, as player or DM, focus the campaign on the alignment system, and require constant absolutist behavior.

Between the two you find the game itself, where alignment is a behavioral descriptor that has an affect on your rate of advancement, while the game itself is predicated on doing funky-bad heroic stuff.
In such a model, making sure we "know" the ones said funky-bad heroic stuff is being perpetrated becomes an experience enhancer.
For the most part, people will have more fun knowing they are unleashing the smackdown on the naughty, icky-bad, nogoodniks, than either angsting over the moral qualms of whether the people they just unleashed the beatdown on were otherwise sterling citizens who did not deserve what was unleashed on them,or wallowing in acts of gratuitous destruction and other icky-badness.
Sure that is simplistic. It is a game! You do not play Monopoly to wallow, happily or unhappily, over the image of your opponents running around barefoot with barrels serving as clothing when you bankrupt them. Why should D&D have any more complex an underlying morality?

and the new version as "evildar"- and say the first is a perfectly useful gaming tool, and the second not.

The first provides a basis for rules interpretation while the second provides a justification for anti-social play.
Thus the difference.

However, it's the same problem- player scanning around and killing things that ping- with no concern for any other factors.

And that problem is with the players and DMs who play that way, not with the system.

Ormur

2009-12-06, 03:08 PM

Which means dipsh*t in my book. They're sufficiently different from Core that they are essentialy a different alignment system.

My point is that the concept of rape as a serious crime/serious evil is relatively modern. Indeed in past times it was often more a matter property rights.
So are people here saying that for NPCs raised in a society where rape isn't seen a immoral or unethical in many, or even most, circumstances are still evil for raping?
I suggest you think long and hard before you answer yes to that.

Stephen E

I'm sorry for bringing real life issues up here but I think it's neccesary in context because rape is still pretty common. Many would also argue that a part of the reason for that is that society doesn't condemn it harshly enough, that it's still viewed as acceptable for a man to rape a woman to sate his urges in some groups and circumstances. There are countries where a large percentage of women have been raped by a large percentage of men. I'm still going to say it's evil and thereby condemning rapists past and present as evil.

It's evil whether you go by Kantian and utilitarian morality. You're using a person as a tool in a very aggressive and hurtful manner and you're clearly causing her more unhappiness than you're gaining in return. It doesn't matter to the rapist because in his mind the person being raped is just an object or her feelings don't matter to him. I don't think it's too harsh to say that a person that thinks like that is evil and that a society that approves of that way of thinking is evil (or somewhere on that scale). There have always been people that didn't rape or do other socially accepted things that they considered evil, like owning slaves.

I'm really of the view that a realistic depiction of medieval society in D&D would put it pretty firmly in the evil category, perhaps bordering on neutral. It may be because the morality we go by is pretty modern but I'm still not so sure of that. Most prominent thinkers in history that have though about ethics at all have arrived at something similar to the broad absolute morality people refer to. If they didn't take it quite as far as ethicists of the modern period it's because the prejudices of their society didn't allow them that. Some didn't presume equality between men and women, slaves and free men etc. but modern readers can't help noticing the dissonance in their thinking. Locke for instance tries to reconcile slavery with natural right but fails.

Mike_G

2009-12-06, 03:57 PM

Isn't "Evildar" killing anything that pings, without any other evidence?

No.

Evildar is the routine detecting of evil rather than using things like deduction, reasoning and intuition to determine the bad guys.

This can lead to the Smite on Sight syndrome, but doesn't have to to suck.

In any kind of intrigue/politics situation, it's way too easy to just use a cheap at will ability and can often short curcuit important hunks of RP and investigation. Yes, a DM can get around it, but sometimes that's silly, especially at low levels, where it makes no sense for the 1st level commoner scullery boy in the Baron's manor who had been bribed to poison him to have any magical defenses to detection. In a low level investiagtion, the combination of Detect Evil and detect magic can pretty much screw most reasonable plans.

This is a problem with the Paladin ability more than the spell, since casting the spell devours resources, and isn't something that you can do every time you meet someone.

Reverting to the old way, seems like simply cementing the notion that Evildar is The Right Way.

No.

The idea is that a Paladin should be sensetive to great evil. This makes the "devil disguised as a Solar" harder to pull off.

It's not supposed to be a way to shortcut every social interaction. There's no good reason for a paladin not to Detect Evil on everyone he meets. Even without the smiting, this is a clear "Don't trust the injured commoner's story," signal. It makes it nigh impossible for an evil creature to gain a Paladin's confidence, regardless of how sneaky they are, how good they are at bluffing, or how minor their evil without magic.

In older editions, the wounded peasant who begs you to rescue his daughter and tells you the way to lead you into the bandit ambush would succeed or fail based on RP and PC intelligence. Now, it's a cheap at will ability.

Of course, you could characterize the old AD&D version as
"deserve-to-die-dar"

and the new version as "evildar"- and say the first is a perfectly useful gaming tool, and the second not.

You could if you wanted to be completely disingenuous.

You could also call the old version Detect Great Evil and the new one Detect Color of Jersey.

SimperingToad

2009-12-06, 07:40 PM

I wouldn't worry about it, honestly. This is the Internet - people go out of their way to find things to argue about. I've yet to see alignment cause an actual problem in a D&D game, no matter the edition. If you approach it with the right attitude it's a fun part of the game.

I would also add 'with understanding of it's function within the game'. Some seem to have a bit of difficulty with this, putting the cart before the horse. But, like you, I've not personally seen much difficulty with it.

I can only guess that some want to do anything they please in-game and be morally justified in doing so.

And to directly answer the OP, it has made things easy to tell which teams the 'players' are playing for. Thank you for asking. Your opening paragraph seems quite correct IMHO.

Stephen_E

2009-12-06, 09:11 PM

There is no such thing as an external alignment. You are creating a false dichotomy. Your alignment is not divided just because you work with someone of a different alignment, or for a goal that is not absolutely compatible with your particular behavior.

I disagree.

IMHO it's a good way to handle the fact that what people quite sincerely believe, support and promote on the larger scale often has little relationship to how they operate on the personal level.
One of the reasons for the classic line about been human means the ability to beleive two contradictory things before breakfast.

As for the Alliance been LG.
You do a good job of making my case that the differences of view regarding what alignment people and things are is significantly large that "universal morality" doesn't stand on it's own. It's an idea with some usefulness and validity, but as a central tenet is dodgy as.

Stephen E

Tiktakkat

2009-12-06, 11:43 PM

I disagree.

IMHO it's a good way to handle the fact that what people quite sincerely believe, support and promote on the larger scale often has little relationship to how they operate on the personal level.
One of the reasons for the classic line about been human means the ability to beleive two contradictory things before breakfast.

The excuses people make for their actions are irrelevant to their actions, and how those actions are measured and rated, particularly in a system like D&D.
That humans in the real world have motivations above and beyond those that can be defined by single alignments in D&D just highlights the differences between reality and a game.

As for the Alliance been LG.
You do a good job of making my case that the differences of view regarding what alignment people and things are is significantly large that "universal morality" doesn't stand on it's own. It's an idea with some usefulness and validity, but as a central tenet is dodgy as.

Huh?
No, now you are trying to project unforseen consequences as premeditated intent.
The Alliance did not intend the Pax to kill millions and create Reavers. If they had, then they would be completely Chaotic Evil. They intended it to end aggression. Far from being a bad thing, that is pretty much the definition of a Good thing, especially for the greatest number of people. No more random muggings, or spontaneous violence. Maybe even no more harsh words. Just calm and peace.
Even the Unification War was not the intent. The creation of a single government, without stress and conflict between the various planets was the intent. That not everyone thought that was a good war and it turned to violence was perhaps easily foreseen, but the casualties certainly seem not to have been.
And here's the thing; the Independents? They wanted that peace and lack of conflict too. They agreed it was the same laudable goal as the Alliance. What they disagreed on was not whether lack of conflict was morally acceptable, but the means by which said peace was to be achieved.

Roland St. Jude

2009-12-07, 08:56 AM

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please remember to check your real world politics and religion at the door, folks. These topics are prohibited, even where they intersect gaming discussions.

Scarlet Tropix

2009-12-07, 09:09 AM

As a one shot comment in here:

I've never had a problem [in terms of game design and in terms of personal feelings] replacing D&D's black and white morality with a more realistic one.

And I find that my players enjoy it more.

That said, when you're handling things in such a way, alignments aren't the end all to character development [and never should be anyway], and so alignment is really more like a guideline. With well written backstories and character concepts, my players don't play themselves as stereotypes, but always remain more or less within their chosen alignment.

In fact, the only times character alignments have ever drastically changed, it was through story and not through the actions of a "Violent Hobo PC".

I think the alignment system works as a baseline, but it's also something you're supposed to build upon. A place to start, if you will.

...Tis my two cents.

prufock

2009-12-07, 10:40 AM

I prefer the Mutants and Masterminds allegiances system. It can work like alignment, but also much more flexible.

horseboy

2009-12-07, 03:16 PM

How does it affect my games? I don't play games with alignments. When I have to get liquored up and sit through a D&D game "for the team" I leave it blank and the DM doesn't enforce alignment rules, so I don't know, haven't used them since '95ish.

For example, if "no quarter" is given- this is the sort of thing a paladin should refuse to accept, since giving that order is a war crime. And, according to BoED- choosing to make that decision to refuse all offers of surrender, evil.And yet the founding archetype of paladins did just that and it was heralded as heroic and just.

Imagine if you will:
The LG paladin walks up to the CE ogre and smites it with his holy avenger.
No problem, with objective definitions.

Now...consider this:
The paladin who obeys the laws of his society which he considers to be "good" attempts to smite the ogre who obeys the laws of his society and which he considers to be "good."
Who wins? Are ogres inherently evil because their societies are different from the paladins? Maybe the ogres consider the paladin's society evil, bevause they keep coming to kill the ogres. Who knows? Alignment is out the window! OH THE HUMANITY!!!
It would depend on how divergent the two cultures are from one another. In what would be LG vs CE then both would just "ping" CE to each other. Not really that big a deal.

If "Fred the brutish thug", is above 8th level, and intent on mugging you, will he detect as evil?
Doesn't matter. You don't pull a weapon unless you're willing to use it. He pulls a weapon and that's all the "justification" you need to kill him, especially if you're a PC.
My point is that the concept of rape as a serious crime/serious evil is relatively modern. Indeed in past times it was often more a matter property rights.
So are people here saying that for NPCs raised in a society where rape isn't seen a immoral or unethical in many, or even most, circumstances are still evil for raping?
I suggest you think long and hard before you answer yes to that.
That's flirting with one of my core problems with the alignment system. How could a world actually function with "Objective" morality? There's know alignment/Detect X (Depending on the edition), contact outer plane, gate, plus falling paladins/clerics to objectively show and tell the good or evil. There would have to be proselytizing solars walking amongst the orcs letting them know what they're doing is wrong in an effort to save them just as the demons slinking amongst humanity tempting them into wrong. Such a world would have to look so different from anything on our own world that many players would not be able to relate to such a setting and definitely not be a feudal social structure.

Isn't "Evildar" killing anything that pings, without any other evidence?What other evidence do you really need? The Powers That Be that decide who is good and evil has labeled him naughty in their sight. Really the only difference between "Deserve-to-die-dar" and a 3.x Paladin's Headband of DM Fiat is that one takes up a magic Item slot a mechanically weak class needs anyways.

hamishspence

2009-12-07, 03:34 PM

And yet the founding archetype of paladins did just that and it was heralded as heroic and just.

Hence the whole "are moral and cultural relativism valid for D&D?" thing.

The PHB doesn't give an answer.

Tiktakkat

2009-12-07, 03:53 PM

Hence the whole "are moral and cultural relativism valid for D&D?" thing.

The PHB doesn't give an answer.

Yes it does.
It acknowledges that there are different ways of following each alignment, thus explicitly acknowledging cultural differences.

However, and this is where the lack of an explicit statement is taken as evidence that wholesale moral relativism is relevant, it does not directly state that the direct standards of each alignment remain.
Good is still Good, and Evil is still Evil, though you may pursue them in different ways.
While this may seem to approach the absurd in some cases (Are the Evil guys that sacrifice people by flaying not-really-evil because of the Evil guys that sacrifice people by eating them alive?), to the more relevant posers (If the Lawful Good people ban all arcane necromancy spells by law but the Chaotic Good people rely on social custom and flash mobs to deal with would be Necromancers, is necromancy by default Evil?), to the truly difficult (If active disputation of the societal standards leads to unrest, which includes physical violence, is banning dissent incompatible with the Lawful Good alignment?), it is at its base a relatively simple thing to deal with.
That conflicts still remain (the Good people that routinely flay criminals as punishment disagree with the Good people that engage in ritualized "eating of the dead" as a rite as to which Evil people to fight first, the Good people who think false life is a useful spell think the Good people who kill anyone casting necromancy spells are whackos, and the Lawful Good people who embrace debate loathe the Lawful Good people who repress the least dissent) should not be taken as a refutation of the alignment system, but a demonstration of its flexibility, and of how it can be used to drive story.

I will also add another note on this:
Do not confuse social tolerance, or even acceptance, with moral judgment.
Just because everyone does something does not make it Good, or at least not-Evil, and may not even make it socially acceptable. This is especially true where something is socially acceptable in one circumstance but not in all circumstances. Indeed that is often the first clue that something is in fact morally Evil, just that the society as a whole does not reject it for whatever reason.

horseboy

2009-12-07, 03:55 PM

Hence the whole "are moral and cultural relativism valid for D&D?" thing.

The PHB doesn't give an answer.
There's also the "Can D&D provide Archetype fulfillment?" question as well.

hamishspence

2009-12-07, 04:29 PM

Most of the books that state "Moral relativism is not valid for D&D"- are "non-core."

BoVD, Heroes of Horror, BoED.

But does that make them wrong?

Heroes of Horror discusses ways of making alignment more compatible with a horror campaign, from "behavioural alignment" (person detects as evil when hurting someone, good when helping someone, neutral most of the time):

to stripping out all the Detect X alignment spells and making Smite X and Protection from X effects general: "smite anyone" "protection from anyone":

to simply using alignment as written and pointing out that since detection spells are so easy to fool, D&D civilizations have simply written them off as not evidence of wrongdoing- and if you start using them and killing based on them, you will be jailed for murder.

But "relative alignment" is considered to "change the system far beyond the scope of this book"

Eberron appears to subscribe to the third type mentioned- combined with a bit of "evil does not mean "kill on sight":

One of the comments on TV Tropes stressed this:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysChaoticEvil

The Eberron campaign setting for D&D 3.5 has gone so far as to explicitly discourage the use of the alignment section of a monster's stats, even for those who are "tied" to a certain alignment. This troper has had great fun backstabbing a good-aligned party with a silver dragon Magnificent Bastard Big Bad. The core book also makes clear that "evil" does not equal "kill on sight" — the tavern owner overcharges for draft and cheats on his wife; are you gonna put the sword to his neck like you would with Lord Dark Von Doompantsington XIII?

horseboy

2009-12-07, 04:44 PM

to simply using alignment as written and pointing out that since detection spells are so easy to fool, D&D civilizations have simply written them off as not evidence of wrongdoing- and if you start using them and killing based on them, you will be jailed for murder.
Except they're not easy to fool. Nobody short of the head of the evil cult them self would be able to afford such measures. If it's going to work 90% of the time and beings of immense power are gating in to tell people, that yes, that's the way it works then society is going to adjust to accept that.

hamishspence

2009-12-07, 04:45 PM

2nd level spell: "undetectable alignment"

The other reason given was "evil does not mean lawbreaker"

horseboy

2009-12-07, 05:01 PM

Which means 3th level, which is what percent of the population according to the DMG? And a bard, cleric or paladin spell, which is what even smaller percent of the population, and well, let's face it no paladin or good character is going to cast that to cover up an "Evil" so that becomes an even smaller percentage of the population.

Yes, RAW says a lot of stupid things that don't make sense when put in a context of a society, what's your point?

