Need opinions on alignment choice

[Misterwhisper]

Ok guys, I need an opinion on the alignment of a new character I am starting.

He is a warlock whose main goal in life is to be revered and loved as a great hero, and to eventually become the beloved ruler of everything he can.

However, he is willing to lie, cheat, steal, murder, and sell his soul for the love an popularity he wants.

When he comes to a new town he will spend gold there to help the town, like helping to repair the schools, buying the blacksmith new tools, paying to help irrigation ect, but he does not do it because he wants to help the people, he does it so people will love him and talk well of him.

He wants people to love him for his great works and all the things he has done for the people, but he would also take their begrudging respect if he can not have their love.

He already sold his soul to Asmodeus to gain power as a warlock because he was far to impatient to become a sorcerer. He is a Faction Agent for the Cult of Asmodeus, but he does SO MUCH good for the people that it might even out his deal with the Lord of the 9th Layer of Hell.

So, what alignment would you think fits this guy?

[eastmabl]

Gut reaction? Lawful evil.

[Reverse]

NE
Your not doing good for goods sake.
Your doing good deeds for powers sake.

Basically I hear you telling us that this character will do anything for the power and the long con is to have the people love you for it.
Like an old timey gangster, beloved in his neighborhood, carries grocery for old ladies and calmly chops up anyone who threatens his position of power.

[Moreplovac]

NE
Your not doing good for goods sake.
Your doing good deeds for powers sake.

Basically I hear you telling us that this character will do anything for the power and the long con is to have the people love you for it.
Like an old timey gangster, beloved in his neighborhood, carries grocery for old ladies and calmly chops up anyone who threatens his position of power.

Exactly this. You are going to do anything to appear as a "Hero" in their eyes. You are essentially doing it out of selfish reasons to appear "Good." Which is actually "evil" because if **** hits the fan, you'll run and say "**** it, I'll be a hero somewhere else."

[Ninja_Prawn]

I, too, call neutral evil. It's not far away from lawful, but there's just enough bendyness in it to tip it into neutral, for me.

[Misterwhisper]

NE
Your not doing good for goods sake.
Your doing good deeds for powers sake.

Basically I hear you telling us that this character will do anything for the power and the long con is to have the people love you for it.
Like an old timey gangster, beloved in his neighborhood, carries grocery for old ladies and calmly chops up anyone who threatens his position of power.


Exactly this. You are going to do anything to appear as a "Hero" in their eyes. You are essentially doing it out of selfish reasons to appear "Good." Which is actually "evil" because if **** hits the fan, you'll run and say "**** it, I'll be a hero somewhere else."

Does the intent of an action overule the result of the action?

Does doing so much good for selfish reasons really make those actions evil?

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Does the intent of an action overule the result of the action?

Does doing so much good for selfish reasons really make those actions evil?

That's not the problem. The fact that he is 'willing to lie, cheat, steal, murder, and sell his soul for the love an popularity he wants' is a problem. He is a character who commits thoroughly evil actions for selfish reasons - textbook NE, just with enough of a brain to use less reprehensible methods when expedient.

[Tanarii]

So, what alignment would you think fits this guy?I don't think you really need an alignment. You've already got tons of his personality defined. Including his moral and social attitudes. Alignment is there to help provide motivations for your character, specifically ones related to his moral and social attitudes. When you've already got those, it's not particularly important.

If you still feel the need for an overarching alignment, look at the 9 typical, but not perfect & consistent, behaviors outlined in the 5e PHB / Basics doc. If any of them feel right as a baseline for your typical, but not perfect or consistent, behavior, choose that. And keep it in mind during play. If they don't, skip the alignment.

[Cazero]

Does the intent of an action overule the result of the action?

Does doing so much good for selfish reasons really make those actions evil?
Those questions are a case by case study. In this case, the answers are yes and yes. Someone willing and able to cheat, steal and murder for an ego trip is clearly Evil.
Lawful or Chaotic is not that clearly cut, but I would tend to Chaotic since the guy doesn't seem to care about any form of rules or authority as long as he gets some positive attention.

[OldTrees1]

He does evil thing for selfish intentions. NE
He imagines himself as a Hero that does evil for heroic/good intentions. TN-NE
His imagination of himself imagines itself as a Good Hero. NG

So he is neutral evil but has a 2 tier delusion that could be used to redeem him.

[Biggstick]

However, he is willing to lie, cheat, steal, murder, and sell his soul for the love an popularity he wants.

This is the line that many of the above posters are saying qualifies him as NE.


He is a warlock whose main goal in life is to be revered and loved as a great hero, and to eventually become the beloved ruler of everything he can.

When he comes to a new town he will spend gold there to help the town, like helping to repair the schools, buying the blacksmith new tools, paying to help irrigation ect, but he does not do it because he wants to help the people, he does it so people will love him and talk well of him.

He wants people to love him for his great works and all the things he has done for the people, but he would also take their begrudging respect if he can not have their love.

He already sold his soul to Asmodeus to gain power as a warlock because he was far to impatient to become a sorcerer. He is a Faction Agent for the Cult of Asmodeus, but he does SO MUCH good for the people that it might even out his deal with the Lord of the 9th Layer of Hell.



Taking out that one line turns this character into something that is Lawful Evil. Everything within this character description screams Lawful Evil to me, but that one line, in my eyes, makes this character's alignment Neutral Evil.

Edit - Now that I've re-read the character description without that line, this character could almost be viewed as Lawful Good!

[Misterwhisper]

This is the line that many of the above posters are saying qualifies him as NE.




Taking out that one line turns this character into something that is Lawful Evil. Everything within this character description screams Lawful Evil to me, but that one line, in my eyes, makes this character's alignment Neutral Evil.

Edit - Now that I've re-read the character description without that line, this character could almost be viewed as Lawful Good!

Yeah that is my problem too. I was actually leaning true neutral, mainly because things kind of balance out.

It depends on which is more important, the action or the reason behind it.

[Gtdead]

I don't think that this character is neutral in any shape or form. His lack of morals and willingness to kill, even for trivial gains, makes him evil.
His complete lack of discipline (selling his soul to the devil without even trying to nurture his innate talent), vanity and hedonism make him chaotic. The only predictable thing about this character is that if there is love to be won, he will try to win it. Anything else is whimsical.

I'm impressed, even the group's paladin would have trouble figuring out your guy.

[UberMagus]

It really does come down to the "Lie, cheat, steal, murder". That, alone, bumps you into Evil. The "lie/cheat" kinda eliminates Lawful, and the whole "wants to be the best, beloved king/ruler" kinda eliminates Chaotic.

