PDA

View Full Version : Moral Grey Areas



GladiusVCreed
2016-10-09, 02:09 AM
Hey guys,

This thread is geared towards the moral gray areas. My purpose in this is to put my PCs through a campaign that results in them realizing (in horror) that they have become a bad guy. Or at least make them question what they're doing throughout the campaign.
For example,a necromancer has brought back everyone who has died within the past 2 years in their home town. The people retain full knowledge of how they died, and are normal people still. They have literally just been brought back to life. The catch? Because of this, the necromancer has the power to cut off the people he has brought back. They'll die in a heart beat all over again if the town doesn't do as he wishes. He makes demands of the town, poisoning the town with this corruption. The PCs have a friend among the dead who they are overjoyed to be reunited with again but... What the necromancer is doing is wrong, right? Should he be stopped? His demands are evil but in stopping him, many people will die.

Any other ideas would be appreciated, and I will be adding more as I think of them

Thanks!

Inevitability
2016-10-09, 03:25 AM
How are you planning on running this? If the party kills the necromancer, will you announce they're evil now for killing all the people, the paladin loses his powers, and the wizard loses his exalted feats, or is there some great way to run slow corruption I'm missing?

Zombimode
2016-10-09, 04:12 AM
Hey guys,

This thread is geared towards the moral gray areas. My purpose in this is to put my PCs through a campaign that results in them realizing (in horror) that they have become a bad guy. Or at least make them question what they're doing throughout the campaign.
For example,a necromancer has brought back everyone who has died within the past 2 years in their home town. The people retain full knowledge of how they died, and are normal people still. They have literally just been brought back to life. The catch? Because of this, the necromancer has the power to cut off the people he has brought back. They'll die in a heart beat all over again if the town doesn't do as he wishes. He makes demands of the town, poisoning the town with this corruption. The PCs have a friend among the dead who they are overjoyed to be reunited with again but... What the necromancer is doing is wrong, right? Should he be stopped? His demands are evil but in stopping him, many people will die.

Any other ideas would be appreciated, and I will be adding more as I think of them

Thanks!

I fail to see what this situation has to do with being morally grey. Maybe you meant a moral dilemma? But the proposed situation is not a dilemma either.

A case can be made that the reign of the necromancer, who abuses his power over the people, should be stopped. If that is your stance then there is no dilemma. It is clear-cut: stopping the necromancer's reign is morally preferable to not stopping him.

Now there might be outside factors that inhibit actually following through the moral directive. But how is this different from, say, toppling The Dark Lord of Evil if you have no ability to do so? It doesn't matter that in this situation it is not a question of not being able to best the necromancer in combat, but confronting him would put a high risk on the villagers life since he has them effectively hostage. This is just a different strategic scenario. It may be solvable (killing him in his sleep, peacefully changing his worldview, etc.), or it might not (unredeemingly evil, impossible to surprise, etc.), but that has no bearing on if it is a dilemma or not.

Darth Ultron
2016-10-09, 11:16 AM
For example,

Your example is not much of a dilemma. To kill someone who was/is already dead is easy. The necromancer did unwilling bring them all back to life as awns, so sending them back to their normal death is a good thing.

But there is a great evil twist: give the players the power of life and death. Then let the players decide...will they rule the town? Will they use their power to kill? Oh the evil.....

ComradeBear
2016-10-09, 02:29 PM
I'm fairly certain that the moral dilemma less in the idea that the Necromancer's presence is actively keeping people from dying. (Namely those he revived)
By killing the necromancer, you also kill (insert number) of innocent people, with the same general impact that a society usually has when thousands of people die.

There's also the fact that the Necromancer is doing something generally considered to be Good, but for the wrong reason.

Of course, I wouldn't throw multiple moral dilemmas at my characters to make them realize they're on the wrong side. Propaganda and cherrypicked information from assumed-to-be-trusted questgivers is sufficient to cause that. Be subtle with the clues that they might be on the wrong side, though. Everything seemingly evil that their side does must have a strong justification, and the seemingly Good things that the "badguys" do need reasons to appear threatening.