Tiktakkat

2009-12-07, 06:39 PM

Most of the books that state "Moral relativism is not valid for D&D"- are "non-core."

BoVD, Heroes of Horror, BoED.

But does that make them wrong?

No.
It makes those who refuse to acknowledge that a single standard exists for alignment in D&D are wrong.
Again, that is not to be confused with different cultural specifics for each alignment, or, more commonly, different deities for each alignment, each with different spheres of interest, and consequent different specifics.

Eberron appears to subscribe to the third type mentioned- combined with a bit of "evil does not mean "kill on sight":

Few, if any, settings are based on "Evil means 'kill on sight'".
Evil means you can kill it on sight without it being a violation of the standards of the Good alignment.

There is a very distinct difference between the two.

Stephen_E

2009-12-07, 08:53 PM

No.
It makes those who refuse to acknowledge that a single standard exists for alignment in D&D are wrong.

Fine. Please provide the cite for that single standard.

Few, if any, settings are based on "Evil means 'kill on sight'".
Evil means you can kill it on sight without it being a violation of the standards of the Good alignment.

There is a very distinct difference between the two.

Can you provide a cite for the claim that "Evil means you can kill it on sight without it being a violation of the standards of the Good alignment."

Stephen E

Draco Dracul

2009-12-07, 09:54 PM

2nd level spell: "undetectable alignment"

The other reason given was "evil does not mean lawbreaker"

Assuming that the country in which the Paladin lives hasn't declared being evil illegal, which given that good and evil are know to exist in an absolute form it is something you can measure.

Stephen_E

2009-12-07, 10:39 PM

The excuses people make for their actions are irrelevant to their actions, and how those actions are measured and rated, particularly in a system like D&D.
That humans in the real world have motivations above and beyond those that can be defined by single alignments in D&D just highlights the differences between reality and a game.

So are you saying that if you create a character whose motivation are extensive and subtle enought that they don't fit your view of the DnD alignment system they shouldn't be playing DnD?

Under that logic I would be forced to agree with Mike G that you are better off dumping alignment.

Stephen E

Starbuck_II

2009-12-07, 10:47 PM

One of the comments on TV Tropes stressed this:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysChaoticEvil

The Eberron campaign setting for D&D 3.5 has gone so far as to explicitly discourage the use of the alignment section of a monster's stats, even for those who are "tied" to a certain alignment. This troper has had great fun backstabbing a good-aligned party with a silver dragon Magnificent Bastard Big Bad. The core book also makes clear that "evil" does not equal "kill on sight" — the tavern owner overcharges for draft and cheats on his wife; are you gonna put the sword to his neck like you would with Lord Dark Von Doompantsington XIII?

Wait, Ebberon made evil = jerk? I liked that setting... now it sounds like crud.

Agrippa

2009-12-07, 10:49 PM

Wait, Ebberon made evil = jerk? I liked that setting... now it sounds like crud.

I'd put the bartender at Neutral with Evil tendancies. He's an ass, but not full fledged evil.

Dracomorph

2009-12-07, 10:56 PM

Wait, Ebberon made evil = jerk? I liked that setting... now it sounds like crud.

But... that's what it always meant. I mean, If a full 1/3 of the human population is evil, it can't possibly mean they're all psychotic murderers. Some of them pretty much have to be just mundanely jerks.

I would think that lying and cheating just for a half a copper piece would make you worse in some ways than the grander evil barstuds, because you're hurting people for so little reward. Draining the coffers of the poor louts piece by tiny piece because if you take a big chunk you might get caught.

Foryn Gilnith

2009-12-07, 11:05 PM

Wait, Ebberon made evil = jerk? I liked that setting... now it sounds like crud.

It's not an essential part of it IMO, at least not in the way the Last War, the Warforged, or the magitek is. Eberron is supposed to be sort of "pulp fiction", or something, but I always glossed over the annoying waste-of-ink pulp illustrations. My experience of Eberron hasn't suffered. You can ignore Eberron's peculiarities regarding alignment with about as much ease.

Tiktakkat

2009-12-08, 03:41 AM

Fine. Please provide the cite for that single standard.

I already said very clearly that it is not written in the rules, but is part of side commentary.
I cited a source for some of that commentary, the article by Gygax titled "Good isn't Stupid", and another source in Frank Mentzer.

Can you provide a cite for the claim that "Evil means you can kill it on sight without it being a violation of the standards of the Good alignment."

I already did - I posted what it took to detect as Evil.
If you do not think demons and devils qualify as killable on sight without violating the standards of being Good then there is not much else to discuss.

So are you saying that if you create a character whose motivation are extensive and subtle enought that they don't fit your view of the DnD alignment system they shouldn't be playing DnD?

I never said anything remotely like that.
Such an interpretation of the passage your quoted is solely your own invention, and bears absolutely no relationship to what I wrote.

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 04:34 AM

But... that's what it always meant. I mean, If a full 1/3 of the human population is evil, it can't possibly mean they're all psychotic murderers. Some of them pretty much have to be just mundanely jerks.

This is pretty much what I've been saying all the way through.

And the most common response:

Evil means you can kill it on sight without it being a violation of the standards of the Good alignment.

Even in AD&D- this wasn't the case. If you cast Know Alignment on someone, and it pings Evil- can you immediately kill them?

I seem to recall you saying something along the lines of No- this is only valid when you cast Detect Evil.

You posted what it took to detect as Evil under the AD&D Detect Evil spell. Not the Know Alignment spell, or the 3.0-3.5 Detect Evil spell.

I already said very clearly that it is not written in the rules, but is part of side commentary.
I cited a source for some of that commentary, the article by Gygax titled "Good isn't Stupid", and another source in Frank Mentzer.

Both of which are much older than 3.0.

And "not written in the 3.0-3.5 core rulebooks" means, as you guys keep telling me- not proven to be valid for this edition.

dsmiles

2009-12-08, 05:41 AM

But... that's what it always meant. I mean, If a full 1/3 of the human population is evil, it can't possibly mean they're all psychotic murderers. Some of them pretty much have to be just mundanely jerks.

I would think that lying and cheating just for a half a copper piece would make you worse in some ways than the grander evil barstuds, because you're hurting people for so little reward. Draining the coffers of the poor louts piece by tiny piece because if you take a big chunk you might get caught.

So, what you're saying is that the LG paladin who is absolutely sure that his way is the only way, and attempts to force everyone to live up to his standards, is now evil because he's acting like an @$$? Being an @$$ is not alignment-specific. Being an @$$ is just being an @$$. You can have LG @$$es, True Neutral @$$es, and CE @$$es.

Overpricing for your own personal profit is not inherently evil, it's just being an @$$. Being evil takes a lot more than that.

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 05:48 AM

In campaigns where "humans tend toward neutral" in the sense of being 1% Evil, 1% Good, 98% neutral, this would certainly make sense.

In campaigns where "humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" in the sense that less people are Neutral than would be required to say that "Humans are Often Neutral"- this may not apply.

PHB says "evil implies oppressing, hurting, killing others"- but it doesn't define oppression and hurt. Maybe they assumed players and DMs would:

"know it when they see it"

Nor does it state that all three are required.

If the persons actions can be defined as "oppressing and hurting others" like the guy in an unhappy marriage- who cheats on his wife and allows her to find out, because he knows she will be hurt by it- a case can be made that he is acting in an evil fashion, and may qualify for an evil alignment.

And at the same time- while he's a serious jerk- that doesn't mean killing him is morally not evil.

One of the more interesting things in 3.0 sourcebooks is the Chaotic Evil wizard in Celestia- in Manual of the Planes- who wishes to learn how to be good, and "while he's sincerely trying, he's got a long way to go, and still retains many of the instincts and attitudes of his former lifestyle"

Very much a "changing from Evil to non-evil is slow" concept.

The basic question I am asking is:

Is it killing beings that are evil, in the absence of other justifying factors- that is non-evil?

Or,

Is it killing beings that detect as evil using the AD&D detect evil spell (in the absence of other justifying factors)- that is non-evil?

or possibly both?

dsmiles

2009-12-08, 07:44 AM

Very much a "changing from Evil to non-evil is slow" concept.

The basic question I am asking is:

Is it killing beings that are evil, in the absence of other justifying factors- that is non-evil?

Or,

Is it killing beings that detect as evil using the AD&D detect evil spell (in the absence of other justifying factors)- that is non-evil?

or possibly both?

I believe you just stated that you need other justifying factors to kill anything that doesn't try to kill you first. With this, I agree. So neither one is a non-evil act. The CE wizard still is evil and detects as evil, but like the MotP says, "he's trying." Killing him without further evidence is still an evil act.

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 07:50 AM

My opinion is that (at least in 3.0-3.5) you do need other justifying factors- however, some people in the thread appear to differ:

What other evidence do you really need? The Powers That Be that decide who is good and evil has labeled him naughty in their sight.

The examples I was giving, are intended to illustrate just how iffy "killing on the basis of detect evil and nothing else"

However, for some people, my examples might not be enough to prove that "you need more justification than a Detect evil spell in 3.0-3.5"

In AD&D, I think somebody said, that if someone has to be devoted to evil to ping on the Detect Evil spell- which would logically mean if they "turn away from it" they will cease to ping, and only register on Know Alignment"

Look at what it says there:
The spell does not detect character alignment!
Another spell does, but detect evil/good does not, unless:
1. The character is very strongly aligned
2. The character does not stray from their faith
3. The character is relatively high level (minimum 8th)
4. The character is intent upon approriate actions
At which point they might radiate an alignment aura.

Besides the question of killing a repentant but still evil being (who is moving away from it)

is the question of killing an unrepentant evil being (whose evil is pretty mild, but still present.

my view is, absent better justifications than the detect spell, it's not non-evil to kill this being, either. But, this is difficult to prove, without appealing to non-core sources.

In core 3.0-3.5, you could say "respect for life demands you not kill, without justification- and a Detect evil spell is insufficient"

Same would apply in AD&D if (for some reason) you have Know Alignment but not Detect Evil.

But some will inevitably disagree.

Stephen_E

2009-12-08, 08:23 AM

I already said very clearly that it is not written in the rules, but is part of side commentary.
I cited a source for some of that commentary, the article by Gygax titled "Good isn't Stupid", and another source in Frank Mentzer.

Neither have any reference to 3rd ed

I already did - I posted what it took to detect as Evil.
If you do not think demons and devils qualify as killable on sight without violating the standards of being Good then there is not much else to discuss.

You quoted what it took to detect as evil in 1st/2nd Ed. Not 3rd Ed.

I never said anything remotely like that.
Such an interpretation of the passage your quoted is solely your own invention, and bears absolutely no relationship to what I wrote.

Ok. How are we to interpret the following by you

Originally Posted by Tiktakkat
The excuses people make for their actions are irrelevant to their actions, and how those actions are measured and rated, particularly in a system like D&D.
That humans in the real world have motivations above and beyond those that can be defined by single alignments in D&D just highlights the differences between reality and a game.

You concede Humans in RL can have motivations beyond what can be defined by the alignment system. Therefore that leaves you admitting that a well enough concieved and played PC can also be beyond the alignment systen, which doesn't appear to be what you are saying, or that if they do they shouldn't be playing the game.

If you mean something else please specify and tell me where I misread you.

Just to be clear we are primarily talking about the 3rd Ed alignment system.
Not basic, 1st Ed, 2nd Ed Ad&D or 4th.

Stephen E

dsmiles

2009-12-08, 08:35 AM

Hey, I still play with Know Alignment instead of the various detect spells as alignment guessing tools. The detect spells in my campaign world (and the Paladin's Detect Evil ability) only detect intent.

Thus I present to you the 3.x Paladin in dsmiles' campaign world:

DM: You walk into a bar where there are a sinister-looking man in armor, and a farmer, both drinking an ale.
Paladin: I detect evil.

Now, if the sinister-looking man in armor was just intent on ordering another ale, he wouldn't detect as evil. If Joe Schmoe the farmer over there was thinking about killing his neighbor to steal his wife, he would detect as evil.

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 08:44 AM

This is an exact match for Heroes of Horror: the combination:
Behavioural Alignment + Intent.

Now, the tricky bit, would be if the paladin promptly unslings the sword and runs the peasant through without further ado.

Should they be deemed to be acting non-evilly?

Personally I'd say, if they want to keep their powers, they shouldn't do that kind of thing-

and should instead investigate- maybe give the peasant a firm "whatever it is you're planning- don't." warning.

dsmiles

2009-12-08, 09:28 AM

Exactly. Killing Joe in cold blood is evil, no matter how you try to slice it.

Evidence is the key factor in any detect alignment. He may have evil intent, but until he actually tries to carry out his nefarious plot, you can't actually run him through. And, IMHO, not even then, if you have reasonable access to the authorities, you should inform them and let them handle it. If, you know, failing in his nefarious scheme to steal his neighbor's wife, doesn't carry the death penalty, killing him is still evil.

EDIT: The problem here is, I think, most people don't see this formula:
Alignment + Intent = Objective Alignment System

Instead they see:

DnD Alignment System = Confusion

If you've been playing for more than a minute, and have the reading comprehension of a 9th grader, the alignment system as presented is not that difficult to understand. Hell, I've been playing since I was 7, and it made sense to me then. A character's actions determine their alignment. If you write LG on your character sheet and the DM doesn't feel you've been acting LG, he/she should take your character sheet and change it to an alignment that fits.

I'm just sayin'

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 09:36 AM

Problem is- when trying to provide an "in game" justification for "Killing in cold-blood, without sufficient evidence to justify the killing- is evil"- it's difficult to do so within core alone.

Appeals to "respect life" for Good, and "kills if doing so is convenient" for Evil inevitably results in responses of:

"we don't define the terms that way- and our interpretation is just as valid as yours"

and pointing out BoVD and FC2 on Murder results in:

"Not core- and we don't define that kind of killing to be murder"

And so on.

Sometimes it seems like there is pretty much no act done in D&D to evil aligned beings, that some people won't claim to be "Not evil"

the Good people that routinely flay criminals as punishment disagree with the Good people that engage in ritualized "eating of the dead"

There is a novel - Sentience by Terry A Adams
It has two sets of scenes where a relatively innocent young women is first tortured and then patched up in a torturously excruitating way rather than let die.
Both are justified within the novel, and while both are pretty unpleasant, I'd be loath to claim either was evil.

Foryn Gilnith

2009-12-08, 09:38 AM

dsmiles

2009-12-08, 09:41 AM

Cold blood has more to do with chaos than with evil. In this scenario, running him through is evil; but it isn't more evil because he happens to not be aggressive at the time. It's murder, which is more illegal than protecting a victim. But as far as evil goes, they're both unjustified killings, and the illegality of one killing is peripheral to its unjustification.

As much as I enjoy your justification, let's not get into legal matters here. I don't even want to get into the "Is breaking an unjust law evil?" argument.

It seems that at least three of us are in agreement on the alignment system here. I say we take a vote before anyone else shows up...lol.

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 09:43 AM

And what defines an unjustified killing?

Apparently, not the alignment of the victim. At least for some people.

So- detect evil in 3.0 and 3.5 is not a justification, in itself. At least based on our interpretation of the system.

Are we right, in any sense, or are we simply articulating a view that happens (by coincidence) to match the view of some of the 3.0-3.5 game designers?

Cold blood has more to do with chaos than with evil.

If murder is "sufficiently unjustified killing" then the motive, and state of mind, of the murderer may come into play.

Fiendish Codex 2 (admittedly non-core) gives 3 tiers of murder:

Murder
Cold blooded murder
Murder for pleasure

and cold-blooded murder is considered slightly "worse" than simple murder.

dsmiles

2009-12-08, 09:55 AM

Are we right, in any sense, or are we simply articulating a view that happens (by coincidence) to match the view of some of the 3.0-3.5 game designers?

I'd have to say that, if we're matching the view of the game designers, it's RAI. Not necessarily RAW, but we're meeting the intent of the designers/writers.

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 09:57 AM

It also matches some forms of RAW- but they tend to be RAW in the alignment-centric splatbooks.