I'm with the majority on this, you sound like you've got yourself a bonafide NE.

[Misterwhisper]

I don't think that this character is neutral in any shape or form. His lack of morals and willingness to kill, even for trivial gains, makes him evil.
His complete lack of discipline (selling his soul to the devil without even trying to nurture his innate talent), vanity and hedonism make him chaotic. The only predictable thing about this character is that if there is love to be won, he will try to win it. Anything else is whimsical.

I'm impressed, even the group's paladin would have trouble figuring out your guy.

My last character was a Rogue who was FAR more religious and devoted than the Paladin or Cleric in the group, whose entire purpose was to empower his god and bring him glory in the realm.

I was so devoted that I freely gave up 3 legendary magic items just to give my god some tools to use to further his cause, I also gave up a portion of divine power we received after killing an evil god just to give my god that sliver of holy power.

Unfortunately for my group, my god was The King in Yellow, and I was the lone Rogue in a family of cultist Warlocks, tasked with being the family "Problem Solver", I was also Lawful Evil.

I tend to play complicated people.

(He became NE two-thirds through the campaign due to being screwed over by the GM and a PC)

[Kane0]

I don't think you really need an alignment. You've already got tons of his personality defined. Including his moral and social attitudes. Alignment is there to help provide motivations for your character, specifically ones related to his moral and social attitudes. When you've already got those, it's not particularly important.

If you still feel the need for an overarching alignment, look at the 9 typical, but not perfect & consistent, behaviors outlined in the 5e PHB / Basics doc. If any of them feel right as a baseline for your typical, but not perfect or consistent, behavior, choose that. And keep it in mind during play. If they don't, skip the alignment.

This. Your alignment is irrelevant, you have a personality.
/opinion

If you insist on being labelled, you'd be either neutral or evil (depending on how many things youre willing to do actually end up happening, individual interpretation, and your response to other in game events). Choose your standard mode of operation and figure lawful/chaotic off that.

[Tanarii]

This. Alignment is largely irrelevant, especially since you have a clear motive and personality.It does have a subconscious purpose, as I pointed out in another thread. The traditional and primary purpose of Alignment in D&D is to designate which "team" you are on. Law vs Chaos vs Good vs Evil.

Of course, not all games of D&D require that. Hell, sometimes it's just enough to know you're Team PC.

[JackPhoenix]

Yeah that is my problem too. I was actually leaning true neutral, mainly because things kind of balance out.

It depends on which is more important, the action or the reason behind it.

Things don't balance out. Good and Evil are not equal...Good is held to higher standards. Doing evil deeds for good reasons ("For the greater good!") and doing good deeds for evil reasons (this character) both leads to evil alignment.

There's a reason why there are more fallen angels than redeemed fiends...falling is easy, even by accident, getting back up requires will and hard work.

[RickAllison]

Things don't balance out. Good and Evil are not equal...Good is held to higher standards. Doing evil deeds for good reasons ("For the greater good!") and doing good deeds for evil reasons (this character) both leads to evil alignment.

There's a reason why there are more fallen angels than redeemed fiends...falling is easy, even by accident, getting back up requires will and hard work.

This is a very insightful post. In many ways, evil characters have far more variety than good, and it becomes difficult to tell when a line has been crossed. The Punisher and Baron Zemo during the first Thunderbolts arc are both evil, but for very different reasons. The Punisher is evil because he commits murder in the service of good when he could arrest or otherwise non-lethally dispose of criminals, while Baron Zemo during the first Thunderbolts arc did good for the express purpose of making it easier to take over the world.

[Kane0]

Also explains why the evil/lower planes are usually more interesting than the good/upper ones. Aside from the adventuring/slaying evil thing.

[Malifice]

Ok guys, I need an opinion on the alignment of a new character I am starting.

He is a warlock whose main goal in life is to be revered and loved as a great hero, and to eventually become the beloved ruler of everything he can.

However, he is willing to lie, cheat, steal, murder, and sell his soul for the love an popularity he wants.

When he comes to a new town he will spend gold there to help the town, like helping to repair the schools, buying the blacksmith new tools, paying to help irrigation ect, but he does not do it because he wants to help the people, he does it so people will love him and talk well of him.

He wants people to love him for his great works and all the things he has done for the people, but he would also take their begrudging respect if he can not have their love.

He already sold his soul to Asmodeus to gain power as a warlock because he was far to impatient to become a sorcerer. He is a Faction Agent for the Cult of Asmodeus, but he does SO MUCH good for the people that it might even out his deal with the Lord of the 9th Layer of Hell.

So, what alignment would you think fits this guy?

Im probably gonna go with NE with chaotic tendencies.

The 'E' bit is not in doubt.


Yeah that is my problem too. I was actually leaning true neutral, mainly because things kind of balance out.

It... doesnt work that way. A person that murders someone once a month, but is otherwise a nice guy (aside from the lying and cheating and stealing) is... evil.

Good people dont go around mass murdering. They engage in charity, mercy and forgiveness for charity, mercy and forgiveness sake not for any material advantage from it.

They certainly dont go around murdering people to win a popularity contest or 'be loved'.

Only on a DnD forum would this be in any way controversial.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Only on a DnD forum would this be in any way controversial.

Is there anyone other than the OP suggesting this character isn't evil? I wouldn't really call that a "controversy".

And you know, I've heard plenty of people trying to excuse or justify this sort of behaviour on non-D&D fora...

I think one of the benefits of the alignment system is that it doesn't give you the chance to hide behind charisma or popularity or greatness. It calls out evil for what it is.

[Malifice]

Is there anyone other than the OP suggesting this character isn't evil? I wouldn't really call that a "controversy".

And you know, I've heard plenty of people trying to excuse or justify this sort of behaviour on non-D&D fora...

I think one of the benefits of the alignment system is that it doesn't give you the chance to hide behind charisma or popularity or greatness. It calls out evil for what it is.

Fora? Is that the plural of Forum? The more you know!

[Ninja_Prawn]

Fora? Is that the plural of Forum? The more you know!

It's the Latin plural, I think. 'Forums' is acceptable in English, but it just sounds so wrong. It hurts my eyes/ears!

It's like, you wouldn't say 'phenomenons' would you?

[Reverse]

All of this said you could play the character as if they think they are NG or LG.
Convinced that your personal power plays are for the betterment of the town.

[Ninja_Prawn]

All of this said you could play the character as if they think they are NG or LG.
Convinced that your personal power plays are for the betterment of the town.

