Alignment: Purpose vs. Action

[SciChronic]

I hate to start this argument again, but I felt this needed top be said. i'm typing this from my phone so i'll try to be brief.

I've seen many alignment debates on these boards and I feel like many people fail to see the larger picture, and never look past a single action as if that one action complete characterizes everything that they are. I argue that it is the overall driving purpose and intent that determines alignment. falling for breaking paladin code I could understand, but most certainly not alignment.

if single actions determined alignments PCs and NPCs would be changing alignments daily if not hourly. adventurers pretty much go on weekly trips committing murder and manslaughter -i use the terms loosely as its a fantasy setting so it may not be humans against humans- which would be evil thus making them evil. killing another is an evil act, making adventures, city guards, members of the local militia or military all possibly evil under the single action idea.

which is the reason a single question is so important. Why? why are they killing another? why are they stealing documents from a foreign ambassador's office? perhaps they were killing a known necromancer, so our killer would be good. maybe this ambassador had been trafficking drugs, and proof was needed. perhaps he was doing it under orders of his superiors simply making him lawful. motive hold more importance than the act itself.

but lets take it further back to the psychology of the character. what is the overall mindset of the character in question that compels them to commit the act that they do? that is the true determinate of alignment. is it some tragic past like that of many adventurers? do they seek justice towards those who wronged him in the past? this is their drive, their sense if purpose in the world, if that doesnt tell a lot about ones alignment nothing does. that isnt to say actions tell nothing however. as not everyone who is evil will necessarily know that they are evil, and will believe their cause to be for the betterment of mankind.

but purpose is still a very important. look at the punisher who find justice for those victims who can't be helped by the law. he acts as a hammer of justice for those who need it; something he could have used when his family was killed. so now he stops others from having to go through the same pain he does or at least tries. hes not afraid to go where the law can't, and hes not afraid to do what the law can't, even if it means getting his hands dirty. in my eyes this makes him chaotic good, as his goal is to bring justice to those who can't be caught through normal means.

well thats my 2 cents on alignment. hope it wasnt too much of a bore.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I agree with your general point and that is actually what's in the rules so they agree with you too, though with two small caveats.

Though extremely few and inherently extreme in nature it is -possible- for a lone action to cause even a dramatic alignment shift. For example, signing on the dotted line of a pact certain, regardless of motivation, immediately moves your alignment from wherever it is to LE.

As always, there are certain spells that are exceptions to the rule. Atonement can allow a willing, immediate change in alignment, morality undone forces the target to be evil for at least a while, and so on.

Other than that, you've nailed it.

[WbtE]

Alignment is very easily solved by repairing the damage done to it in 2e. Prior to that, alignment had its literal sense of the forces with which your character was aligned. So instead of being a "lawful sort of fellow", a character was in league with the Law Lords and necessarily a foe of the Forces of Chaos. It was even granted that characters could be unconscious of their alignment.

[Togo]

Alignment is very easily solved by repairing the damage done to it in 2e. Prior to that, alignment had its literal sense of the forces with which your character was aligned. So instead of being a "lawful sort of fellow", a character was in league with the Law Lords and necessarily a foe of the Forces of Chaos. It was even granted that characters could be unconscious of their alignment.

Certainly that's how I always play it.

Disagreeing with the OP though, I find it easier to focus on actions and ignore intentions entirely. It doesn't matter if you're a good person or a bad person, what matters is what you do. If your actions spread chaos then you are aligned with chaos, irrespective of how you may feel about the situation. Your own character's personality and intentions are pretty much irrelevent. That's why being mind controlled into killing an innocent is still evil, and trying to murder someone and failing is not.

[SciChronic]

Certainly that's how I always play it.

Disagreeing with the OP though, I find it easier to focus on actions and ignore intentions entirely. It doesn't matter if you're a good person or a bad person, what matters is what you do. If your actions spread chaos then you are aligned with chaos, irrespective of how you may feel about the situation. Your own character's personality and intentions are pretty much irrelevent. That's why being mind controlled into killing an innocent is still evil, and trying to murder someone and failing is not.

easier yes, correct, maybe not.

that also makes every adventurer evil cause lets face it if theres anything they know how to do, and do often its kill things. you can't give them a get out of jail free card because they're pcs

[Seto]

I agree that intent does matter. To what extent ? That's the question. But it certainly isn't the sole thing that matters. In D&D, "committing evil for good purposes" does not fall under a Good alignment.

And people who are Evil don't necessarily see themselves as such. Actually, I think the ones who do are the exception. Most of them rationalize their evil actions into thinking it's for the greater good, are deluded, or just don't think about it all that much.

[Kelb_Panthera]

easier yes, correct, maybe not.

Definitely not.

Most actions aren't inherently aligned in themselves and only take on an alignment based on the motivations for the act.

Take theft for example. If a character steals a document because he's an agent of an enemy state then it's a lawful action. If he does it because he intends to blackmail the document's owner then it's chaotic and probably evil. If he does it because the document is an edict that would allow the document's owner to evict the occupants of an orphanage and replace it with a gambling hall then it's chaotic and probably good. And so on.

The alternative is to declare that theft is always X where X is either chaotic, evil, or both. This sort of oversimplification is what causes a lot of back and forth when players get tripped up by disagreeing with the DM's arbitrary declaration.

If you don't want to give it proper consideration then don't allow alignment to take a central role in your game. You can even discard it altogether as it pertains to creatures lacking the subtypes without meaningfully affecting the lion's share of the game.

[Drachasor]

Alignment is a bit complicated here. Because you can have someone doing evil for good purposes. That's still generally evil though. Exceptions might be made if the only options are traditionally evil ones (e.g. morality of the act depends on the circumstances, of course).

The rules certainly value acts. You can't make personal sacrifices for others (Good) without action. You can't protect innocent life without action. You can't be altruistic without action. A character that sits around philosophizing about helping others and would never do anything isn't Good, but he might be a great philosopher. Paladins can commit evil acts without knowing it, further cementing this idea.

On the other hand, having Respect for life or laws or the like is an attitude. So how you think plays a role too. But these are aspects of character attitudes that determine whether they are good or not.

Overall, D&D has a Consequentialist ethical system. That is, an act is good or evil based on what it does. Kill an innocent? Then that's an evil act. Free someone from slavery? That's good. Heal someone sick? Good. Etc, etc.

However, it makes a distinction between the ethics of the ACT and the ethical character of the PERSON. Good people tend to do Good Acts, but that doesn't mean they always do them. They can make mistakes, be tricked, etc. The Paladin text again goes into this. A Paladin loses his status if he willfully commits an evil act. Note that's not "willingly", but "willfully" thereby implying a knowledge that the act is evil. So getting tricked into doing evil is possible in D&D, but it doesn't change your alignment.

This even goes into why a dog is considered neutral.* It can't WILLFULLY commit good/evil acts, because it doesn't understand them. The same is true of a construct programmed to help people. You could have being that does good, maybe even can ONLY do good (within its limited programming/instinct/training), but without being able to know the distinction between good and evil it cannot willfully do good. This doesn't mean its acts are good, merely that they have no bearing on its alignment.

Similarly, if you give a poor person 10 gold and he goes on to invest and save thousands of lives...you don't get ethical credit for that. Unless of course, you knew that was going to happen and that's why you did it.

What's the purpose of alignments on characters then? They are a rough indicator of the sorts of acts that the character makes. A Good guy tends to do Good deeds. They roughly indicate past/future behavior. But, as the text says, this isn't a straight-jacket. Alignment doesn't indicate how you behave. How you behave indicates your alignment. Big difference, but a lot of people forget that.

Hopefully I didn't ramble on too long.

*Let us avoid a debate on animal morality, as it is a very complicated topic and not really relevant here.

[Drachasor]

Definitely not.

Most actions aren't inherently aligned in themselves and only take on an alignment based on the motivations for the act.

Take theft for example. If a character steals a document because he's an agent of an enemy state then it's a lawful action. If he does it because he intends to blackmail the document's owner then it's chaotic and probably evil. If he does it because the document is an edict that would allow the document's owner to evict the occupants of an orphanage and replace it with a gambling hall then it's chaotic and probably good. And so on.

The alternative is to declare that theft is always X where X is either chaotic, evil, or both. This sort of oversimplification is what causes a lot of back and forth when players get tripped up by disagreeing with the DM's arbitrary declaration.

If you don't want to give it proper consideration then don't allow alignment to take a central role in your game. You can even discard it altogether as it pertains to creatures lacking the subtypes without meaningfully affecting the lion's share of the game.

Ahh, you are arguing that D&D acts aren't aligned on deontological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics) grounds (the sort of act it is). This is true, because theft, killing someone, etc, isn't inherently aligned in D&D because it is the consequence that matters.

Stealing a document can be lawful. On the other hand, the theft ends up causing the death of thousands, it was an evil act. A Paladin doing the theft wouldn't lose his status unless he knew that going in. On the other hand, he'd likely feel quite guilty and seek to make amends.

[Andezzar]

if single actions determined alignments PCs and NPCs would be changing alignments daily if not hourly. adventurers pretty much go on weekly trips committing murder and manslaughter -i use the terms loosely as its a fantasy setting so it may not be humans against humans- which would be evil thus making them evil. killing another is an evil act, making adventures, city guards, members of the local militia or military all possibly evil under the single action idea.It is not that single actions determine the alignment of character, it is that single actions determine whether paladins fall. It gets especially ridiculous if you read the code of conduct for paladins of Slaughter or Tyranny

The problem with asking for the reasons for an action is that people then can weasel out of nearly any committed atrocity by claiming it is for "the greater good".

While probably less feasible in an PnP game than in a CRPG, making alignment a scale and attributing certain ranges to alignments, would probably cut down on the discussion if a single act and thus minor shift on the scale does not have any immediate consequences. If disagreements what acts cause what shifts occur often, you need an OOC talk anyways regardless of method used for determining the alignment and its changes

[Drachasor]

It is not that single actions determine the alignment of character, it is that single actions determine whether paladins fall. It gets especially ridiculous if you read the code of conduct for paladins of Slaughter or Tyranny

The problem with asking for the reasons for an action is that people then can weasel out of nearly any committed atrocity by claiming it is for "the greater good".

While probably less feasible in an PnP game than in a CRPG, making alignment a scale and attributing certain ranges to alignments, would probably cut down on the discussion if a single act and thus minor shift on the scale does not have any immediate consequences. If disagreements what acts cause what shifts occur often, you need an OOC talk anyways regardless of method used for determining the alignment and its changes

True. It is important to remember that characters are rarely going to be labeling their acts as "Evil." Even Big Bads are unlikely to do this. Instead you have to look at the consequences of the act, what the person knew of the consequences, what the person expected to happen, how reasonable their expectations were, and what alternatives they had. In D&D we must also consider how that correlates with the principles of Good, Neutral, and Evil -- for instance, Good implies a respect for life.

For instance, someone might think killing all corrupt officials in a city is For the Greater Good. However, it isn't as simple as what they claim. What are the consequences? Well, you have a bunch of people dead, apparently because it was expedient. That's an Evil mark right there. So "For the Greater Good" people are going to need to do their work to justify this rather than wave a slogan around. Perhaps it really was the only way due to the power these corrupt people had and how they oppressed the citizens. Maybe it was just the most feasible and least risky (for the citizens) way. On the other hand, maybe the corruption is much more deeply rooted and there's no reason to expect killing people will help. In the latter case, it is unreasonable to think it really is "For the Greater Good." It's more like "I hate these guys."

That said these things CAN be very complicated without easy answers. But usually if it is being used as an excuse, then you can quickly point to the loss of innocent life, the reckless disregard for others, etc, etc. All that points to Evil, and a few hopeful wishes doesn't change that.

An unfortunate problem with the Evil alignments is that there are so many ways to be evil. Each one covers a huge swatch of ground. You can have the vigilante who kills people because they are scum, protecting scum, or just get in the way. Probably Lawful Evil, but he's very different from the standard depiction of lawful evil.

This is an inherent problem with D&D, though it could potentially be fixed by having two alignments. A Goal/World/Ideal/Ends alignment, meaning what sort of world you want to achieve or live in. Then have the Method/Means alignment which covers what sort of acts you find acceptable to achieve that world/end.

[SciChronic]

It is not that single actions determine the alignment of character, it is that single actions determine whether paladins fall. It gets especially ridiculous if you read the code of conduct for paladins of Slaughter or Tyranny thats the argument i'm making, that the single act idea simply doesnt work.


While probably less feasible in an PnP game than in a CRPG, making alignment a scale and attributing certain ranges to alignments, would probably cut down on the discussion if a single act and thus minor shift on the scale does not have any immediate consequences. If disagreements what acts cause what shifts occur often, you need an OOC talk anyways regardless of method used for determining the alignment and its changesi once saw a homebrew alignment square grid where actions deemed worthy by the dm could move you around on the grid, amd alignment based items could strengthen it weaken based on how close you were to the peaks of the alignment.

[ericgrau]

Multiple actions are the best indicator, but one cold blooded murder still makes a murderer. PCs have a good reason for killing every time, or at least should. I think a lot more DMs should have local authorities arrest PCs when they get careless about their reasons and response, being judge jury and executioner over a questionably bad or minor enemy action. Things are a bit looser in the wilderness outside of any jurisdiction, but even then there are alignment and reputation consequences.

Words and even thought are pretty empty for reasons you gave. Thoughts aren't nothing, but there is a difference between trying but failing to do real good and thinking that you are doing good when what you are doing is evil. Real good thoughts usually manifest into good actions unless prevented.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ahh, you are arguing that D&D acts aren't aligned on deontological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics) grounds (the sort of act it is). This is true, because theft, killing someone, etc, isn't inherently aligned in D&D because it is the consequence that matters.

Stealing a document can be lawful. On the other hand, the theft ends up causing the death of thousands, it was an evil act. A Paladin doing the theft wouldn't lose his status unless he knew that going in. On the other hand, he'd likely feel quite guilty and seek to make amends.
Actually far-reaching consequences don't matter either because an arbitrary line would have to be drawn at some point for where that particular act's ramifications are too small to continue to matter.

Instead, only immediately observable consequences matter.

For example; if you kill a displacer beast that's ambushed you in the woods on a late autumn evening it's a neutral act; a simple matter of self defense. That the displacer beast's cubs starve as a result of their mother being unable to feed them doesn't weigh against you unless you stumble upon the beasts fairly immediately.

A day later you'll have no reason to be certain that the cubs don't belong to some other mother beast and slaying them would be evil as they're helpless innocents. In any case it'd be better to adopt the little buggers and raise them as good creatures or give them to people who would do the same. Even leaving the cubs alone upon immediately discovering them would be border-line as there may be a father beast or even a pack to support them in their mother's absence. Bottom line: you can't be held responsible for unforseeable consequences of actions taken.

Similarly, the 1000 deaths that somehow resulted from that document being stolen doesn't make the theft evil unless it was an obvious consequence of doing so, though I struggle to see how that would even be possible.

It is not that single actions determine the alignment of character, it is that single actions determine whether paladins fall. It gets especially ridiculous if you read the code of conduct for paladins of Slaughter or Tyranny

The problem with asking for the reasons for an action is that people then can weasel out of nearly any committed atrocity by claiming it is for "the greater good".

While probably less feasible in an PnP game than in a CRPG, making alignment a scale and attributing certain ranges to alignments, would probably cut down on the discussion if a single act and thus minor shift on the scale does not have any immediate consequences. If disagreements what acts cause what shifts occur often, you need an OOC talk anyways regardless of method used for determining the alignment and its changes

The bold is an inadequate explanation. "For the greater good," demands furthter explanation. How is the act supposed to further the greater good? Is it grey enough for that to be plausible in the first place? Is the greater good actually served by the act in reality?

Again, don't feature alignment if you're not comfortable really delving into the intersection of morality, motivation, and alignment.

If you want to include those elements of the game you can narrow their scope to only affect creatures and items with alignment being part of their makeup; fiends, celestials, holy and unholy weapons, clerics whose alignment is strictly the aura granted by their choice of god, etc. (though honestly there's not much left for that "etc") and simply disallow the books of exalted deeds and vile darkness. The paladin's detect evil -> smite-on-sight behavior isn't problematic when detect evil only discovers genuine threats that actually deserve to be smote.

[Togo]

Definitely not.

Most actions aren't inherently aligned in themselves and only take on an alignment based on the motivations for the act.

Take theft for example. If a character steals a document because he's an agent of an enemy state then it's a lawful action. If he does it because he intends to blackmail the document's owner then it's chaotic and probably evil. If he does it because the document is an edict that would allow the document's owner to evict the occupants of an orphanage and replace it with a gambling hall then it's chaotic and probably good. And so on.

Disagree.

Actions aren't inherently aligned in themselves, and only take on an alignment based on the consequences of the act.

The point is that if you want to run a cohereant aligned universe, then you can't have gaps opening up between things that count as good but are clearly serving the purposes of evil, such as intending to help someone and dooming them instead. Run the universe as the universe, things are aligned to good depending on how they work out in the universe, and don't try and model intentionality, because it will leave a big gap in your world between what people want to happen and what actually happens as a result.

People can be entirely mistaken about whether their acts are good or evil. Heaven and Hell really shouldn't be.

[SiuiS]

Both action and intention reflect alignment. It really is that simple. The problem is people want a handy rule they can push to the limit and it's not possible.

[Andezzar]

Disagree.

Actions aren't inherently aligned in themselves, and only take on an alignment based on the consequences of the act.

The point is that if you want to run a cohereant aligned universe, then you can't have gaps opening up between things that count as good but are clearly serving the purposes of evil, such as intending to help someone and dooming them instead. Run the universe as the universe, things are aligned to good depending on how they work out in the universe, and don't try and model intentionality, because it will leave a big gap in your world between what people want to happen and what actually happens as a result.

People can be entirely mistaken about whether their acts are good or evil. Heaven and Hell really shouldn't be.The problem with this is to adequately judge any action, you need to know all the consequences of any action. Let's say someone kills a murderer instead of turning them over to the authorities. Yes you have prevented him from committing further crimes, but do you know that he could not have been redeemed during his prison sentence, and after being released tries to redeem other criminals?
Or with less redemption: the murderer is killed and thus cannot reveal his accomplices who continue to commit crimes.
Now was the killing good, evil or neither? Should the consequences really change that?

Unless the DM actually figures all those things out and at least OOC tells the players the consequences, it will seem just as arbitrary as "Killing sentient beings is evil. Period."

[Kelb_Panthera]

Disagree.

Actions aren't inherently aligned in themselves, and only take on an alignment based on the consequences of the act.