Which sometimes leads them to be dismissed out-of-hand.

it's also mostly 3.0-3.5 designers- and sometimes I hear "Gygax thought that was wrong- Good is not Stupid"

But then, Gygax didn't write the 3.0-3.5 Detect Evil spell description.

dsmiles

2009-12-08, 10:09 AM

I actually like the BoVD and the BoED. I still wish they had done ones for Law and Chaos.

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 10:14 AM

Same here- they may have overdone one or two things, or raised a good point then came across as hypocritical over it- unnecessary suffering, but then afflictions,

but the general point- Good is forgiving- Good wants redemption, not death, is one I like.

Same applies to BoVD- Evil is about harm- but not necessarily huge harm. There are small evils as well as big ones.

Sadly there isn't much precedent for Law and Chaos- no magic book, talismans, regalia.

Neutrality has them though- regalia in the Arms and Equipment guide, Book and Talisman in the FR book Underdark.

A Book Of Perfect Balance, to reflect the Underdark artifact, might have been interesting.

But then, these days most Neutral D&D characters aren't about Balance- but simply not strongly acting in any direction, or part-way through a slide from one extreme to another.

dsmiles

2009-12-08, 10:35 AM

But then, these days most Neutral D&D characters aren't about Balance- but simply not strongly acting in any direction, or part-way through a slide from one extreme to another.

I never really liked True Neutral as an alignment choice, personally. TNs are either too concerned with maintaining the balance to stay in any one adventuring party very long, or they're too scared of upsetting the balance to do anything except huddle in their moderately-sized house watching mediocre soap operas 24/7.

EDIT: There's just so much you could do with absolute Law (LN) and absolute Chaos (CN) though. I saw a Dragon article about LN and CN paladin-type base classes. Not too long after 3.0 was introduced, IIRC.

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 10:40 AM

yes, Plain Neutral (or Unaligned, if the term is preferable) works a bit better.

Playing a mini-Mordenkainen- helping out whatever side you think is too weak and attacking whatever side you feel is too powerful, can be problematic when the rest of the party is mostly on the other side.

The Diablo setting had an interesting take on it- the Balance is only about the celestial and demonic forces- for either to dominate that world would be very, very bad for it.

EDIT:
I read the same article- it listed Paladins for all 9 alignments.

The 3 Evil ones were in one issue, the other 6, in another.

While I've seen claims that "Fanaticism is Law taken to an extreme" it seems a bit off- as far as I can tell, any of the 9 alignments can be a bit fanatical.

The corresponding extreme for Chaos was randomness- again- where does it say that?

dsmiles

2009-12-08, 10:49 AM

The 3 Evil ones were in one issue, the other 6, in another.

While I've seen claims that "Fanaticism is Law taken to an extreme" it seems a bit off- as far as I can tell, any of the 9 alignments can be a bit fanatical.

The corresponding extreme for Chaos was randomness- again- where does it say that?

I think I missed the Evil paladins until UA came out.

I think a true LN society would be kind of Judge Dredd-ish. Lawful to the point of...of...I don't want to say stupidity, but man, some of those laws...*facepalm*
Anyhoo, I've played absolute LN before, and it's not easy seeing yourself of as an enforcer of law. Lots of reading anytime you go to another town (or kingdom, or barony, or whatever). Read their laws, enforce their laws. Boooooring. But soooo much fun to enforce the laws within the party. :smallwink:

EDIT: Actually, I usually play CN (if I'm not trying to do something specific with a character). It's a "look outfor #1" free-for-all. As long as I'm not commiting evil acts in the process, that is (or being too goody-goody).

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 10:59 AM

UA only brought 2 out- the NE Evil Paladin was Dragon-only.

There were also minor differences betweem the Dragon ones and UA ones.

CN can be an interesting alignment as long as not played like AD&D 2nd ed (DMG points out a true CN will drive just about anyone trying to work with them crazy) or as an excuse to do evil acts while claiming the character believes them to be neutral.

LN doesn't absolutely have to be an enforcer of all law- they might be more a person who tries to do everything in as orderly a fashion as possible.

A LN commoner would probably be like this.

dsmiles

2009-12-08, 11:16 AM

CN can be an interesting alignment as long as not played like AD&D 2nd ed (DMG points out a true CN will drive just about anyone trying to work with them crazy) or as an excuse to do evil acts while claiming the character believes them to be neutral.

It does drive most people crazy, but I think that's just a side effect of being CN in any edition. Imagine trying to DM for an entire party of true CN adventurers. "Let's go this way." "No, this way!" "No, no. THIS way!!"

LN doesn't absolutely have to be an enforcer of all law- they might be more a person who tries to do everything in as orderly a fashion as possible.

A LN commoner would probably be like this.

But it was soooo much fun to play him that way...:smallfrown:

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 11:22 AM

Works best for someone with the power to back it up.

Giving him a bit of discretion as to what laws to enforce, might help produce a bit of variety. Especially if he places Order over Law.

"Your laws result in disorder- and I'm here to show you the Right Way" might make a good credo for a LN cleric of an ideal (Law) or a Dragon Magazine LN paladin.

dsmiles

2009-12-08, 11:31 AM

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 11:47 AM

dsmiles

2009-12-08, 11:52 AM

There is a lot players can do with alignment without insisting on cutting against the basic assumptions.

Such as insisting on trying to play a paladin as a guy that tortures all his enemies for pleasure, and saying

"the guy's culture considers it normal and good, therefore the guy can be good."

Alignment is flexible- but not that flexible.

I think we're wasting good arguments on each other here. We seem to agree that the alignment system works (for the most part). Where did all the people that were arguing about this go?

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 12:45 PM

Tiki Snakes

2009-12-08, 12:56 PM

Actually, I think anyone who didn't have an entirely firm opinion already seems to have publically declared that they have been turned off of alignment and left altogether, hence the peace and quiet, I guess.

but hey, you two seem to be enjoying yourselves. Don't let a little thing like a lack of opposition stop you. :smallsmile:

dsmiles

2009-12-08, 12:56 PM

For some reason, I feel like they're just re-feuling their flamethrowers.

jmbrown

2009-12-08, 01:29 PM

I figured if we're lucky, they might read the arguments before insisting that the alignment system doesn't work the way we are suggesting it does.

You never know, maybe the thread will mutate into a:

"How the alignment system affected my game- for the better- by giving me interesting ideas and possibilities based on the existing alignment books"

thread. :smallamused:

I will say that this thread has given me a new outlook on alignment if not completely strengthened my resolve that D&D's alignment is a good thing in respect to a game of heroic fantasy. I think it was the argument that the Alliance in the 'Verse is a LG organization that made me reread over the alignment section of every D&D publication and realize how drastically it's changed between Gygax's writing in AD&D to Monte Cook's writing in 3E.

Lawful Good organizations take whatever sacrifices are necessary to protect people as a whole with as little damage done as possible. If covering up the truth, erasing the past, and restricting freedom keeps people safe then is that not good? People crave freedom, but it's a double sided coin; live in a hostile, poverty stricken world but have your freedom or live in a modernized, developed and safe world under a watchful eye. It's not like A Brave New World with genetic engineering and enforced racism which restricts people by class, it's a government that keeps people safe and the only way to be truly safe is to give up some of your freedoms.

So, yeah. This topic has definitely made me appreciate the alignment-system-that-was and give my characters a different outlook on their alignments. I can't say I've ever been in a game where alignment has been a problem but at least I have some ideas for future characters.

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 01:44 PM

The erasing the past, covering up the truth, etc, may possibly fall under:

"Is lying/deceit etc evil if done with the sole motive of protecting people from a worse threat?"

According to BoVD- no- lying is not inherently evil- but very morally risky- and very easy to end up resulting in evil.

A culture which avoided the pitfalls might manage to be Lawful Good.

Azure City in OoTS might have a bit of that:

"You didn't think Lawful Good automatically meant free speech, did you?"

plus its massive cover-up of all info relating to the gates.

It might have indulged in more than a little questionable activity (War & XPs goes into this in the sidebars)

but, it was, technically, a Lawful Good civilization.

dsmiles

2009-12-08, 01:53 PM

If unchecked, the Awful Lawful (Lawful Good), can easily turn into the Children of Light from the Wheel of Time series.

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 01:58 PM

I wonder if there is such a thing as Awful Chaotic Good? So focussed on freedom and individual rights, that it loses sight of what they are there for?

Might be a bit of a stretch, but a slightly fanatical Chaotic Good civilization might make an interesting thought experiment.

Depending on your perspective, Edgar Friendly vs Doctor Cocteau, might be a little bit of this:

(Cocteau's creation being Lawful Good in intent, slipped rather far into Lawful Neutral, Friendly's being focussed on individual rights)

As John Spartan put it:

"You. Get a little dirty. You- a lot cleaner."

dsmiles

2009-12-08, 02:21 PM

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 02:47 PM

one of the most common fiction themes is of a society gripped by a little too much law/order (benevolent but stifling)

But I haven't seen much of "too much chaos/freedom"

Done right, it might make for an interesting subversion.

The aforementioned LN paladin of Torm, might be the hero of the story, and the society whose ideals are freedom- might be the ones who discover they have taken things too far in the Chaotic direction- designing their laws to maximise individual freedom- but ending up with disorder and strife.

A "Chaotic Neutral with Good tendencies, vs Lawful Neutral with Good tendencies" conflict, might be interesting.

dsmiles

2009-12-08, 02:51 PM

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 04:03 PM

Alternatively, the hero could be called in to defend an existing Lawful Neutral (good tendencies) society which is a bit like a Material Plane version of Arcadia.

Facing a Chaotic Neutral (good tendencies) guy who thinks he's a freedom fighter, but has yet to realize that the people of the society think they have quite enough freedom already, and dislike the disruption he brings.

dsmiles

2009-12-08, 04:05 PM

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 04:12 PM

Have fun.

Law vs Chaos might be more fun to design for than Good vs Evil, since (outside of really exceptional circumstances) you don't actually have a strong "X alignment is right" presumption.

(There is that fiction novel where the forces of Evil are actually the ones "in the right" since the consequences of Good actually winning are as bad as those of Evil winning- but that comes under "exceptional circumstances")

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainsByNecessity

Still, you don't have to go that far to have interesting conflicts.

There are also ones that have little to do with alignment- you could have guys who believe in the the virtues of civilization and taming the wild, and those who believe the wild is a good thing, and have both the same alignment, but still at loggerheads.

4E Melora and Erathis are both Unaligned.

Or, the good guys are the ones who believe both can coexist, fighting against extremists from both factions.

Optimystik

2009-12-08, 04:17 PM

Didn't Solamnus, of Dragonlance fame, deal with something like this? Forming a lawful society in overly chaotic environs.

Conan also did something similar, bringing order out of chaos by becoming king.

The dangers of too much CG - the citizens are disorganized or too carefree - easy pickings for a mobilized threat over the horizon.

hamishspence

2009-12-08, 04:22 PM

There's lots of things that can be done with it.

Tiktakkat

2009-12-09, 02:48 AM

Even in AD&D- this wasn't the case. If you cast Know Alignment on someone, and it pings Evil- can you immediately kill them?

I take it your question is unfinished, and the remainder is "without it having a negative effect on a Good (or Neutral for that matter) alignment?"
The answer to that is: Yes. From everything I have seen, however unofficial it may be, that was the RAI of the creator of the alignment system.

I seem to recall you saying something along the lines of No- this is only valid when you cast Detect Evil.

Yes. Theoretically know alignment qualifies as well, and of course it means the AD&D version.

You posted what it took to detect as Evil under the AD&D Detect Evil spell. Not the Know Alignment spell, or the 3.0-3.5 Detect Evil spell.

Correct.
Know alignment gave you the alignment of the creature scanned completely. Of course, it also had a range of 1" (10 feet, which in 3.5 would be 5 feet) as opposed to 12" (120 feet, or 60 feet equivalent), a duration of 1 turn (10 rounds) instead 1 turn +1/2 turn/level, and affected 1 creature per round instead of a 1" (10 foot, or 5 foot equivalent, wide path), making it great to check prisoners, but useless as Evildar.

Both of which are much older than 3.0.

And "not written in the 3.0-3.5 core rulebooks" means, as you guys keep telling me- not proven to be valid for this edition.

Ummm . . . I guess it has been lost in the shuffle, but I was never trying to prove that.
I was stating what the RAW and RAI had been for AD&D, leaving the direct comparison unstated because it should be obvious, and presenting that as why the 3.5 system is (fatally) flawed.

Or, summarized another way:

When the topic is phrased as: "Alignment in 3.5 does not seem reasonable to me. The whole system just does not work."
My response is: "Of course it does not work. The RAW was changed just enough that it can no longer properly reflect the RAI of the original rule from AD&D, and as such the system is flawed from the effects of things like "Evildar" as well as the baseline RAI assumptions of what each alignment meant."

The basic question I am asking is:

Is it killing beings that are evil, in the absence of other justifying factors- that is non-evil?

Or,

Is it killing beings that detect as evil using the AD&D detect evil spell (in the absence of other justifying factors)- that is non-evil?

or possibly both?

It is more:
Being that detect as Evil using the AD&D detect evil spell are utterly Evil, to the point of being as morally corrupt as fiends. As such, no other justifying factor is needed to kill them and have the act be non-Evil, along the lines of not threatening loss of class abilities for paladins, rangers, or clerics, or invoking other alignment based penalties for any other characters.
Additionally, some monster types, including some that might otherwise be considered as PC races in other versions of the D&D, should be considered of their listed alignment with no variation possible short of extreme magic, i.e. the wish spell. As such, they can equally be killed on identification with no other qualifier required as per previous.

Besides the question of killing a repentant but still evil being (who is moving away from it)

In general, presenting such a situation smacks of setting a player up to lose paladin status or the like, and is no generally considered a relevant scenario.
D&D is heroic fantasy. The heroes are heroes, the villains are villains, and heel-face turns need not apply.
If you stress the genre with situations like that you will inevitably have problems with the system.

is the question of killing an unrepentant evil being (whose evil is pretty mild, but still present.

In AD&D there is absolutely no question in such a case. Evil is Evil, and there are not penalties for doing away with it.

my view is, absent better justifications than the detect spell, it's not non-evil to kill this being, either. But, this is difficult to prove, without appealing to non-core sources.

Ultimately, nothing can be proven without appeal to non-core, often completely casual general gossip sessions with the designers, sources. There is just not enough written anywhere within the rules of any edition.

In core 3.0-3.5, you could say "respect for life demands you not kill, without justification- and a Detect evil spell is insufficient"

Same would apply in AD&D if (for some reason) you have Know Alignment but not Detect Evil.

But some will inevitably disagree.

*shrugs*
I quoted Mentzer giving an essential disagreement.
From multiple statements, the article I mentioned, and the content of his novels, I know Gygax disagreed.
I would think the various discussions of alignment over the years has shown that using that standard causes issues with having the Good alignment function at all, seeing as how it means any Good vs. Good conflict causes everyone involved to suddenly stop being Good.
And I presented my reasoning for how the detect evil spell meant a person was as Evil as a fiend.

Sometimes it seems like there is pretty much no act done in D&D to evil aligned beings, that some people won't claim to be "Not evil"

Difficult to answer here. I will PM you a reply.

It also matches some forms of RAW- but they tend to be RAW in the alignment-centric splatbooks.

Which sometimes leads them to be dismissed out-of-hand.

it's also mostly 3.0-3.5 designers- and sometimes I hear "Gygax thought that was wrong- Good is not Stupid"

But then, Gygax didn't write the 3.0-3.5 Detect Evil spell description.

That is absolutely correct.
That is why the system gives people problems.
The spell description was changed but the alignment functions and interactions were not sufficiently updated to match.

As John Spartan put it:

"You. Get a little dirty. You- a lot cleaner."

That is a great example of both the differences between Lawful and Chaotic Good, how they can come into conflict, and how it can lead to violence without either losing their status as being Good. (Well, for the ordinary people involved. Cocteau obviously went over the edge to Evil. The regular police certainly did not.)

Tiktakkat

2009-12-09, 03:26 AM

Neither have any reference to 3rd ed

Of course it does.
Certainly more than your dualistic alignment system does.