That'd probably be realistic. Not many people believe they are evil, after all.

[Tanarii]

It... doesnt work that way. A person that murders someone once a month, but is otherwise a nice guy (aside from the lying and cheating and stealing) is... evil.

Good people dont go around mass murdering. They engage in charity, mercy and forgiveness for charity, mercy and forgiveness sake not for any material advantage from it.Quote me where in the 5e D&D books any of this is defined explicitly in regards to any type of evil. I'm especially interested in definitions of what constitutes "murder".

Here's the what D&D 5e has to say about evil. That the typical, but not perfect or consistent behavior, is:
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

The only one that refers to killing does so indirectly, and it's in reference to arbitrary violence.

That said, I agree that many of the typical, but not perfect or consistent, behavior described for good or neutral types would probably lead them not to commit extra-legal killings (ie murder) on a regular basis.

Only on a D&D Forum would someone insist their personal definitions of what constitutes "good" and "evil" somehow overrides the way the game describes something works.

[Misterwhisper]

Im probably gonna go with NE with chaotic tendencies.

The 'E' bit is not in doubt.



It... doesnt work that way. A person that murders someone once a month, but is otherwise a nice guy (aside from the lying and cheating and stealing) is... evil.

Good people dont go around mass murdering. They engage in charity, mercy and forgiveness for charity, mercy and forgiveness sake not for any material advantage from it.

They certainly dont go around murdering people to win a popularity contest or 'be loved'.

Only on a DnD forum would this be in any way controversial.


Murdering someone does not automatically make someone evil.

An assassin who sets out to kill a ruthless dictator, is very much committing murder, but that is not evil it is Chaotic Good.
Plenty of Paladins kill people just because they detect evil in them, regardless if they have actually committed a crime worthy of death.

Neutral alignments are also not solely for those who do not feel strongly one way or another, it can easily be for those people who do both good and evil, or both lawful and chaotic actions.

If I play a fighter who is very religious but not a paladin and he tries to atone for the horrible things he did in war by donating his time and money to good deeds could easily be neutral.

Same a city guard who is all business at work but loves to go out gambling and whoring on his day off could be neutral.


Example for this character I put in his backstory: This is a short version, his backstory is like 26 pages long.

When he was younger, he was the most popular kid in school, and eventually a very influential person in his small town. However, it was always the heroes, that people talked about in song, it was the great heroes that statues were built to. All he wanted was to be one of those heroes, and for others to see him as one. The problem was he was not strong enough to be a warrior, nor was he gifted in the ways of magic. There was nothing he was really good at that would make him worthy of songs and monuments.

That is when he heard the voice in his dreams, "I can make you a hero, I can make you powerful in magic, all you have to do is work for me."

That was all it took and he traded his soul for the magical power of the Warlock.

For a while he basked in the glory of his deeds, he would go from village to village and drive off wolves, or kill their bandits, but few people love a Warlock it seems.
Someone, somehow found out what he was, and rather than for them to reveal his secret he killed them.
It became a little too easy to convince himself he had to do that, "to become a hero".

He became obsessively overflowing in his generosity to the poor or in need. People loved that, and praised him for it. If it seemed like someone would uncover his secret, he would have to silence them... he simply had to... right?

He will do anything to become the beloved hero... anything.

[KorvinStarmast]

Murdering someone does not automatically make someone evil.

An assassin who sets out to kill a ruthless dictator, is very much committing murder. Intentions matter. That can be found in a few of Giantitp's commentaries and coming out of the Roy's mouth. (OoTS).

Beyond that, I agree with NE as the best fit, if one must needs shoehorn someone into an alignment and forego tanarii's outstanding advice.


I don't think you really need an alignment. You've already got tons of his personality defined. Including his moral and social attitudes. Alignment is there to help provide motivations for your character, specifically ones related to his moral and social attitudes. When you've already got those, it's not particularly important.

The traditional and primary purpose of Alignment in D&D is to designate which "team" you are on. Law vs Chaos vs Good vs Evil. Of course, not all games of D&D require that. Hell, sometimes it's just enough to know you're Team PC.

When we remember that D&D arose from table top minatures wargames that pitted one team versus another team, alignment makes better design sense ... since as a tool of moral philosophy it's never been much good.

[Misterwhisper]

Intentions matter. That can be found in a few of Giantitp's commentaries and coming out of the Roy's mouth. (OoTS).

Beyond that, I agree with NE as the best fit, if one must needs shoehorn someone into an alignment and forego tanarii's outstanding advice.




When we remember that D&D arose from table top minatures wargames that pitted one team versus another team, alignment makes better design sense ... since as a tool of moral philosophy it's never been much good.

We usually just ignore alignments all together but as long as there are spells like protection from Good/Evil and detection of such, they have to be there.

[Ninja_Prawn]

We usually just ignore alignments all together but as long as there are spells like protection from Good/Evil and detection of such, they have to be there.

So, what you mean is, "they don't have to be there any more".

The only alignment-based effects in 5e (as far as I can remember) are on who can safely attune to a couple of magical items. The 'good & evil' spells have been redesigned to target certain Outsider races, rather than certain alignments.

[KorvinStarmast]

We usually just ignore alignments all together but as long as there are spells like protection from Good/Evil and detection of such, they have to be there. I find the mechanical approach to D&D nauseating. Alignments (the Angry GM has a decent article on that topic) when used well by a DM provides some richness and depth to the story and to character growth. Alignment used as an on off switch (like the "one sin and you aren't a paladin" thing Gygax put into the original template) doesn't do that as well.

In RPG's, actions have consequences, and motivations matter. Alignment can help with that but it takes judgment and thought.

You get out of it what you put into it.

[Ronnocius]

Lawful Evil is what immediately comes into mind. Neutral Evil is another choice. The reason I choose Lawful Evil is because even though he breaks the law for popularity, he is still following his own code. He views himself as an up-and-coming hero, and bases his actions off of such. While he murders anybody to protect knowledge of his arrangement for power, it is still lawful in his point of view. It really depends on whether you view lawful as adhering to global laws or codes, or a personal code. Both are equally valid interpretations, and both are equally supported by the 5th Edition books.

[Gtdead]

Murdering someone does not automatically make someone evil.

An assassin who sets out to kill a ruthless dictator, is very much committing murder, but that is not evil it is Chaotic Good.

Hardly. He could be from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil. It's not the action that matters, it's the motive. If he did it because the dictator uses black magic to keep everyone in check, he could well be a lawful good character. While if he did it because he thought it would be a good opportunity to advance himself by killing such a hated dictator, he ranges between neutral evil to chaotic evil depending on how important he considers the need for a strong leadership.