The point is that if you want to run a cohereant aligned universe, then you can't have gaps opening up between things that count as good but are clearly serving the purposes of evil, such as intending to help someone and dooming them instead. Run the universe as the universe, things are aligned to good depending on how they work out in the universe, and don't try and model intentionality, because it will leave a big gap in your world between what people want to happen and what actually happens as a result.

People can be entirely mistaken about whether their acts are good or evil. Heaven and Hell really shouldn't be.Results can neutralize intent but having only results matter causes just as many problems as only intent mattering.

Take the example from BoED. A paladin moves up a rock face causing a slide and crushing a hut with commoners in the process. If only results matter then he falls, period. He's killed innocents. This is why intent matters. If this was an honest accident the paladin shouldn't fall. Both intent and immediate results matter. I already described why long-term results can't be realistically accounted for.


Both action and intention reflect alignment. It really is that simple. The problem is people want a handy rule they can push to the limit and it's not possible. This exactly.

[Togo]

Results can neutralize intent but having only results matter causes just as many problems as only intent mattering.

Take the example from BoED. A paladin moves up a rock face causing a slide and crushing a hut with commoners in the process. If only results matter then he falls, period. He's killed innocents.

It's certainly an evil act. That's the kind of thing someone might atone for. But you're confusing operation of the alignement system with paladinhood. Paladins have intentionality written into their code precisely because they're lawful good and see sticking to a code as part and parcel of being a good person. But paladins are aberrant in that respect. Same with kensai, who fall if they commit violations of their code of honour, even if the violation was a lawful act.


I already described why long-term results can't be realistically accounted for.

As a DM, you have to work out long-term consequences anyway, because you need to know what happens in the campaign world. In practice you can handwave the consequence of most actions though, whether for alignment or some other reason, and assume that acts are as good or evil as they would be expected to be unless there is some overpowering reason otherwise.

This approach works for me. It gives alignment some bite, integrates player actions into the reactions of outsiders to the players, and lets players free to roleplay as they see fit without the DM trying to argue with them about their interpretation of their character. I've not hit any of the practical problems you describe.

If you prefer to run games another way, then fair enough. What do you see as the advantages of your own approach?

[Drachasor]

Actually far-reaching consequences don't matter either because an arbitrary line would have to be drawn at some point for where that particular act's ramifications are too small to continue to matter.

Instead, only immediately observable consequences matter.

Well certainly a given acts influence likely fades over time and you can't blame everything on it. However, I don't think anything in the rules supports the idea only immediately observable consequences matter. Though I grant they aren't explicit one way or another. If you try to draw a line though, say with intermediate steps or intermediate willful actors, then you do run into problems.

The rules do make a distinction between whether an act is evil and whether the person performing that act is morally culpable for it. At least, stuff like the Paladin text indicates this. So I think this helps alleviate concerns.


For example; if you kill a displacer beast that's ambushed you in the woods on a late autumn evening it's a neutral act; a simple matter of self defense. That the displacer beast's cubs starve as a result of their mother being unable to feed them doesn't weigh against you unless you stumble upon the beasts fairly immediately.

Killing the mother and the kid dying is evil. However, it is unreasonable, GENERALLY, to the killer responsible as he has no way of knowing.

But consider, the displacer beast attacks him. He knows the DB has kids. He knows killing the DB will result in the kids starving if he does nothing (or perhaps for other reasons, he can do nothing). Then killing the DB is less clearly neutral. Just because you have more knowledge of the situation. Knowledge matters...though so does being willfully ignorant.


A day later you'll have no reason to be certain that the cubs don't belong to some other mother beast and slaying them would be evil as they're helpless innocents. In any case it'd be better to adopt the little buggers and raise them as good creatures or give them to people who would do the same. Even leaving the cubs alone upon immediately discovering them would be border-line as there may be a father beast or even a pack to support them in their mother's absence. Bottom line: you can't be held responsible for unforseeable consequences of actions taken.

Agreed. That's why I said D&D makes a distinction between a creature's alignment and the alignment of an act. The Paladin, as I have said, is a class that clearly states this principle. Tricking a Paladin into doing evil does not make him fall. He must WILLFULLY do evil (though he'd probably not call it evil at the time). Willful goes beyond "willingly" as it implies an understanding of the situation/consequences.

To use OOTS as an example. Miko getting in the way of the Order was evil for a lot of reasons. She had no idea though. She didn't lose her status until she did something she would know was evil/wrong (by D&D standards).


Similarly, the 1000 deaths that somehow resulted from that document being stolen doesn't make the theft evil unless it was an obvious consequence of doing so, though I struggle to see how that would even be possible.

It can certainly make the theft evil. Though the thief doesn't have to be morally culpable for it. Indeed, if he had no idea, he certainly isn't. If, on the other hand, he knew the document detailed not only troop distribution but also how food would be distributed to citizens, then he might be able to reasonable conclude people would starve to death from it. Or he might similarly know how the document would be used if handed over and know that it would result in a lot of innocent death.

Lots of potential what-ifs where you could know stealing something would hurt a lot of people. So it can happen.


The problem with this is to adequately judge any action, you need to know all the consequences of any action. Let's say someone kills a murderer instead of turning them over to the authorities. Yes you have prevented him from committing further crimes, but do you know that he could not have been redeemed during his prison sentence, and after being released tries to redeem other criminals?
Or with less redemption: the murderer is killed and thus cannot reveal his accomplices who continue to commit crimes.
Now was the killing good, evil or neither? Should the consequences really change that?

Unless the DM actually figures all those things out and at least OOC tells the players the consequences, it will seem just as arbitrary as "Killing sentient beings is evil. Period."

As far as character alignment is concerned, it really only matters what consequences they can reasonable expect and/or how much they just don't care what happens. Judge it similarly to the Paladin. Willful acts are what matter for personal alignment.

The incompetent fool who's always trying to help people, but always messes things up and causes misery...he's good, but causes a lot of evil.

[Angelalex242]

Book of Exalted Deeds says (summarized) violence against the right people for the right reasons is good. Real Life be damned, if you see a diabolist summoning up devils, you are perfectly okay to gank him on the spot.

On orcs and such, you really should wait till they attack your city before ganking them all, instead of ganking them for merely existing.

On Paladin climbing a rockface which causes an avalanche and kills random commoners...that sounds like a 'gotcha' needlessly vindictive GM to me. If the Paladin fails his climb check, he can go Wily E. Coyote by himself without bringing the whole cliff down with him.

[Drachasor]

Book of Exalted Deeds says (summarized) violence against the right people for the right reasons is good. Real Life be damned, if you see a diabolist summoning up devils, you are perfectly okay to gank him on the spot.

On orcs and such, you really should wait till they attack your city before ganking them all, instead of ganking them for merely existing.

On Paladin climbing a rockface which causes an avalanche and kills random commoners...that sounds like a 'gotcha' needlessly vindictive GM to me. If the Paladin fails his climb check, he can go Wily E. Coyote by himself without bringing the whole cliff down with him.

If the Paladin had no reason to expect the avalanche to be possible, then he certainly wouldn't fall. Wouldn't be a willful act.

He would certainly feel awful about it though.

[AMFV]

If the Paladin had no reason to expect the avalanche to be possible, then he certainly wouldn't fall. Wouldn't be a willful act.

He would certainly feel awful about it though.

That's why I think atonement should be based on an emotive condition in a similar manner to confession, if the Paladin feels he's fallen he can atone, maybe have some kind of minor atonement spell to that effect. So that way Paladins can keep themselves from falling due to tons of little things, or work against negative alignment trends or the feeling of hopelessness.

[Angelalex242]

Well, of course he'd FEEL like he's done something terrible. Callously blowing it off would justify an alignment change to evil.

"I killed some peasants down there? Oh well, stuff happens..."

...Dude, that's pretty cold. Evil is you.

"I killed some peasants? Oh my God, how will I ever make up for this terrible thing I've done?"

Now you're showing compassion, and you're still good.

[kkplx]

I agree that intent does matter. To what extent ? That's the question. But it certainly isn't the sole thing that matters. In D&D, "committing evil for good purposes" does not fall under a Good alignment.

And people who are Evil don't necessarily see themselves as such. Actually, I think the ones who do are the exception. Most of them rationalize their evil actions into thinking it's for the greater good, are deluded, or just don't think about it all that much.

I'm personally of the opinion that Intention is everything when it comes to alignment, with the only exception being the most extreme acts and aligned magic.

Your second example would be either Lawful Good (greater good?) or Chaotic/Lawful Evil (insanity/pursuit of goals at any cost) in my eyes, so we disagree on that - while people might not "see" themselves as evil, their intent and mindset would still fit the evil scale.

[Seto]

That's why I think atonement should be based on an emotive condition in a similar manner to confession, if the Paladin feels he's fallen he can atone, maybe have some kind of minor atonement spell to that effect. So that way Paladins can keep themselves from falling due to tons of little things, or work against negative alignment trends or the feeling of hopelessness.

You can pray to your God, or make amends, or "atone" in many ways, without it having to be a spell, even a minor one. The "atonement" spell is for grave circumstances and loss of powers, but rp-penance is sufficient for the rest, given that you only fall for one important action and never "due to tons of little things". That kind of little things that could make you feel guilty without having mechanical repercussions need to be dealt with... without mechanics.

[AMFV]

You can pray to your God, or make amends, or "atone" in many ways, without it having to be a spell, even a minor one. The "atonement" spell is for grave circumstances and loss of powers, but rp-penance is sufficient for the rest, given that you only fall for one important action and never "due to tons of little things". That kind of little things that could make you feel guilty without having mechanical repercussions need to be dealt with... without mechanics.

Why is that? Catholics go to confession for venial sins, why couldn't you use a "lesser atonement" to that end. I tend to use Catholics as my Paladin templates, because they are a more law based religion (and the one I'm most familiar with). I think that having a formalized system for that really fits with the paladin, since you're making a choice to have that sort of role.

Also I think that while intention does matter, it isn't the only thing that matters, if you don't the effect then perhaps only your intention could matter, but there are still lines, sometimes even if you do know the effect. There's killing somebody who will grow up to be evil, that's probably a good act RAW, but should be non-good and traumatic otherwise. A good character always tries to find a moral high ground if they can.

[Drachasor]

That's why I think atonement should be based on an emotive condition in a similar manner to confession, if the Paladin feels he's fallen he can atone, maybe have some kind of minor atonement spell to that effect. So that way Paladins can keep themselves from falling due to tons of little things, or work against negative alignment trends or the feeling of hopelessness.

I'm of the opinion a Paladin can atone for unintentional pain he caused without needing someone to cast a magic spell on him. I call it role-playing. : )

There's certainly no mechanical need for it in this instance.

[Seto]

I'm personally of the opinion that Intention is everything when it comes to alignment, with the only exception being the most extreme acts and aligned magic.

Your second example would be either Lawful Good (greater good?) or Chaotic/Lawful Evil (insanity/pursuit of goals at any cost) in my eyes, so we disagree on that - while people might not "see" themselves as evil, their intent and mindset would still fit the evil scale.

I'm not sure about Lawful Good. IMO, that would be, of all alignments, the less likely to think "I'm doing this for the greater good" in case you have to do evil to get to said greater good : because LG has principles that it will never bend unless forced to, while CG or NG might be less rigid about it. (Depends on the type of character you're playing though : some LG (NG or N tendencies) will do it anyway, while some CG won't).

I agree about the "intent and mindset would still fit the evil scale". My point simply was that the morality system in D&D has objective values for Good and Evil (which are not only subjective ethical principles but objective cosmic forces), and that just because you mean well doesn't mean you're Good. Some people are misguided regarding their true, deep-hidden motives : they might be Evil in intent without realizing it. So we pretty much are on the same board here.
I'm working on finding mindsets for each alignment (I'm aware there are several possible for each), btw. I think that's an interesting topic.

[AMFV]

I'm of the opinion a Paladin can atone for unintentional pain he caused without needing someone to cast a magic spell on him. I call it role-playing. : )

There's certainly no mechanical need for it in this instance.

I would probably utilize a minor spell to that effect, it certainly is a roleplaying option, but the spell makes a concrete thing, and that's important to have, it could be a Pal 1/Cler 0 spell. With Target being somebody not yourself, and then it would have some kind of minor atonement task involved, like minor labor, or some kind of prayer, something that would help with the actual process.

There certainly is no real mechanical need, but it would be how I would want it were I, a Paladin.

[tadkins]

I've decided at this point to stop caring about the alignment of my characters, simply play them the way I picture them, and let other people like the DM decide what my alignment is. I've started leaving the alignment section blank in my character sheets and let things go from there.

I'm starting to wonder if alignment is actually a sufficient enough system to really capture an entire character. For instance, my main Necromancer-type character has been labeled by other people throughout the years as N, CN, NE, CE, and even one person described her as NG.

Where one DM might argue that simply the act of raising the dead, no matter the purpose automatically defaults you to being a non-good alignment, another might disagree, that while creating undead might be gruesome, it would be all about the intentions of how those undead are used.

People are complicated creatures, and I'm not sure if the alignment system is enough to describe them. I believe that the alignment system exists simply as a set of "teams" that a character might be put on, which I think gives a character more freedom to act outside of it occasionally. In the case of my Necromancer, I picture her to be a part of the Outlands/Boccob team (N), even though she might do things that stray from that particular alignment from time to time, the search for magic/knowledge is the core part of the character.

Might be better to focus more on character ideals than character alignments.

[Seto]

I'm starting to wonder if alignment is actually a sufficient enough system to really capture an entire character.
People are complicated creatures, and I'm not sure if the alignment system is enough to describe them.
Might be better to focus more on character ideals than character alignments.

No it's not.
No it's not.
Yes it is.
Very much so.

That said, alignment sometimes matters ("Detect" spells, etc... and as you said, "teams"). And I personally find it fascinating, if often a little pointless, to discuss it. There have been attempts to improve the alignment system, which is flawed, simplistic and vague (look at "easydamus", that's an excellent site). But, as most people are going by RAW, the actual system is the most discussed.

[Darkz0r]

Pretty interesting discussion, my last session had a metagame discussion because of this.

Personally, as a DM, I consider the INTENT and KNOWN CONSEQUENCES to define alignment. This is dynamic, as it changes when the PCs gain knowledge and THEN they define what their actions are.

The setting of the discussion was basically:
1)PCs were imprisoned by kobolds for a time;
2)After being freed, they discovered the kobolds were transporting captured humans to a few places (without knowing why, so basically kobolds were hostile);
3)After raiding a kobold village, they discovered that a city watch official apparently had something to do with the prisoners (maybe kobolds aren't the main problem?);
4)After raiding another kobold village, due to some mid-battle discussions and good aligned PCs curiosity, they decided to leave the kobold leader alive to further inquire (lucky subdual damage rolls);
5)During the "interrogation", neutral PCs threatened to torture the kobold to get information, meanwhile discovering that the kobolds didn't seem to have a choice in what they were doing, thus good PCs stepped in and freed the kobold, continuing with a "civil" discussion on what was happening.
6)With the discussion, they now discovered that a once great neutral kobold tribe was being oppressed to do those deeds, and thus allied with the kobold leader to unite the remaining loyal villages and face the true evil that was slowly claiming the land through several other deeds.

My idea was for them to discover this plot way later, after they had burned a few more kobold villages, and thus the tribe would be mostly gone.
Since they now know what is happening, they have no choice but to help, though they didn't really need to take the kobold fighter wearing a fullplate and a medium great sword into the group to remain good. :smallbiggrin:

[Dalebert]

Re: "the greater good"

You could make a case for a particular reading of CG that the character is generally interested in promoting the greater good and doesn't have much of a code for exactly how he gets there, unlike a more lawful character. Lawfulness implies a belief in some kind of code of behavior, the details of which could vary a lot between characters, and chaos implies a disregard for such details and more figuring out as you go.

I think a detail that is lost in figuring out alignments is degrees. Someone can be just a little bit evil or a lot evil or somewhere in between, a little chaotic or a lot etc. Stealing is generally considered an evil act but not AS evil as hurting which is not AS evil as killing.

I recently explained to a DM that my character was secretly Ne (small e). "He's just a little bit evil, kind of selfish and willing to steal things he really wants, but a long way from step on puppies just to make kids cry for his amusement evil." I described him as having an elaborate internal justification system for doing stuph he just wants to do anyway. I think he fits the description of not considering himself to be evil, but he is... a little bit. His primary motivation is looking out for #1.


Where one DM might argue that simply the act of raising the dead, no matter the purpose automatically defaults you to being a non-good alignment, another might disagree, that while creating undead might be gruesome, it would be all about the intentions of how those undead are used.

I'm playing a necromancy-oriented char in an alignment-less game (there are no aligned spells, no detect good, evil, etc.) and I've decided that he's basically good. If I had to assign an alignment, I'd probably say CG. He's a momma's boy who's mom died and started speaking to him from beyond (or something pretending to be her. He's convinced it's her.) She (it?) has explained to him that undead are tormented souls who can only move on if they get a chance for redemption. He's been tasked with using his necromancy to give them that chance to do good. Even mindless undead (in his view) contain souls that are in a sort of limbo and they all need his guidance to be redeemed.

It's very possible this is some evil spirit manipulating his good intentions, allowing him to use undead to do good things for a while, meanwhile hoping to nudge him toward increasingly questionable behavior and eventually more evil acts in time.

[Angelalex242]

Funny thing is, in the afterlife? Your character will still end up chilling in the Grey Wastes (Hades)

The Gray Waste Hades Neutral evil Here, all emotion and compassion is drained away, until only hopelessness, selfishness and apathy remain as devils and demons meet and clash in a colorless expanse.
•Yugoloths (Daemons)
•Demons and devils fight the Blood War on this plane
•Abbathor - Dwarven god of greed.
•Grey Sisters (night hags)
•Hades - Greek god of Death and the Underworld. Believed to be the most powerful deity on the plane.
•Mydianchlarus - Current Oinoloth of Khin-Oin.
•Iggwilv - Witch Queen of Perrenland, mother of the demigod Iuz. Infamous author of the blasphemous Demonomicon. The true idenity of Tasha, member of the infamous adventuring group known as the Company of Seven.

[Dalebert]

Funny thing is, in the afterlife? Your character will still end up chilling in the Grey Wastes (Hades)

Yep. I think you're probably right, unless he changes his ways in time. We'll see if the rest of the party manages to make an impression on him.

[Angelalex242]

And he still pings just as evil on detect evil spells as the puppy punting wizard who nukes orphanages for the evulz (assuming equal HD). Only clerics of Nerul and Vecna and Blackguards of same ping more evil then you (Aura of Evil Class Feature)

[AMFV]

And he still pings just as evil on detect evil spells as the puppy punting wizard who nukes orphanages for the evulz (assuming equal HD). Only clerics of Nerul and Vecna and Blackguards of same ping more evil then you (Aura of Evil Class Feature)

Those were some very questionable Orphanages... I'm sure it's fine, and everyone knows that Puppies are often evil outsiders, so it's cool, be cool, man.