You quoted what it took to detect as evil in 1st/2nd Ed. Not 3rd Ed.

Yes, I know.

Ok. How are we to interpret the following by you

You concede Humans in RL can have motivations beyond what can be defined by the alignment system. Therefore that leaves you admitting that a well enough concieved and played PC can also be beyond the alignment systen, which doesn't appear to be what you are saying, or that if they do they shouldn't be playing the game.

If you mean something else please specify and tell me where I misread you.

You almost have it with the first postulate:
It is certainly possible, perhaps even relatively easy, to write enough background and motivations that a character cannot be reasonably assigned an alignment within the D&D game system.
Given that, it can easily be argued that such a PC is neither well-conceived nor well-played, as it is not functional within the rules of the game.

Game characters have alignment, real people do not.
No matter how far you go in developing a character, the game rules can never, and I mean absolutely, unequivocally, cannot-even-be-disputed-on-the-internet, never completely, fully, and wholly model, simulate, describe, prescribe, categorize, sort, or reflect the overwhelming intricacies of the human psyche and the motivations deriving therefrom.
It cannot be done.

It is like trying to run a 1 terabyte program on a Commodore 64.
If you insist on doing so, feel free.
If you insist on ignoring the advice and suggestions of others as to why it will not work, and what other options would serve you better, feel free.
If you insist on complaining that computers are flawed and we should all use some other ananlytical device because computers do not work, feel free.
Just expect people who run 100 mb programs on their computers without any problem to offer opposing views when you do.

Or, reduced:
That specific action will not work =/= You are forbidden from ever taking a closely related action again

Just to be clear we are primarily talking about the 3rd Ed alignment system.
Not basic, 1st Ed, 2nd Ed Ad&D or 4th.

Just to be clear, I know that.
That in no way means reference to Original, Basic, and AD&D (1st and 2nd ed) are irrelevant.
To quote the 3.5 PHB:
"Based on the original Dungeons & Dragons game created by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson."
The foundation you build a house on is quite relevant.

hamishspence

2009-12-09, 03:58 AM

Theoretically know alignment qualifies as well, and of course it means the AD&D version.

This is the bit we have been disputing. Maybe it began with 2nd ed, but the impression I got from reading the 2nd ed DMG was that beings with just0 an evil alignment weren't necessarily absolute villains, and not deserving of on-the-spot execution without a bit more evidence.

I was stating what the RAW and RAI had been for AD&D, leaving the direct comparison unstated because it should be obvious, and presenting that as why the 3.5 system is (fatally) flawed.

Again- it's different- that does not mean fatally flawed.

Additionally, some monster types, including some that might otherwise be considered as PC races in other versions of the D&D, should be considered of their listed alignment with no variation possible short of extreme magic, i.e. the wish spell. As such, they can equally be killed on identification with no other qualifier required as per previous.

2nd ed DMG lists orcs, goblins, etc as plausible PC races.

Interestingly, the Wikipedia article on the differences between 1st and 2nd ed suggests 2nd ed removed some moral ambiguity in 1st ed by removing assassins and half-orcs as PC options.

Did Gygax not have an "assassins are evil" clause? And if he did, how did mixed parties get on if evil beings can be killed with no other qualifiers, besides knowing that they are evil?

D&D is heroic fantasy. The heroes are heroes, the villains are villains, and heel-face turns need not apply.
If you stress the genre with situations like that you will inevitably have problems with the system.

if you judge D&D by the novels, even the older novels, heel-face turns can certainly apply.

And there is a lot more to heroic fantasy than that- there are numerous cases in old-style "sword and sorcery" heroic fantasy where one of the "bad guys" heel-face-turns, and sides with the hero.

Edgar Rise Burroughs had quite a few cases of this in the John Carter of Mars series.

And 'sword & sorcery + heroic fantasy" are what D&D tends to be based on.

dsmiles

2009-12-09, 05:28 AM

@hamishspence: I feel like Tiktakkat didn't even read our conversation...:smallfrown:

Anyhoo, I've been trying to work the Law vs Chaos issue ever since I started reading the Elric books by Michael Moorcock back in the late 90's. Nobody really wants to play Law vs Chaos, they all want the standard Good vs Evil cliche. That's OK, though. I'm still going to use the old 9 point alignment system in my 4e campaign world, maybe I can get some new players interested in Law vs Chaos. I seem to have run out of players here recently (they all moved, it's a hazard of being in the military). Now I'm stuck LfG in a town with no RPG shop. :smalleek:

hamishspence

2009-12-09, 05:34 AM

I noticed some points being addressed, but not many.

This particular complaint:

I would think the various discussions of alignment over the years has shown that using that standard causes issues with having the Good alignment function at all, seeing as how it means any Good vs. Good conflict causes everyone involved to suddenly stop being Good.

fails to address the point that Good and Good can conflict- its when that conflict turns to extreme violence, that people involved start to cease to be good after a while.

The whole point of being Good, is a certain basic respect for life and other Good people, that tends to override Law/Chaos differences.

I find it funny, in a macabre way, that half the time BoED gets castigated for being "too black-and-white" and the other half, it gets castigated for not being black-and-white enough, and raising the notion that respect for life can extend even to evil beings.

dsmiles

2009-12-09, 05:53 AM

Sure, he quoted you, but I feel like he didn't read what was actually said. He seemed to pick only certain statements, specifically the ones that he had already argued at earlier.

Serpentine

2009-12-09, 06:00 AM

I wonder if there is such a thing as Awful Chaotic Good? So focussed on freedom and individual rights, that it loses sight of what they are there for?I think "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" might get close to that. That kid and his gang from Avatar that I can't remember right now could be an example, perhaps PETA and/or other environmental groups, hippies in the height of the '60s in general and some specific hippy-type groups... My boy suggests the Comedian and hecklers. I would suggest (out of my very limited knowledge of it) that V (for Vendetta) could be a "fallen" Chaotic Good, in the same way Lawful Good can fall to Lawful Neutral.

Regarding the question of the thread, I have a vague idea about the alignment system for my game. It hasn't really actually, mechanically, come up - though when it does, I'll have to actually sit down and work it out. Practically speaking, the main impact it has is in character building, as a roleplaying tool.

hamishspence

2009-12-09, 08:40 AM

Sure, he quoted you, but I feel like he didn't read what was actually said. He seemed to pick only certain statements, specifically the ones that he had already argued at earlier.

Yes- and it appears that in his argument, the goalposts are shifting, from beings that detect as evil (with detect evil) are killable on sight, to beings that you know are evil (from Know alignment), are killable on sight:

In AD&D there is absolutely no question in such a case. Evil is Evil, and there are not penalties for doing away with it.

Which is far more disputable. Even in AD&D.

My boy suggests the Comedian and hecklers. I would suggest (out of my very limited knowledge of it) that V (for Vendetta) could be a "fallen" Chaotic Good, in the same way Lawful Good can fall to Lawful Neutral.

Given V's sheer fanaticism (he tortures his own ally, just to "expand her perspectives") I'd say he's fallen quite a bit.

Debates over whether V is CN or CG sometimes occur.

While I've seen an "Fanaticism is Lawful taken to its extreme- randomness is Chaotic taken to its extreme" argument (on the OOTS section of the site)-

I tend to dispute it- and feel V is more Slightly Fanatical Chaotic.

Stephen_E

2009-12-09, 08:52 AM

Anyhoo, I've been trying to work the Law vs Chaos issue ever since I started reading the Elric books by Michael Moorcock back in the late 90's. Nobody really wants to play Law vs Chaos, they all want the standard Good vs Evil cliche. That's OK, though. I'm still going to use the old 9 point alignment system in my 4e campaign world, maybe I can get some new players interested in Law vs Chaos. I seem to have run out of players here recently (they all moved, it's a hazard of being in the military). Now I'm stuck LfG in a town with no RPG shop. :smalleek:

You should read The Time Master Trilogy by Louise Cooper.
Chaos/Law taken several steps beyond Michael Moorcock who was still Chaos(evil) vs Law (good). Her Chaos and Law are just Chaos and Law. No subtext of good/evil.
She has written several books in the same universe but those remain the best IMHO.

Stephen E

Serpentine

2009-12-09, 08:57 AM

Given V's sheer fanaticism (he tortures his own ally, just to "expand her perspectives") I'd say he's fallen quite a bit.

Debates over whether V is CN or CG sometimes occur.

While I've seen an "Fanaticism is Lawful taken to its extreme- randomness is Chaotic taken to its extreme" argument (on the OOTS section of the site)-

I tend to dispute it- and feel V is more Slightly Fanatical Chaotic.My point, with extra words :smalltongue:

Optimystik

2009-12-09, 09:15 AM

I find it funny, in a macabre way, that half the time BoED gets castigated for being "too black-and-white" and the other half, it gets castigated for not being black-and-white enough, and raising the notion that respect for life can extend even to evil beings.

Funny? It completely boggles my mind.

I'll be the first to admit BoED and BoVD have their inconsistencies, but I completely admire what they stand for - an effort to bring modern morality to an archaic setting.

But the most common argument you hear is - "this reference on page X is inconsistent, so the entire book is absurd!" It just smacks of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

hamishspence

2009-12-09, 09:43 AM

Funny? It completely boggles my mind.

yes- I was using the word as much more "funny peculiar" than "funny ha-ha"

On what they were trying to do- some people like it, some people think the whole "mercy to the evil is a virtue" thing is utterly wrong.

Which may be part of the criticisms- some people regarding the core of the book, not just the little oddities, as Stupid Good, and thinking being merciless is what D&D should be all about.

Mike_G

2009-12-09, 01:19 PM

But you don't need the system to roleplay Good versus Evil.

It doesn't add anything but a few mechanical bonuses and a lot of arguments, requiring, or at least spawning several sourcebooks to explain it.

All Alignment should be meta, anyway. Your characters can, and should, IMO, argue over, "what should we do with the Orc prisoners" without ever mentioning Alignment. Is it wrong to kill them? Better or worse to tie them up and leave them? Blind them? or take them along, endagering your greater mission? Or just abandon the mission and haul them back to justice?

Any of these options can be discussed, debated on grounds of morality or legality or practicality without anyone worrying about "falling," or using terms like Lawful Good.

Likewise, Detect Evil doesn't add anything to the game. it takes away things like deductive reasoning, but it doesn't ever add. You want to paly a character who can sniff out evildoers? Boost Sense Motive.

The Alignment system is like Jar Jar Binks. Sure, you can still have a movie with him, but he doesn't bring much to the table and irritates the crap out of me.

That's the Alignment system to me.

You are absolutely entitled to feel differently, but none of your aguements have swayed me away from my opinion in the slightest.

hamishspence

2009-12-09, 01:35 PM

I wonder what looking back past AD&D to Basic D&D shows?

Among other things, Detect Evil detects creatures that want to harm you, for whatever reason, and "evilly enchanted objects"

You could be a party of Chaotic robbers, with a party of Lawful heroes sent to stop your rampage, and Detect Evil cast by you, would have them pinging on it.

And "Know Alignment" detected whether a creature was Lawful, Chaotic, or Neutral.

Hmm.

SimperingToad

2009-12-09, 02:29 PM

Lawful Good organizations take whatever sacrifices are necessary to protect people as a whole with as little damage done as possible. If covering up the truth, erasing the past, and restricting freedom keeps people safe then is that not good? People crave freedom, but it's a double sided coin; live in a hostile, poverty stricken world but have your freedom or live in a modernized, developed and safe world under a watchful eye. It's not like A Brave New World with genetic engineering and enforced racism which restricts people by class, it's a government that keeps people safe and the only way to be truly safe is to give up some of your freedoms.

History shows that those who give up their liberty for security will have neither. Governments do not ever keep people safe, they keep them subjugated. An honest and just government does not need to deceive the populace, rather it has their willing support. A government that is secretive and interfering will always be at odds with the populace.

A LG government would have few, but necessary, laws. Murder, theft, rape, and other such things would bring punishment. It would not enforce its own will, but be an impartial judge when called into service, when one citizen has caused harm to another. It serves the needs of the population, its officials sacrificing their personal gain for the sake of those they serve. A free population becomes a very prosperous one.

By contrast, a LE government is no less organized, however it takes the role of master, not servant. Those in charge will exploit the population for their own benefit. Myriad laws are made to enhance the control of the State over the citizens, such as forcing licences [permission] to run a business, to get married, registering children, or to own property. Under this system, the people live as serfs, or slaves. Neighbor will turn in neighbor in order to enhance his personal position.

hamishspence

2009-12-09, 02:34 PM

A LG government would have few, but necessary, laws. Murder, theft, rape, and other such things would bring punishment. It would not enforce its own will, but be an impartial judge when called into service, when one citizen has caused harm to another. It serves the needs of the population, its officials sacrificing their personal gain for the sake of those they serve. A free population becomes a very prosperous one.

Going by the various D&D examples, this could just as easily be a CG government- Races of the Wild outlines Elven society in a very similar fashion.

As few laws as possible, focussed on acts that cause real harm. Chaotic Good government is not a contradiction in terms in D&D.

By contrast, a LE government is no less organized, however it takes the role of master, not servant. Those in charge will exploit the population for their own benefit. Myriad laws are made to enhance the control of the State over the citizens, such as forcing licences [permission] to run a business, to get married, registering children, or to own property. Under this system, the people live as serfs, or slaves. Neighbor will turn in neighbor in order to enhance his personal position.

This fits very neatly into the Fiendish Codex 2 outline of an LE D&D society.

Jayabalard

2009-12-09, 02:43 PM

A LG government would have few, but necessary, laws. You example here sounds a lot more like a chaotic good government to me.

I think that "few" is really a stretch here; perhaps "few" as compared to the number of grains of sand. Lawful societies, as a whole, have quite a few rules, traditions, and laws. In a lawful good society, they may indeed only limit freedom where it's "necessary" but "necessary" is a pretty ambiguous term.

Mike_G

2009-12-09, 02:53 PM

History shows that those who give up their liberty for security will have neither. Governments do not ever keep people safe, they keep them subjugated. An honest and just government does not need to deceive the populace, rather it has their willing support. A government that is secretive and interfering will always be at odds with the populace.

A LG government would have few, but necessary, laws. Murder, theft, rape, and other such things would bring punishment. It would not enforce its own will, but be an impartial judge when called into service, when one citizen has caused harm to another. It serves the needs of the population, its officials sacrificing their personal gain for the sake of those they serve. A free population becomes a very prosperous one.

This sounds like pure Libertarianism.

I'd put this more Chaotic Good than Lawful, as murder, theft, rape, etc are all very bad things, not ways of expressing one's individuality. I can't see even the most freedom minded CG philosphy opposing laws against that kind of thing.

By contrast, a LE government is no less organized, however it takes the role of master, not servant. Those in charge will exploit the population for their own benefit. Myriad laws are made to enhance the control of the State over the citizens, such as forcing licences [permission] to run a business, to get married, registering children, or to own property. Under this system, the people live as serfs, or slaves. Neighbor will turn in neighbor in order to enhance his personal position.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm..

I think there's a huge gulf between needing to get a dog license and the Inquisitors rounding up the undesirables.

LE would need to be worse than that to impress me as Evil. Maybe unnecessarily LN, but hardly Evil. Unless they, oh, I dunno, arbitrarily denied Marriage licenses to a certain class of people.

Tiktakkat

2009-12-09, 03:16 PM

This is the bit we have been disputing. Maybe it began with 2nd ed, but the impression I got from reading the 2nd ed DMG was that beings with just0 an evil alignment weren't necessarily absolute villains, and not deserving of on-the-spot execution without a bit more evidence.

The 2nd ed DMG did alter the alignment descriptions a bunch.

Again- it's different- that does not mean fatally flawed.

Well, if it leads to Evildar, I consider that rather flawed.

2nd ed DMG lists orcs, goblins, etc as plausible PC races.

Yep, part of the toning down and shifting those races away from pure monster to possible PC. Reference the comments from Frank Mentzer I linked concerning the differences between the two.