And if he did it because the tyrant created many problems with trade, infrastructure etc, then he is probably lawful neutral or evil and this was the last resort.



Plenty of Paladins kill people just because they detect evil in them, regardless if they have actually committed a crime worthy of death.

Paladins tend to kill evil entities, not evil people. A paladin would have trouble deciding to smite your warlock, but he would strike down a demon without a second thought. There is no such thing as a benefactor demon. No potential for good. Also paladins are more flexible than people give them credit for :p



Neutral alignments are also not solely for those who do not feel strongly one way or another, it can easily be for those people who do both good and evil, or both lawful and chaotic actions.
If I play a fighter who is very religious but not a paladin and he tries to atone for the horrible things he did in war by donating his time and money to good deeds could easily be neutral.

That could be an alignment shock, or a character flaw. Good people have done horrible things in a war under the command of ruthless officers. Some resist (and probably die), others don't but feel really bad about themselves. Others change and become evil in the process. A fighter that tries to atone for bad things he did under orders is leaning strongly towards lawful good. If his idea of atoning is to put a vigilante's mask, then things start to get interesting.

Or he could be an evil character, and he had an alignment shock when the people of a village he raided nursed him back to health when he was wounded.


Same a city guard who is all business at work but loves to go out gambling and whoring on his day off could be neutral.

Or good (ranging from lawful to chaotic). Professionalism points to lawful, the others point to chaotic. Gambling and whoring are not evil acts by themselves. They tend to be chaotic in nature because they fall outside of what is considered acceptable by the society and the laws, but don't have to be chaotic as a part of the person's character. Perhaps he feels like he is not good enough to find a woman, so he tries to find some love elsewhere which points to neutral. Gambling can be done by a lawful character, by having principles, like not playing with people that have nothing to lose, or being very strict about when to stop.

The alignments are not about the sum of the actions, rather than the reasons and motives. If your character has motives based on principles he tends to lawful, if he has motives based on feeling he tends chaotic. If he respects the principles but prefers his own interpretations, he is neutral. And then you measure his morallity. If he is willing to do evil he is evil. If he isn't then he is good. If he thinks that sometimes it can't be avoided, he is neutral, and depending on his flexibility, he can tend to good or evil.

[Tanarii]

We usually just ignore alignments all together but as long as there are spells like protection from Good/Evil and detection of such, they have to be there.
Well you're in luck. D&D 5e Alignments have no mechanical consequence any more. (Except as noted, for attunement requirements for a few magic items). They exist as a roleplaying aid to assist with getting in character. If you don't need them for that, you don't need them at all.

[Malifice]

Murdering someone does not automatically make someone evil.

An assassin who sets out to kill a ruthless dictator, is very much committing murder, but that is not evil it is Chaotic Good.
Plenty of Paladins kill people just because they detect evil in them, regardless if they have actually committed a crime worthy of death.

Neutral alignments are also not solely for those who do not feel strongly one way or another, it can easily be for those people who do both good and evil, or both lawful and chaotic actions.

If I play a fighter who is very religious but not a paladin and he tries to atone for the horrible things he did in war by donating his time and money to good deeds could easily be neutral.

Same a city guard who is all business at work but loves to go out gambling and whoring on his day off could be neutral.


Example for this character I put in his backstory: This is a short version, his backstory is like 26 pages long.

When he was younger, he was the most popular kid in school, and eventually a very influential person in his small town. However, it was always the heroes, that people talked about in song, it was the great heroes that statues were built to. All he wanted was to be one of those heroes, and for others to see him as one. The problem was he was not strong enough to be a warrior, nor was he gifted in the ways of magic. There was nothing he was really good at that would make him worthy of songs and monuments.

That is when he heard the voice in his dreams, "I can make you a hero, I can make you powerful in magic, all you have to do is work for me."

That was all it took and he traded his soul for the magical power of the Warlock.

For a while he basked in the glory of his deeds, he would go from village to village and drive off wolves, or kill their bandits, but few people love a Warlock it seems.
Someone, somehow found out what he was, and rather than for them to reveal his secret he killed them.
It became a little too easy to convince himself he had to do that, "to become a hero".

He became obsessively overflowing in his generosity to the poor or in need. People loved that, and praised him for it. If it seemed like someone would uncover his secret, he would have to silence them... he simply had to... right?

He will do anything to become the beloved hero... anything.

Yeah, nah.

I'm a lawyer IRL. Murder is evil. Mass murderers are evil people. Serial killers are evil people. I don't care how many puppies they pat or any other factor. They're evil.

No good person engages in wilful murder of another person. They may think they're a good person (most do) but they're not.

When you've experienced someone close to you being murdered (by someone whose goal for the murder was nothing more than 'to make people like me') we can come back and have this discussion properly.

Anyone who attempts to persuade me that murderers, rapists and torturers are 'good people' is preaching on deaf ears. In my campaign if you engage in murder, rape, genocide, brutal torture or similar you're demonstrating you're evil and your alignment gets changed.

Feel free to view murderers and rapists as good people. Excuse me while I vehemently disagree with you.

[CantigThimble]

Yeah, nah.

I'm a lawyer IRL. Murder is evil. Mass murderers are evil people. Serial killers are evil people. I don't care how many puppies they pat or any other factor. They're evil.

No good person engages in wilful murder of another person. They may think they're a good person (most do) but they're not.

When you've experienced someone close to you being murdered (by someone whose goal for the murder was nothing more than 'to make people like me') we can come back and have this discussion properly.

Anyone who attempts to persuade me that murderers, rapists and torturers are 'good people' is preaching on deaf ears. In my campaign if you engage in murder, rape, genocide, brutal torture or similar you're demonstrating you're evil and your alignment gets changed.

Feel free to view murderers and rapists as good people. Excuse me while I vehemently disagree with you.

This still leaves the question of which killing is evil murder and which is good killing. It's kinda a given that PCs will have a hearty body count regardless of alignment. So given that, where's the line between good and evil?

[Malifice]

This still leaves the question of which killing is evil murder and which is good killing. It's kinda a given that PCs will have a hearty body count regardless of alignment. So given that, where's the line between good and evil?

There is no such thing as a 'good' killing. Just like there is no such thing as a 'good' rape.

If someone is a threat to others lives and the only reasonable option open to you to protect that life is to kill the murderer, then it becomes morally neutral.

Example: Police shooting dead an armed bank robber. A soldier killing an enemy combatant. A spy assasinating a tyrant.