[Angelalex242]

Everyone knows about the Temple of Nerull's annual puppy punting contest. Why, the record's over 100 feet! The rules are simple:Kick it as far as you can. Longest distance wins. If the puppy survives your punt, you are immediately disqualified for having earned Nerull's disfavor.

There's also the annual orphan roast. They trade recipes for cooked orphan, and the best tasting one gets to have their recipe made with live screaming orphans for the whole temple!

[Seto]

Orphan puppies being the best of the best.

[MonochromeTiger]

Those were some very questionable Orphanages... I'm sure it's fine, and everyone knows that Puppies are often evil outsiders, so it's cool, be cool, man.

saint evil's home for orphaned cerberus puppies resents your accusation sir.

[le Suisse]

easier yes, correct, maybe not.

that also makes every adventurer evil cause lets face it if theres anything they know how to do, and do often its kill things. you can't give them a get out of jail free card because they're pcs

well yes.
Most PCs are, in fact, glorified career killers and burglars who routinely commit breaking and entering, grand larceny and manslaugther pretty much for the hell of it, when we are not talking about war crimes.

But that is because we are talking about it with our real world mentality, not in D&D mentality where all your acts are judged by omniscient cosmic forces.

That why I consider alignments to simply be roleplay guidlines that indicate how the character will act most of the time.

[AMFV]

well yes.
Most PCs are, in fact, glorified career killers and burglars who routinely commit breaking and entering, grand larceny and manslaugther pretty much for the hell of it, when we are not talking about war crimes.

I wouldn't say most... Some characters do commit breaking and entering, but genuine robberies are pretty rare in my experience. Larceny is debatable, and Manslaughter does require that the enemy means you no harm, else it would be self-defense.

[awa]

im not certain what games you play but in most of the ones ive played in we don't just randomly bumble around the wilderness killing things that look different then us were going there to do something. rescue the sacrifices, stop the ritual what ever. I'm not certain in my decade+ of play if i have ever had an adventure where good pcs started a fight that was unjustified. (not including cases of being manipulated or mistaken identity)

[le Suisse]

I wouldn't say most... Some characters do commit breaking and entering, but genuine robberies are pretty rare in my experience. Larceny is debatable, and Manslaughter does require that the enemy means you no harm, else it would be self-defense.

Well, if you take the classical hack-n-slash dungeon, your PC will nearly always:
- be trespassing on private grounds
- break their way to the tresaure vault
- kill sentient beings because they were in his way (and who will be defending themselves)
- Steal anything that has value on the building

Now, the people the PCs fight tend to have bad intentions, but the actions of the PCs are often not better, even if they're arbitrary declared "Good".

Also, alignment is too often used by DMs as deterent ("don't do this it's against your aligment") or for dilemna purpose ("Do you kill the civilian orcs that surrendered?") and for me it's just a way to gather cheap heat.

[Dalebert]

Wait, really? Like... hold on. REALLY?

I'm pretty sure there are a fair number of goblin caves where the goblins were mostly minding their own business in their own homes when PCs invaded and "defended themselves from those aggressive goblins" (who were defending their home from invaders).

[le Suisse]

I'm not certain in my decade+ of play if i have ever had an adventure where good pcs started a fight that was unjustified. (not including cases of being manipulated or mistaken identity)

Well, what do you call a justified fight then?

[Drachasor]

Wait, really? Like... hold on. REALLY?

I'm pretty sure there are a fair number of goblin caves where the goblins were mostly minding their own business in their own homes when PCs invaded and "defended themselves from those aggressive goblins" (who were defending their home from invaders).

Way I see it, it's their fault for being on our land before we got there.

[Angelalex242]

Usually, it's "The eeeeeeevil wizard puppy punter lives in the dungeon with his minions, go do something messy and violent to him."

[AMFV]

Well, if you take the classical hack-n-slash dungeon, your PC will nearly always:
- be trespassing on private grounds
- break their way to the tresaure vault
- kill sentient beings because they were in his way (and who will be defending themselves)
- Steal anything that has value on the building

Well dungeons are typically graveyards which are not usually currently owned, making trespassing kind of an irrelevant entry. If they are owned, then usually they're being used in some kind of evil plot, which typically is a justifiable reason to break and enter, the same as the police have.

Breaking into a treasure vault, owned by somebody who is long dead, isn't really robbery either, it's salvage, the laws governing that are vastly different, but tend to not have the same kind of harsh penalties as theft, even if it is illegal salvage.

They kill sentient beings who attack them for being in the same area, in a largely public location. That's not normally good, or if it is their area they're often and generally involved in nefarious business, and the same defenses apply to that as to the trespassing argument.

Stealing things either from an graveyard (where the dead have no use for them), or from taking them as spoils of war, is generally not considered illegal in all places, certainly not immoral if it is illegal. Particularly since the adventurers often need them to protect themselves.



Now, the people the PCs fight tend to have bad intentions, but the actions of the PCs are often not better, even if they're arbitrary declared "Good".

Also, alignment is too often used by DMs as deterent ("don't do this it's against your aligment") or for dilemna purpose ("Do you kill the civilian orcs that surrendered?") and for me it's just a way to gather cheap heat.

Well we've just shown that PCs usually do act better than their enemies, and if they act the same, then its war and that's at best a moral wash, coming out as neutral in the worst case.

I'm fairly sick of the "PCs are violent muderhobos" argument I've rarely seen it in play, or had a case where the actions of players rated that kind of accusation.

[MonochromeTiger]

Well we've just shown that PCs usually do act better than their enemies, and if they act the same, then its war and that's at best a moral wash, coming out as neutral in the worst case.

I'm fairly sick of the "PCs are violent muderhobos" argument I've rarely seen it in play, or had a case where the actions of players rated that kind of accusation.

having played and DMed mostly evil campaigns, I actually can't make "murderhobo" fit my groups either.. I mean sure they like some murdering but that's just the way they go about business, the hobo part is entirely unjustified as usually they've successfully murdered their way into a fort or castle full of treasure and are now living comfortably while plotting the conquering of the rest of the world.

but yes between extenuating circumstances and how debatable each and every act is when you bring alignment up it's kind of difficult to make some alignment ideas stick if the player is crafty enough in their explanation.

[AMFV]

having played and DMed mostly evil campaigns, I actually can't make "murderhobo" fit my groups either.. I mean sure they like some murdering but that's just the way they go about business, the hobo part is entirely unjustified as usually they've successfully murdered their way into a fort or castle full of treasure and are now living comfortably while plotting the conquering of the rest of the world.

but yes between extenuating circumstances and how debatable each and every act is when you bring alignment up it's kind of difficult to make some alignment ideas stick if the player is crafty enough in their explanation.

Well those don't even really require much craftiness in their explanation most of them are hard to push out of neutral either way, I mean they're not really cruel in almost any interpretation, self-defense in D&D is at best a moral wash.

[MonochromeTiger]

Well those don't even really require much craftiness in their explanation most of them are hard to push out of neutral either way, I mean they're not really cruel in almost any interpretation, self-defense in D&D is at best a moral wash.

oh without a doubt, I guess it kind of explains the stark black and white views WotC tried to put out with their vile/exalted deeds books...the ones that contradicted not only logic but also canon lore for D&D settings. cause hey who needs a flexible alignment system that's open to situational debate and interpretation, WE CAN SELL MORE BOOKS!

[AMFV]

oh without a doubt, I guess it kind of explains the stark black and white views WotC tried to put out with their vile/exalted deeds books...the ones that contradicted not only logic but also canon lore for D&D settings. cause hey who needs a flexible alignment system that's open to situational debate and interpretation, WE CAN SELL MORE BOOKS!

I agree, although I like a lot of the material in BoVD, and BoED, I just think that the philosophical elements are a little wishy-washy.

[le Suisse]

Well dungeons are typically graveyards which are not usually currently owned, making trespassing kind of an irrelevant entry. If they are owned, then usually they're being used in some kind of evil plot, which typically is a justifiable reason to break and enter, the same as the police have.

Breaking into a treasure vault, owned by somebody who is long dead, isn't really robbery either, it's salvage, the laws governing that are vastly different, but tend to not have the same kind of harsh penalties as theft, even if it is illegal salvage.


I don't know what kind of game you usually play, but in the ones I played and the ones I heard about, the dungeon is actually owned by a living (or any close equivalent) entity. If it's a graveyard, pillaging it would be grave robbery (and from a religious viewpoint, desecrating), possibly nighthawking, and even if not i'm pretty sure the family of the dead will not like people stealing their ancestors' valuable. Salvage is apparently a term of maritime law and only apply after a shipwreck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_salvage

If a place is used to plot "evil" acts (inverted commas because we still have to etablish what an evil act is), it's still not okay to break in and rob the place blind, because 1. it's the job of the law enforcers, not random vigilantes 2. If you steal something from a criminal, it is still a crime 3. killing someone not in self-defense is still illegal, and i think it's self-defense to enter a place with the intent to cause harm to its occupants.


They kill sentient beings who attack them for being in the same area, in a largely public location. That's not normally good, or if it is their area they're often and generally involved in nefarious business, and the same defenses apply to that as to the trespassing argument.


Are you saying that the PCs simply stumble upon the bad guys, who react with violence way out of proportion? In my experience, it's fairly rare the PCs are entering their ennemies' base strongly armed and ready to kill.


Stealing things either from an graveyard (where the dead have no use for them), or from taking them as spoils of war, is generally not considered illegal in all places, certainly not immoral if it is illegal. Particularly since the adventurers often need them to protect themselves.

...
I must say i'm puzzled for this one. Stealing things from a graveyard is not only illegal everywhere, it's moraly questionable at best, and in ancient civilisations often a capital offense. After all, if someone chose to bury their loved ones with valuable, for whatever reasons (often religious ones), it's their rights and you can't take it because you feel it's a waste.

Taking spoil of war, aka looting aka plundering, is illegal everywhere since the last century, and was considered a dickish move even before.

And the adventurers don't "need [the stolen goods] to protect themselves", they just want it for themselves to achieve their goals, and that neither legal nor moral. Because if it was I could steal a car if I was late for my finals, because I "needed it to protect myself". Or I could beat up the bouncer who denied me entry of his nightclub because I "needed" to enter.

Now, the real question is: "Is willingly killing a sentient being always immoral"
In my opinion, the answer is yes.



Well we've just shown that PCs usually do act better than their enemies, and if they act the same, then its war and that's at best a moral wash, coming out as neutral in the worst case.

No. Simply no. War is something horrible, with thousands of issues, but you can't say "it's at best a moral wash, at worse neutral". If my foe kill thousands of my country's civilians, I can't pretend it's morally neutral to kill thousands of his country's civilians. It's equaly horrible, but certainly not "moraly neutral".

But yes the PCs will usually act more moraly than their ennemies... But have you seen the bad guys of D&D? They could be cartoonishly villainous if they weren't so horrifying. Between the drows, the undeads, the demons and devils, the mind flayers and the others, who would kill you in fifty ways for fun and eithy for profit, even the most depraved PCs would appear tame. But for the record i've seen PCs in non-evil campaign at least equally moraly corrupt.



I'm fairly sick of the "PCs are violent muderhobos" argument I've rarely seen it in play, or had a case where the actions of players rated that kind of accusation


I'm not saying PCs are "violent murderhobos" (even if I saw some), but a lot of the typical adventurers are guns-for-hire with way too much free time and a thirst for violence and gold.

[WbtE]

well yes.
Most PCs are, in fact, glorified career killers and burglars who routinely commit breaking and entering, grand larceny and manslaugther pretty much for the hell of it, when we are not talking about war crimes.

But that is because we are talking about it with our real world mentality, not in D&D mentality where all your acts are judged by omniscient cosmic forces.

That why I consider alignments to simply be roleplay guidlines that indicate how the character will act most of the time.

I think most D&D adventurers look rather restrained compared to historical Crusaders. Maybe your problem is that you're trying to judge them outside the standards of their time?

[SciChronic]

well yes.
Most PCs are, in fact, glorified career killers and burglars who routinely commit breaking and entering, grand larceny and manslaugther pretty much for the hell of it, when we are not talking about war crimes.

But that is because we are talking about it with our real world mentality, not in D&D mentality where all your acts are judged by omniscient cosmic forces.

That why I consider alignments to simply be roleplay guidlines that indicate how the character will act most of the time.
DnD gods are hardly omniscient, divine rank only gives vision/hearing within a range centered on temples and utterances of the god's name, but I suppose thats just semantics for the major gods.

I see the gods more like the grecoroman, norse, egyptian, and any other polytheistic religions. the gods have faults, weaknesses, and vices. and while they hold great power they exercise almost all of it through the clergy's clerics and paladins. I dont think they really judge anyone unless its part of their domain or they have done something in direct conflict with their interests, and even that could possibly only result in the clergy sending people after them.

[MonochromeTiger]

I think most D&D adventurers look rather restrained compared to historical Crusaders. Maybe your problem is that you're trying to judge them outside the standards of their time?

let's be honest, historical crusaders could hardly be considered paragons of morality outside of the stories they told about themselves. their job was pretty much go to a place that is likely partly held by the group they represent then slaughter EVERYONE with their choice of big pointy sword or big blunt mace, then while wading knee deep in blood claim said random place in the name of *insert person, cause, country, or crusader's own name here*.

the only reason they were ever considered anywhere near respected or good is because they were under the orders of someone big and important enough to MAKE the laws and dictate to everyone "yes, this is a good person, he killed dragons you know" then execute anyone who gets whiny about it.

[Angelalex242]

But then you forget it's D&D, and in D&D, even for Exalted Characters, the first rule of survival is 'if it isn't nailed down and it's owned by evil, it's yours.' If you're playing a rogue, nailed down just means it's time to break out the crowbar.

These noble heroes wouldn't loot Pelor's cemetery, for example, but Hextor's cemetery is fair game. PCs usually have cart blanche to do anything they want to evil clerics, evil wizards, evil castles, whatever, as long as it isn't flat out torturing the inhabitants. Otherwise, once something pings evil on the evildar, it's good old fashioned kill people and take their stuff.

It'd almost be funny to make a city where it's literally against the law to ping evil on the evildar, punishable by death and the confiscation of all assets.

[AMFV]

I don't know what kind of game you usually play, but in the ones I played and the ones I heard about, the dungeon is actually owned by a living (or any close equivalent) entity. If it's a graveyard, pillaging it would be grave robbery (and from a religious viewpoint, desecrating), possibly nighthawking, and even if not i'm pretty sure the family of the dead will not like people stealing their ancestors' valuable. Salvage is apparently a term of maritime law and only apply after a shipwreck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_salvage

If a place is used to plot "evil" acts (inverted commas because we still have to etablish what an evil act is), it's still not okay to break in and rob the place blind, because 1. it's the job of the law enforcers, not random vigilantes 2. If you steal something from a criminal, it is still a crime 3. killing someone not in self-defense is still illegal, and i think it's self-defense to enter a place with the intent to cause harm to its occupants.



Why not? Anti-Vigilante laws are fairly recent. In a pseudo-medieval society that's not very common at all. Furthermore Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, all have dead owners. The only dungeon I can think of with a live owner is Undermountain, and he's rumored to be dead (also in that one you're investigating a disappearance), so that's different also. Furthermore in all of those there are other things that bring you to the adventure, with the exception of Tomb of Horrors, those are probably the most famous straight dungeon crawls I can think of.




Are you saying that the PCs simply stumble upon the bad guys, who react with violence way out of proportion? In my experience, it's fairly rare the PCs are entering their ennemies' base strongly armed and ready to kill.


Yes, but it's not usually entering their home, it's entering an unknown location, so again we're looking at a moral wash, neutral at the best, the monsters are defending their home, the PCs are defending their persons, so in the worst case we're looking at a morally neutral wash.



...
I must say i'm puzzled for this one. Stealing things from a graveyard is not only illegal everywhere, it's moraly questionable at best, and in ancient civilisations often a capital offense. After all, if someone chose to bury their loved ones with valuable, for whatever reasons (often religious ones), it's their rights and you can't take it because you feel it's a waste.


Not in all ancient civilizations, nor is it illegal in all modern civilizations. Stealing things from a recent graveyard is certainly illegal, but most dungeons are not recent graves, and few of them are technically graveyards. Tomb of Horrors is one of the only ones.



Taking spoil of war, aka looting aka plundering, is illegal everywhere since the last century, and was considered a dickish move even before.


Not really, using recovered resources isn't a **** move, but an expected one, if the enemy leaves ammunition that's fine to use, if the enemy leaves weapons and you need one, you can use that. Taking war trophies is illegal, that's a different matter altogether.

I cite my own experience on this, I've had several Laws of Land Warfare classes, I was actually in a group of people that were responsible to train people going to Afghanistan, so I've had to sit through that class many many times, necessity always wins out, military necessity can make it okay to use things that the enemies leave behind. Furthermore civilians like adventurers, are not subject to the law of land warfare.



And the adventurers don't "need [the stolen goods] to protect themselves", they just want it for themselves to achieve their goals, and that neither legal nor moral. Because if it was I could steal a car if I was late for my finals, because I "needed it to protect myself". Or I could beat up the bouncer who denied me entry of his nightclub because I "needed" to enter.


Well that would depend on your goals. If your goals are important enough you can justify things you might not otherwise be able to. You can speed if you're driving your wife to the hospital for example, or that's generally accepted. You can protect yourself from a bouncer if he's violating your rights and you feel you're in danger. There are mitigating circumstances.



Now, the real question is: "Is willingly killing a sentient being always immoral"
In my opinion, the answer is yes.

And here we come to the crux of the problem, if you are a pacifist then, yes most of the actions taken by an adventuring party is going to present a problem to you, but so do most of the actions of professional soldiers. Or many of the actions of police officers, or executioners. And that's holding people to a modern standard.

[MonochromeTiger]

Why not? Anti-Vigilante laws are fairly recent. In a pseudo-medieval society that's not very common at all.

and the swarm of players making batman based characters rejoiced.

vigilante justice is actually fairly common in medieval society, or are we ignoring the presence of the iconic torch and pitchfork bearing angry mob? if someone stole from you or killed someone important to you and you weren't right in front of a guard post to get their attention you dealt with it, otherwise you wait days, possibly months before they actually get around to your problem.

on salvage, yes the term is one implying maritime use but it is essentially a form of "looting" which while not highly respected was pretty much expected to happen to some degree. military discipline wasn't a high concern back then, all they cared about was the soldiers getting there, winning whatever battle they were sent to do, and coming back to defend against any possible attacks. if some went out to pillage and burn it was considered the enemy's problem.