Interestingly, the Wikipedia article on the differences between 1st and 2nd ed suggests 2nd ed removed some moral ambiguity in 1st ed by removing assassins and half-orcs as PC options.

Hah, yes. Part of the "Angry Moms" Appeasement Program that also involved expelling demons and devils from the first Monstrous Compendium, then later renaming them.

Did Gygax not have an "assassins are evil" clause? And if he did, how did mixed parties get on if evil beings can be killed with no other qualifiers, besides knowing that they are evil?

Well . . .
There is a story that the Village of Hommlett module contained particular NPCs to highlight how members of a particular alignment system should behave in order for Gygax to use them to help explain things to one his sons who was playing, and who was apparently doing things like having his Lawful Good character steal and murder.
As for how mixed parties got on, the answer is based on the rather simple explanation that characters are characters and monsters are monsters and there is a double standard.

if you judge D&D by the novels, even the older novels, heel-face turns can certainly apply.

And there is a lot more to heroic fantasy than that- there are numerous cases in old-style "sword and sorcery" heroic fantasy where one of the "bad guys" heel-face-turns, and sides with the hero.

Edgar Rise Burroughs had quite a few cases of this in the John Carter of Mars series.

Ummm . . . who?
I can think of absolutely none off-hand. There are a significant number of noble individuals among otherwise Evil races, and an even greater number of deceitful individuals who feign alliance and assistance but turn on the hero when opportunity presents, but I recall no full blown conversions. At best one villain was semi-domesticated, but that was the most.

And 'sword & sorcery + heroic fantasy" are what D&D tends to be based on.

Yes, I know.

I noticed some points being addressed, but not many.

If I did not address a particular point it is because I saw no reason to dispute it or particularly endorse it. I read the other exchanges, and simply had nothing to add to them.

Yes- and it appears that in his argument, the goalposts are shifting, from beings that detect as evil (with detect evil) are killable on sight, to beings that you know are evil (from Know alignment), are killable on sight:

Which is far more disputable. Even in AD&D.

Errr, no, they are a continuum.
Detect Evil reveals a being is as evil as a fiend.
Know Alignment, being more "precise", still reveals who the bad guys are, and in a system of absolutes is equally valid evidence.

I wonder what looking back past AD&D to Basic D&D shows?

Among other things, Detect Evil detects creatures that want to harm you, for whatever reason, and "evilly enchanted objects"

You could be a party of Chaotic robbers, with a party of Lawful heroes sent to stop your rampage, and Detect Evil cast by you, would have them pinging on it.

And "Know Alignment" detected whether a creature was Lawful, Chaotic, or Neutral.

Hmm.

Yes, that is a very important distinction. (Although I do not find the know alignment spell in Original D&D.) It is why I have been careful to note I am referring to AD&D with the 9 point alignment system, and not Original or BECMI with the 3 point alignment system.
Indeed the two functioned very differently, and you faced issues with things like:
"MIND FLAYERS: These are super-intelligent, man-shaped creatures of great (and lawful) evil."
That makes proceeding based on a know alignment spell very questionable, and even proceeding on a detect evil spell difficult, which would mean that as Mike_G said, you would need to use those horrible things, "role-playing" and "deduction" to decide what to do in game.

hamishspence

2009-12-09, 03:28 PM

If you mean this:

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/vi...lawful#p714895

"This of course oft spurs a side-issue debate about whether or not these 'noncombatant' evil beings (though in practice most mates will fight, and some young) are irredeemable. In many cases, the players decide that they might be so -- but it's often easier to skirt the issue and leave them to fend for themselves (almost always left penniless) after the combatants are eliminated.

For some reason, that link isn't working.

And it doesn't actually address the question of whether "evil noncombatants" deserve death enough that an on-the-spot execution, is a nonevil act.

There is also a reference to a Gygax "Good isn't Stupid" article- without a link.

Ummm . . . who?
I can think of absolutely none off-hand. There are a significant number of noble individuals among otherwise Evil races, and an even greater number of deceitful individuals who feign alliance and assistance but turn on the hero when opportunity presents, but I recall no full blown conversions. At best one villain was semi-domesticated, but that was the most.

"noble individuals among otherwise Evil races" is what I meant by Evil (mildly) guys who have a Heel Face Turn- especially if they act in a very similar way to the rest of their evil culture, (but dislike it) and only stop acting that way once the hero or heroine, convinces the minor Evil guy to side with them.

Xodar, of the Black Pirates of Barsoom, in The Gods of Mars is one notable example. Or Ghek the kaldane, in The Chessmen of Mars.

Ras Thavas the Master Mind of Mars might be the "domesticated villain" you mention.

dsmiles

2009-12-09, 03:44 PM

"This of course oft spurs a side-issue debate about whether or not these 'noncombatant' evil beings (though in practice most mates will fight, and some young) are irredeemable. In many cases, the players decide that they might be so -- but it's often easier to skirt the issue and leave them to fend for themselves (almost always left penniless) after the combatants are eliminated.

Evil, IMO. Leaving them to fend for themselves, penniless and without protection does not compute with the whole "respect for life" thing.

For some reason, that link isn't working.

And it doesn't actually address the question of whether "evil noncombatants" deserve death enough that an on-the-spot execution, is a nonevil act.

There is also a reference to a Gygax "Good isn't Stupid" article- without a link.

On-the-spot-execution = evil. "Evil noncombatants" can be redeemed, for, as Robert Jordan wrote it, "none can walk so long in the shadow that they cannot return to the light."

I'm just sayin'.

hamishspence

2009-12-09, 03:49 PM

On-the-spot-execution = evil. "Evil noncombatants" can be redeemed, for, as Robert Jordan wrote it, "none can walk so long in the shadow that they cannot return to the light."

I'm just sayin'.

This is pretty much what I have been saying as well- but I keep getting told "Gygax didn't think so".

Champions of Valor (3.5 Good alignment specialized book) suggested solution- give the non-combatant survivors a little farmland, training, have clerics of Chauntea drop in regularly, and keep a close watch on them.

The point made being that the goblins may be evil through starvation situation, or worship of evil gods.

I've had a look around, and while it's difficult to get a hold of Gygax's "Good isn't Stupid" article (can anyone quote the relavent bits?) it looks like there are sites that go into alignment in some depth.

This one, while 3.0-3.5, quotes earlier editions numerous times. And a big part seems to be, not murdering (for all nonevil alignments), and not slaying helpless enemies in battle, or unjustly slaying prisoners, for all Good alignments- in the various typical codes of conduct for every alignment.

http://www.easydamus.com/alignment.html

So, unless we have evidence that Gygax wrote something along the lines of

"all slayings of evil prisoners are just (whatever the evil being has done, be it minor or major) and never murder",

we have a problem with the: "Killing evil beings for being evil, with no other information of their wrongdoing, is always non-evil." claim.

Mike_G

2009-12-09, 07:13 PM

Evil, IMO. Leaving them to fend for themselves, penniless and without protection does not compute with the whole "respect for life" thing.

On-the-spot-execution = evil. "Evil noncombatants" can be redeemed, for, as Robert Jordan wrote it, "none can walk so long in the shadow that they cannot return to the light."

I'm just sayin'.

Ok, here is my issue with such black and white pronouncements.

They are fine as hypotheticals, but don't reflect the real world issues that adventurers can expect to face.

Lets say your party is in hostile territory, on a mission to rescue some villagers taken captive by slavers/orcs/evil cultists. The raiders can be expected to rape the capitives, or sell them as sex slaves or labor in the salt mines, or sacrifice them to Lolth, or eat them. In any case pretty much awful fates await anyone you don't rescue.

In an encounter along the way, some of the enemy surrender. Now, you have to make some choices. They can't be trusted, they were trying to kill you moments ago, they have a grudge because you just killed some of their friends, and you plan to go kill more of them. You should expect them to try to escape and do you harm.

So, if you take them along, you have to guard them. Not easy with four or five people in the party. Depending on level, you may not have a magical way to render them harmless. Taking them endangers your comrades and jeopardizes your mission.

Letting them go is an issue. You are in hostile territory, they may well meet some of their buddies and join back up to fight you later. They may recover weapons and ambush you in your sleep, they know your numbers, your direction of travel and some of your abilities. They may also aleret other monsters or inform your position to other bad guys.

You can drag them back to town to stand trial, but that gives the slavers more time to escape, and even if you do catch them later, they will have had more time to rape/eat/sacrifice the prisoners, so this decision does trade the safety of bad guys for the safety of the prisoners you are trying to save.

So, what choice to you make, out of the bad ones availible to you?

In my opinion there is no right answer.

Individual characters may well disagree, and that's a good thing. Even if the party is all Good, some may refuse to kill prisoners, some may refuse to let those prisoners endanger the lives of the captive villagers. Tying up or disabling the prisoners may be ok to some and unacceptable to others.

I'm not going to start taking away class features because a sourcebook tells me that spot executions are evil if the party honestly debates the greater good and decides that dead bad guys are better than dead innocent villagers, even if they did drop their swords.

Tequila Sunrise

2009-12-09, 07:34 PM

I'm not going to start taking away class features because a sourcebook tells me that spot executions are evil if the party honestly debates the greater good and decides that dead bad guys are better than dead innocent villagers, even if they did drop their swords.
If you're the kind of good guy who prefers dead bad guys to dead innocents, but doesn't like the idea of executions, you can always do the honorable thing and tell your enemies just that before they drop their weapons.

Tiktakkat

2009-12-09, 11:19 PM

For some reason, that link isn't working.

Hmmm.
I found it searching the site, I do not know how to link to it otherwise.

And it doesn't actually address the question of whether "evil noncombatants" deserve death enough that an on-the-spot execution, is a nonevil act.

What other option would there be?
Kill them later?
Have a trial with an inevitable outcome?
Or leave them alive to starve? (Assuming as non-combatants they will not be able to hunt or what not for themselves.)
Leave them alive and they do not starve but commit other acts of Evil?
Enslave them?

There is also a reference to a Gygax "Good isn't Stupid" article- without a link.

That is because it is an old Dragon Magazine column. Which is . . . apparently discovered with a simple internet search: Issue #38 (back when it was still The Dragon), and reprinted in Best of the Dragon Vol #2.
Here are some selections:

"One of the advantages of AD&D over the real world is that we do have pretty clear definitions of good and evil—if not conceptually (as is evident from the necessity of this article), at least nominally. Characters and monsters alike bear handy labels to allow for easy identification of their moral and ethical standing. Black is black, gray is gray, white is white. There are intensities of black, degrees of grayness, and shades of white, of course; but the big tags are there to read nonetheless."

"A player with a Paladin character asks if this character can "put someone to death (who) is severely scarred and doesn't want to live."
. . .
It might also relate to good as perceived in the past, actual or mythical. In the latter case, a Paladin could well force conversion at swordpoint, and, once acceptance of "the true way" was expressed, dispatch the new convert on the spot. This assures that the prodigal will not return to the former evil ways, sends the now-saved spirit on to a better place, and incidentally rids the world of a potential troublemaker. Such actions are "good," in these ways:
1. Evil is abridged (by at least one creature).
2. Good has gained a convert.
3. The convert now has hope for rewards (rather than torment) in the afterlife.
4. The good populace is safer (by a factor of at least 1).
It is therefore possible for a Paladin to, in fact, actually perform a "mercy killing" such as the inquiring player asked about, provided the tenets of his or her theology permitted it. While unlikely, it is possible."

"The third inquiry concerned a Ranger character. The writer claimed that his or her DM combined with a lawful good Ranger to insist that a wounded Wyvern was to be protected, not slain, unless it attacked the party. Here is a classic case of players being told that (lawful) good equates with stupidity. To assert that a man-killing monster with evil tendencies should be protected by a lawful good Ranger is pure insanity. How many lives does this risk immediately? How many victims are condemned to death later? In short, this is not "good" by any accepted standards! It is much the same as sparing a rabid dog or a rogue elephant or a man-eating tiger."

So, unless we have evidence that Gygax wrote something along the lines of . . .

See previous.
I will also note that Gygax does also say that ultimately the choice is up to the individual DM, but that was his baseline.

"noble individuals among otherwise Evil races" is what I meant by Evil (mildly) guys who have a Heel Face Turn- especially if they act in a very similar way to the rest of their evil culture, (but dislike it) and only stop acting that way once the hero or heroine, convinces the minor Evil guy to side with them.

Xodar, of the Black Pirates of Barsoom, in The Gods of Mars is one notable example. Or Ghek the kaldane, in The Chessmen of Mars.

Yes, I would think of those as well, but neither went as far as to qualify as a villain turned hero. Xodar possibly came close, but he was first introduced as a prisoner and any time as a bad guy he may have had was completely off camera. For Ghek, the kaldanes were never particularly evil as a race, just really weird. (Remember, everyone on Barsoom kept slaves.)
So neither would qualify as villains turned heroes, just as presumed bad guys proven otherwise, at least as I rate them, and I would expect not by general alignment detection standards.

Ras Thavas the Master Mind of Mars might be the "domesticated villain" you mention.

Yep. :smallbiggrin:

The John Carter series were the first fantasy/sci-fi I ever read, back on 35 years ago. Nice to find someone else who knows them as well. :smallsmile:

Evil, IMO. Leaving them to fend for themselves, penniless and without protection does not compute with the whole "respect for life" thing.

See my above list.
And I happen to agree.
What then is to be done?
As noted, are you willing to endanger innocents for them?
In such circumstances, as cruel as it may seem, killing them may in fact be the choice that shows the most "respect for life" out of the available options.

And thus, as I suggested in a previous post, perhaps what shows the most respect for the game and the players is not to force such a choice on them in the first place.

hamishspence

2009-12-10, 03:43 AM

Hmmm.
I found it searching the site, I do not know how to link to it otherwise.
.

Try going to the site, highlighting the site in the browser, and copy-pasting. Maybe there is a letter missing.

He does get released immediately afterward- by the group that captures Carter- and explains the society to John Carter.

He only undergoes a Heel Face Turn when Carter beats him in a fight and manages to convince him Issus is no deity and their actions towards the other Martians are evil.

Carter- on having it recommended that he kill the prisoner Xodar:

"I am no murderer. I kill in self-defence only"

Phaidor is another candidate, though her Heel Face Turn (of sorts) only comes in Warlord of Mars. In The Gods of Mars she definitely leans toward the Evil side.

Tars Tarkas, to whom John Carter "taught the value of friendship" may also qualify at the start of A Princess of Mars - though he's more borderline- a not-so-evil guy in a culture which despises such things as compassion and love.

The kaldanes were egotistical and cruel enough (especially Luud, one of their rulers) that Ghek also comes across this way- as an ex-villain. Also, Martians don't generally raise their slaves for eating- the exceptionally evil Issus being one of the few who did.

And "they're more intelligent so it's OK" raises the question of why its not OK for mind flayers.

Ras Thavas doesn't really undergo a Heel Face Turn proper until Synthetic Men of Mars- and the back cover of that book refers to him as an "evil genius"

The Paladin "swordpoint conversion to good, followed by murder of the new convert" comes across as very, very Evil- I'm surprised Gygax wrote that, if it's accurate.

dsmiles

2009-12-10, 05:42 AM

Lets say your party is in hostile territory, on a mission to rescue some villagers taken captive by slavers/orcs/evil cultists. The raiders can be expected to rape the capitives, or sell them as sex slaves or labor in the salt mines, or sacrifice them to Lolth, or eat them. In any case pretty much awful fates await anyone you don't rescue.

In an encounter along the way, some of the enemy surrender. Now, you have to make some choices. They can't be trusted, they were trying to kill you moments ago, they have a grudge because you just killed some of their friends, and you plan to go kill more of them. You should expect them to try to escape and do you harm.

So, if you take them along, you have to guard them. Not easy with four or five people in the party. Depending on level, you may not have a magical way to render them harmless. Taking them endangers your comrades and jeopardizes your mission.

Letting them go is an issue. You are in hostile territory, they may well meet some of their buddies and join back up to fight you later. They may recover weapons and ambush you in your sleep, they know your numbers, your direction of travel and some of your abilities. They may also aleret other monsters or inform your position to other bad guys.