A good way to do this is having the opposite of your necromancer. The necromancer is a villain that does a Good thing for Evil reasons. What you need is a villain that does Evil things for a Good reason.

For instance, a king who mobilizes adventurers to tear down neighboring kingdoms so his army can invade. (Bad thing) He is doing it because the region has endured thousands of years worth of costly wars and they need to stop. (Good reason)
Conquered peoples are turned into a slave labor force (bad thing) for the purpose of rapidly rebuilding their fallen kingdoms and their work earns them citizenship in the new kingdom (good reason)
The kingdoms laws become increasingly restrictive and dominating (bad thing) in order to give the king the power he needs to maintain order (good reason)
Etc etc.

Put them on the side of the invading king and most players won't think twice until they get another perspective.

Satinavian
2016-10-09, 02:51 PM
If it is really morally grey, there is no right choice, only opinions and personal morality.

Works in most games, but it doesn't work as a big twist. People just decide and be done with it, no "we are the bad guys" moment,

veti
2016-10-09, 03:17 PM
For instance, a king who mobilizes adventurers to tear down neighboring kingdoms so his army can invade. (Bad thing) He is doing it because the region has endured thousands of years worth of costly wars and they need to stop. (Good reason)
Conquered peoples are turned into a slave labor force (bad thing) for the purpose of rapidly rebuilding their fallen kingdoms and their work earns them citizenship in the new kingdom (good reason)
The kingdoms laws become increasingly restrictive and dominating (bad thing) in order to give the king the power he needs to maintain order (good reason)
Etc etc.

Put them on the side of the invading king and most players won't think twice until they get another perspective.

This right here, this is better than the OP's necromantic business.

Or alternatively, you can put them on the defenders' side. Then they'll be working for a king who wants to prevent an invasion (good thing) in order to remain independent (neutral thing) because he's an ambitious git who wants to establish an industrial superstate which he'll rule with an iron fist (bad thing).

But if you really want to go with the ambiguous necromancer: make it so that the necromancer never uses or threatens to use his power over the villagers. Indeed, he may be the only one who knows of it. But someone else suspects, and that someone - a questgiver/noble of unimpeachable virtue and spotless integrity - wants him stopped, because they don't trust the necromancer.

Jay R
2016-10-09, 07:33 PM
This thread is geared towards the moral gray areas. My purpose in this is to put my PCs through a campaign that results in them realizing (in horror) that they have become a bad guy.

Wrong idea. Your goal should be to put them through a campaign which gives the opportunity for them to realize (in horror) that they have become bad guys.

You provide a situation. They provide the result.


Or at least make them question what they're doing throughout the campaign.

Much better. Keep it focused this way in your planning.

I have toyed with having a party be asked to help in a goblin/human war, far from home, in which the humans are trying to take back the lands that have been stolen from them by the horrible goblin. A few battles in, they would attack a village. If triumphant, I'd like the PCs to notice that the doors are all too short for humans, there are no human artifacts, and eventually, they would find a goblin doll.

I would like them to slowly realize that these are long-established goblin lands, and the humans are trying to take it away from them.

Cluedrew
2016-10-09, 08:11 PM
For instance, a king who mobilizes adventurers to tear down neighboring kingdoms so his army can invade. (Bad thing) He is doing it because the region has endured thousands of years worth of costly wars and they need to stop. (Good reason)
Conquered peoples are turned into a slave labor force (bad thing) for the purpose of rapidly rebuilding their fallen kingdoms and their work earns them citizenship in the new kingdom (good reason)
The kingdoms laws become increasingly restrictive and dominating (bad thing) in order to give the king the power he needs to maintain order (good reason)
Etc etc.In my mind what makes these particularly gray is that the "good reason" could also just be propaganda. An easy example is for number 3: The only reason there is disorder is because of the bad governance of the current dynasty which has forced people to turn to banditry to survive.