[AMFV]

on salvage, yes the term is one implying maritime use but it is essentially a form of "looting" which while not highly respected was pretty much expected to happen to some degree. military discipline wasn't a high concern back then, all they cared about was the soldiers getting there, winning whatever battle they were sent to do, and coming back to defend against any possible attacks. if some went out to pillage and burn it was considered the enemy's problem.

Also again salvage for military necessity is completely fine, no laws against that, the laws deal with trophy collection which is a different matter, while many adventurers deal with that, they also wouldn't be held by those laws, since those deal with uniformed servicemembers, at least in their current incarnations they do.

[Andezzar]

Furthermore civilians like adventurers, are not subject to the law of land warfare.Wouldn't those be unlawful combatants by today's standards?

[AMFV]

Wouldn't those be unlawful combatants by today's standards?

I can't really answer that too much without getting into modern politics, but suffice it to say that as far "lawful" vs "unlawful" combatants goes, the main difference is whether they're held as POWs or could be charged by local laws, or the laws of the nation they're at war with. So if the Orcs captured the players they could charge them under Orcish law, if we are using that standard.

[Randomocity132]

I agree with your general point and that is actually what's in the rules so they agree with you too, though with two small caveats.

Though extremely few and inherently extreme in nature it is -possible- for a lone action to cause even a dramatic alignment shift. For example, signing on the dotted line of a pact certain, regardless of motivation, immediately moves your alignment from wherever it is to LE.


Disagree. I reference :vaarsuvius: as an example of signing a pact for the express purpose of doing good.


That's why being mind controlled into killing an innocent is still evil, and trying to murder someone and failing is not.

ABSOLUTELY disagree. Intent matters a hell of a lot. The blame lies on the mind controller, not the puppet.

[MonochromeTiger]

Also again salvage for military necessity is completely fine, no laws against that, the laws deal with trophy collection which is a different matter, while many adventurers deal with that, they also wouldn't be held by those laws, since those deal with uniformed servicemembers, at least in their current incarnations they do.

pretty much this, if you're out of ammo and one of the guys you shot has plenty in their nice shiny working gun YOU TAKE THE GUN. your life depends on it, heck you take it even if you have ammo to spare if your gun is at risk of jamming in a dangerous fight.



Now, the real question is: "Is willingly killing a sentient being always immoral"
In my opinion, the answer is yes.


ok then, assume that sentient being just killed someone in front of you, they very clearly enjoy the act and it's evident they will gladly do it again and again and again and again unless stopped. you have a means of stopping them, either permanently or temporarily until law enforcement arrives, but oh look local laws only sentence a few years for one murder, when he gets out he may very well go after you for stopping him and others as well...are you going to ignore the logical answer to appease your conscience and put lives at risk or are you going to prevent a killer from continuing to kill?

that one view of "it's always immoral" can fit the ideals of "violence is wrong" and "there's always another answer" but those views in themselves are often only held by people who have never been in a situation where they can use them. if someone is getting beaten senseless asking the attackers politely to stop has an abysmal chance of actually working, while subduing them if it's in your means would work every time. I personally think the reason we can get views of "killing is always wrong" is because ideally everyone would have that view and it would cease to be an issue, but since not everyone does and not every problem will stop if you ask nicely..sometimes violence actually does solve the problem.

[Maginomicon]

I've seen many alignment debates on these boards and I feel like many people fail to see the larger pictureThis article (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283341) may be of use to you.

[awa]

Well, what do you call a justified fight then?

The most common when it comes to stuff like orcs and what not is something along the lines of orcs are killing everyone who walks up this road and taking their stuff go stop them. Or orc have been pillaging the surrounding area for years and all the commoner live in terror save them.
If these orcs have women, children or other noncombatants there not here when pcs get there the least militant orc is the 1hd warrior straight from the monster manual. On the few occasions where the dm has put noncombatants on the field i have never seen a good player attack them with out punishment. *

if you want to play the game as evil hobos running around killing goblin babies fine that's your choice but im kinda getting annoyed that so many people on the internet (ive never met a person who played this way in person) seem to think this is the default.

*one exception i remembered when i was a kid we had a disruptive player who we kept playing with becuase we were friends and he would do stuff like that but he was an exception and killing everything was the least of his problems.

[Angelalex242]

It is perfectly reasonable in D&D's world to stab the face off evil wherever you find it unless you're playing the Apostle of Peace Prestige Class.

And if you don't like violence, that's the class for you. No other class makes sense.

[MonochromeTiger]

It is perfectly reasonable in D&D's world to stab the face off evil wherever you find it unless you're playing the Apostle of Peace Prestige Class.

And if you don't like violence, that's the class for you. No other class makes sense.

I kind of have to agree here. if you want to take a complete broad-strokes pure shiny good morality approach...you lose the ability to take any non social actions that aren't healing, crafting, or some form of movement (because fighting, by morals we're taught at a young age, is always wrong). heck you lose the ability to make use of bluff or intimidate (because telling a lie or being a bully is, yet again by the morals of our childhoods, always wrong (but your parents aren't REALLY telling a lie, just a little one, that doesn't count. double standards don't exist kids)). it's not IMPOSSIBLE to play a character like that but you cut out 90% of your options and prove completely useless if something dangerous attacks as anything other than a supporting person who requires others to put themselves at risk because you can't defend yourself.

[SowZ]

To follow any sort of logic, you have to throw out a good chunk of what the books say about what your actions mean for your alignment. I point to the fact that you lose the Exalted Feat "Vow of Chastity" and have to repent and make amends if you are raped. Sometimes, you just need to say, "Screw that crap." and make a ruling based on common sense.

[le Suisse]

I think most D&D adventurers look rather restrained compared to historical Crusaders. Maybe your problem is that you're trying to judge them outside the standards of their time?

But then you forget it's D&D, and in D&D, even for Exalted Characters, the first rule of survival is 'if it isn't nailed down and it's owned by evil, it's yours.' If you're playing a rogue, nailed down just means it's time to break out the crowbar.

These noble heroes wouldn't loot Pelor's cemetery, for example, but Hextor's cemetery is fair game. PCs usually have cart blanche to do anything they want to evil clerics, evil wizards, evil castles, whatever, as long as it isn't flat out torturing the inhabitants. Otherwise, once something pings evil on the evildar, it's good old fashioned kill people and take their stuff.

It'd almost be funny to make a city where it's literally against the law to ping evil on the evildar, punishable by death and the confiscation of all assets.

Why not? Anti-Vigilante laws are fairly recent. In a pseudo-medieval society that's not very common at all. Furthermore Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, all have dead owners. The only dungeon I can think of with a live owner is Undermountain, and he's rumored to be dead (also in that one you're investigating a disappearance), so that's different also. Furthermore in all of those there are other things that bring you to the adventure, with the exception of Tomb of Horrors, those are probably the most famous straight dungeon crawls I can think of.




Yes, but it's not usually entering their home, it's entering an unknown location, so again we're looking at a moral wash, neutral at the best, the monsters are defending their home, the PCs are defending their persons, so in the worst case we're looking at a morally neutral wash.



Not in all ancient civilizations, nor is it illegal in all modern civilizations. Stealing things from a recent graveyard is certainly illegal, but most dungeons are not recent graves, and few of them are technically graveyards. Tomb of Horrors is one of the only ones.



Not really, using recovered resources isn't a **** move, but an expected one, if the enemy leaves ammunition that's fine to use, if the enemy leaves weapons and you need one, you can use that. Taking war trophies is illegal, that's a different matter altogether.

I cite my own experience on this, I've had several Laws of Land Warfare classes, I was actually in a group of people that were responsible to train people going to Afghanistan, so I've had to sit through that class many many times, necessity always wins out, military necessity can make it okay to use things that the enemies leave behind. Furthermore civilians like adventurers, are not subject to the law of land warfare.



Well that would depend on your goals. If your goals are important enough you can justify things you might not otherwise be able to. You can speed if you're driving your wife to the hospital for example, or that's generally accepted. You can protect yourself from a bouncer if he's violating your rights and you feel you're in danger. There are mitigating circumstances.



And here we come to the crux of the problem, if you are a pacifist then, yes most of the actions taken by an adventuring party is going to present a problem to you, but so do most of the actions of professional soldiers. Or many of the actions of police officers, or executioners. And that's holding people to a modern standard.


pretty much this, if you're out of ammo and one of the guys you shot has plenty in their nice shiny working gun YOU TAKE THE GUN. your life depends on it, heck you take it even if you have ammo to spare if your gun is at risk of jamming in a dangerous fight.



ok then, assume that sentient being just killed someone in front of you, they very clearly enjoy the act and it's evident they will gladly do it again and again and again and again unless stopped. you have a means of stopping them, either permanently or temporarily until law enforcement arrives, but oh look local laws only sentence a few years for one murder, when he gets out he may very well go after you for stopping him and others as well...are you going to ignore the logical answer to appease your conscience and put lives at risk or are you going to prevent a killer from continuing to kill?

that one view of "it's always immoral" can fit the ideals of "violence is wrong" and "there's always another answer" but those views in themselves are often only held by people who have never been in a situation where they can use them. if someone is getting beaten senseless asking the attackers politely to stop has an abysmal chance of actually working, while subduing them if it's in your means would work every time. I personally think the reason we can get views of "killing is always wrong" is because ideally everyone would have that view and it would cease to be an issue, but since not everyone does and not every problem will stop if you ask nicely..sometimes violence actually does solve the problem.



It is perfectly reasonable in D&D's world to stab the face off evil wherever you find it unless you're playing the Apostle of Peace Prestige Class.

And if you don't like violence, that's the class for you. No other class makes sense.


and the swarm of players making batman based characters rejoiced.

vigilante justice is actually fairly common in medieval society, or are we ignoring the presence of the iconic torch and pitchfork bearing angry mob? if someone stole from you or killed someone important to you and you weren't right in front of a guard post to get their attention you dealt with it, otherwise you wait days, possibly months before they actually get around to your problem.

on salvage, yes the term is one implying maritime use but it is essentially a form of "looting" which while not highly respected was pretty much expected to happen to some degree. military discipline wasn't a high concern back then, all they cared about was the soldiers getting there, winning whatever battle they were sent to do, and coming back to defend against any possible attacks. if some went out to pillage and burn it was considered the enemy's problem.



Guys, I think your missing the point

As defined by Kant, a truly moral action is an action you can treat as if it was an absolute, universal imperative. That doesn't depends of standards, necessities or circumstences. You must treat your ideal as an imperative that will always apply, because otherwise it is hypocritical. if you think killing is moral under some circumstences, it would mean that you must always be willing to kill. Saying "yes, but..." is hypocrisy, because that mean you consider morality as something you have arbitrarily decided on and may alter later, aka an opinion. And opinions depends of the person, so it would means that what actions is moral depends of the person's opinion on the subject, and this would means that the dictator's decision to kill a kid is moral, because he decided so.

The mentality changes we can see through History simply means that people agreed on other

Now, I'm not a pacifist. I'm not pro-war either, but I think everyone must fight to defend what one holds dear, whatever it may be. I'm a pragmatist.

And that why I say: Morality doesn't mean jack ****.

Yes, it would be wonderful if we were always nice to each others, always happy and in harmony. But the truth is that we're beings of flesh and blood that live a dire existence in a harsh world, and sometime we have to bash a few skulls to survive in it. Does that make it moral? Hell no! Does that mean we shouldn't do it? still no

Morality and laws are only here to help us live in society, and when they stop helping us we ignore them.

That why fighting, killing your ennemies, looting their supplies, making justice yourself, etc, are not moral actions, but necessary actions, at least by your judgment at the time. Being immoral doesn't mean that you're wrong, it means you're unpleasant.

So yes, a character truly moral would never harm another, and that would prevent him from doing 90% of what an adventurer does. The Book of Exalted Deeds, with all its vows and other options, says pretty much that: if you want to be "Good" with the capital letter, you must stop yourself from doing the sligthliest "bad" thing.


DnD gods are hardly omniscient, divine rank only gives vision/hearing within a range centered on temples and utterances of the god's name, but I suppose thats just semantics for the major gods.


I'm not talking about gods. I'm talking about the universal force that judge every action to be of a certain alignment, since it.

For exemple: Bahamut the Dragon God is Good. Why? We don't know. But apparently something examined all his acts and judged them to be in majority good deeds, so he is Good.


let's be honest, historical crusaders could hardly be considered paragons of morality outside of the stories they told about themselves. their job was pretty much go to a place that is likely partly held by the group they represent then slaughter EVERYONE with their choice of big pointy sword or big blunt mace, then while wading knee deep in blood claim said random place in the name of *insert person, cause, country, or crusader's own name here*.

the only reason they were ever considered anywhere near respected or good is because they were under the orders of someone big and important enough to MAKE the laws and dictate to everyone "yes, this is a good person, he killed dragons you know" then execute anyone who gets whiny about it.

Exactly: They're considered good because someone told so. While in the heroic world of D&D, the universe is supposed to judge your acts, meaning there is a true moral system that doesn't exist because of social convention.


Furthermore Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, all have dead owners. The only dungeon I can think of with a live owner is Undermountain, and he's rumored to be dead (also in that one you're investigating a disappearance), so that's different also. Furthermore in all of those there are other things that bring you to the adventure, with the exception of Tomb of Horrors, those are probably the most famous straight dungeon crawls I can think of.

Well, I was mostly talking about original adventure created by independents DMs. But i can say "The Temple of Elemental Evil" to answer your question.

[Andezzar]

For the Detect first, Smite second, maybe ask questions later paladins: look at the DMG on random NPCs (Table 4-7 p. 110): Every second NPC is evil (and the predominant classes are cleric and rogue) That will be a whole lot of smiting.

If you don't agree with your DM's perception of alignment, don't play a paladin or divine character and treat alignment the way it is for those characters: a nearly meaningless label.

[MonochromeTiger]

To follow any sort of logic, you have to throw out a good chunk of what the books say about what your actions mean for your alignment. I point to the fact that you lose the Exalted Feat "Vow of Chastity" and have to repent and make amends if you are raped. Sometimes, you just need to say, "Screw that crap." and make a ruling based on common sense.

must...resist...urge.. to let wife create succubus only to put that feat on the character by DM fiat.

but yes if you go by what the books say 90% of logical decisions will instantly throw you into a death spiral of alignment change terminating somewhere south of neutral. try to convert a demon that has proven it's fully capable of reasoning and doesn't need to kill and torment to go on with it's life? NEVER! you lose your good alignment for looking at a demon without killing it and displaying its body to its family. wait but I'm allowed to convert ANY other sentient free willed creature? yeah..well..uh...REASONS!

[Randomocity132]

must...resist...urge.. to let wife create succubus only to put that feat on the character by DM fiat.

but yes if you go by what the books say 90% of logical decisions will instantly throw you into a death spiral of alignment change terminating somewhere south of neutral. try to convert a demon that has proven it's fully capable of reasoning and doesn't need to kill and torment to go on with it's life? NEVER! you lose your good alignment for looking at a demon without killing it and displaying its body to its family. wait but I'm allowed to convert ANY other sentient free willed creature? yeah..well..uh...REASONS!

That's pretty much the problem with this "hard-and-fast, black-and-white, objective-morality" kind of way that some people apparently look at things. Makes no sense to me. Can't imagine how they conduct their own lives, unless they think that "morality" in D&D context means something totally different from real life.

[le Suisse]

That's pretty much the problem with this "hard-and-fast, black-and-white, objective-morality" kind of way that some people apparently look at things. Makes no sense to me. Can't imagine how they conduct their own lives, unless they think that "morality" in D&D context means something totally different from real life.

thank you. the problem is that they take philosophical debates and expect people to treat the issue as a universal truth

[Andezzar]

That's pretty much the problem with this "hard-and-fast, black-and-white, objective-morality" kind of way that some people apparently look at things. Makes no sense to me. Can't imagine how they conduct their own lives, unless they think that "morality" in D&D context means something totally different from real life.The problem is that morality exists as an objective quantifiable property of creatures in the game world. A wizard or any other character with all four detect alignment spells can pinpoint the alignment of any given creature. Other spells also have effects based on an objective alignment.

[le Suisse]

The problem is that morality exists as an objective quantifiable property of creatures in the game world. A wizard or any other character with all four detect alignment spells can pinpoint the alignment of any given creature. Other spells also have effects based on an objective alignment.

And the thing is it's not even mind-reading (detecting hostile intent or something like that), the guy you cast your spell on is literaly radiating his alignement as a tangible, mesurable aura.

[Drachasor]

Guys, I think your missing the point

As defined by Kant, a truly moral action is an action you can treat as if it was an absolute, universal imperative. That doesn't depends of standards, necessities or circumstences. You must treat your ideal as an imperative that will always apply, because otherwise it is hypocritical. if you think killing is moral under some circumstences, it would mean that you must always be willing to kill. Saying "yes, but..." is hypocrisy, because that mean you consider morality as something you have arbitrarily decided on and may alter later, aka an opinion. And opinions depends of the person, so it would means that what actions is moral depends of the person's opinion on the subject, and this would means that the dictator's decision to kill a kid is moral, because he decided so.

Kant had a half dozen definitions for a Categorical Imperative and they really weren't consistent with each other. So I don't think his system is worth much, personally. :P

Besides, like I said earlier, D&D morality seems to be more consequentialist which is not deontological like Kant's system. If you do run it as deontological, it certainly isn't Kantian.

[SowZ]

The problem is that morality exists as an objective quantifiable property of creatures in the game world. A wizard or any other character with all four detect alignment spells can pinpoint the alignment of any given creature. Other spells also have effects based on an objective alignment.

I disagree. Just because the game rules say morality is objective doesn't mean it's so. If the game says someone who takes a Vow of Chastity needs apologize if they are raped. The gamemakers word there doesn't make it right or wrong. There isn't an overarching single G-dlike entity deciding right and wrong in D&D. Good and Evil are just energies and forces without consciousness.

The fact that they were named Good and Evil doesn't make them right and wrong. We could just as arbitrarily name Potential Energy and Kinetic Energy Good and Evil, it wouldn't make the energies have a true ethical bias.

[le Suisse]

I disagree. Just because the game rules say morality is objective doesn't mean it's so. If the game says someone who takes a Vow of Chastity needs apologize if they are raped. The gamemakers word there doesn't make it right or wrong. There isn't an overarching single G-dlike entity deciding right and wrong in D&D. Good and Evil are just energies and forces without consciousness.

The fact that they were named Good and Evil doesn't make them right and wrong. We could just as arbitrarily name Potential Energy and Kinetic Energy Good and Evil, it wouldn't make the energies have a true ethical bias.