You can drag them back to town to stand trial, but that gives the slavers more time to escape, and even if you do catch them later, they will have had more time to rape/eat/sacrifice the prisoners, so this decision does trade the safety of bad guys for the safety of the prisoners you are trying to save.

So, what choice to you make, out of the bad ones availible to you?

In my opinion there is no right answer.

There's always a right answer. It all depends on the character's alignment. The LG will want to take them back to the authorities for trial. The trial may be a sham, but the LG is doing right by his alignment. The CG will want to take them along on a "your lives depend on our lives" basis. Eventually, they will be punished for what they did, either in this life or the next, but not accepting a surrender is a neutral, non-good act at best.

Individual characters may well disagree, and that's a good thing. Even if the party is all Good, some may refuse to kill prisoners, some may refuse to let those prisoners endanger the lives of the captive villagers. Tying up or disabling the prisoners may be ok to some and unacceptable to others.

I'm not going to start taking away class features because a sourcebook tells me that spot executions are evil if the party honestly debates the greater good and decides that dead bad guys are better than dead innocent villagers, even if they did drop their swords.

I will. Paladins fall. Crap Happens. Nowhere in the Paladin's code does it say, "No quarter given." As a matter of fact:

• Code of Conduct Rules Text:
o must be lawful good, loses all class abilities if willingly commits an evil act or grossly violates the code of conduct
o respect legitimate authority
o act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison and so forth)
o help those in need (with provisions)
o punish those who harm or threaten innocents

Punishing those who harm or threaten innocents does not mean "I can get away with killing orcs who just surrendered." You still have to uphold the rest of the code, including the act with honor part. Acting with honor includes accepting surrender. Not accepting a surrender, once offered, is a very dishonorable act. Read about knightly virtues and chivalric codes from the middle ages. This is where the fantasy paladin is based.

The chivalric virtues of the Knights Code of Chivalry were described in the 14th Century by the Duke of Burgandy. The words he chose to use to describe the virtues that should be exhibited in the Knights Code of Chivalry were as follows:
Faith
Charity
Justice
Sagacity
Prudence
Temperance
Resolution
Truth
Liberality
Diligence
Hope
Valour

I'm just sayin'.

hamishspence

2009-12-10, 05:49 AM

The tricky part is when you're playing a Chaotic Good paladin-type (Unearthed Arcana, etc.)- where do you draw the "killing this person is murder" line, if you do so at all.

"Killing if doing so would be convenient" is one of the hallmarks of Evil in 3.0-3.5.

Is "killing if letting them live would be inconvenient" just the previous statement, rephrased?

Some people say "Justice is the opposite of mercy"- whereas BoED most definitely doesn't- saying justice is heavily tied to mercy.

Or that "Prudence demands killing evil beings, in case they go on to do evil acts"

Again- this may be taking prudence a wee bit too far.

Mike_G

2009-12-10, 06:52 AM

There's always a right answer. It all depends on the character's alignment. The LG will want to take them back to the authorities for trial. The trial may be a sham, but the LG is doing right by his alignment. The CG will want to take them along on a "your lives depend on our lives" basis. Eventually, they will be punished for what they did, either in this life or the next, but not accepting a surrender is a neutral, non-good act at best.

So, the LG PC has to delay or abandon rescue of the innocent, condemning them to at least a more lengthy period of torment, and possibly death, to satisfy his honor guaranteeing the enemy a trial that he knows would be a sham?

While this is certainly one way to play it, I wouldn't expect every Good player to feel that the lives of some orcs who surrendered were of more value than the women and children of the burned village they had agreed to rescue.

And, if I were a survivor of that village, and you abandoned the hunt for my daughter's captors to drag some wounded orcs back for a show trial, I'd probably try to shove a pitchfork through you.

I will. Paladins fall. Crap Happens. Nowhere in the Paladin's code does it say, "No quarter given." As a matter of fact:

Punishing those who harm or threaten innocents does not mean "I can get away with killing orcs who just surrendered." You still have to uphold the rest of the code, including the act with honor part. Acting with honor includes accepting surrender. Not accepting a surrender, once offered, is a very dishonorable act. Read about knightly virtues and chivalric codes from the middle ages. This is where the fantasy paladin is based.

I'm just sayin'.

If you're gonna quote RL knights, it's hard to ignore the fact that Richard the Lionheart, while commanding the Crusader force with both the Templars and Hospitalers, had the Muslim prisoners taken at Acre executed out of hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Acre

Richard has been called many thing, but never unchivalrous.

Now, you can put your Paladins on a pedestal, and demand any conduct you want, but if you are going to look to historical Knights' codes, realize that their actual behavior was a bit ... flexible in practice.

hamishspence

2009-12-10, 07:33 AM

Heroes of Horror on behaviour which is more than a bit... flexible:

"The character is probably neither evil nor good, but a flexible Neutral"

The Paladin archetype is sometimes said to be taken from modern fictionalizations of knights, rather than the real thing. Which has been argued before in this thread, as being basically thugs in armour.

They're more Sir Galahad, than King Arthur (who, in some legends, ordered the murder of thousands of children in the kingdom in the hope of getting the young Mordred- and failed.)

Also- on trials- sham or no sham, there is the possibility that some of those particular orcs haven't done anything especially bad. Bullying prisoners, participating in the raids, but not slaying non-combatants or children.

This doesn't mean automatically that they will be non-evil, but it does mean that they may not "have committed crimes deserving of death"

The "by sparing the evil creature, you personally have condemned to death everyone the evil creature goes on to kill" claim does have its problems- it fails to recognize that creatures have responsibility for their own actions, not those of others.

It has the same problem as a psychologist who analyses a troubled adolescent and concludes they have all the hallmarks of a future serial killer- so what? They haven't done anything- yet- and punishing people for "future predicted crimes" is unjust.

The psychologist is not "morally required to kill the possible future murderer"- and I don't think, in a 3.0-3.5 D&D context, it would be "not evil" to do so.

Mike_G

2009-12-10, 07:50 AM

Heroes of Horror on behaviour which is more than a bit... flexible:

"The character is probably neither evil nor good, but a flexible Neutral"

The Paladin archetype is sometimes said to be taken from modern fictionalizations of knights, rather than the real thing. Which has been argued before in this thread, as being basically thugs in armour.

They're more Sir Galahad, than King Arthur (who, in some legends, ordered the murder of thousands of children in the kingdom in the hope of getting the young Mordred- and failed.)

Also- on trials- sham or no sham, there is the possibility that some of those particular orcs haven't done anything especially bad. Bullying prisoners, participating in the raids, but not slaying non-combatants or children.

This doesn't mean automatically that they will be non-evil, but it does mean that they may not "have committed crimes deserving of death"

But you do understand that my argument is not about punishing orcs, but endangering your comrades or those who depend on you, in order to protect the "rights" those orcs, right?

As far as RL knights, I wasn't the one who went there first. If you cite an actual knight's code, expect to be rebutted with actual knight's behaviour

hamishspence

2009-12-10, 07:56 AM

Optimystik

2009-12-10, 08:07 AM

"Will I fall for killing these orcs?" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness)

Seems an easy situation to me. :smallwink:

Mike_G

2009-12-10, 08:07 AM

Weren't me who citied the knight's code first. That was dsmiles.

That said- as mentioned, some classes (paladin?) seem to be based a lot more on an ideal, than "military reality" - though it's evolved quite a lot over time, and "rights of the prisoner" have assumed increasing importance.

Sure, you can have a hero who is willing to "stain his hands" so to speak. But you can't easily have it both ways, redefining Good to justify any methods that result in increasing convenience.

That's "ends justify means" morality- and even the Trope Namer- Machiavelli- still called such methods "evil".

Still, the counter to "ends do not justify the means" is that actions, or inactions, have consequences.

By taking the time to get your prisoners to trial, you choose abandoning innocents to their probably horrible fate. At minimum a few more days of rape, torture and maybe being eaten.

What is more evil?

Personally, I would execute, or at least disable the prisoners. I would not torture them for info, and I might even hand them back their swords and tell them not to expect mercy. No way would I jeopardize those who placed trust in me to save them just tp play nice with the enemy.

But that's me. I really do think the decision for each PC would be different, and that's why I don't like the fact that Alignment wants to force you into a box.

The black and white, squeaky-clean morality of the "abolutist" Alignment theory doesn't handle this well. Give me some ambiguity for nice meaty character development.

hamishspence

2009-12-10, 09:28 AM

Positive rights (right to be rescued from wrongdoers)

vs negative rights (right to not be slain without due process)

are always going to be a tricky balancing act.

Some people feel negative rights always weigh at least a little more strongly than positive rights.

Some don't.

All in-game decisions are likely to involve a bit of risk.

Though the aforementioned phylactery of faithfulness might tell the character the right answer- it may take the DM a while to make up their mind what the "right answer" is.

The problem with "consequence based" morality is consequences can take a while to show up- and be affected by later acts- and high probability that a bad consequence will happen is not certainty-

whereas for acts in game, the general rule is that an answer is required immediately.

Of course, the DM might offer several non-evil options, an evil one, and a "make up your own option" chance which the DM has to assess if the players choose to "Take a third option" so to speak.

But it is a bit unfair to allow no non-evil options.

DMs keen on Heel Face Turns might prefer the:

"get them to promise to help in return for leniency and give them weapons back" option- in this case- no time wasted, a possible boost to later risks though.

Jayabalard

2009-12-10, 09:50 AM

I don't like the fact that Alignment wants to force you into a box.I don't see how it does that... It gives you boxes you put yourself in; you are free to move from box to box as often as you like. Since the character is not governed by their alignment (other than when magically compelled to do so), there's nothing to prevent ambiguity or nice meaty character development.

Certainly some classes force you into a particular box (Members of class X must act according to rules A and B or face penalties Y, and Z), but that's the class, not the alignment system.

hamishspence

2009-12-10, 10:47 AM

In the latter case, a Paladin could well force conversion at swordpoint, and, once acceptance of "the true way" was expressed, dispatch the new convert on the spot. This assures that the prodigal will not return to the former evil ways, sends the now-saved spirit on to a better place, and incidentally rids the world of a potential troublemaker.

Even in the case of the "evil creature who wants to die non-evil" this seems a little warped.

Killing creatures because they "might" revert seems a little off.

If the creature has genuinely converted to Good- it would want to make up for some of the wrongs it's done, and just killing it seems like betrayal.

nepphi

2009-12-10, 11:15 AM

I've played a paladin who killed someone who offered to surrender once a fight turned against them. My rationale was that he'd ambushed us and thereby proven himself outside the dictates of honorable combat and safe conduct. When he tried to surrender, it was basically a mockery of the concept of what surrender was intended to be about. Surrender is offered at the beginning of combat, not the end. If you intend to surrender do so forthrightly and without delay into a superior enemy's arms, not after you've caused him harm and spite! The DM still ruled that I had fallen, and I accepted the judgment because gods are what they are.

In short, I continued to be Lawful Good in behavior and intent, and basically served as a fallen paladin for quite a while. I never apologized or repented, because I firmly believed what I had done was right and just accepted my god's will for what it was. My DM ruled that a year of adventuring like that had proven my case for atonement and I was restored to grace. Gods are strange creatures.

Thane of Fife

2009-12-10, 11:21 AM

Even in the case of the "evil creature who wants to die non-evil" this seems a little warped.

Killing creatures because they "might" revert seems a little off.

If the creature has genuinely converted to Good- it would want to make up for some of the wrongs it's done, and just killing it seems like betrayal.

There is some interesting stuff at this (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&hilit=prisoners&start=75) page (and the next page) over at Dragonsfoot, where Gary is talking about alignments, and specifically, dealing with Evil prisoners.

hamishspence

2009-12-10, 11:36 AM

I am somewhat underwhelmed.

When did "respect for life" start to become a big thing when dealing with non-combatants of various kinds?

2nd ed, or 3rd ed?

Also, the idea that a LN or CN group would "slaughter the lot" seems a bit extreme.

I'm also curious about non-warlike interactions. Like the previously mentioned cases of evil humans or humanoids that are part of society- is it acceptable to waylay them and kill them, or does there need to be more justification than "they are evil"?

Like when the society is mixed- Neutral with quite a few people from all extremes, bumping along together.

The scene in Origin of PCs, featuring Roy's interaction with an orc tribe (and his views of his fellow party members, may be a jab at the "Evil humanoids are for killing" concept.

dsmiles

2009-12-10, 11:48 AM

I am somewhat underwhelmed.

When did "respect for life" start to become a big thing when dealing with non-combatants of various kinds?

2nd ed, or 3rd ed?

I think it started in 2nd, but really took off in 3rd.

Also, the idea that a LN or CN group would "slaughter the lot" seems a bit extreme.

CN? Maybe. LN? Probably not, though more likely than an all-good group.

I'm also curious about non-warlike interactions. Like the previously mentioned cases of evil humans or humanoids that are part of society- is it acceptable to waylay them and kill them, or does there need to be more justification than "they are evil"?

Like when the society is mixed- Neutral with quite a few people from all extremes, bumping along together.
ERROR: NEED MORE DATA. I still think you need more justification than, "they pinged on my evildar."

hamishspence

2009-12-10, 11:55 AM

I'm not sure if Know Alignment could be used as Evildar, by clerics, in 1st ed.

(I think somebody mentioned it lasted a much shorter time)

So, when the guy walks into a town where hobgoblins are hired as guards and enforcers, thinks "Why does this town allow normally evil humanoids?", finds an opportunity to cast Know alignment on one (it pings LE) what happens?

The "evil can always be killed" view would hold that Know alignment is enough to justify vigilante killings (or, that no killing by a paladin counts as vigilante- even if he's outside his home nation)

The alternative view, would be, more justification needed, otherwise such a vigilante killing is murder, which is normally Evil.

I tend to adhere to this second view- mostly because most of the D&D rulebooks and novels I read are post- 1st ed.

dsmiles

2009-12-10, 12:05 PM

Even back in my days with 1e, I never followed the evildar principal. My primary character, which I played for years, was a dual-classed (not multiclassed) half-elf fighter 4/ranger 7 though. The closest thing we had to a healer was a multiclassed grey elven magic-user/thief with the secondary skill of herbalist/healer. Not a single cleric in the group to cast know alignment. We learned to find out things about NPCs/monsters (except giants, my favored enemy) using evidence rather than spells.
Even in 2e, none of our clerics ever bothered to pray for know alignment, as there was no spontaneous healing yet.

hamishspence

2009-12-10, 12:32 PM

That's an interesting way to play.

While the argument "All the problems with 3.5 can be solved in the simplest way by reverting to AD&D 1st edition alignment" is in interesting one,

it doesn't follow, that the simplest way is the best way.

Alignment has evolved a lot, from 1st ed, through 2nd ed, through Planescape, through 3rd ed, Savage Species, BoED, Champions of Ruin and Champions of Valor, Fiendish Codex 2, Exemplars of Evil, etc

And some of the game worlds, in both the sourcebooks and many of the novels, have evolved with it.

The fact that its changed from Gygax's original vision, does not mean that change is for the worse.

Draco Dracul

2009-12-10, 12:35 PM

They're more Sir Galahad, than King Arthur (who, in some legends, ordered the murder of thousands of children in the kingdom in the hope of getting the young Mordred- and failed.)

Galahad was so perfect that he was almost completely inhuman, he was the kind of person that while on paper seems like someone you would look up to if you met him in person he would seem incredibly creepy. Galahad is literally the highest possible standard to set, and to set your standard that high is only setting yourself up for failure.

hamishspence

2009-12-10, 12:41 PM

True- but given the amount or rape, murder, and other acts from the various other knights, I'm hard-pressed to find a balance-point- a knight who actually comes across as a decent guy in his personal life.

Sir Gareth might be a possible candidate.

HenryHankovitch

2009-12-10, 12:42 PM

Also- on trials- sham or no sham, there is the possibility that some of those particular orcs haven't done anything especially bad. Bullying prisoners, participating in the raids, but not slaying non-combatants or children.