ComradeBear
2016-10-09, 09:15 PM
In my mind what makes these particularly gray is that the "good reason" could also just be propaganda. An easy example is for number 3: The only reason there is disorder is because of the bad governance of the current dynasty which has forced people to turn to banditry to survive.

That's a possibility, but I feel like it shallows the situation. It moves more towards "The King is a nogood rotten badguy" rather than having the king legitimately have good intentions and sees himself as making the necessary hard/unpleasant choices to pacify the land.

Good villains are often sentimental, or present the heroes with a hard decision. Namely, villains who do bad things for the right reason, or do good things for the wrong reason.

We already have an example of bad things for good reasons in the above king.

For the opposite, take a Tyrant who rules the land with an iron fist. Anyone who opposes his rule is brought low, and his empire is expanding daily.
But often, the people who are conquered find that their lives are IMPROVED under this tyrannical rule. Economic prosperity, better defense against bandits, etc.

Verbannon
2016-10-09, 09:34 PM
Okay your example isn't bad, but its not actually much of a dellimna for the adventurers. The necromancer is clearly evil as he is blackmailing the people with their own lives. The people are in the wrong because, well you know that myth in Africa where if you have aids and have 'relations' with someone without aids, you'll give them your aids and you'll be aid free? Well no one has trouble declaring those men who try that evil, even if it did truly work.

Look at every vampire, "Oh I have to suck the blood of the living or I'll die!" And the adventurers have no problem slaying him. Its not a dellimma because there are no innocents. The necromancer is a bad guy for the blackmail. The village are bad guys for giving in to the blackmail.

There aren't many true moral grey areas, even in real life. Mostly all you get is imperfect solutions. A child has been engineered to be a super powerful bio weapon, if she is allowed to reach her eighth birthday , the weapon cultivating in her body will mature, release and annihilate all life on earth. Her birthday is tomorrow. No there is no hollywood style "alternative solution". So you chop off her head. RP crying about it and feeling bad, but it really was the only choice. Its not morally grey just an imperfect solution. If you hide the nature of the girl from the players, and all life dies then there is still no moral grey area as they never had the chance to make a moral choice.

Actual moral grey areas are too subtle and difficult to put into a campaign.

A serial killer is finally caught for his latest murder. But your players learn that the murder he was caught for was actually a copycat murder he didn't do. But they know he commited the other murders. Do they reveal this evidence exonerating him thus putting a serialkiller back on the streets? Or do they withhold the evidence perverting the system, letting a man die for the one crime he didn't commit and letting another copycat killer go unhunted free to kill again.

The Answer? Kill them both. Your party chops off the Original Killer's head then go after the copy cat. The best you can do is try to reveal that there was no original killer, the original killer actually was framed and the copy cat was the only killer.

But lt me tell you pulling off something like that is 'hard'. Especially if they have a functioning sense motive/insight skill.

Cluedrew
2016-10-10, 08:11 AM
That's a possibility, but I feel like it shallows the situation. It moves more towards "The King is a nogood rotten badguy" rather than having the king legitimately have good intentions and sees himself as making the necessary hard/unpleasant choices to pacify the land.Maybe the king actually believes he is. Maybe he actually is and it is the people on the ground that are getting it wrong. Maybe he is doing good for the majority but there is a couple vocal groups that disagree. There are many different ways to blur the lines. No one thinks they are doing wrong (most of the time) but people seem to anyways.

Segev
2016-10-10, 08:22 AM
If you want morally gray, then don't make the PCs' initial side "the bad guys, but we don't know it yet." They'll just feel tricked. Heroes seek third options when faced with damned if you do/damned if you don't situations. And most players expect to be playing a "heroic" game, in the sense that, if they want to choose the unambiguously good option, they have the power to MAKE one.