But then what are these energies if they're not based upon ethical bias? I mean the guy who radiate Evil is pretty much going to be "evil", whaterver that means.

Otherwise you're right. When the game is stupid, it's up to us to be smart

[NichG]

But then what are these energies if they're not based upon ethical bias? I mean the guy who radiate Evil is pretty much going to be "evil", whaterver that means.

Otherwise you're right. When the game is stupid, it's up to us to be smart

I think one of the most important realizations to make the headaches go away is that if something sticks you with the 'E', it doesn't mean your personality changes or you suddenly become Snidely Whiplash.

If you just think 'there is someone assigning tags to everyone' then whether they decide to call you 'good' or 'evil' or 'comedic' or 'squirrel' doesn't really matter to your persona, it just matters to how the world that they control interacts with you. In other words, it only matters if you're playing an alignment-dependent class.

If I'm playing a wizard who sees himself as good, wants to help people, and uses [Evil] spells to achieve that end, thats fine. I have a, say, CE character who is the nicest guy you'll ever meet and won't break his personal code of ethics. And that's fine - having that CE tag doesn't actually prevent me from being a complete pacifist, philanthropist, and generally law-abiding citizen (who just happens to have certain cosmic laws he likes to break).

It may mean that there's an in-character reason to fight against 'the way things are' because of cosmic unfairness, but that's what plotlines and epic adventures are made of.

[MonochromeTiger]

I think one of the most important realizations to make the headaches go away is that if something sticks you with the 'E', it doesn't mean your personality changes or you suddenly become Snidely Whiplash.

If you just think 'there is someone assigning tags to everyone' then whether they decide to call you 'good' or 'evil' or 'comedic' or 'squirrel' doesn't really matter to your persona, it just matters to how the world that they control interacts with you. In other words, it only matters if you're playing an alignment-dependent class.

If I'm playing a wizard who sees himself as good, wants to help people, and uses [Evil] spells to achieve that end, thats fine. I have a, say, CE character who is the nicest guy you'll ever meet and won't break his personal code of ethics. And that's fine - having that CE tag doesn't actually prevent me from being a complete pacifist, philanthropist, and generally law-abiding citizen (who just happens to have certain cosmic laws he likes to break).

It may mean that there's an in-character reason to fight against 'the way things are' because of cosmic unfairness, but that's what plotlines and epic adventures are made of.

but what if you're given an alignment of squirrel and then gain the "secret" template? do you gain a kids cartoon character personality then?

[WbtE]

Kant had a half dozen definitions for a Categorical Imperative and they really weren't consistent with each other. So I don't think his system is worth much, personally. :P

Besides, like I said earlier, D&D morality seems to be more consequentialist which is not deontological like Kant's system. If you do run it as deontological, it certainly isn't Kantian.

False dilemma. From 2e onward, D&D morality is virtue ethics.

[Randomocity132]

The problem is that morality exists as an objective quantifiable property of creatures in the game world. A wizard or any other character with all four detect alignment spells can pinpoint the alignment of any given creature. Other spells also have effects based on an objective alignment.

Yes. But the question is how they got to that alignment. Identifying someone's current alignment isn't the question, but determining how their actions END UP as their alignment or how it AFFECTS their alignment is the issue.

They may be Good or Evil, but what actions made them end up there? That's the question.


thank you. the problem is that they take philosophical debates and expect people to treat the issue as a universal truth

Right. And one such cause might be because there are plenty of people that actually think morality is objective in real life, which is just ridiculous.

[Andezzar]

If I'm playing a wizard who sees himself as good, wants to help people, and uses [Evil] spells to achieve that end, thats fine. I have a, say, CE character who is the nicest guy you'll ever meet and won't break his personal code of ethics. And that's fine - having that CE tag doesn't actually prevent me from being a complete pacifist, philanthropist, and generally law-abiding citizen (who just happens to have certain cosmic laws he likes to break).

It may mean that there's an in-character reason to fight against 'the way things are' because of cosmic unfairness, but that's what plotlines and epic adventures are made of.I agree that such characters are possible and also should be possible. This however makes the names good, evil alw, chaos pretty meaningless, despite them being universal properties that are present in all creatures. You would be just as well served calling them blue, green, red, black. Then at least you would not have any expectations how a creature with a certain alignment would act.

Law and chaos are even weirder:
a character who cares nothing for the laws of any society can be:
chaotic, if he makes up his rule as he goes along
lawful, if he has some sort of moral/ethical code made up beforehand.

To the outside observer these two are indistinguishable, except through detect alignment.

[Drachasor]

False dilemma. From 2e onward, D&D morality is virtue ethics.

This doesn't exactly work, otherwise a Paladin couldn't really commit an unwilful evil act. Though, virtue ethics does a fair job of describing character alignment, it doesn't do a good job of determining the alignment of acts. The game makes a distinction between the two.

[NichG]

but what if you're given an alignment of squirrel and then gain the "secret" template? do you gain a kids cartoon character personality then?

Nah, but you might have to worry about a new vulnerability to 'the Dip'.

Edit to avoid double-post:


I agree that such characters are possible and also should be possible. This however makes the names good, evil alw, chaos pretty meaningless, despite them being universal properties that are present in all creatures. You would be just as well served calling them blue, green, red, black. Then at least you would not have any expectations how a creature with a certain alignment would act.

Law and chaos are even weirder:
a character who cares nothing for the laws of any society can be:
chaotic, if he makes up his rule as he goes along
lawful, if he has some sort of moral/ethical code made up beforehand.

To the outside observer these two are indistinguishable, except through detect alignment.

The question of how meaningful/meaningless alignments are becomes something that is in the hands of the authority that assigns then. There's basically an intermediate position between 'utterly meaningless' and 'completely tied to an ethical system'.

Essentially what I'm saying is, if you just play a character and let the universe does what it wants, maybe 80% of the time you and the universe (DM) will agree on what alignment a character should be and 20% of the time there will be a mismatch.

But lets say you're in a mismatch situation - it shouldn't matter to your characterization whether your behavior gets you the wrong alignment descriptor. Basically, your character should not be thinking 'I must be Good' but instead should be thinking 'I have these things that I believe in/these intuitions about what is right and wrong, and that is what I will follow'.

Essentially its not quite as bad as red/black/green/blue alignments - it just means that 'I will follow the precepts of Good to the letter' is not always going to be the same characterization as 'I will try to do the right thing'.

It does mean that you can't use Detect Alignment as solid evidence that someone is deserving of this or that punishment, but thats a feature, not a bug.

[Drachasor]

I agree that such characters are possible and also should be possible. This however makes the names good, evil alw, chaos pretty meaningless, despite them being universal properties that are present in all creatures. You would be just as well served calling them blue, green, red, black. Then at least you would not have any expectations how a creature with a certain alignment would act.

Law and chaos are even weirder:
a character who cares nothing for the laws of any society can be:
chaotic, if he makes up his rule as he goes along
lawful, if he has some sort of moral/ethical code made up beforehand.

To the outside observer these two are indistinguishable, except through detect alignment.

Eh, there's a world of difference between Batman and the Creeper. A clearcut ethical code is pretty easy to distinguish compared to make up rules as you go along. Also, it should impact your law vs. freedom stance a fair bit. But it can get a little fuzzy.

Though, the game would probably be better if split alignment into two aspects; goals/ends and means/methods. The Law/Chaos stuff could be defined more clearly then.

[SowZ]

But then what are these energies if they're not based upon ethical bias? I mean the guy who radiate Evil is pretty much going to be "evil", whaterver that means.

Otherwise you're right. When the game is stupid, it's up to us to be smart

He might be evil. He might not be. The energies happen to associate with certain actions and usually Evil actions are morally wrong and usually Good actions are morally right. But it is luck.

But sometimes the essence of universal good is horribly vomit inducing disgusting and evil. Because it isn't virtue based. It is just some cosmic law that either A. Happens to be in line with most ethical systems most the time or B. Is what people usually based their ethical systems on, which is still consistent with more subjective morality.

Here's the rub. If universal good is actually good, the right thing to do is shame rape victims. And that isn't just one crazy example. You are expected to feel guilty for any action you are mind raped into doing. There are lots of other examples of idiocy. Poisoning someone with a certain type of poison is Eeeeeevvvilll, whereas poisoning them with another kind of poison is perfectly all right. It is arbitrary and comes from laws of physics that don't have judgement or bias. It is not virtue based and there is no objective right and wrong in D&D.

If you say, "Wweeeellll, we can't use every extreme example so RAW doesn't always apply," then you forfeit the right to use any variation of the argument, "Morality is objective in D&D because the creators say so." Otherwise, being raped is shameful in D&D because WotC said so.

[WbtE]

This doesn't exactly work, otherwise a Paladin couldn't really commit an unwilful evil act. Though, virtue ethics does a fair job of describing character alignment, it doesn't do a good job of determining the alignment of acts. The game makes a distinction between the two.

Oh, come on, virtue ethics has more going for it than that. "An act is good if it's what a virtuous person would do" is not a closed definition, but it certainly gets the idea across. :smallsmile:

[Andezzar]

Eh, there's a world of difference between Batman and the Creeper.Probably, I don't know the Creeper. But this difference can only be seen once you have established the code for the lawful guy. There are no rules how a "lawful code" has to look like

A clearcut ethical code is pretty easy to distinguish compared to make up rules as you go along.Not necessarily. The chaotic guy could still come to the exact same decisions as the lawful guy in each and every situation. And to remain his alignment the lawful guy must have a rule for each and every situation. If he does not he would also be making it up as he goes along.

Also, it should impact your law vs. freedom stance a fair bit. But it can get a little fuzzy.Fuzzy is an understatement. By RAW you could have a lawful character who wants to protect personal freedom at all cost.

[MonochromeTiger]

Probably, I don't know the Creeper. But this difference can only be seen once you have established the code for the lawful guy. There are no rules how a "lawful code" has to look like
Not necessarily. The chaotic guy could still come to the exact same decisions as the lawful guy in each and every situation. And to remain his alignment the lawful guy must have a rule for each and every situation. If he does not he would also be making it up as he goes along.
Fuzzy is an understatement. By RAW you could have a lawful character who wants to protect personal freedom at all cost.

personally, chaotic simply means they value their freedoms over everything, they can take orders, they can work in an organization, they just don't accept any authority or organization that would actively restrict said freedoms or hinder their goals. lawful can be anything from strict adherence to an authority figure even if it means sacrificing some personal freedoms to setting up their own personal code and living by it.. generally those things are vague enough that a well played character could do a bit of both without going far enough to force an alignment change.

[Angelalex242]

Well...D&D Morality need not share anything in common with RL Morality.

Different Universe, Different Laws. That said, the Book of Exalted Deeds does mention 'being ahead of your time.'

So it might be that Vow of Chastity, which shames a rape victim...

Normal Good character:They deserve to be shamed per standard medieval rules.
Exalted Good character:Wait a minute, the victim isn't the bad guy!

In such ways does Exalted Good 'Step Up' where normal Good falls flat.

[NichG]

I guess what I'm trying to say is, an alignment change doesn't really matter. The key thing is to recognize that a person's alignment isn't the final word on how you should interact with them, and its not prescriptive of certain actions.

In that sense, it doesn't matter if you can make a character that seems to go against the grain of the standard definitions. You might be able to make a Lawful character who spends all their efforts guaranteeing personal freedom due to loopholes in the cosmic rules, and that's okay, because 'Lawful' is not the final word on the nature of the character - its just a cosmic descriptor that has been assigned to them.

Much like someone could use a combination of spells and effects to gain the 'True Dragon' type while in practice they're simply human, someone could play with the cosmic rules to gain the 'Good' alignment despite being a villainous and horrible person who wants to kill everyone. But that takes either conscious effort or particular circumstances. On average someone who commits murder is going to be Evil, and on average someone who helps others is going to be Good. But, much like the 'always Evil = 99% Evil' caveat, there will be exceptions who know how to manipulate the cosmic forces or who have particularly odd circumstances.

It just means that knowing someone is Evil does not give you a surety that they're a bad person, but it may be a piece of evidence towards that conclusion. You can't be sure that its a good idea to kill someone just because they ping Evil, and that uncertainty actually makes the game richer as a result.

[SowZ]

Well...D&D Morality need not share anything in common with RL Morality.

Different Universe, Different Laws. That said, the Book of Exalted Deeds does mention 'being ahead of your time.'

So it might be that Vow of Chastity, which shames a rape victim...

Normal Good character:They deserve to be shamed per standard medieval rules.
Exalted Good character:Wait a minute, the victim isn't the bad guy!

In such ways does Exalted Good 'Step Up' where normal Good falls flat.

Actually, it is only by Exalted characters specifically that need feel shame for being raped.

[MonochromeTiger]

Actually, it is only by Exalted characters specifically that need feel shame for being raped.

other things to feel shame for: the existence of world hunger while starving, having your pocket picked by a greedy person while already broke, being punched by someone angry over nothing while being a pacifist, someone complimenting you while you self deprecate yourself to unhealthy degrees, and ever having tried to be exalted good.

[NichG]

other things to feel shame for: the existence of world hunger while starving, having your pocket picked by a greedy person while already broke, being punched by someone angry over nothing while being a pacifist, someone complimenting you while you self deprecate yourself to unhealthy degrees, and ever having tried to be exalted good.

Well, my point is, there's no 'shame' to be had in losing Exalted status or losing Good status.

Its the usual paradox - you could save the souls of five million by accepting an 'Evil' tag on your soul - what do you do? By making 'Good' and 'Evil' concrete things that can be interacted with, you automatically make it possible for them to be manipulated in weird ways. In any system where 'Good' and 'Evil' are assigned values, you're going to get that consequence.

In such a system, there's no reason to be ashamed for losing 'Good' status, because its only a descriptor, not a condemnation of your true persona.

[SowZ]

Well, my point is, there's no 'shame' to be had in losing Exalted status or losing Good status.

Its the usual paradox - you could save the souls of five million by accepting an 'Evil' tag on your soul - what do you do? By making 'Good' and 'Evil' concrete things that can be interacted with, you automatically make it possible for them to be manipulated in weird ways. In any system where 'Good' and 'Evil' are assigned values, you're going to get that consequence.

In such a system, there's no reason to be ashamed for losing 'Good' status, because its only a descriptor, not a condemnation of your true persona.

You have to apologize to the universe with great remorse and try and 'make up for' being raped. No, I'm sorry, if that isn't rape shaming then rape shaming doesn't exist.

[MonochromeTiger]

You have to apologize to the universe with great remorse and try and 'make up for' being raped. No, I'm sorry, if that isn't rape shaming then rape shaming doesn't exist.

it's something I just plain don't get about book of exalted deeds.. I mean I get they're trying to put up some pitch black and blinding white morality division but really? aside from being downright fanatical in your devotion to a moral system that does nothing to actually solve the world's problems why take any of the vows from a character perspective. you are pretty much hampering things you allow yourself to do because someone thinks the acts associated with it are wrong. heck I hold that bias on some things myself but I'm not going to say "nope, stop feeling physical attraction that your body tells you to feel" just because I don't want to DM out the details of a player expecting their character to react in a human way...I'll just slap them over the back of the head and tell them I'm not giving details.

how can something with such uncaring views really spite the people who fail in a vow through means beyond their control? if I get hurt because someone else is being cruel I'm not going to go up and apologize to them for hitting their poor defenseless fist with my face.

[NichG]

You have to apologize to the universe with great remorse and try and 'make up for' being raped. No, I'm sorry, if that isn't rape shaming then rape shaming doesn't exist.

My point is more, from the viewpoint of a character, they should not feel ashamed because of it. A feeling that there's a cosmic injustice, fine, but the actual evaluations of the universe should not actually matter in-character to a normal person.

It's sort of like a letter saying 'You don't have Jimbob's Seal of Approval anymore' should not actually make the person feel shamed, it should make them feel annoyed at Jimbob, or at the very least result in a 'so what?'

[SowZ]

it's something I just plain don't get about book of exalted deeds.. I mean I get they're trying to put up some pitch black and blinding white morality division but really? aside from being downright fanatical in your devotion to a moral system that does nothing to actually solve the world's problems why take any of the vows from a character perspective. you are pretty much hampering things you allow yourself to do because someone thinks the acts associated with it are wrong. heck I hold that bias on some things myself but I'm not going to say "nope, stop feeling physical attraction that your body tells you to feel" just because I don't want to DM out the details of a player expecting their character to react in a human way...I'll just slap them over the back of the head and tell them I'm not giving details.

how can something with such uncaring views really spite the people who fail in a vow through means beyond their control? if I get hurt because someone else is being cruel I'm not going to go up and apologize to them for hitting their poor defenseless fist with my face.

Which is why it makes more sense to think of good as a totally neutral, judgementless force with no connection to right and wrong. It just so happens that the energy Good is associated with good things more often than Evil is, but it's largely luck.


My point is more, from the viewpoint of a character, they should not feel ashamed because of it. A feeling that there's a cosmic injustice, fine, but the actual evaluations of the universe should not actually matter in-character to a normal person.

It's sort of like a letter saying 'You don't have Jimbob's Seal of Approval anymore' should not actually make the person feel shamed, it should make them feel annoyed at Jimbob, or at the very least result in a 'so what?'

But it should also prove to you, "Huh, I guess 'Good' isn't necessarily good, who knew?

[NichG]

But it should also prove to you, "Huh, I guess 'Good' isn't necessarily good, who knew?

Yes, but I think that's a necessary consequence of any system of alignment in which the alignments correspond to observable and manipulable energies. Basically, once a system has rules, its possible to game the system.

Not to mention that as long as there's an objective system in place, one can expect the possibility of variations between local, cultural values and those objective values. It need not even be something as severe as the Vow of Chastity example - one culture could believe in mercy killings, while another might not. One culture might believe in the death penalty while another might not.

The only situation in which this might not happen is if the consequences for deviating from the cosmic alignments are strong enough that cultures tend to synchronize with them, whether or not they make sense. For example, if anyone Evil tended to blight the land within 3 miles of themselves, a culture might very well punish Evil acts even if they do not think of the acts themselves as wrong, just because blighting the land has such an extreme consequence for everyone that they cannot afford not to punish it.

You could argue that afterlife sorting is a severe consequence, but its moderated by deities getting first dibs on a soul. As long as the given culture had a deity who agreed with its particular values, that would override the default cosmic sorting algorithm.

[Drachasor]

Oh, come on, virtue ethics has more going for it than that. "An act is good if it's what a virtuous person would do" is not a closed definition, but it certainly gets the idea across. :smallsmile:

Yes, but it is very much embroiled in INTENTION. So you'd need some sort of weird semi-omnipotent observer or something to act as the universal standard of good. Or something to that effect.