This doesn't mean automatically that they will be non-evil, but it does mean that they may not "have committed crimes deserving of death"

I really don't see how participating in a slave raid for the purposes of collecting rape/sacrifice/cannibalization victims is anything but a crime deserving of death.

Really, I think what colors these morality discussions more than anything else is the erroneous--in my opinion--extension of modern-day concepts of trial-by-jury, Miranda rights, et al, to a barbaric medieval-fantasy setting. I disagree with the idea that, at least outside the walls or well-patrolled domains of civilized society, clerics and paladins are NOT "judge, jury, and executioner." At least to a significant degree. I don't think this equates to evildar+smite; but I don't think a paladin, upon capturing some bandit slaver in the lawless wilderness, is duty-bound to arrest them, read them their rights, and then drag them back to some random nobleman's court for a "fair trial." A clean execution may be entirely appropriate as a matter of punishment. Trying to do some sort of "help us for a pardon" deal, or some other exceptional leniency, may be a laudable act of good, but I don't see it as necessary.

Thats what the Grey Guard is for- the paladin who is willing to dirty his hands that way. And, at high level, will not lose powers for doing so. What I find silly about the Grey Guard is, there is nothing in their description (so far as I've read) that a paladin couldn't do in the first place. They aren't allowed to wantonly violate their alignment any more than a 'normal' paladin--torturing, killing innocents, etc. It just says they're allowed to do non-Lawful-Stupid acts like ambushing powerful evil foes.

It fixes a problem that wasn't really a problem in the first place, except that lots of people are apparently fixated on the idea that paladins must be retarded, Monty Python versions of holy warriors.

hamishspence

2009-12-10, 12:44 PM

"beating a confession out of a heretic"

among other things. Whether this counts as mild torture on not may depend on your perspective.

hamishspence

2009-12-10, 12:53 PM

I really don't see how participating in a slave raid for the purposes of collecting rape/sacrifice/cannibalization victims is anything but a crime deserving of death.

I seem to recall an awful lot of people insisting that "slavery is evil" is a modern cultural judgement, and "invalid for the "medieval eye-for-eye morality system that is AD&D".

But then, they were responding to descriptions of a character as "Think Viking"

That said, portrayals of orcs have changed a lot.

Sometimes the same author expands portrayals, making "monstrous races" more nuanced than they used to be.

Compare the orcs in R.A. Salvatore's The Crystal Shard, to those in The Orc King, and the Realms of War short story.

It seems like a strong shift from "evil is innate, bestowed by the gods" to "a lot of evil is cultural, bestowed by upbringing"

3.5 PHB does point out that a human raised by orcs is much more likely to be CE than a normal human is- and says this has to do with the culture.

dsmiles

2009-12-10, 12:53 PM

Galahad was so perfect that he was almost completely inhuman, he was the kind of person that while on paper seems like someone you would look up to if you met him in person he would seem incredibly creepy. Galahad is literally the highest possible standard to set, and to set your standard that high is only setting yourself up for failure.

See: The Wheel of Time; Galad of House Trakand
Modeled after Sir Galahad, I believe. So righteous and pure, that he did right no matter the cost to himself and/or others

However, Sir Gawain, in the tale of Gawain and the Green Knight is supposedly the model of virtue. (Except for the whole scarf thing, but he was forgiven that, as somehow preserving your own life fell under the whole "respect for life" thing.)

hamishspence

2009-12-10, 12:55 PM

Discworld's Captain Carrot can sometimes be a little like that.

On orcs:

While "their culture teaches that it is OK" is not enough to turn evil-acts into non-evil ones (IMO) I do think, that it counts as reason for evil orcs to, if anything, deserve more sympathy, than evil humans who come out of a non-evil society.

The humans have "normal morality" of sorts around them- and still "went evil"

The orcs never had much of a chance to learn "normal morality".

Tiktakkat

2009-12-10, 06:50 PM

He only undergoes a Heel Face Turn when Carter beats him in a fight and manages to convince him Issus is no deity and their actions towards the other Martians are evil.

I saw it a bit differently I guess.
Or my memory is going.

Carter- on having it recommended that he kill the prisoner Xodar:

"I am no murderer. I kill in self-defence only"

Yes, but all of ERB's heroes tended to be excessively noble like that.

Phaidor is another candidate, though her Heel Face Turn (of sorts) only comes in Warlord of Mars. In The Gods of Mars she definitely leans toward the Evil side.

She might be a valid candidate for a real repentance.

Tars Tarkas, to whom John Carter "taught the value of friendship" may also qualify at the start of A Princess of Mars - though he's more borderline- a not-so-evil guy in a culture which despises such things as compassion and love.

Definitely the latter. I would go so far as to say he was an overtly Lawful Neutral type in an otherwise Lawful Evil culture.

The kaldanes were egotistical and cruel enough (especially Luud, one of their rulers) that Ghek also comes across this way- as an ex-villain. Also, Martians don't generally raise their slaves for eating- the exceptionally evil Issus being one of the few who did.

True, but Ghek was never particularly portrayed as that cruel.

And "they're more intelligent so it's OK" raises the question of why its not OK for mind flayers.

Probably because while liking ERB, Gygax preferred the morality otherwise.

Ras Thavas doesn't really undergo a Heel Face Turn proper until Synthetic Men of Mars- and the back cover of that book refers to him as an "evil genius"

I would say he never really makes the turn at all. He remains as always a self-interested schemer, who merely moderates his behavior so as to remain in the good graces of the heroes. This as I said, he is more "domesticated".

The Paladin "swordpoint conversion to good, followed by murder of the new convert" comes across as very, very Evil- I'm surprised Gygax wrote that, if it's accurate.

That is directly from the article, and I would say supported by the link to those posts on Dragonsfoot.

And as it happens, that is a bit further than I would go with what could be done. Still, it provides a perspective that I believe is needed in analyzing certain alignment interactions. If you do not know how the system was originally intended to function it is difficult to know how to modify it.

Thane of Fife

2009-12-10, 07:56 PM

On orcs:

While "their culture teaches that it is OK" is not enough to turn evil-acts into non-evil ones (IMO) I do think, that it counts as reason for evil orcs to, if anything, deserve more sympathy, than evil humans who come out of a non-evil society.

I disagree with this, to an extent. Understanding of one's actions is, in my opinion, an important component of alignment, if you want to think of alignment in that respect.

For example, imagine if, tomorrow, we were to discover that grass is actually a sapient lifeform, and that we've spent the last however-many decades torturing billions of intelligent lifeforms by mowing our lawns. If Joe Schmoe is a good man, who gives to charity, has never intentionally hurt anybody, and goes to great trouble to help people out, is he still evil for torturing all those innocent blades of grass every Saturday morning for almost his entire life? I think that the idea that such a thing counts against him is horrible. Now, mind you, if he continues to do it once he finds out, then that's a big mark against him, but if he feels guilty and stops, I fail to see why his culture or lack of understanding should count against him.

nepphi

2009-12-10, 09:11 PM

Stephen_E

2009-12-10, 09:24 PM

That's a weak argument - there's a great deal of evidence that the orcs enjoy doing what they do, and are fully aware of the suffering it causes, and either do not care or revel in the slaughter and suffering they wreak. Yes, it's all they know how to do, but they are not in a complete knowledge vacuum where they could suddenly 'realize' that other people aren't having grand fun when they come a'raiding across the next hill.

But it is possible that they are in a posistion of not seeing those others as actual people on an emotional level.
This is that unusual even today, and in the past within societies with less interconectivity it was far more common.

Stephen E

nepphi

2009-12-10, 10:04 PM

Mike_G

2009-12-10, 10:05 PM

I seem to recall an awful lot of people insisting that "slavery is evil" is a modern cultural judgement, and "invalid for the "medieval eye-for-eye morality system that is AD&D".

But then, they were responding to descriptions of a character as "Think Viking"

But here's the thing.

Let's take the orc out of it. No monstrous humanoids, let's use actual Vikings.

Now Sven Bjornson may be a great guy back home in Norway. He may take care of his sick grandmother, he may help his neighbors, give to charity, serve the community, foster orphans, and be just a stand up dude.

Once a year, after the harvest is in ( I think. I don't know farming or sailing longships so not sure what raiding season was) Sven grabs his axe and helmet, hops aboard a longship with his hommies and goes Viking, to supplement his income.

Now, to the average Irish, Scottish, French, etc adventurer, when Sven and his buddies descend on a poorly defended village or monastery and commence an orgy or rape, pillage and plunder, slaughtering all who resist and ravishing and carrying off the pretty ones for slaves, amusing themselves with a casual bloody eagle, and hauling off the easily portable wealth they are acting evil. It doesn't matter a rat's ass to the PC's whether Sven's upbringing is to blame, how nice he is to his fellow Vikngs, or that he picked a special slave girl out to help his wife with the baking, even though he enjoyed raping another one better.

If your party of Frankish adventurers discovered them camped out amid the smoking ruin of a village, taking turns on some sobbing village maidens, I think some Smiting would be in order, whether they ping or not, as the whole "one evil act doesn't offset blah blah blah."

If you capture Sven, but Olaf and Sigurd get away with some slaves and having a fair trial for Sven would slow down your pursuit, the best Sven could expect would be a walk to the nearest oak tree and a quick instruction in how to dance the Hemp Jig.

This is not some wild thought exercise. This is a normal type of adventure for low to mid level PC's. Go rescue the captives from the orcs/drow/bandits/slavers/cultists. If the Alignment system can't handle it, it's not working.

horseboy

2009-12-10, 10:44 PM

Wait, Ebberon made evil = jerk? I liked that setting... now it sounds like crud.

I'd put the bartender at Neutral with Evil tendancies. He's an ass, but not full fledged evil.

Exactly. This is there for one reason and one reason only: To muddy the waters to provide social cover for the "Evil is Cool" crowd. Back in the "Bad old days" they were largely ran out of AD&D by the precursor of the "Smitedar" Paladin because we were sick and tired of constantly having to reroll characters because of their constant PKing. When 3rd came out VtM was curb stomping AD&D. By attempting to incorporate such asinine concepts they sought to try and make an environment more inclusive for them. Luckily for all concerned MMO's came out and included PvP servers where most of them are off griefing players 40-50 levels lower than them.
You can tell because all the arguments that ham recites from Bo_D are the exact same ones they'd use when we would shut down their "fun".
"What? it's bull that a paladin would go around scanning everyone and that should be 'good enough'."
"But, you can't kill me just because I'm evil, you have to give me a chance."
All were things they would cry because we **** blocked them.

Stephen_E

2009-12-11, 12:33 AM

That's not enough to excuse what they're doing on any sense. It doesn't buy them any leniency on the good|evil scale, they're behaving in an evil way and need to have the consequences of it demonstrated to them. Typically, the appropriate response is force of arms in reply. Sure, it may be 'natural' for them to view these people as sub-life and not worth the time to consider, that doesn't make them right, nor does it require any range of understanding. The only bearing it could have would be to harden the resolve of the defenders. "This is just the way they are, so let's be aware we need to butcher them when they come raiding."

Fine,
then you have just classified 99% of the human population as evil.

Humans remove other humans from the group they consider as "people" on the emotional level all the time. It's not a question of whether they do it. It's only a question of how often, and how many they exclude.

Stephen E

Stephen_E

2009-12-11, 12:41 AM

This is not some wild thought exercise. This is a normal type of adventure for low to mid level PC's. Go rescue the captives from the orcs/drow/bandits/slavers/cultists. If the Alignment system can't handle it, it's not working.

The alignment system can handle it fine.
Character classes with alignment restrictions do have severe problems with that. But that is a very small subset of the alignment system, if it's a part at all.

Players also sometimes have difficulties 1) trying to apply modern day ethics to a mediaval fantasy world and 2) wanting to be told they're deserving of Ghandi awards at the same time as they hack their way through hordes and collect treasure (something not restrained to roleplaying).

Stephen E

nepphi

2009-12-11, 12:45 AM

Stephen_E

2009-12-11, 12:48 AM

nepphi

2009-12-11, 12:59 AM

I do agree with you on that point, Stephen E. The Good/Evil (stupid) arms race never works out well.

Stephen_E

2009-12-11, 01:05 AM

I didn't say, imply, suggest, or even vaguely hint that removing someone from emotional consideration is evil. Actions are evil, actions such as coming over a hill and murdering everyone for their stuff. The fact that the orcs don't think of humans or civilized races as valuable isn't evil in itself, just ignorant. The fact that they go killing people for fun, wealth, and their god IS evil. The same applies to people. A religious extremist can think me subhuman all he wants, that's his prerogative, and horridly ignorant. It doesn't cross over into evil until he tries to use this as justification to harm me.

Debate better, instead of using ad hominem please.

Leaving out the killing for fun part, when humans cease to see others (be they human or not) as been "people" on an emotional level then going over the hill and killing them for gain is fairly standard behaviour for humans, unless there is some other factor restricting them.
It's what makes killing animals for food so easy. If you accept that animals have personalities killing them becomes a lot harder.

The legal system is the major restraining force that stops people going out and killing/looting from those they remove from the "persons" group on an emotional level. Instead you get a lot of fraud ect. Modern societies tend to see people having larger groupings of those they consider "people" on the emotional level. But still once you get outside those people the indifference and even support for unpleasant things been done to them becomes common.

By saying that seeing people as not "people" is ok, but killing them because you don't see them as "people" is evil is like saying shooting at someone is fine (that's shooting as in trying to hit) but if you hit them it's evil.

Stephen E

imp_fireball

2009-12-11, 02:40 AM

What it boils down to ultimately is cultural opinion. Take Euthanasia of a brain dead person for example:

Lawful Good - I believe that the family should have the right to decide. It's not really a thing that the law should be concerned about in all honesty unless the family agrees upon it.

Chaotic Good - I believe that the family should have the right to decide. Wait... did me and LG agree on something?

Lawful Neutral - A court of law should decide. Violence should be held at a minimum. Please sign these papers.

Chaotic Neutral - Dude, the guy's obviously suffering. I mean, he's already dead inside. Euthanasia! EUTHANASIA!

Evil *undecided* - This situation is comedy gold.
----

And just because I feel like it...

High WIS dude - Oh pray, what folly there is in life if you cannot experience it? Perhaps dreams can still be dreamed in his simple vegetable state? But who are we to speculate if we cannot perceive of it ourselves? Oh woe is woe!

High INT dude - When one is brain dead their neurons experience no bio-electrical activity. Clearly that means they are brain dead, as they would otherwise experience activity, considering that is what keeps us alive. I don't get what you guys are all fussing about.

High CHA dude - Why, you two are merely debating semantics when the matter at hand could better be dealt with! *proceeds to make decision for everyone and hence everyone listens to him*

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 03:03 AM

Evil *undecided* - This situation is comedy gold.

More like

Evil: "Why hasn't the plug been pulled already? I have better things to spend my wealth on than medical bills and this vegetable owes me a fine inheritance."

Or, shoot, the subtle evil of feigning concern while scheming behind people's back.

horseboy

2009-12-11, 03:05 AM

Let me see if I have this right.
Because you played with some bad roleplayers who took playing evil alignment to mean they could play stupid, you felt it was a reasonable response to play equally badly and hack down anyone playing evil.

Ah, and here we have the classical "intent" part of the alignment debate. :smallamused:
I was perfectly fine with someone wanting to play an evil character until every campaign with an evil character player in it for a decade ended with them having a PK fest rather than an actual conclusion. Since during the "Bad old days" the players were just toys for the DM to inflict pain and torture on, few actually did anything so someone had to do something. It's not "equally bad" when you're defending the rest of the party, that's the difference between good and evil.

As far as the notion of an arms race goes, if we look at the heroic cycle of good/evil it becomes interesting. You have a huge collection of evil running amok and destroying everything. Good then rises in numbers to thin the evil herd. Evil is forced to flee into deep dark warrens that good can't get into. Good slowly dies out due to starvation. Evil, freed of predatory pressures, then begins to reproduce and reexpand into the environment. Evil is a highly destructive prey species, kinda like bunnies. Literarily, since we can't go into real world reasons, this is why good can kill evil and not be evil themselves.

hamishspence

2009-12-11, 03:52 AM

Exactly. This is there for one reason and one reason only: To muddy the waters to provide social cover for the "Evil is Cool" crowd.