Hardly. He could be from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil. It's not the action that matters, it's the motive.

I completely disagree. Subjective motive is never important. Only objective context.

There are two elements of alignment - what you think you are (and what you think your acts are) and what you objectively are (and what your acts objectively are). The two rarely align. Again - in my line of work I've met serial killers that genuinely believe that they are 'good' people. Good on them, but I disagree - now and always.

More acts of evil have been done in the pursuit of 'the greater good' than I care to name. Everything from the holocaust to what we are witnessing currently in the Middle East.

If youre the kind of person who employs torture, rape and murder for 'the greater good' or with only the purest of intent, you're an evil person.

Not that there is anything wrong with such a trope. People who are prepared to use evil methods 'to get **** done' are all too common IRL.

Cant make an omlette without breaking a few eggs and all that.

Anyway. These alignment discussions rapidly break into 12 year old roleplayers attempting to excuse all sorts of abhorent acts including the murder of children and acts of outright genocide as acts of heroic good, so I'll bow out of this discussion and let you all convince each other how tossing a screaming baby hitler on the fire is a good and noble deed.

[CantigThimble]

By 'good' killing I only meant what killing would players in a game that you ran be able to do while retaining a 'good' alignment since this discussion is in the context of D&D and all that. So when you say killing to prevent killing (with no other reasonable options ect.) is neutral do you mean that a LG character who killed in that way would become (or be closer to becoming) LN or do you mean it wouldn't count towards good or evil?

[Malifice]

So when you say killing to prevent killing (with no other reasonable options ect.) is neutral do you mean that a LG character who killed in that way would become (or be closer to becoming) LN or do you mean it wouldn't count towards good or evil?

If it was done repeatedly and in the absence of any good deeds surrounding it then yes.

Committing an act of evil (rape, premeditated murder, brutal and relentless torture) is a clear indicator of an evil person.

When you see the villian on screen in a movie engage in rape or murder or tape someone to a chair and douse them in petrol before cutting off thier ear, you know theyre almost invariably evil.

There is not to say that an otherwise good person couldnt 'snap' and gun someone down via an act of evil (Samuel L Jacksons character in A Time to Kill springs to mind). This is the exception that proves the rule though.

[CantigThimble]

If it was done repeatedly and in the absence of any good deeds surrounding it then yes.

Committing an act of evil (rape, premeditated murder, brutal and relentless torture) is a clear indicator of an evil person.

When you see the villian on screen in a movie engage in rape or murder or tape someone to a chair and douse them in petrol before cutting off thier ear, you know theyre almost invariably evil.

There is not to say that an otherwise good person couldnt 'snap' and gun someone down via an act of evil (Samuel L Jacksons character in A Time to Kill springs to mind). This is the exception that proves the rule though.

I think you may have misread me. I was talking exclusively about the acts of killing you referred to earlier as morally neutral, not killing in general.

[Gtdead]

I completely disagree. Subjective motive is never important. Only objective context.
-snip-


What you are doing, comparing the alignment system of dnd with your experience as a lawyer, doesn't fall in the realm of "objective context", rather than the "out of context".
You compare how a modern society works with a world that even random words have a mind of their own. You compare an advanced society with a justice system to a world influenced by planes of existence, where the inhabitants actively try to steer stupid mortals into certain alignments so when they die, their souls will become property of the plane's leader.

If I burn a village in reality because "my god told me to" I'd be a mentally sick person. If I say something like that in DnD, guess what? Riiiiight, it can be perfectly true. Both are the actions of a bad person, but different rules apply. What does it matter if some justice system condemns me in dnd. My god will bring me back, stronger than before. It's not some propaganda, or brainwashing. It's a goddamn fact.

I'm trying to explain that the alignment isn't about the sum of the actions to a person that doesn't understand it. My examples are valid and different times require different actions. An evil demonologist tyrant is the epitome of evil and killing him for the good of the people is a good selfless action.

[Malifice]

What you are doing, comparing the alignment system of dnd with your experience as a lawyer, doesn't fall in the realm of "objective context",

In my campaign it does. I (as the DM) set objective good and evil.

In your camapaign you set yours. If youre comfortable with LG people raping, torturing and murdering others and engaging in genocide and tossing babes in the pyre, then by all means run it that way.


You compare an advanced society with a justice system to a world influenced by planes of existence, where the inhabitants actively try to steer stupid mortals into certain alignments so when they die, their souls will become property of the plane's leader.

Even more reason to set objective limits for mine.


If I burn a village in reality because "my god told me to" I'd be a mentally sick person. If I say something like that in DnD, guess what? Riiiiight, it can be perfectly true.

Not that you in game could know it 'in game'.

Maybe gods exist in the real world. A lot of people (the overwhelming majority) think they do. I dont personally, but thats neither here nor there.


Both are the actions of a bad person, but different rules apply.

No, they dont. Come into my campaign and you can find out for yourself.

See how I'm right yet?


What does it matter if some justice system condemns me in dnd. My god will bring me back, stronger than before. It's not some propaganda, or brainwashing. It's a goddamn fact.

A lot of people think this in Utah , the Middle East and in other places.

Again; I dont care what your justification is for your act of murder, rape or anything else. As DM I set the objective good and evil, and I determine context (free from subjective justification).

A Paladin could exterminate members of a different faith under the flag of his god or nation, firmly in the belief that he is working towards the 'greater good'. In my campaigns he goes to Hell, and those acts remain as evil as they were when the Nazis did them.

Moral relativism is a thing when it comes to your own subjective rationalisation of your acts. It is however irrelevant when it comes to whether what you are doing is good or evil in an objective sense.

[Kane0]

Guys, why are we arguing? And with Malifice of all people, I would've thought we'd learned our lesson by now.

Thankfully alignment doesn't impact 5e in the same mechanical sense it used to in prior editions. It makes a good yardstick, but it can only give you so much of an indication of a person. A fleshed out personality with methods and motives will beat an alignment label the vast majority of the time.

[Gtdead]

In my campaign it does. I (as the DM) set objective good and evil.

In your camapaign you set yours. If youre comfortable with LG people raping, torturing and murdering others and engaging in genocide and tossing babes in the pyre, then by all means run it that way.

-snip-

The problem is that you are pulling a strawman every time you use these words. My examples were very specific. Someone that kills another because the whole community demands it after being provoked for a long time. The other was a soldier in war under orders that tries to repent.