Virtue Ethics, in practice, is pretty unwieldy this way. It certainly doesn't handle a Paladin making unwilful evil acts very well.


Probably, I don't know the Creeper. But this difference can only be seen once you have established the code for the lawful guy. There are no rules how a "lawful code" has to look like

He's like a good Joker. Roughly speaking.


Not necessarily. The chaotic guy could still come to the exact same decisions as the lawful guy in each and every situation. And to remain his alignment the lawful guy must have a rule for each and every situation. If he does not he would also be making it up as he goes along.

Depending on the situations and whatnot. It would be for different reasons though. I think there'd always be some situations where'd they differ, depending on the two characters. But we'd need a solid example to examine this further. Otherwise we end up with two crazy people that shift their positions based on the argument.


Fuzzy is an understatement. By RAW you could have a lawful character who wants to protect personal freedom at all cost.

Well, not all costs. Since by RAW there are certain things lawful characters value...like honesty. Doesn't mean they are honest all the time, but they think it is important. A Chaotic Good character, in contrast, would have a looser standard there.

I admit that things aren't all that great and can get muddled. Not so much because there isn't a clear distinction between Lawful and Chaotic, but rather there can be unclear how to classify some people because they might have Lawful Goals and Chaotic means or the other way around.

To toot my own horn again, this is why I like the idea of two alignments for each person. One representing what sort of world they want to achieve or strive for -- what sort of goals they have. Another representing the means they are willing to use.

I think such a system would eliminate most of the problems with people have with alignments as it allows a lot more subtlety and depth to the system.

Edit: Dangit, forgot to put this in the previous post. Again.
Edit2: Thanks person whose name I don't remember while making this edit. Didn't realize the delete option was hidden in the edit options.

[ryu]

You do know you can just copy paste edit one and delete the other post right?

[AMFV]

Guys, I think your missing the point

As defined by Kant, a truly moral action is an action you can treat as if it was an absolute, universal imperative. That doesn't depends of standards, necessities or circumstences. You must treat your ideal as an imperative that will always apply, because otherwise it is hypocritical. if you think killing is moral under some circumstences, it would mean that you must always be willing to kill. Saying "yes, but..." is hypocrisy, because that mean you consider morality as something you have arbitrarily decided on and may alter later, aka an opinion. And opinions depends of the person, so it would means that what actions is moral depends of the person's opinion on the subject, and this would means that the dictator's decision to kill a kid is moral, because he decided so.

Actually what Kant said is that an action that is moral is always consistently moral if taken to it's logical extreme. Killing is never justifiable in Kantian morality at it's most basic level.



The mentality changes we can see through History simply means that people agreed on other

Now, I'm not a pacifist. I'm not pro-war either, but I think everyone must fight to defend what one holds dear, whatever it may be. I'm a pragmatist.


I'm fairly confused by this point, if you're stating that killing is wrong and then with the other hand defending the idea of violence for defense of property, values, or person, then that's a contradictory statement, no?



And that why I say: Morality doesn't mean jack ****.

Yes, it would be wonderful if we were always nice to each others, always happy and in harmony. But the truth is that we're beings of flesh and blood that live a dire existence in a harsh world, and sometime we have to bash a few skulls to survive in it. Does that make it moral? Hell no! Does that mean we shouldn't do it? still no


Morality is a pretty important thing, even for those who are willing to do violence, for me, as somebody who has had to be involved in the practice of war, I can tell you that because of that morality is a more significant imperative than it otherwise might have been.



Morality and laws are only here to help us live in society, and when they stop helping us we ignore them.


I don't.




That why fighting, killing your ennemies, looting their supplies, making justice yourself, etc, are not moral actions, but necessary actions, at least by your judgment at the time. Being immoral doesn't mean that you're wrong, it means you're unpleasant.


Well the actions are not illegal and are at best neutral, they're not done out of malice, which would make them evil, but out of necessity, the best you can get with an evolutionary argument in D&D is neutral, since animals are neutral, so if we are acting based on evolutionary imperative, we are neutral, not evil.



So yes, a character truly moral would never harm another, and that would prevent him from doing 90% of what an adventurer does. The Book of Exalted Deeds, with all its vows and other options, says pretty much that: if you want to be "Good" with the capital letter, you must stop yourself from doing the sligthliest "bad" thing.


If you want to be "Exalted" you mean, that's a slightly higher calling than good. I'm a good Catholic, a practicing Catholic, but I'm not a priest. So the question is am I still a Catholic, yes. Because I try to follow the laws and imperatives, the same goes for good, and possibly even exalted.



I'm not talking about gods. I'm talking about the universal force that judge every action to be of a certain alignment, since it.

For exemple: Bahamut the Dragon God is Good. Why? We don't know. But apparently something examined all his acts and judged them to be in majority good deeds, so he is Good.


Mercy and compassion are why, if you'll look in the BoED it discusses the facets of good.



Exactly: They're considered good because someone told so. While in the heroic world of D&D, the universe is supposed to judge your acts, meaning there is a true moral system that doesn't exist because of social convention.


Goodness is predicated on compassion and morality more than anything else, while evil is predicated on selfishness and cruelty.



Well, I was mostly talking about original adventure created by independents DMs. But i can say "The Temple of Elemental Evil" to answer your question.

Tomb of Elemental Evil takes place on a quest to find out about missing villagers and investigate a cult. So that's yet in line with my other examples.


Well...D&D Morality need not share anything in common with RL Morality.

Different Universe, Different Laws. That said, the Book of Exalted Deeds does mention 'being ahead of your time.'

So it might be that Vow of Chastity, which shames a rape victim...

Normal Good character:They deserve to be shamed per standard medieval rules.
Exalted Good character:Wait a minute, the victim isn't the bad guy!

In such ways does Exalted Good 'Step Up' where normal Good falls flat.


Perhaps I have a different perspective. I don't think of Atonement as something to remove something bad that you've done, but to remove a kind of tainting on the soul. Sort of like confession (although something bad you've done can trigger that as well), I apologize for brushing against real world religion, but it's my only framework for this.

In any case somebody who loses their vow of chastity unwillingly, isn't atoning because they've done something wrong, or should be ashamed, they're atoning to help repair the damage that act did to them, it's a recovery, not a judgement. At least to my thinking. So it's a healing thing, not a judgmental thing, that would be my interpretation.

[Drachasor]

Actually what Kant said is that an action that is moral is always consistently moral if taken to it's logical extreme. Killing is never justifiable in Kantian morality at it's most basic level.

Kant wasn't really consistent. He had about a half dozen different ways of stating the Categorical Imperative, but none of them were equivalent to each other. And sometimes it felt like he made strawmen, by excluding the circumstances from consideration.

Anyhow, here are the formulations:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."

"Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends."

Hmm, I remembered there being more. Half a half dozen then.

[Angelalex242]

Well, I kind of viewed Atonement as the god saying 'you done screwed up son, now you've gotta do X, Y, and Z to get your feats/class abilities/whatever back.'

And Atonement is actually the EASY way of doing things...mindraped Paladins in 2e had to do truly epic things to get their powers back. And they only sin they committed was failing a saving throw to a dude evil enough to tell him to go stab orphans. Back in 2E, any evil religion with half a brain would have clerics and wizards on standby whose only purpose in life was dominating Paladins and Good Clerics and telling them to stab orphans, because the quest to get their powers back was usually so hard that they had 80-90 percent failure rates.

[Seto]

Disagree. I reference :vaarsuvius: as an example of signing a pact for the express purpose of doing good.


Actually, saving V's family doesn't help bring any Good into the world. It prevents some Evil from happening, sure, but it makes a lot MORE Evil happen. The forces of Good don't care one bit about saving the people that matter to you, not when it advances the purpose of Evil.

TN is the way to go, people ! :smallbiggrin:

[Drachasor]

Well, I kind of viewed Atonement as the god saying 'you done screwed up son, now you've gotta do X, Y, and Z to get your feats/class abilities/whatever back.'

And Atonement is actually the EASY way of doing things...mindraped Paladins in 2e had to do truly epic things to get their powers back. And they only sin they committed was failing a saving throw to a dude evil enough to tell him to go stab orphans. Back in 2E, any evil religion with half a brain would have clerics and wizards on standby whose only purpose in life was dominating Paladins and Good Clerics and telling them to stab orphans, because the quest to get their powers back was usually so hard that they had 80-90 percent failure rates.

Thankfully, you can't force a Paladin to lose his status in 3.5.

[Andezzar]

TN is the way to go, people ! :smallbiggrin:If you mean by true neutral, bouncing around the alignment grid as necessary, I agree. That's the wizards' way anyways. Do your research, pursue your goals don't care one jot, what people think of your actions. Sometimes they will be called good, sometimes evil. It simply does not matter to you, what label they pin on you.

[AMFV]

Well, I kind of viewed Atonement as the god saying 'you done screwed up son, now you've gotta do X, Y, and Z to get your feats/class abilities/whatever back.'

And Atonement is actually the EASY way of doing things...mindraped Paladins in 2e had to do truly epic things to get their powers back. And they only sin they committed was failing a saving throw to a dude evil enough to tell him to go stab orphans. Back in 2E, any evil religion with half a brain would have clerics and wizards on standby whose only purpose in life was dominating Paladins and Good Clerics and telling them to stab orphans, because the quest to get their powers back was usually so hard that they had 80-90 percent failure rates.

That's very different than how I view it, I view atonement as a kind of healing measure, since you can have to atone for things that aren't your fault, it's not repentance really, it's healing whatever disconnect there now is between your character and their alignment.

[Seto]

Yep, I agree with AMFV about the Atonement thing. (although not the Lesser Atonement :smallwink:)

About shame : I think you're confusing it with remorse.

Remorse is a moral concept that is mostly contained within the self. It implies that you feel you have done something wrong, shouldn't have done it, and hate yourself about it.
Shame is a general concept that can have moral applications, and that begins when others lay an eye upon you. It basically boils down to this : self-awareness of a state you wouldn't like people to see you in. So, regarding rape (note that I'm talking about D&D and BoED, NOT real life) : you have been touched by Evil (which is an objective force). Evil is a taint. You should not feel remorse for it, because you haven't done anything wrong and you're not responsible. You should feel ashamed of it (once again, D&D, not real world) because, whether it's your fault or not, taint is now attached to you for everyone to see.
It's kind of like dirt, really : if a bird craps on my head, I will not feel remorse, but - even though it's really not my fault and I haven't done anything wrong - I'll feel ashamed if people see me like this, and I'll still need to wash my hair in order to be clean.

[Chester]

I'm a bit late to the party, but I wanted to share this thread with you re: MTG Color Wheel alignment system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136177).

My group adapted aspects of this, and it sort of fixes some issues with alignment / purpose / etc.

Each color has the potential for good and evil.

Yes, I still consider my Necromancer "evil", but as Black-aligned with a secondary color in Blue, others can't merely "detect evil" and immediately have a problem with me. This allows us to stretch the boundaries of what is good vs. evil, leaving alignment open to more interpretation.

True, the values of White are more commonly associated with "good" as deemed by society, but one our campaign's main antagonists is probably White-aligned.

[le Suisse]

Actually what Kant said is that an action that is moral is always consistently moral if taken to it's logical extreme. Killing is never justifiable in Kantian morality at it's most basic level.


Killing is never justifiable in Kantian morality becauseif it was even once it would mean that killing is always, consistlently moral



I'm fairly confused by this point, if you're stating that killing is wrong and then with the other hand defending the idea of violence for defense of property, values, or person, then that's a contradictory statement, no?


No, it isn't. An act may be moraly wrong and still necessary. Killing a baby is moraly wrong, even if you do it to save the world. But once again that's subjective, and furthermore it shows how much it is pointless to try and create an universal moral system.



Morality is a pretty important thing, even for those who are willing to do violence, for me, as somebody who has had to be involved in the practice of war, I can tell you that because of that morality is a more significant imperative than it otherwise might have been.


It's my turn to be confused. Morality is important because of war? Something you called "a moral wash at best, and neutral at worse"? Because let's face it, all wars are simply conflicts of goals/ideals where people get killed. You can't pretend it's moral to enter a country and kill the soldiers defending it and then say it's immoral for the ennemy's soldiers to enter your country and kill the soldiers defending it. In D&D, when the "good guys" invade the "bad guys" it's good, and when the "bad guys" invade the "good guys" it's eeevil.



I don't.

I don't know you, so I don't want to be accidentaly offensive, but from my point of view it's because you never encountered a law or moral imperative you truly didn't want to follow.
For exemple: If tommorow a bill was passed that made Catholiscism outlawed, would you stop being a Catholic?



Well the actions are not illegal and are at best neutral, they're not done out of malice, which would make them evil, but out of necessity, the best you can get with an evolutionary argument in D&D is neutral, since animals are neutral, so if we are acting based on evolutionary imperative, we are neutral, not evil.

Then you are saying that the purpose, or at least the intent, is more important than the act itself. And that's a perfectly fine moral system.

In my opinion, all sentient being are neutral, because at the end of the day they all fight for their survival and for what makes them happy, for their goals. But some people have more thing that make them happy, like other people's happiness for exemple, while some others only care for themselves. Empathy, by making you feel what others feel, and society, with its laws and moral systems, make sure one doesn't destroy anyone's happiness for the benefit of his own to the point cohabitation is no longer possible. Then, some people have different mental illnesses, like psychopathy, sociopathy or sadism, that make that these people don't feel empathy for others, and so they don't care about what they have to to to achieve their twisted idea of happiness.

Never forget that the terrorist is trying to make the world a better place accoring to his ideals, and that the charity worker help others because he enjoy doing it.



If you want to be "Exalted" you mean, that's a slightly higher calling than good. I'm a good Catholic, a practicing Catholic, but I'm not a priest. So the question is am I still a Catholic, yes. Because I try to follow the laws and imperatives, the same goes for good, and possibly even exalted.

a "100% Good" character is "Exalted". You can still be "Good" otherwise, but not at 100%, because you are not following all the rules that makes you so.



Mercy and compassion are why, if you'll look in the BoED it discusses the facets of good.

I'm pretty sure that if Bahamut saw Tiamat defenseless, he would slay her no matter what. And that would be "Evil", so the gods are still under the rules of whatever force makes the alignments reality.



Goodness is predicated on compassion and morality more than anything else, while evil is predicated on selfishness and cruelty.

True. But what is cruel for one man is mercy for another. And morality is not an universal constant in real life, simply a social agreement



Tomb of Elemental Evil takes place on a quest to find out about missing villagers and investigate a cult. So that's yet in line with my other examples.

I stand corrected, then.



Perhaps I have a different perspective. I don't think of Atonement as something to remove something bad that you've done, but to remove a kind of tainting on the soul. Sort of like confession (although something bad you've done can trigger that as well), I apologize for brushing against real world religion, but it's my only framework for this.

In any case somebody who loses their vow of chastity unwillingly, isn't atoning because they've done something wrong, or should be ashamed, they're atoning to help repair the damage that act did to them, it's a recovery, not a judgement. At least to my thinking. So it's a healing thing, not a judgmental thing, that would be my interpretation.


That doesn't change the fact that the universe is punishing you, by robbing you of a power often needed, for something done upon you.

[AMFV]

Killing is never justifiable in Kantian morality becauseif it was even once it would mean that killing is always, consistlently moral

Absolutely correct.




No, it isn't. An act may be moraly wrong and still necessary. Killing a baby is moraly wrong, even if you do it to save the world. But once again that's subjective, and furthermore it shows how much it is pointless to try and create an universal moral system.


I disagree completely, I can think of no scenario where killing a baby is morally right or required to save the universe, those kind of cockamamie scenarios are part of the reason why people don't like the alignment system. Killing a baby is never necessary in my opinion, I can think of no scenario where it would be.



It's my turn to be confused. Morality is important because of war? Something you called "a moral wash at best, and neutral at worse"? Because let's face it, all wars are simply conflicts of goals/ideals where people get killed. You can't pretend it's moral to enter a country and kill the soldiers defending it and then say it's immoral for the ennemy's soldiers to enter your country and kill the soldiers defending it. In D&D, when the "good guys" invade the "bad guys" it's good, and when the "bad guys" invade the "good guys" it's eeevil.


Not so, neutral both cases, or it's good if it's a just war and is waged to stop greater evil, which isn't simply an arbitrary thing, for example a war to stop genocide is a just and appropriate thing. I wouldn't say that defending your home is ever immoral, and invading may or may not be, depending on why. Neutral does not make evil or good out of things, and that's at best neutral.



I don't know you, so I don't want to be accidentaly offensive, but from my point of view it's because you never encountered a law or moral imperative you truly didn't want to follow.
For exemple: If tommorow a bill was passed that made Catholiscism outlawed, would you stop being a Catholic?


Are laws moral imperatives? I'm not sure if I'm following here... In any case, I would follow a moral law over the law of the land, absolutely in all cases. I've never found a catholic teaching that I thought was morally objectionable, I've found many that were complex, or some that I felt might need time to grow, but none that overtly despicable or required me to do things that I believed were immoral, that's part of the reason why I happen to be a Catholic, because that sort of orthodoxy is morally agreeable to me.



Then you are saying that the purpose, or at least the intent, is more important than the act itself. And that's a perfectly fine moral system.


In D&D, one could make that argument, certainly. Although it's harder and more complex in real life. I think that intent based around what the character can reasonably be expected to know is a pretty good yardstick.



In my opinion, all sentient being are neutral, because at the end of the day they all fight for their survival and for what makes them happy, for their goals. But some people have more thing that make them happy, like other people's happiness for exemple, while some others only care for themselves. Empathy, by making you feel what others feel, and society, with its laws and moral systems, make sure one doesn't destroy anyone's happiness for the benefit of his own to the point cohabitation is no longer possible. Then, some people have different mental illnesses, like psychopathy, sociopathy or sadism, that make that these people don't feel empathy for others, and so they don't care about what they have to to to achieve their twisted idea of happiness.

Well I was stating that if you were making a moral argument predicated on evolutionary behavior in D&D, it's going to be neutral. A moral argument predicated on compassion will be good. One predicated on selfishness or cruelty will be evil, in as far as the system is generally concerned.



Never forget that the terrorist is trying to make the world a better place accoring to his ideals, and that the charity worker help others because he enjoy doing it.


True, but that doesn't make the actions of the terrorist good, or the actions of the charitable soul evil, now it could bring either of them to neutral, D&D wise, but not all the way to the other end of the spectrum, unless in the scenario the charity worker is trying to be cruel with his charity somehow, pretty objectionable from all viewpoints. Or the terrorist, whose imperative is to cause fear and terror, is being kind, fear as a weapon is a pretty evil thing I think.



a "100% Good" character is "Exalted". You can still be "Good" otherwise, but not at 100%, because you are not following all the rules that makes you so.