The "take back lands from goblins...what, you mean we don't have a right to them because they've always been goblin lands?" storyline is easily morally resolved by just...helping the goblins. It's a classic Dances With Wolves scenario, as abused by The Last Samurai Dances With Space Smurfs. Also known as "James Cameron's Avatar."

You can muddy it up a bit more by making the humans NEED that land to survive, but you'll still just have the heroic PCs looking to find a way to broker a deal where they share the land.

If you want a genuine moral and ethical question, have it be similar...but after they discover the goblins have an established civilization here, let them investigate further and discover that, yes, humans DO have a prior claim...from 2-3 generations ago, when the goblins drove them out. The lush forests and rich plains of this land leads to construction in logs and even just nomadic tents - something seen in the goblin villages, too. The goblins of a hundred or more years ago burned all the human habitations out. But these are those goblins' great-great-great-grandchildren. It's been 2-3 generations for Man, but 4-6 generations for goblins. This is all these goblins have ever known, and they never took a thing from the humans.

But this kingdom's been preaching to its people about the promised land stolen by the goblins...and that is still TRUE.

The lands really were taken from the PCs' ancestors, and these goblins' several-times-great-grandparents did horrible things to the PCs' great-grandparents. But these goblins haven't done anything except prosper on the spoils taken from the humans of prior generations.

azaph
2016-10-13, 02:50 PM
There aren't many true moral grey areas, even in real life. Mostly all you get is imperfect solutions. A child has been engineered to be a super powerful bio weapon, if she is allowed to reach her eighth birthday , the weapon cultivating in her body will mature, release and annihilate all life on earth. Her birthday is tomorrow. No there is no hollywood style "alternative solution". So you chop off her head. RP crying about it and feeling bad, but it really was the only choice. Its not morally grey just an imperfect solution. If you hide the nature of the girl from the players, and all life dies then there is still no moral grey area as they never had the chance to make a moral choice.
.

Somehow, I want to respond to people who tell me my dicipline doesn't exist.

It's difficult to argue with very effectively on this forum because, for obvious reasons, most genuine moral grey areas are quite political.
Even things which I'm pretty sure don't come up much outside of academia, like moral luck or the mere addition paradox, seem like any serious discussion could be treading a bit close to the line.

To take your example, what if your only evidence that the girl will kill people is the word of one person, who isn't that reliable at the best of times? Or what if the person is reliable, but has some motive to want the girl dead? You'd have to do some work to balance the scales, but you can create a situation where there is a genuine question of how much of a risk one is willing to take to save an innocent life.

Garimeth
2016-10-14, 09:02 AM
Somehow, I want to respond to people who tell me my dicipline doesn't exist.

It's difficult to argue with very effectively on this forum because, for obvious reasons, most genuine moral grey areas are quite political.
Even things which I'm pretty sure don't come up much outside of academia, like moral luck or the mere addition paradox, seem like any serious discussion could be treading a bit close to the line.

To take your example, what if your only evidence that the girl will kill people is the word of one person, who isn't that reliable at the best of times? Or what if the person is reliable, but has some motive to want the girl dead? You'd have to do some work to balance the scales, but you can create a situation where there is a genuine question of how much of a risk one is willing to take to save an innocent life.

I mean his scenario is basically The Last of Us. The story is significant, because Joel gets to make his choice, not us.

Most PCs will just kill the girl. She's not real, and you're not attached to her. There's no dilemma, and you're probably not going to feel bad. You can add layers to the scenario to try and muddy it up more, but at the end of the day even though their may be a question about the morality of the event, its still a game, and the players know its a game.

TBH IRL, I'd kill the girl too - and it wouldn't even have to be a ton of people I was saving: case in point if a little girl with a bomb vest ran up to me on a patrol, I'd shoot her. Would I be happy about it? Of course not, but I'd still do it.