In the second example, the soldier has done a lot of bad things, even if he was forced to. Sure you can't call him a lawful good person while he razes and burns villages even if he doesn't want to. But what do you call someone that spends the rest of his live being as pure as possible, helping the community and never commiting an evil act again?

You are using the alignments wrong if you think that the action of razing a village instantly contemns someone to burn in hell. If you do think this, then you are suggesting that people who were forced into service and coerced into commiting atrocious acts in a war were all evil. Do the same rules still apply? Answer in dnd's terms. What is the alignment of these people?

I'm using the example of the soldiers because dnd can be a game about war, although mostly it's silly fun instead of gritty. Backstories on the other hand, they tend to go deep.

[Malifice]

In the second example, the soldier has done a lot of bad things, even if he was forced to. Sure you can't call him a lawful good person while he razes and burns villages even if he doesn't want to.

The Neurenberg defence?


But what do you call someone that spends the rest of his live being as pure as possible, helping the community and never commiting an evil act again?

Answer in dnd's terms. What is the alignment of these people?

Good family man gets drafted to fight WW2. While at war he engages in horrific acts, including torture, murder of captured soldiers, desecration of bodies and worse. Upon return he lives the rest of his life in seclusion, hardened by the things he has seen and done.

Translates to:

NG commoner gets drafted. Resorts to acts of evil while at war to stay alive and changes alignment to NE on account. Returns to his home town, and his alignment gradualy reverts to N.


You are using the alignments wrong if you think that the action of razing a village instantly contemns someone to burn in hell.

Wilfully engaging in genodice or mass murder (burning children alive in bed) is something only an evil person could do. Such a person could of course later on come to repudiate these actions, and seek redemption.

You dont seem to get this. If Im the kind of dude that willfully kills children, then Im not a good person. I may come to recant that position and possibly develop some level of empathy for my victims (i.e. change alignment), but the more horrific my evil acts (which are the empirical evidence of my evil alignment and thoughts) the longer the journey back.

[RickAllison]

Wilfully engaging in genodice or mass murder (burning children alive in bed) is something only an evil person could do. Such a person could of course later on come to repudiate these actions, and seek redemption.

You dont seem to get this. If Im the kind of dude that willfully kills children, then Im not a good person. I may come to recant that position and possibly develop some level of empathy for my victims (i.e. change alignment), but the more horrific my evil acts (which are the empirical evidence of my evil alignment and thoughts) the longer the journey back.

I found your friend:

http://stupidevilbastard.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/strawmancard-250x206.jpg

[Gtdead]

The Neurenberg defence?

And that's your problem. You look at this from an adversarial position. It's not. This is not about determining if the accused is guilty, cause he is. It's about determining the frame for one's actions.



You dont seem to get this. If Im the kind of dude that willfully kills children, then Im not a good person. I may come to recant that position and possibly develop some level of empathy for my victims (i.e. change alignment), but the more horrific my evil acts (which are the empirical evidence of my evil alignment and thoughts) the longer the journey back.

If you are forced into killing children, you are not doing it "willfully". If I tell you burn a house or I will put a bullet in your head, do you do this willfully? Or you realize that the only way to survive is to be a part of what will happen anyway, and it's completely out of your control? You already have a level of empathy for your victims, you don't need to develop it.

No I do get this. It's the way it's done in videogames to which I disagree. It's the old evil act gives you evil points. Becoming disillusioned by the realities of war may affect your alignment and turn you into neutral, but it's not through a dive into evil waters and then try to wash off the stench. It's through a realization that the world is a ****ed up place, so you should stop trying so hard.

Doing something you don't want to do makes you miserable, fearful for your life. It breaks you and you don't have any alternatives other than to commit suicide or defect which is pretty much the same. This is where the subjective rationalization you've been arguing comes in. They have to tell themselves that this is the only way so they can survive. But the fact is that if most of these people weren't there, they wouldn't have to commit an evil act at all.

You can't compare everyone to the nazi stereotype.

[Tanarii]

I'm a lawyer IRL. which certainly explains your inflexibility. But not your willingness to completely ignore what the rules actually say every time Alignment comes up, in favor of your own personal and completely unrelated opinions.


In my campaign


In my campaign

Come into my campaign And here is the rub. Every time one of these discussions comes up, you bring your house rules to the conversation as if they are relevant somehow to any discussion of what Alignment means in 5e under the rules.

In fact, your personal opinions about what constitutes good and evil directly disagrees with the rules in many areas, in particular murder never being mentioned. And your house rules on the objectivity of Alignment, and even the ability for Alignment to change due to specific actions, are in direct contradiction to the rules.

[Knaight]

I find the mechanical approach to D&D nauseating. Alignments (the Angry GM has a decent article on that topic) when used well by a DM provides some richness and depth to the story and to character growth. Alignment used as an on off switch (like the "one sin and you aren't a paladin" thing Gygax put into the original template) doesn't do that as well.

In RPG's, actions have consequences, and motivations matter. Alignment can help with that but it takes judgment and thought.

Wow. It's incredibly clear from context that nobody is suggesting the mechanical approach, alignments are being disparaged because they're a paper-thin tool vastly worse at providing richness and depth than actual defined motivations, and yet you decide to smugly lecture about RPGs having actions with consequences, and trying to imply that people who don't use alignment are lacking in judgement and thought.

That storytellers have been creating nuanced characters since well before alignment showed up in D&D is apparently just brushed under the rug here.

[Tanarii]

Thankfully alignment doesn't impact 5e in the same mechanical sense it used to in prior editions. It makes a good yardstick, but it can only give you so much of an indication of a person. A fleshed out personality with methods and motives will beat an alignment label the vast majority of the time.IMO that's exactly what Alignment in 5e is supposed to be, one component of the fleshed out personality with methods and motives that make up personality in D&D.

But just because it's designed to work as part of personality, doesn't mean it's required to be a part of personality. Character motives and methods can easily either not have a moral/social attitude component, or have a much more finely nuanced one.

But also Alignment is the traditional way to divide creatures into 'Teams'. ;)

[Wymmerdann]

To jump in on Malifice's side [maybe it's the legal background we share].

Firstly re: "willfully". Arguing from the corner case of "gun to your head" isn't any more representative of what play looks like at a table than Malifice's so-called "strawman" examples. The reality of play at an overwhelming number of tables, in my anecdotal experience, is that the most common example of play is the self-deluding murder-hobo. I can understand Malifice's disdain for the way such play get's dressed up and gentrified given his professional experience. Even players who profess a desire to RP and "stare into the abyss" will almost always find that the abyss stares back, so that they find themselves spouting platitudes on the threshold of the blood-soaked kobold orphanage.