Nobody, even the exalted are at 100% good, or are perfect representations of all the facets of good, there are even room for philosophical debates inside the realm of good, as presented in the BoED.



I'm pretty sure that if Bahamut saw Tiamat defenseless, he would slay her no matter what. And that would be "Evil", so the gods are still under the rules of whatever force makes the alignments reality.


Not so, Tiamat is never really defenseless and killing an all-powerful evil God who might continue to tyrannize the world isn't really evil, that's definitely justifiable as a good act.



True. But what is cruel for one man is mercy for another. And morality is not an universal constant in real life, simply a social agreement

I disagree, I feel morality is a universal constant, and there many that agree on that count, it's not a rare philosophical position. And I can't think of many scenarios where cruelty and mercy intersect because intent is important there. Killing somebody is cruel if you are relishing their suffering, or bringing undue suffering, killing somebody is merciful if you are ending suffering, now that may or may not be 'right' morally, but as far as cruel vs. merciful goes, that's pretty much the spectrum.



That doesn't change the fact that the universe is punishing you, by robbing you of a power often needed, for something done upon you.

Vow of Chastity really doesn't give anything great, or irreplaceable. Is the universe punishing me if somebody breaks my leg and I can't walk for a while... this is a hurt, an injury, just because a spiritual injury doesn't translate it into a punishment, anymore than a broken leg is a punishment by the Gods of Physics.

[awa]

not killing a defenseless enemy is a lawful act not a good one. Because defenseless is often a temporary condition.

Now if our evil god was permanently made harmless then i could see a good deity sparing her but as a god i could also see him passing judgement and executing the evil deity but it would be about justice not revenge or any other base emotion

[NichG]

I disagree completely, I can think of no scenario where killing a baby is morally right or required to save the universe, those kind of cockamamie scenarios are part of the reason why people don't like the alignment system. Killing a baby is never necessary in my opinion, I can think of no scenario where it would be.


Mr. Atropal would like to have a word with you. More seriously, anything contrived can be constructed by creating a causal link mediated by an untouchable third party. 'I am the god of destruction. Sacrifice a baby to me in the next hour or I will destroy the universe. To prove I'm not bluffing, I've made half of the stars in the sky go out.'

Not that failing to comply with those demands would be an evil act, or that sacrificing the baby would not be an evil act. But alignment and most systems of morality in fact are vulnerable to double-binds where your choice is between an unreasonable option and an immoral one.

In some sense, that is what makes tales of saintly morality compelling. Someone who takes an apparently unreasonable option in lieu of compromising their morality is displaying just how important their beliefs are to them. Someone who does the good thing because they're powerful is one thing, but someone who does the good thing even if it means sacrificing their life, their family, or their country is saying 'my morality is more important to me than those other things'.

Of course one can also rightly say 'refusing to steal a loaf of bread to save your country from destruction is dumb'. But 'compelling' and 'smart' are not the same. It basically comes down to character - extremes of character are interesting and compelling, even if they aren't pragmatic. Its interesting to see, when a person can't have it exactly their way, what do they preserve and what do they sacrifice? It tells you something about who they are at the core.

[Randomocity132]

Mr. Atropal would like to have a word with you. More seriously, anything contrived can be constructed by creating a causal link mediated by an untouchable third party. 'I am the god of destruction. Sacrifice a baby to me in the next hour or I will destroy the universe. To prove I'm not bluffing, I've made half of the stars in the sky go out.'

Not that failing to comply with those demands would be an evil act, or that sacrificing the baby would not be an evil act. But alignment and most systems of morality in fact are vulnerable to double-binds where your choice is between an unreasonable option and an immoral one.

In some sense, that is what makes tales of saintly morality compelling. Someone who takes an apparently unreasonable option in lieu of compromising their morality is displaying just how important their beliefs are to them. Someone who does the good thing because they're powerful is one thing, but someone who does the good thing even if it means sacrificing their life, their family, or their country is saying 'my morality is more important to me than those other things'.

Of course one can also rightly say 'refusing to steal a loaf of bread to save your country from destruction is dumb'. But 'compelling' and 'smart' are not the same. It basically comes down to character - extremes of character are interesting and compelling, even if they aren't pragmatic. Its interesting to see, when a person can't have it exactly their way, what do they preserve and what do they sacrifice? It tells you something about who they are at the core.

Excellent examples.

[AMFV]

Mr. Atropal would like to have a word with you. More seriously, anything contrived can be constructed by creating a causal link mediated by an untouchable third party. 'I am the god of destruction. Sacrifice a baby to me in the next hour or I will destroy the universe. To prove I'm not bluffing, I've made half of the stars in the sky go out.'

Not that failing to comply with those demands would be an evil act, or that sacrificing the baby would not be an evil act. But alignment and most systems of morality in fact are vulnerable to double-binds where your choice is between an unreasonable option and an immoral one.

I don't think that's always the case, most scenarios like that are usually so terribly contrived as to shatter verisimilitude completely. If the scenario has to be so contrived then it's difficult to figure out how a system would not be broken by it. It's like the could a deity create a rock so big that he couldn't lift it argument, it bogs the whole process down in ridiculousness and semantics.



In some sense, that is what makes tales of saintly morality compelling. Someone who takes an apparently unreasonable option in lieu of compromising their morality is displaying just how important their beliefs are to them. Someone who does the good thing because they're powerful is one thing, but someone who does the good thing even if it means sacrificing their life, their family, or their country is saying 'my morality is more important to me than those other things'.

Of course one can also rightly say 'refusing to steal a loaf of bread to save your country from destruction is dumb'. But 'compelling' and 'smart' are not the same. It basically comes down to character - extremes of character are interesting and compelling, even if they aren't pragmatic. Its interesting to see, when a person can't have it exactly their way, what do they preserve and what do they sacrifice? It tells you something about who they are at the core.

Well it is not particularly compelling, in that it is a contrivance, the scenario cannot exist in any real way that I can think of. If you sacrifice your family or your country for your morality then by most moral standards you might not behaving morally at all.

[SowZ]

That's very different than how I view it, I view atonement as a kind of healing measure, since you can have to atone for things that aren't your fault, it's not repentance really, it's healing whatever disconnect there now is between your character and their alignment.

You can certainly house rule that. But it is as opposed to the actual rules as any other house rule. The text of both the vows and the atonement spell itself are in direct opposition to your interpretation.

[AMFV]

You can certainly house rule that. But it is as opposed to the actual rules as any other house rule. The text of both the vows and the atonement spell itself are in direct opposition to your interpretation.

Right, that's why I was stating it was my viewpoint and one I feel is infinitely more agreeable. I wasn't trying to interpret but rather extrapolating, or presenting my own take on it. Which I hope isn't too far afield for the thread.

But do you agree that this particular sort of take would be less morally confusing and aggravating? Because that's what I was hoping for.

[NichG]

I don't think that's always the case, most scenarios like that are usually so terribly contrived as to shatter verisimilitude completely. If the scenario has to be so contrived then it's difficult to figure out how a system would not be broken by it. It's like the could a deity create a rock so big that he couldn't lift it argument, it bogs the whole process down in ridiculousness and semantics.


The Baby of Destruction example is obviously contrived, and thats kind of the point. The genesis of that sort of situation is that you have a pillar-of-morality and someone else whose real interest is to corrupt that person. The someone else contrives a scenario that will place the pillar-of-morality into a double-bind.

In real life, 'I just want to corrupt them, no matter what the cost' is generally in the realm of the insane (though it has roots in the ideas of e.g. criminals who want to be captured, serial killers who want to be understood, etc; by dragging down a paragon to the same level, they convince themselves that they are really the same as the paragon, or that its not their fault that they do awful things, because even a paragon of morality can be driven to do awful things).

In something like D&D, it can make a lot more practical sense. Corrupting a high paladin of this or that deity is a way of weakening that deity's forces. Furthermore, if its a very public and visible corruption, it can weaken the belief base for that deity. So in D&D I'd expect these sorts of contrived situations to be far more common, because they serve an actual pragmatic purpose.



Well it is not particularly compelling, in that it is a contrivance, the scenario cannot exist in any real way that I can think of. If you sacrifice your family or your country for your morality then by most moral standards you might not behaving morally at all.

A very simple example (of sacrificing your family) would be that you live in a country that is ruled by a totalitarian regime. Anyone who acts up is punished by having their entire family tortured or killed. Acting to topple the regime is a good act, but it comes with the consequence that one's family might suffer - even if you act to keep your identity hidden, you're taking the risk that someone identifies you during an operation. This sort of scenario exists in the real world - historically or in the present day, though the forum rules prevent the discussion of specific examples.

[Dalebert]

Interesting that I'm watching The Purge right now, coincidentally (or is it?).

[AMFV]

A very simple example (of sacrificing your family) would be that you live in a country that is ruled by a totalitarian regime. Anyone who acts up is punished by having their entire family tortured or killed. Acting to topple the regime is a good act, but it comes with the consequence that one's family might suffer - even if you act to keep your identity hidden, you're taking the risk that someone identifies you during an operation. This sort of scenario exists in the real world - historically or in the present day, though the forum rules prevent the discussion of specific examples.

That's less contrived, I would say that sacrificing your family directly is probably a moral wash at best, while putting them at risk, and doing all you can to protect them is probably good.

[SowZ]

Right, that's why I was stating it was my viewpoint and one I feel is infinitely more agreeable. I wasn't trying to interpret but rather extrapolating, or presenting my own take on it. Which I hope isn't too far afield for the thread.

But do you agree that this particular sort of take would be less morally confusing and aggravating? Because that's what I was hoping for.

Less so, but still not good. Universal good is withholding power from you until you take a certain action because of an evil committed against you. Being victimized is still something that makes you 'dirty' and obligates certain actions on your part to make up for it.

[AMFV]

Less so, but still not good. Universal good is withholding power from you until you take a certain action because of an evil committed against you. Being victimized is still something that makes you 'dirty' and obligates certain actions on your part to make up for it.

What about the wounding or healing standpoint? That was my end-take, is that it's something where healing is required. Not to touch on real world religion but that's kind of the same viewpoint regarding confession as a catholic, it's supposed to be a healing matter, so in this case it'd be a healing thing, not 'dirty' but wounded.

[SowZ]

What about the wounding or healing standpoint? That was my end-take, is that it's something where healing is required. Not to touch on real world religion but that's kind of the same viewpoint regarding confession as a catholic, it's supposed to be a healing matter, so in this case it'd be a healing thing, not 'dirty' but wounded.

Hmm, I could see that. Similar to unclean laws, I suppose. If it isn't the spirit of Good withholding anything from you, but just a natural consequence of being so close to such evil... A number of things should do that, though. Entering the negative energy plane/the abyss should corrupt you. A bunch of things, including specific evil spells/curses, should wound your soul.

If I were to take this route, I would homebrew a lower level version of atonement and call it something without redemptive implications and expand the things that can wound your soul.

[awa]

negative energy isn't evil, it is dangerous and often used by evil people but is not in and of itself evil just like positive energy is not good even though it is associated with good creatures and in small doses is beneficial to living creatures.

On a somewhat related note i'm currently running a game witch has spiritual pollution as part of it that can be detect by certain abilities. Although it is definitely not a morality system for example hiring someone to send a hungry demon into an orphanage gives you less corruption then killing the demon.
Because even being near a demon causes corruption.

[NichG]

Hmm, I could see that. Similar to unclean laws, I suppose. If it isn't the spirit of Good withholding anything from you, but just a natural consequence of being so close to such evil... A number of things should do that, though. Entering the negative energy plane/the abyss should corrupt you. A bunch of things, including specific evil spells/curses, should wound your soul.

If I were to take this route, I would homebrew a lower level version of atonement and call it something without redemptive implications and expand the things that can wound your soul.

I don't really think the 'wound' picture resolves your previous objections. For instance, lets look at Vow of Chastity again, but in terms of consenting sex - now the interpretation is that all consenting sex also wounds the souls of the participants. For Vow of Poverty, owning property now implicitly wounds a soul.

I think the key thing is, violating the precepts of any of the Vows doesn't actually stop a character from being Exalted. Rather, it all comes down to which Vows the character has actually made (e.g. which feats they've taken). That implies that there's nothing intrinsically wounding or wrong about any of the acts forbidden by any of the vows, but it is specifically the event of having a Vow that was once taken be broken that is 'wounding'.

I think it'd be better to look at the Vows as being sort of like a Wu Jen's taboos. Power is gained by adherence to a strict set of rules - for each thing you eschew, there is something you gain in its place. Even if you are forced to break the taboo, the trade no longer holds. That would imply a sort of underlying 'oath magic' that is neither good nor evil, but which Vows tap into. It could very well be the same force that makes infernal contracts binding.

Or you could frame it like a Binder's weird signs/compulsions. What if each Vow is basically a way of 'binding' a particular saint or hero who was known for a particular property. Vow of Nonviolence lets you bind a saint who was known to have never needed to fight or kill to achieve good works. Vow of Chastity lets you bind a saint who devoted themselves to their cause even if it meant they never had children to continue the family line, never formed a romantic attachment to another, and died a virgin.

In this sense, the Vow just requires that you share the attribute of the saint who you are channeling/binding.

[SowZ]

I don't really think the 'wound' picture resolves your previous objections. For instance, lets look at Vow of Chastity again, but in terms of consenting sex - now the interpretation is that all consenting sex also wounds the souls of the participants. For Vow of Poverty, owning property now implicitly wounds a soul.

I think the key thing is, violating the precepts of any of the Vows doesn't actually stop a character from being Exalted. Rather, it all comes down to which Vows the character has actually made (e.g. which feats they've taken). That implies that there's nothing intrinsically wounding or wrong about any of the acts forbidden by any of the vows, but it is specifically the event of having a Vow that was once taken be broken that is 'wounding'.

I think it'd be better to look at the Vows as being sort of like a Wu Jen's taboos. Power is gained by adherence to a strict set of rules - for each thing you eschew, there is something you gain in its place. Even if you are forced to break the taboo, the trade no longer holds. That would imply a sort of underlying 'oath magic' that is neither good nor evil, but which Vows tap into. It could very well be the same force that makes infernal contracts binding.

Or you could frame it like a Binder's weird signs/compulsions. What if each Vow is basically a way of 'binding' a particular saint or hero who was known for a particular property. Vow of Nonviolence lets you bind a saint who was known to have never needed to fight or kill to achieve good works. Vow of Chastity lets you bind a saint who devoted themselves to their cause even if it meant they never had children to continue the family line, never formed a romantic attachment to another, and died a virgin.

In this sense, the Vow just requires that you share the attribute of the saint who you are channeling/binding.


That requires the vow to be neutral, which would actually be fine if violating the oath even against your will caused you to just lose the feat. Since you can cast atonement, though, meaning you can get the feat back if you feel guilty enough about, say, being raped, I don't really buy it.

[NichG]

That requires the vow to be neutral, which would actually be fine if violating the oath even against your will caused you to just lose the feat. Since you can cast atonement, though, meaning you can get the feat back if you feel guilty enough about, say, being raped, I don't really buy it.

I don't think it actually requires the vow to be neutral, it just requires the vow to be somehow tied with an external reference frame - which could be good, neutral, evil, whatever. The idea is, you don't get power from cosmic good approving of your limitations, you get power specifically because of the limitation itself. A Wu Jen can get power over the elements by promising to never bind their hair. That doesn't mean that binding their hair is an act that is despised by the elements; rather it means that the act of binding oneself to a restrictive (and sometimes unfair) oath seems to be something that gives power in-of-itself.

Atonement, meanwhile, is in general a spell that is about 'take-backs', and not just alignment-based ones. For example, the spell text gives an example of a druid using it to regain their class abilities (e.g. if they wore prohibited armor, they could get their casting back before 24 hours passed by being subject to an Atonement). If this was done involuntarily by them, the Atonement is free.
That's pretty much the same territory as 'being forced to break a Vow against your will'.

[SowZ]

I don't think it actually requires the vow to be neutral, it just requires the vow to be somehow tied with an external reference frame - which could be good, neutral, evil, whatever. The idea is, you don't get power from cosmic good approving of your limitations, you get power specifically because of the limitation itself. A Wu Jen can get power over the elements by promising to never bind their hair. That doesn't mean that binding their hair is an act that is despised by the elements; rather it means that the act of binding oneself to a restrictive (and sometimes unfair) oath seems to be something that gives power in-of-itself.

Atonement, meanwhile, is in general a spell that is about 'take-backs', and not just alignment-based ones. For example, the spell text gives an example of a druid using it to regain their class abilities (e.g. if they wore prohibited armor, they could get their casting back before 24 hours passed by being subject to an Atonement). If this was done involuntarily by them, the Atonement is free.
That's pretty much the same territory as 'being forced to break a Vow against your will'.

Vow of Chastity doesn't just require a spell cast, It also requires, 'Suitable Penance' on top of that.

[Angelalex242]

Suitable penance?

In that case, said penance is, "Castrate the dude who violated you."

Should get the job done quite nicely. Assuming they don't have vow of nonviolence and/or vow of peace taken too.

[MonochromeTiger]

Suitable penance?

In that case, said penance is, "Castrate the dude who violated you."

Should get the job done quite nicely. Assuming they don't have vow of nonviolence and/or vow of peace taken too.

a suitably sadistic DM would trigger further required penance for going anywhere near touching the bits you have to to castrate someone.

[ryu]

a suitably sadistic DM would trigger further required penance for going anywhere near touching the bits you have to to castrate someone.

Nope. Removed them from a distance with disintegrate after hitting him with irresistible hold person.

[Angelalex242]

That. And in the event it's a dude with Vow of Chastity and a lady causing him to lose it, there is such a thing as female castration, so it goes both ways across the gender divide.

[SowZ]

Suitable penance?

In that case, said penance is, "Castrate the dude who violated you."

Should get the job done quite nicely. Assuming they don't have vow of nonviolence and/or vow of peace taken too.

The suggestion that penance is required means you have to make up for wrong doing. That is the only definition of the word. Even if that is suitable penance, you haven't made up for being raped until you do it.

[Angelalex242]

Well...I prefer to think of it as 'making DAMN sure this particular person can never commit that particular sin ever again.'

That sort of action is really more in line with retribution then penance, but since atonement calls it penance, hey, why not make it clear to all the world why raping Vow of Chastity types is a BAD IDEA. Makes all the bad guys scared they'll get their junk chopped off if they go there, particularly if that penance is 'standard procedure.'

[MonochromeTiger]

Well...I prefer to think of it as 'making DAMN sure this particular person can never commit that particular sin ever again.'