Segev
2016-10-14, 09:31 AM
TBH IRL, I'd kill the girl too - and it wouldn't even have to be a ton of people I was saving: case in point if a little girl with a bomb vest ran up to me on a patrol, I'd shoot her. Would I be happy about it? Of course not, but I'd still do it.

There's an assumed level of volition on the girl's part in this scenario that isn't quite there in the other one.

i.e., she either willingly put on the vest with the intent of hurting people, or willfully is moving towards you to include you in the destruction zone.

The scenario presented implies the girl is pure victim and literally cannot help the destruction zone including others (in fact, everyone).

This is also the premise behind Scrapped Princess - and includes the question of whether you really believe the prophecy to be true or not. And whether you should take the risk.

Garimeth
2016-10-14, 10:54 AM
There's an assumed level of volition on the girl's part in this scenario that isn't quite there in the other one.

i.e., she either willingly put on the vest with the intent of hurting people, or willfully is moving towards you to include you in the destruction zone.

The scenario presented implies the girl is pure victim and literally cannot help the destruction zone including others (in fact, everyone).

This is also the premise behind Scrapped Princess - and includes the question of whether you really believe the prophecy to be true or not. And whether you should take the risk.

To an extent I agree, but I think "put this on and walk over there or we kill your family" is not really much volition.

Really it boils down to I value the lives of myself and mine over the lives of others when push comes to shove, and that is only tempered by "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of a few". If its a choice between my family or friends and a close number of other people, my choice is clear, but I wouldn't save my friends and family to the detriment of even my city, let alone my country or the world.

I suppose I could be an outlier, but I don't think I am.

Segev
2016-10-14, 11:32 AM
To an extent I agree, but I think "put this on and walk over there or we kill your family" is not really much volition.

Really it boils down to I value the lives of myself and mine over the lives of others when push comes to shove, and that is only tempered by "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of a few". If its a choice between my family or friends and a close number of other people, my choice is clear, but I wouldn't save my friends and family to the detriment of even my city, let alone my country or the world.

I suppose I could be an outlier, but I don't think I am.

No, I agree that you have a right to self-defense. Even with that coercion, the poor girl has volition. Just...no good options.


I'm not saying you can't construct these scenarios to be heart-wrenching, but I am saying that there's something of a difference between taking down an active threat that is actively acting to cause you harm, and taking out a victim who is doing nothing except existing to pose that threat. And I'm talking from an emotional, guilty-feelings standpoint, here, rather than an objective moral standpoint. I can see it being a lot easier to justify to one's own conscience killing a bomb-carrying threat that's actively coming at you, than killing somebody who isn't trying to do anything but is nevertheless a threat by her mere existence.

The image of innocence is stronger in the latter case, and humans respond to that.

Verbannon
2016-10-15, 11:38 PM
Somehow, I want to respond to people who tell me my dicipline doesn't exist.

It's difficult to argue with very effectively on this forum because, for obvious reasons, most genuine moral grey areas are quite political.
Even things which I'm pretty sure don't come up much outside of academia, like moral luck or the mere addition paradox, seem like any serious discussion could be treading a bit close to the line.

To take your example, what if your only evidence that the girl will kill people is the word of one person, who isn't that reliable at the best of times? Or what if the person is reliable, but has some motive to want the girl dead? You'd have to do some work to balance the scales, but you can create a situation where there is a genuine question of how much of a risk one is willing to take to save an innocent life.

Again the actual moral choice isnt there, as now they are just ignorant. And it becomes a simple risk management assessment. For example, Since if they dont know if she is even a threat, they cant know if killing her would end the threat. So instead of discussing the morality of the situation, players will simply argue the odds. And in the end theyll spare her as they go info hunting.

Maybe if the very specific situation came up where they knew the nature of the threat, knew killing her would solve it but had no way of determining if she was a threat. And had no way of simply isolating her. And the players didnt right away scream bull**** at how contrived it is. Then yeah you have a moral gray situation. Still an obvious logical lesser of two evils, but its gray at least.