Arguing that Malifice's admittedly rigid position is akin to "video-game evil points" completely ignores the fact that he's posited a model whereby characters can move to, and revert from, the alignment that their actions indicate they are operating within. That mischaracterisation is the clearest strawman in the debate so far.


Common Law is actually an incredibly helpful source for discussions around the good and the indefensible for those who have the time to look into it. For example, while there was once a fruitful body of law around the idea of justifiable homicides, "justification" as a defence or excuse for murder has gradually been pruned back as a defence, leaving self-defence as the only real "justificatory" defence at law. What this means is that "this guy just needed killing" isn't recognised as a moral statement in courts any longer, where once it may have been. Prejudices against the legal profession notwithstanding, this broad trend is probably worth considering given the character of ongoing discussions here, particularly in the context of the "gun to the head" scenario. A court would find you guilty of that crime, and while the circumstances might affect your sentence, you will remain guilty. It's unclear why the judges of alignment ought be less indignant.


EDIT: The assumption in the "gun to your head, burn down this orphanage" example seems to be that the circumstances provide two options: sacrifice yourself as a good option, or go along with it as neutral [alternatively you're co-operating willfully, rendering the gun irrevelant]. In contrast I think most of the work done in and around the nuremburg trials and their cultural legacy would lead to a reading of the alignment rules whereby the option you're robbed of is the neutral one: you sacrifice yourself for the good option, or you collaborate as the evil option. Evil may be banal, but it ain't neutral.

EDIT EDIT: The OP reads as a lawful evil character, possibly edging towards neutral evil depending on the composite of actions in terms of selfishly law abiding/secretly criminal. I'm playing a similar character as an Oathbreaker Paladin trying to establish a temple for his new deity. He buys bread and offers healing to the poor and encourages/convinces them to acknowledge a spiritual debt to his deity. Generally instrumentalising others sentient beings is going to walk hand in hand with sociopathy/an evil alignment.

[Malifice]

Every time one of these discussions comes up, you bring your house rules

These are not 'house rules'. The game expressly refers to good and evil. In your games you prefer a subjective determination of what these are. Youre cool with a Paladin murdering children 'for the greater good'. In my games, I come from a position of objective good and evil, where the baby murdering paladin falls.

Neither position is a house rule. Its just our different opinions on what alignment 'is'. You can have your method, and I'll keep mine.


If you are forced into killing children, you are not doing it "willfully". If I tell you burn a house or I will put a bullet in your head, do you do this willfully? Or you realize that the only way to survive is to be a part of what will happen anyway, and it's completely out of your control? You already have a level of empathy for your victims, you don't need to develop it.

Agreed. For the same reason a person dominated wouldnt be considered an evil person for committing a sole evil act. The act must be one wilfully commited.

Even with a gun to my head I couldnt murder a baby though. I'd instead fight my attacker or wear the bullet (and I dare say most good people would also).

[Wymmerdann]

Interesting. So you think the "gun to the head" situation overwhelms the will even in cases of murder?

[Tanarii]

These are not 'house rules'. The game expressly refers to good and evil.Yes. They are. You are completely deluding yourself if you honestly believe they are not house rules, and other personal opinions not based on anything to do with the actual rules.

5e Alignment is defined as moral & social attitudes. Typical behavior, but not perfect or consistent, is described for each one as a single sentence. There are no other definitions of what constitutes any alignment, There are no provisions for it to change. There are no provisions for specific actions, or even specific behavior, to define or effect a character's Alignment.

That's what 5e has to say about Alignment. You've pulled everything else out of your ass.

[Malifice]

Interesting. So you think the "gun to the head" situation overwhelms the will even in cases of murder?

In my view, yes. If I am sitting at home and some dude bursts in, puts a gun in my hand and one to my head and demands I shoot an innocent man or he kills me, I can only very narrowly be said to be 'wilfully engaging in an evil act'.

I'd make a OSR paladin fall for it (it's willful act of evil) but I wouldnt force an alignment change on someone for it (they should roleplay the emotional trauma and moral upheaval such an event would inflict on a person however. In the absence of such empathy and turmoil, they may not be good people).

Much like how being magically compelled to kill someone you love would mess you up for a very long time afterwards.

I define evil as (broadly) 'A lack of empathy for others'. Its the single common factor in the murders, rapes, violence and so forth that I encounter in my daily job.

Good people dont harm others because they physcially just... cant. They care too much about the suffering of others and actively try and alleviate it (via charity, mercy, compassion, kindness). They work in areas such as social work, or religious sector or similar (Im not religious personally). They vounteer at the soup kitchen for the homeless, give money to telethons, are generally non-violent etc. They not only care about those around them, they go out of their way to show it.

Neutral people dont care strongly enough to act to help others or put themselves out for others, but they also have enough empathy not to act to harm others, and avoid this as well. They just want to get ahead in life without harming other people. Make a buck without being a douche about it.

Evil people either simply dont care about the pain and suffering of others (having no empathy) at best, or intentionally harm others for personal gain or pleasure with little to no regard for that suffering (at worst). From corporate execs who happily dump toxic waste into lakes near schools, to criminals who would kill a man for the 'principle' of the fact he owes you 10 dollars, up to psychpaths with maladjusted personalities that embark on killing sprees or serial killing and all the way up to world leaders who embark on programs of genocide.

The kind of person described in the OP is a classic psychopath. He desperately wants to be loved and admired by others (probably due to an internal emptiness) and will let nothing will get in his way. He cares not about who he has to decieve, rob, torture or even murder to become popular and get the love and admiration he feels is owed to him.

He is an absolute monster, even worse that Josph Fritzl or Jeffrey Dahmer, and if his crimes were discovered he would be roundly acknowledged as such by all and sundry.

[KorvinStarmast]

, and trying to imply that people who don't use alignment are lacking in judgement and thought. It's woven into the game, even if you'd rather the thread were wool instead of cotton. Learn to use it. The never ending complaints about it reflect a lack of willingness to use judgment and to demand someone/something else take on that role. That demand is what underlies my distaste for the mechanical approach.

[Wymmerdann]

Fair point Malifice re: willfullness. I don't think I agree, but I think it's a reasonable position to hold.

The character under discussion actually reminds me a lot of Frank Underwood from House of Cards, with a healthy dose of "literally sold soul to diabolical powers" to put another nail in the proverbial coffin.

[Malifice]

It's woven into the game, even if you'd rather the thread were wool instead of cotton. Learn to use it. The never ending complaints about it reflect a lack of willingness to use judgment and to demand someone/something else take on that role. That demand is what underlies my distaste for the mechanical approach.