That sort of action is really more in line with retribution then penance, but since atonement calls it penance, hey, why not make it clear to all the world why raping Vow of Chastity types is a BAD IDEA. Makes all the bad guys scared they'll get their junk chopped off if they go there, particularly if that penance is 'standard procedure.'

yep, instead of violating an enemy who's in a clearly losing situation you just kill them...like a competent person... instead of being an idiot who puts physical attraction over making sure an enemy can't beat them.. oh how I weep at the quality of villain planning these days..

[SowZ]

Well...I prefer to think of it as 'making DAMN sure this particular person can never commit that particular sin ever again.'

That sort of action is really more in line with retribution then penance, but since atonement calls it penance, hey, why not make it clear to all the world why raping Vow of Chastity types is a BAD IDEA. Makes all the bad guys scared they'll get their junk chopped off if they go there, particularly if that penance is 'standard procedure.'

It's still incredibly wrong to tell someone they need to make up for being raped by doing X action, no matter if it is vengeful or not.

[georgie_leech]

It's still incredibly wrong to tell someone they need to make up for being raped by doing X action, no matter if it is vengeful or not.

What about seeking counseling and finding supportive people to help you overcome any psychological harm from the act? :smallbiggrin:

[SowZ]

What about seeking counseling and finding supportive people to help you overcome any psychological harm from the act? :smallbiggrin:

Heh, I see what you are getting at. And clearly you aren't serious. But that isn't penance, since it's not something you do to make up for being raped.

[Drachasor]

While not precisely RAW, one could view Atonement merely as a cleansing ritual to wash ickiness off of you. At least in some cases. There are lots of historic purifying rituals of all kinds.

Hmm, kind of off the alignment talk though.

[SowZ]

While not precisely RAW, one could view Atonement merely as a cleansing ritual to wash ickiness off of you. At least in some cases. There are lots of historic purifying rituals of all kinds.

Hmm, kind of off the alignment talk though.

Sure. That doesn't account for the need to make a proper penance, though.

Really, this is just another example of where the BoED and BoVD failed to think their decisions through. Regardless, they are canon and flesh out the D&D multiverse, for good or ill.

[Drachasor]

Sure. That doesn't account for the need to make a proper penance, though.

Really, this is just another example of where the BoED and BoVD failed to think their decisions through. Regardless, they are canon and flesh out the D&D multiverse, for good or ill.

Reflavor it as a symbolic act of purification and restoration. This might require a Mighty Deed or some such.

But yeah, there are some weird things like this, especially with Vow of Chastity. I think Paladins are largely immune to this kind of thing since they have to wilfully commit an evil act or grossly violate the code. Imho, that leaves plenty of room to avoid traps, though not all DMs are very reasonable in this regard -- imho.

[Maginomicon]

Reflavor it as a symbolic act of purification and restoration. This might require a Mighty Deed or some such.

But yeah, there are some weird things like this, especially with Vow of Chastity. I think Paladins are largely immune to this kind of thing since they have to wilfully commit an evil act or grossly violate the code. Imho, that leaves plenty of room to avoid traps, though not all DMs are very reasonable in this regard -- imho.
Some DMs moreso than others. (http://www.paperspencils.com/2012/03/12/a-paladins-fall/)

[Angelalex242]

Alternatively, the D&D universe just plain works differently, and simply isn't fair like that. Maybe it doesn't have to be fair to our modern sensibilities. The character can rail against the Gods for their terrible judgment, but in the end, you've gotta either do what they say or lose your feat. Your call.

Jerkass Gods. It's a thing.

[SowZ]

Alternatively, the D&D universe just plain works differently, and simply isn't fair like that. Maybe it doesn't have to be fair to our modern sensibilities. The character can rail against the Gods for their terrible judgment, but in the end, you've gotta either do what they say or lose your feat. Your call.

Jerkass Gods. It's a thing.

Sure, but I can use it to make my case that the morality of D&D is so far from internally consistent that no, it is not a merit based ethical system. It is instead arbitrary, and doesn't conform to right and wrong.

[MonochromeTiger]

Sure, but I can use it to make my case that the morality of D&D is so far from internally consistent that no, it is not a merit based ethical system. It is instead arbitrary, and doesn't conform to right and wrong.

when you have multiple people all contribute to a morality system there will be contradictions almost every second example. trying to apply our morality to D&D's rulebook take on it is like trying to apply a work of art to a paint-by-numbers of a finger painted cow.

if you want a true moral system that fits what you feel is right and just and reasonable.. use your own moral system. it will be much less haphazard than the one you get from trying to piece together all the attempts at morality from the several D&D books, it will allow judgement calls by the DM and actual discussion instead of monolithic "this is good, this is bad, no circumstances shall ever change that". it will allow logic that, yes, that one creature with "evil" arbitrarily slapped onto its bestiary entry because of what it was born as CAN actually be good, and that simply because a creature is from good origins doesn't mean it hasn't become a complete monster by butchering people..

edit: also the paint by numbers cow has all the numbers in a written language the painter doesn't understand and the painter is both prone to random seizures and has no hands on which to have fingers.. also just to round it out they're blind deaf and mute.

[SowZ]

when you have multiple people all contribute to a morality system there will be contradictions almost every second example. trying to apply our morality to D&D's rulebook take on it is like trying to apply a work of art to a paint-by-numbers of a finger painted cow.

if you want a true moral system that fits what you feel is right and just and reasonable.. use your own moral system. it will be much less haphazard than the one you get from trying to piece together all the attempts at morality from the several D&D books, it will allow judgement calls by the DM and actual discussion instead of monolithic "this is good, this is bad, no circumstances shall ever change that". it will allow logic that, yes, that one creature with "evil" arbitrarily slapped onto its bestiary entry because of what it was born as CAN actually be good, and that simply because a creature is from good origins doesn't mean it hasn't become a complete monster by butchering people..

edit: also the paint by numbers cow has all the numbers in a written language the painter doesn't understand and the painter is both prone to random seizures and has no hands on which to have fingers.. also just to round it out they're blind deaf and mute.


And that's what I am saying. I don't accept the DnD morality as objective, even within its own framework.

[NichG]

And that's what I am saying. I don't accept the DnD morality as objective, even within its own framework.

Something can be 'objective' without matching up to one's personal morality. It can even be objective without being self-consistent.

Whether or not an attempt at an objective alignment system is good for the game is another conversation entirely.

[SowZ]

Something can be 'objective' without matching up to one's personal morality. It can even be objective without being self-consistent.

Whether or not an attempt at an objective alignment system is good for the game is another conversation entirely.

See, I just don't accept the premise that a writer has the authority to declare something like that just via 'Word of G-d.' If there were a true, all powerful, omniscient deity in D&D, I could probably accept morality in that universe as objective. As there isn't, I don't. And I don't think authors have that kind of authority.

If someone wrote a historical fiction piece about Mussolini, and then said, "Within the context of my story, he is actually a really good human being," because the author is a neo-fascist, I wouldn't accept that. That is an analysis of the story and the reader has as much a right to his own analysis as the author has.

I accept the writer can come up with abstract Good and Evil forces, but he can't make me accept one as ultimately right and the other as ultimately wrong.

[NichG]

See, I just don't accept the premise that a writer has the authority to declare something like that just via 'Word of G-d.' If there were a true, all powerful, omniscient deity in D&D, I could probably accept morality in that universe as objective. As there isn't, I don't. And I don't think authors have that kind of authority.


I would think that it would make it far far worse if there were an all-powerful, omniscient deity in D&D.

Let me put it this way. The laws of thermodynamics are very inconvenient for life on Earth. If we could have perpetual motion machines, there would be no energy crisis, no need for half of the pollution, etc. But because 'thats just the way it is', we can see it as a fact about the universe, impartial, and then proceed to go deal with it.

If we find a way to skirt the Laws of Thermodynamics, one can't really object on the grounds of 'you're subverting the natural order!' or 'how dare you do that, that isn't what the overdeity intended!'. If we have to suffer under them, we're not going to go 'gee, well this sucks, but lets be faithful to Thermodynamics because its responsible for how our digestive systems work!'

Similarly, if its just a fact of the D&D universe that there are cosmic energies, and those cosmic energies are associated with particular moral codes, then to me that's far less problematic than 'okay, there's this overdeity who is omniscient and omnipotent and decided to make a stupid system'.

I mean, look at Faerun for an example of the latter. Look at something like the Wall of the Faithless. It's far more problematic that there's this thing that all the good and evil gods are equally complicit in, just there to basically assuage their fear that mortals will stop worshiping them. Its far worse when there are personalities behind it.



If someone wrote a historical fiction piece about Mussolini, and then said, "Within the context of my story, he is actually a really good human being," because the author is a neo-fascist, I wouldn't accept that. That is an analysis of the story and the reader has as much a right to his own analysis as the author has.

I accept the writer can come up with abstract Good and Evil forces, but he can't make me accept one as ultimately right and the other as ultimately wrong.

But no one in D&D is asking you to accept that D&D's 'Good' is 'right' in your own ethical system. That's why I was making the point a few pages back - its okay to be 'Evil'. There is no inherent wrongness in that. Your character can absolutely have a moral code that does not sync up with the Cosmic Morality, and that's okay.

There is no problem with playing an Evil good-guy, who is just Evil because of the mismatch cases. Maybe he uses poison and zombies to save orphans. You shouldn't actually be bothered that he has the 'E' because, from his point of view, he's doing good work and that's all that matters.

[SowZ]

I would think that it would make it far far worse if there were an all-powerful, omniscient deity in D&D.

Let me put it this way. The laws of thermodynamics are very inconvenient for life on Earth. If we could have perpetual motion machines, there would be no energy crisis, no need for half of the pollution, etc. But because 'thats just the way it is', we can see it as a fact about the universe, impartial, and then proceed to go deal with it.

If we find a way to skirt the Laws of Thermodynamics, one can't really object on the grounds of 'you're subverting the natural order!' or 'how dare you do that, that isn't what the overdeity intended!'. If we have to suffer under them, we're not going to go 'gee, well this sucks, but lets be faithful to Thermodynamics because its responsible for how our digestive systems work!'

Similarly, if its just a fact of the D&D universe that there are cosmic energies, and those cosmic energies are associated with particular moral codes, then to me that's far less problematic than 'okay, there's this overdeity who is omniscient and omnipotent and decided to make a stupid system'.

I mean, look at Faerun for an example of the latter. Look at something like the Wall of the Faithless. It's far more problematic that there's this thing that all the good and evil gods are equally complicit in, just there to basically assuage their fear that mortals will stop worshiping them. Its far worse when there are personalities behind it.



But no one in D&D is asking you to accept that D&D's 'Good' is 'right' in your own ethical system. That's why I was making the point a few pages back - its okay to be 'Evil'. There is no inherent wrongness in that. Your character can absolutely have a moral code that does not sync up with the Cosmic Morality, and that's okay.

There is no problem with playing an Evil good-guy, who is just Evil because of the mismatch cases. Maybe he uses poison and zombies to save orphans. You shouldn't actually be bothered that he has the 'E' because, from his point of view, he's doing good work and that's all that matters.

I see your point. Lots of people argue that right and wrong are objective in D&D, and I disagree with that. But if lowercase good and evil can be different then capital G Good and capital E Evil, I'm more alright with that.

Also, a truly omniscient/omnipotent deity I would trust to have a more consistent moral code and one that didn't require worshipers to exist. I'd expect that of it by virtue of it being all intelligent, but if it ended up having the same moral system as the current D&D rules, then yes, it would still probably be wrong.

[NichG]

I see your point. Lots of people argue that right and wrong are objective in D&D, and I disagree with that. But if lowercase good and evil can be different then capital G Good and capital E Evil, I'm more alright with that.

Also, a truly omniscient/omnipotent deity I would trust to have a more consistent moral code and one that didn't require worshipers to exist. I'd expect that of it by virtue of it being all intelligent, but if it ended up having the same moral system as the current D&D rules, then yes, it would still probably be wrong.

It's not that the system is right or wrong, its just a system. No one is suggesting using D&D cosmic alignment to make real life moral decisions. No one is suggesting that if you don't agree 100% with D&D cosmic morality, you're a bad person. It's just a classification system that sorts things into 9 different bins based on some combination of actions and intent.

I could write a setting with the following rule:

- Odd numbers are associated with Sha, the energy of curses and evil.
- Even numbers are associated with Ko, the energy of good luck.

Associating in a group with an odd number of people, doing things an odd number of times, etc are all acts that taint you with the energy of Sha. This causes bad things to happen to you and those around you.

Associating in even numbers/etc blesses you with the energy of Ko, which makes good things happen to you and those around you.

This is a fairly objective system, though there's some give in whether or not 6 things are actually just two groups of 3 things, and how you actually perform the count. It would likely lead to in-game cultures that eschew odd numbers and favor even numbers. In the extreme, perhaps being found to be strongly associated with Sha would be grounds for a death sentence in some places.

But if I write such a system, I'm not asking the reader to personally go away believing that 3 is evil. I'm simply creating a scenario, that is then the reader's to do with as they please.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I haven't followed this thread in a while so this is a bit of a shot in the dark.

Has anyone else ever noticed how these discussions always seem to stray into scenarios involving good fiends, endangered orphans, and how paladins are doomed to nearly always fall because of one or the other?

[SowZ]

It's not that the system is right or wrong, its just a system. No one is suggesting using D&D cosmic alignment to make real life moral decisions. No one is suggesting that if you don't agree 100% with D&D cosmic morality, you're a bad person. It's just a classification system that sorts things into 9 different bins based on some combination of actions and intent.

I could write a setting with the following rule:

- Odd numbers are associated with Sha, the energy of curses and evil.
- Even numbers are associated with Ko, the energy of good luck.

Associating in a group with an odd number of people, doing things an odd number of times, etc are all acts that taint you with the energy of Sha. This causes bad things to happen to you and those around you.

Associating in even numbers/etc blesses you with the energy of Ko, which makes good things happen to you and those around you.

This is a fairly objective system, though there's some give in whether or not 6 things are actually just two groups of 3 things, and how you actually perform the count. It would likely lead to in-game cultures that eschew odd numbers and favor even numbers. In the extreme, perhaps being found to be strongly associated with Sha would be grounds for a death sentence in some places.

But if I write such a system, I'm not asking the reader to personally go away believing that 3 is evil. I'm simply creating a scenario, that is then the reader's to do with as they please.

Sure, and I respect that.

[SciChronic]

seeing as we're at page 6, lets get back on topic and discuss purpose and intent vs. action taken

[SowZ]

Orphans and paladins are the Godwin's law of alignment debates. Though Godwin's law shows up, too.

As to the OP, for my part, I'm a fairly strict deontologist and so think intent is more important. Willful ignorance with good intentions can still be wrong, though.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Orphans and paladins are the Godwin's law of alignment debates. Though Godwin's law shows up, too.

As to the OP, for my part, I'm a fairly strict deontologist and so think intent is more important. Willful ignorance with good intentions can still be wrong, though.

Really? I can't remember ever seeing an instance of godwin's law. Hittler never really comes up thanks to the mods doing a bang-up job of keeping flaming and political discussion to an absolute minimum.

I don't really spend any time on other D&D boards though.

[Drachasor]

Alternatively, the D&D universe just plain works differently, and simply isn't fair like that. Maybe it doesn't have to be fair to our modern sensibilities. The character can rail against the Gods for their terrible judgment, but in the end, you've gotta either do what they say or lose your feat. Your call.

Jerkass Gods. It's a thing.

How's that working differently. :smallsmile:

There probably should be more of an acknowledged split in the rules in terms of moral sensibilities. There are two large factions to cater to.


I haven't followed this thread in a while so this is a bit of a shot in the dark.

Has anyone else ever noticed how these discussions always seem to stray into scenarios involving good fiends, endangered orphans, and how paladins are doomed to nearly always fall because of one or the other?

Black and white issues CAN be a good reference point.

On the other hand, Paladins are good in some respect as a reference point, but also flawed since they have special rules. One has to be careful about using them.

I think D&D would probably benefit a lot from splitting its ethics into three categories: acts in a global sense, the ends someone wants to achieve, and the means one is willing to use to achieve those ends. A big problem, imho, with D&D ethics is that it acknowledges these are different things, but then also jumbles them all up together in a mess.

Oh and there are things made of "good stuff" and "evil stuff." And there are spells that seem to use "evil stuff" and "good stuff."

I've always found casting an [Evil] spell being inherently evil to be a bit odd. I mean sure, if what the spell does is inherently wrong that's one thing. On the other hand, a number of [Evil] spells, like Deathwatch, don't seem to do anything evil. Is it because they use [Evil] stuff? If so, does that mean even normally neutral acts are Evil when performed by [Evil] outsiders? They are made of Evil stuff after all. There's not a whole lot of sense here. Probably better if Alignment spells were treated like elemental spells in this regard.

[Dalebert]

I've always found casting an [Evil] spell being inherently evil to be a bit odd.

Animate Dead being automatically evil is one of those that always bothered me. I think they may have changed it (or it's different in PF, not sure) but the mindless undead used to be neutrally aligned. They're mindless. How can they have moral convictions? They do what they're told by their masters. It seems like whether it's a good or evil act should depend on what you do with them. Is animating dead bodies gross and potentially distasteful? Sure, you can make that case. I'm sure a husband might be really upset to see his reanimated dead wife, but her spirit has moved on. It's just a husk. Why not put it to good use? Heck, just make sure to not upset the locals with the bodies of people they know. It's just not polite. :)

[Maginomicon]

Animate Dead being automatically evil is one of those that always bothered me. I think they may have changed it (or it's different in PF, not sure) but the mindless undead used to be neutrally aligned. They're mindless. How can they have moral convictions? They do what they're told by their masters. It seems like whether it's a good or evil act should depend on what you do with them. Is animating dead bodies gross and potentially distasteful? Sure, you can make that case. I'm sure a husband might be really upset to see his reanimated dead wife, but her spirit has moved on. It's just a husk. Why not put it to good use? Heck, just make sure to not upset the locals with the bodies of people they know. It's just not polite. :)
Here's how I personally handle it in Real Alignments (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283341):

Alignment Descriptor Effects

Spells with alignment descriptors only have those descriptors so that they interact with certain class features and other effects that specifically refer to those kinds of spells. Alignment-based spell descriptors otherwise have no alignment-affecting repercussions on the spellcaster. For example, a dread necromancer could use spells with the [evil] descriptor all day long without inherently risking becoming “evil” himself. Furthermore, completely disregard that “evil spells” are listed as an evil act in Fiendish Codex II (page 30) and the Eberron Campaign Setting (page 35), as those sources presume evil as a caricature (and thus are counterproductive to Real Alignments).