Oh right. And this threat has to be like a genetic disease or something. Otherwise the moral responsibility would shift to whoever turned the girl into a potential threat. And the party would be absolved regardless of what they chose.

Cluedrew
2016-10-16, 08:03 AM
And the players didnt right away scream bull**** at how contrived it is.I think this is an important point. Don't try cook up anything to complex to make it work. It feels artificial and has a tendency to let the situation break when you actually start factoring in real world logic. I've "broken" moral quandaries before but pointing out simple things like a cancer researcher will not be working alone.

veti
2016-10-16, 08:32 AM
If you want morally gray, then don't make the PCs' initial side "the bad guys, but we don't know it yet." They'll just feel tricked.

And why is that a bad thing? They should feel tricked. They have been tricked. That was the whole idea.


There's an assumed level of volition on the girl's part in this scenario that isn't quite there in the other one.

i.e., she either willingly put on the vest with the intent of hurting people, or willfully is moving towards you to include you in the destruction zone.

OK, then how about: you're spying on the enemy, your report could save thousands of lives or even prevent the war entirely. Now the little girl is wandering, quite innocently, directly towards your hiding place. If she sees you, it's unrealistic to assume she won't scream.

You can try to distract her or silence her, but there's no really safe way to do either of those. Sometime within the next ten seconds, something or someone is going to be severely endangered. The only thing you can choose is, who's it gonna be?

Dragonexx
2016-10-16, 01:32 PM
And why is that a bad thing? They should feel tricked. They have been tricked. That was the whole idea.

Except that then it's not really "morally grey". Your PC's think they're the good guys, find out they're not, and change sides to become the good guys. They're not being motivated to do morally grey actions. They start out thinking their actions are perfectly fine.

Segev
2016-10-16, 03:08 PM
OK, then how about: you're spying on the enemy, your report could save thousands of lives or even prevent the war entirely. Now the little girl is wandering, quite innocently, directly towards your hiding place. If she sees you, it's unrealistic to assume she won't scream.

You can try to distract her or silence her, but there's no really safe way to do either of those. Sometime within the next ten seconds, something or someone is going to be severely endangered. The only thing you can choose is, who's it gonna be?This is a good scenario for morally gray questions of whether ends justify means! On the surface, killing her is wrong, but if your mission is that vital and you're weighing other innocent lives in the balance, is becomes a question whether or not morality justifies you.


Except that then it's not really "morally grey". Your PC's think they're the good guys, find out they're not, and change sides to become the good guys. They're not being motivated to do morally grey actions. They start out thinking their actions are perfectly fine.

This is more or less my response to the same thing this responds to. "I was tricked into thinking the vial contained medicine the little girl needed to survive!" Doesn't make you morally gray for giving her the poison and telling her to drink. It makes you duped and righteously angry at the murderer who used your trust as a murder weapon.

ComradeBear
2016-10-16, 07:21 PM
I think the morally gray part should come from the villain. Doing bad things for a good reason is a bit of a gray thing, hence why the two uses of nuclear weapons for actual attack in real history are weighed morally to this very day. (Is that vague enough to not count? Not sure.)

A king who is ravaging smaller kingdoms and putting their citizens to the sword for the sake of finally uniting a long war-torn region under a single peaceful banner is a hard place, morally. Especially if the PCs understand those good reasons long before they confront the ugly methods.

That's part of the tragedy behind 40k. A lot of the terrible things that happen in that lore are the results of best intentions gone horribly wrong. In an effort to save the Imperium, one of the Emperor's sons accidentally destroys the most important defense mankind has because he doesn't know what it is.

Space Marines voluntarily submit themselves to having their brains altered to become bloodthirsty berserkers for the sake of better understanding their father-primarch who was afflicted against his will... and this leads to their fall.