As mentioned- it is more to do with "How evil does something need to be to qualify for having an Evil alignment?" as well as "when up to a third of humanity is defined as evil by the PHB, what does this level of evil mean?"

You don't have be playing an evil party to wonder what the players should do when they pass Evil beings in the street.

For me, Eberron, BoED, Savage Species etc never came across as "Evil is cool" but more "Good is easily corrupted, and the fact that somebody is evil may not be their defining trait"

Or "It is very, very easy for societies, individuals, etc to slip into an evil attitude, toward their "foes"."

Quintessenial Paladin 2 (a third party sourcebook) discussed all varieties, from
"Evil Everywhere" (where 1/3 of population detects as evil) to
"Evil is rare" (where anyone who detects as evil is "probably a criminal, a terrible and wilful sinner, or both" to
"Evil as a supernatural taint" where only evil clerics, demons, undead, and a few monsters like chromatic dragons detect as evil.

And, in general, it took the approach that only in "Evil as a supernatural taint" is it OK to just slaughter them, without investigating further as to what they might have done.

Its not so clear as to what's justified in war or "bandit hunting" though.
And if, as in the given example, the evil beings are "caught in the act" then (at least for some DMs) the adventurers might be assumed to have the moral right to determine guilt and mete out sentence.

But when a war is over- and its not clear who has participated in atrocities, and how much, an "exterminate them all" order smacks more of the worst kind of tyrannical empire, than anything that can be called Good.

A point worth remembering when claiming D&D is "medieval morality" is that concepts like the immorality of slaying non-combatants, the rights of the individual to due process (which was among the things in Magna Carta), all appeared back then- and often before. They just weren't always applied rigorously.

Stephen_E

2009-12-11, 05:14 AM

Ah, and here we have the classical "intent" part of the alignment debate. :smallamused:
I was perfectly fine with someone wanting to play an evil character until every campaign with an evil character player in it for a decade ended with them having a PK fest rather than an actual conclusion. Since during the "Bad old days" the players were just toys for the DM to inflict pain and torture on, few actually did anything so someone had to do something. It's not "equally bad" when you're defending the rest of the party, that's the difference between good and evil.

Sounds like you needed to play with a superior level of player.
I've RPGed, primarily DnD for about 26 years and I've never played DMs who viewed players as toys to inflict pain and torture on (or though I have heard of a couple).
I've also rarely played with people who equate evil with attacking the party. Indeed I've run into people who equate good with attacking players almost as much.

I have played recently with a person who was going to have his evil PC steal from the party. I pointed out Meta-game that my evil Druid with spot up the wazhoo would almost certainly see it and would kill and eat her, with help from the LN Dwarf on the killing part if need be. The PC dropped the idea and that problem vanished. There is very little logic, outside of metagame, for a PC of a party that has formed to adventure, to commit partycide simply because he/she is evil, or because other party members are evil.
Meta-game there are reasons, and they're as likely to be because of players simply disliking the idea of someone else having an "evil" PC as they are due to the player of the evil PC creating a character that would never have been accepted into the party realistically and then taking advantage of the metagaming acceptance.

Stephen E

hamishspence

2009-12-11, 05:17 AM

Savage Species (and BoVD) said a lot about handling an evil character in a nonevil party.

Which can mostly be summed up with "Evil isn't stupid- not even Chaotic Evil"

One of the things I liked about most of 3.5, is its emphasis on how quite a bit of the time, evil guys think they are good, and are ex-good guys who slipped into an evil alignment through an excessively ruthless attitude to whatever their goals are- including the goal of "the good of the many"

dsmiles

2009-12-11, 05:21 AM

Exactly. This is there for one reason and one reason only: To muddy the waters to provide social cover for the "Evil is Cool" crowd. Back in the "Bad old days" they were largely ran out of AD&D by the precursor of the "Smitedar" Paladin because we were sick and tired of constantly having to reroll characters because of their constant PKing. When 3rd came out VtM was curb stomping AD&D. By attempting to incorporate such asinine concepts they sought to try and make an environment more inclusive for them. Luckily for all concerned MMO's came out and included PvP servers where most of them are off griefing players 40-50 levels lower than them.
You can tell because all the arguments that ham recites from Bo_D are the exact same ones they'd use when we would shut down their "fun".
"What? it's bull that a paladin would go around scanning everyone and that should be 'good enough'."
"But, you can't kill me just because I'm evil, you have to give me a chance."
All were things they would cry because we **** blocked them.

Settle down, Beavis.
If your experience in playing with evil characters has been so bad, don't do it. As far as I'm concerned PvP-fests and PK-ing are nothing but signs of immaturity (evil or good). Unless you have a good RP reason to hate another character, or (playing a pladin) have a reason to suspect them of commiting evil acts, the paladin that goes around scanning everybody is bull$#!+. If you're rooster-blocking evil characters just because you can, that's just as immature as a PvP-fest. Evil characters can be loads of fun, if played by a mature player with other mature players at the table (and a mature DM of course).

"DSMiles: Responsibly playing evil characters since 1985."

hamishspence

2009-12-11, 07:08 AM

In that particular Dragonsfoot thread, the "nits breed lice" comment, with respect to non-combatants after a won war,

and the claim that it was merely a fundamental truth being articulated, were probably the bits that made me most think that the 2nd-3rd ed alignment system suits me more.

That said, if it suits the players and the DM, fine for them.

Sstoopidtallkid

2009-12-11, 10:53 AM

hamishspence

2009-12-11, 11:08 AM

Depending on the player (and the handling of the common recommendation in several D&D sources that good aligned adventurers should consider slavery evil) you can imagine multiple ways this could play out.

PC, while LG Paladin, comes from Mulhorand where slavery is accepted- though slaves have much more rights than in most fictional cultures:

"I have no right to smite you- but I won't work with you."

If the PC comes from a much more anti-slavery culture, they might insist on freeing the slaves and maybe finding out what crime's they've committed and gotten away with, and hand them over to justice for those.

Or, they might wish to apprehend the beguiler for what they perceive as magic misuse.

Can depend a lot on how the DM and player handle things- how important "respect for life" and "respect for dignity" is (both possibly violated by slavery of this kind) and how much is justified in "righting a wrong"

nepphi

2009-12-11, 11:08 AM

Leaving out the rest of it, because I'm not disputing cause and effect...

By saying that seeing people as not "people" is ok, but killing them because you don't see them as "people" is evil is like saying shooting at someone is fine (that's shooting as in trying to hit) but if you hit them it's evil.

Stephen E

...no, it is nothing like saying that at all. Just because a mindset makes it EASIER for you to disregard someone's rights does not mean you have disregarded those rights until you ACT.

Me thinking that it'd be nice to steal from someone richer than me because they'd never miss it and I could really use some extra cash right now is in no way the same, comparable, or like unto actually stealing. Actually shooting at someone puts them in danger, and can cause harm even if you 'intended' to miss. It is an -action-, not a -thought-. Evil thoughts can lead to evil action, but correlation does not imply causation. Your logic is flawed.

hamishspence

2009-12-11, 11:16 AM

That raises the

"if a person would commit all sorts of evil (and illegal) deeds, but they don't do so because they believe the law will almost certainly catch them- are they non-evil?"

question.

Some say yes- and that evil alignment requires some evil acts- even if not very many. A person who is inside, a would-be sadist, but on the outside, is perfectly controlled, would be non-evil under this system.

Others say the thought is not far off the deed, and that if person fits "evil beings kill if doing so is convenient" but has never found it convenient- they are still evil.

The PHB isn't very clear on this. Fiendish Codex 2 has an answer of sorts- in the case of Baator, it requires evil acts to get in, evil thoughts are not enough.

And that Lawful Evil cultures tend to design their child-raising, and coming of age ceremonies, specifically to get adolecents to do these acts.

nepphi

2009-12-11, 11:23 AM

I'd go for neutrality. Evil requires deeds. It's the problem of pigeonholing again, even on a spectrum where everything blends together, a system of distinct alignments requires some kind of tipping point to set things truly apart between neutral and evil, and I'd have to argue that it's deeds married to intent. You need both.

Draco Dracul

2009-12-11, 11:25 AM

@DMSmiles: Lets say I'm playing an Evil Beguiler. My goal is to gather a large number of Dominated people who I can then use as slaves in my mansion when I grow bored of adventuring. I only Dominate Evil people, and I never take more than my share of the loot or do anything against the party, I'm just willing to do a lot more than them(always votes to go the route of greatest profit).

Would you smite me?

Depends how Evil the people in question are. Are they the kind of Evil where being an A-hole is enough to be Evil or are the rapist/serial killer actual Evil? If I were a Paladin I would smite you if it were the former as I feel mental enslavement is nearly as bad as murder and certainly as bad as rape.

jmbrown

2009-12-11, 11:40 AM

The thing to keep in mind is that, in D&D, good is constructive and with a purpose whereas evil is destructive with no purpose or selfish gains. This is pretty much my golden rule for deciding whether something is good or evil. Some societies believe in slavery or raid villages for supplies. This is fine and acceptable in their world; nothing says there's a universal law where every action is condemned or approved. However, once slavery becomes open genocide out of racial superiority or raiding turns into wanton blood lust it becomes evil.

@DMSmiles: Lets say I'm playing an Evil Beguiler. My goal is to gather a large number of Dominated people who I can then use as slaves in my mansion when I grow bored of adventuring. I only Dominate Evil people, and I never take more than my share of the loot or do anything against the party, I'm just willing to do a lot more than them(always votes to go the route of greatest profit).

Would you smite me?

You're exerting your will over someone else but there's a definitive purpose to it. Pragmatism isn't evil, but it's not necessarily good. As a paladin character I'd give you a stern talking to and if your mansion was on government owned property I'd try to seize your assets or have you arrested. If not, I'd add it to my hit list and come back later.

There are far more destructive forces in the world to worry about than someone enslaving criminals. My job is to protect against the greatest threats, not stop and wave my finger at every thief, liar, and cheater I come across. If I can do that while defending the greater good then so be it but taking time and resources to go after a small fry when the big nasty is getting away is counter intuitive.

"if a person would commit all sorts of evil (and illegal) deeds, but they don't do so because they believe the law will almost certainly catch them- are they non-evil?"

Actions are the defining aspect of alignment even though the PHB fails to state this explicitly but really it's common sense. A person who thinks of a crime is not a criminal. A person who plans a crime may be tried but they're guilty of a far less offense. Likewise you can't think "good" thoughts and expect to be good. Thinking about opening a soup kitchen feeds no mouths.

You can't control your thoughts. You can control your actions.

hamishspence

2009-12-11, 12:01 PM

In general, this makes the most sense for D&D.

There are a few philosophies that argue you are morally obliged to try and control your thoughts- and atone whenever you have a "bad thought"- however, in general, they tend to be less commonly practiced.

Some of the more cynical views are that everyone would be evil if it wasn't for their perception of the power of law enforcement controlling them- however, I think this is a shade too cynical.

Mike_G

2009-12-12, 01:33 PM

Its not so clear as to what's justified in war or "bandit hunting" though.
And if, as in the given example, the evil beings are "caught in the act" then (at least for some DMs) the adventurers might be assumed to have the moral right to determine guilt and mete out sentence.

But when a war is over- and its not clear who has participated in atrocities, and how much, an "exterminate them all" order smacks more of the worst kind of tyrannical empire, than anything that can be called Good.

The problem here is that adventurers are much more likely to be out bandit hunting, infiltrating the stronghold of the BBEG, or rushing to rescue the princess before the dragon eats her/Thulsa Doom sacrifices her, etc. They are unlikely to be working as part of a large army with MPs to hand prisoners over to, or as a city guardsman with courts and jails, etc.

The average PC Paladin will probably do more as a questing knight errant off in the countryside, battling Evil on societies edges than as Captain Carrot of the Watch.

To insist that he read Sven the Viking his Miranda Rights and drag him back to the holding cells makes little sense for an adventuring party, even if it would for the Watch or the men of Bravo Company.

Trying to apply police procedure or Geneva convention rules on prisoners of war to a five man team in hostile territory is kinda unworkable. Military and Police organizations have a huge support structure that handles this kind of thing. It's fine to expect them to hand the captive over to proper authority.

I really don't see an issue with the Frankish Paladin telling Sven "You have been captured actively engaged in murder, rape and brigandage. Mercy entitles you to one minute to pray to your god, and the choice of the sword or the rope."

I think only a real douchebag DM would make him fall for not dragging him back for a show trial, especially if there were more villagers to rescue or dangerous bandits to stop.

My big issue with your Objective morality argument was that summary execution is always evil.

I think Good and Evil can be a bit situational. Good is already allowed to kill, they just had to create a new category called "murder" so they could ban one kind of killing but leave themselves the option for "good" killing.
Sure, this can lead to Slippery Slope arguments, and the idea that Good and Evil are part of a spectrum, and not a binary condition.

I think this makes for better roleplay, and less frustration than tying the hands of Paladins until they need to go Grey Guard and make your game a parody of Dirty Harry.

Stephen_E

2009-12-12, 10:16 PM

Leaving out the rest of it, because I'm not disputing cause and effect...

Unfortunately cause and effect is a large part of morality and ethics....

...no, it is nothing like saying that at all. Just because a mindset makes it EASIER for you to disregard someone's rights does not mean you have disregarded those rights until you ACT.

I'm not talking about the mindset making it easier to do things, although obviously it does.
You aren't disregarding someones rights if you have no real awareness of them having rights.

I see a freshly killed deer in the forest. It was killed by a cougar which has withdrawn on my approach. I take the deer away and eat it.
Have I commited theft?
Surely the deer belonged to the cougar, but if I don't see the cougar as having property rights is what I did theft, as in the sin/evil theft (assuming for this purpose that theft is evil).

By your logic I have.

Stephen E

Stephen_E

2009-12-12, 10:25 PM

Actions are the defining aspect of alignment even though the PHB fails to state this explicitly but really it's common sense. A person who thinks of a crime is not a criminal. A person who plans a crime may be tried but they're guilty of a far less offense. Likewise you can't think "good" thoughts and expect to be good. Thinking about opening a soup kitchen feeds no mouths.

You can't control your thoughts. You can control your actions.

"even though the PHB fails to state this explicitly but really it's common sense."

And here we see a large part of the difficulties with the alignment system.
People put into it what they think is correct based on their views of morality/ethics, and this is fine, but then treat it as if the rules actually say it, which doesn't work, because Joe Bloggs has an entirely different view of what is "common sense". And with some the idea of "common sense" eventually gets you the Grey Guard.
As other have pointed out. Relatively few see them selves as evil. Indeed most prefer to think of themselves as good, but the most common way to support this is to change the definition of good rather than change their actions/views.

Thus you get things like people calling the Alliance from Firefly/Serenity a LG society.

Stephen E

hamishspence

2009-12-13, 06:55 AM

BoVD suggests that if your act kills someone undeserving, but, you not only did not know it would, but could not be expected to know it would, you're morally in the clear.

Which is not to say the character, when the find out, would not be expected to feel guilty.

It's the line between genuine accident, and recklessness.

On the other hand, the only reason it provides for "poisoning a whole town of evil people is morally dubious" is "there might be a few good or neutral people in there as well"

Whereas BoED embraces the concept of non-combatants very firmly.

Dragon magazine 310 lists other paladin-type holy warriors, and for the Avenger, the CG vigilante-type, who has no qualms about meting out punishments that fit the crime "killing should be reserved for the most evil of villains"

Tying up the Vikings very thoroughly, leaving them in the hands of the surviving civilians, with instructions to arrange for his trial, if the party doesn't come back after a certain time, is one option.

It's harder when there are no civilians, or you are too far from civilization to deliver him there without an unacceptable delay, or to leave him behind until you come back, and you think its too risky to take him with you "on parole."

Draco Dracul

2009-12-13, 10:43 AM