I never tell players how to play their characters.

If a players character starts using arbitrary violence to resolve issues, acts non conformist and outside of societies norms, and employs murder as a tool for dispute resolution* he gets a CE whacked on the alignment section of his character sheet and keeps playing the same character.

(most 12 year old players)


Fair point Malifice re: willfullness. I don't think I agree, but I think it's a reasonable position to hold.

The character under discussion actually reminds me a lot of Frank Underwood from House of Cards, with a healthy dose of "literally sold soul to diabolical powers" to put another nail in the proverbial coffin.

Heh. Good catch.

Cue peeps trying to argue 'Frank Underwood is not evil'

(No spoilers for the recent season please everyone)

[RickAllison]

Common Law is actually an incredibly helpful source for discussions around the good and the indefensible for those who have the time to look into it. For example, while there was once a fruitful body of law around the idea of justifiable homicides, "justification" as a defence or excuse for murder has gradually been pruned back as a defence, leaving self-defence as the only real "justificatory" defence at law. What this means is that "this guy just needed killing" isn't recognised as a moral statement in courts any longer, where once it may have been. Prejudices against the legal profession notwithstanding, this broad trend is probably worth considering given the character of ongoing discussions here, particularly in the context of the "gun to the head" scenario. A court would find you guilty of that crime, and while the circumstances might affect your sentence, you will remain guilty. It's unclear why the judges of alignment ought be less indignant.

Quick comment: doesn't the average D&D world take place around when Common Law did have those justifications? When trying to evaluate good and evil "objectively", it must be looked from the viewpoint of the inhabitants. Laws of the medieval/Renaissance era are a much better vantage point for evaluation than modern legal systems.

[Malifice]

Quick comment: doesn't the average D&D world take place around when Common Law did have those justifications?

Nope. It takes place in an entirely different world in fact.

While there might be some similarities to late middle ages Europe in technological advancement, there are some notable differences with social and legal standards. Gender roles and sexuality correlate to modern expectations; why shouldnt other contemporary views of morality be also analogous to todays norms?

Also - nation states are a thing in Faerun and Greyhawk, and they didnt arise in our world until a little over a century or two ago.

If you want to run a strictly medieval world with medieval standards of gender, sexuality, morality and criminalty, go for it. Child labor (and child marriages) are the norm, women have no rights at all and can be freely beaten by their husbands or the local lord (who own them as a form of chattel), torture is the normal practice and any crime more serious than theft carries the sentence of public capital punishment (after the standard round of torture of course). In the thirteenth century, in areas such as France, male homosexual behavior resulted in castration on the first offense, dismemberment on the second, and burning on the third. Lesbian behavior was punished with specific dismemberments for the first two offenses and burning on the third as well.

I mean.. whoah.

Most DnD worlds as described mirror contemporary morality, and not historical Earth versions of it.

[Wymmerdann]

Good point! I don't actually have a timeline on me for this trend, but it tended to map itself against the increase of state power that took place around the 16th-18th centuries, so your point is quite relevant. One issue you're going to run into is that D&D worlds are ahistorical and full of anachronisms, so it's often hard to pin down. For instance, few would have a comparable model for the development of ecclesiastical law under the Catholic Church, which is where many moral rulings found legal purchase. Working out whether monarchies are absolute, feudal, or in some manner parliamentary, for instance, would probably also not be the matter of thoroughgoing consistency on the part of the DM or even module developers. That's not traditionally where the focus has been. When it isn't developed intentionally, it's been my experience that DM's will either fall into the norms of modern law, with professional judges and advocates, or go full "Game of Thrones" and resolve all legal issues by trial by combat, which kind of ignores the idea of legal/moral debate.


When trying to evaluate good and evil "objectively", it must be looked from the viewpoint of the inhabitants.

On the one hand this is, by the meaning of the term, a very subjective definition. If we were to seek an approximation for an "objective" morality, we would tend to do so through reason and discourse. Any understanding of morality that actually goes in for "objective morality" tends to reject "the viewpoint of the inhabitants" as a relevant authority on issues of moral weight. On the other hand, this definition does seem to have a fair amount of support in the PH's definition of Lawful Good at least, which certainly seems to subordinate the Good to the Lawful [or Social?]. Given that Good and Law actually have physical avatars this becomes, if you'll excuse the language, a complete clusterf-ck when played to its logical conclusion.

Edit: As Malifice has indicated, a setting that maps its "objective" morality against the social norms of medieval europe is going to tend toward the cynical/depressing/unplayable

[Malifice]

Edit: As Malifice has indicated, a setting that maps its "objective" morality against the social norms of medieval europe is going to tend toward the cynical/depressing/unplayable

I think the mapping of objective morality by reference to the collective views of society is wrong.

Collective expectations of morality change just as much as individual subjective ones do. It wasnt that long ago in the USA that mixed race marriages, or homosexuality were outlawed (for example) something that today is hard to comprehend.

Objective morality is just that. It is objective and independent of subjective reasoning - whether thats the subjective reasoning of one man, or the subjective reasoning of the majority.

It is only possible to set objective truths in DnD because its a fictional world that has a DM - an arbiter who can set this objective truth. Without wanting to paraphrase Descartes and other philosophers, in the real world, objective knowledge (beyond self awareness) is impossible.

Its possible that our real world has an objective standard of 'good' and 'evil' but we can never know for sure. In DnD however, we (the players) can know - even if our characters and other inhabitants in the world cant (for the same reason we cant know in our world).

If the DM says objective good and evil exist, then they do. If he says murdering a child is evil, then it is.

An advantage and oversight that we (the players) have, but that our characters cant ever share.

[Wymmerdann]

Right. That's what the tags were for. Thanks for hashing it out though.

[goto124]

I find the mechanical approach to D&D nauseating. Alignments (the Angry GM has a decent article on that topic) when used well by a DM provides some richness and depth to the story and to character growth. Alignment used as an on off switch (like the "one sin and you aren't a paladin" thing Gygax put into the original template) doesn't do that as well.

In RPG's, actions have consequences, and motivations matter. Alignment can help with that but it takes judgment and thought.

You get out of it what you put into it.

Is it this? (http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-alignment/)

Wait, the last part of the article has this:


NOW look at the alignment system and call it a useless straight jacket instead of a major driver of story in a world where gods and morality are real and absolute.

[Malifice]

Is it this? (http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-alignment/)

Wait, the last part of the article has this:

I agree with absolutely everything in that article.