Best intentions and good desires with grisly methods and dire consequences is not just the stuff of tragedy, but we can pull from such stories to find great ways of making our players feel unsure of their place as "good guys."

Starbuck_II
2016-10-16, 07:38 PM
There aren't many true moral grey areas, even in real life. Mostly all you get is imperfect solutions. A child has been engineered to be a super powerful bio weapon, if she is allowed to reach her eighth birthday , the weapon cultivating in her body will mature, release and annihilate all life on earth. Her birthday is tomorrow. No there is no hollywood style "alternative solution". So you chop off her head. RP crying about it and feeling bad, but it really was the only choice. Its not morally grey just an imperfect solution. If you hide the nature of the girl from the players, and all life dies then there is still no moral grey area as they never had the chance to make a moral choice.

I have more than three alternative solutions (well, 3 I'm presenting as there a phrethla available).
in D&D,
1) we can kill then raise her as a Necro (that undead template in Hero's of Horror): as an undead she can't become 18.
2) We can kill then reincarnate her
3) We can turn her into a Elan with a ritual: they never age and stay 17 forever. Also a Ginger.

We bypass she stays dead issue.




A serial killer is finally caught for his latest murder. But your players learn that the murder he was caught for was actually a copycat murder he didn't do. But they know he commited the other murders. Do they reveal this evidence exonerating him thus putting a serialkiller back on the streets? Or do they withhold the evidence perverting the system, letting a man die for the one crime he didn't commit and letting another copycat killer go unhunted free to kill again.

The Answer? Kill them both. Your party chops off the Original Killer's head then go after the copy cat. The best you can do is try to reveal that there was no original killer, the original killer actually was framed and the copy cat was the only killer.

But lt me tell you pulling off something like that is 'hard'. Especially if they have a functioning sense motive/insight skill.
That is a legal not moral dilemma.
Morally, killing him is fine since as you say he is a murderer.
Legally, it would be wrong since he is innocent of that crime.

GrayGriffin
2016-10-16, 09:23 PM
And why is that a bad thing? They should feel tricked. They have been tricked. That was the whole idea.



OK, then how about: you're spying on the enemy, your report could save thousands of lives or even prevent the war entirely. Now the little girl is wandering, quite innocently, directly towards your hiding place. If she sees you, it's unrealistic to assume she won't scream.

You can try to distract her or silence her, but there's no really safe way to do either of those. Sometime within the next ten seconds, something or someone is going to be severely endangered. The only thing you can choose is, who's it gonna be?

Question: How are you going to kill her quietly? Most methods of quiet killing I know require you be close to the target, which means she's going to scream anyways.

Mitth'raw'nuruo
2016-10-16, 11:28 PM
This is an encounter our usual DM ran in 3.5.

Background. World only had a few religions. Thus, me and the paladin were of the same faith. World was run by a strict theocracy. We were middle levels.

We had a Paladin.
I was a Cleric.
We had some weird super monk, and some other stuff that didn't matter.

Paladin did not like the cleric. My sect of the church was responsible for purity & doctrine. Torture and use of necromantic magic, was not unknown, although generally forbidden by death for anyone outside of the Order. Because of course it was all done for the glory of Saint Cuthbert.

A Slaymate (https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/165277/monster-of-the-day-slaymate)had taken over a random, nice village. There was no way to attack the slaymate, without fighting the village, and it was clear they were going to fight to the death to protect the vile undead. The whole town, and the Slaymate was protected by a wall of bodies.

After a showdown occurred between my cleric & the paladin. He felt that he would be more evil to hurt, and likely kill the towns people when they were not in control of their actions, and that we were more likely to fail. Not every member of the party was fans of the government, and it was clear I had failed to convince them to do their duty.

I had a pretty good idea, better than 50% that if I attacked, and party didn't, the party may not help me unless they were forced to by the locals.

There was no choice. It had never been a choice. When one has a proper moral compass, and sees evil, one must eradicate that evil, or one is evil themselves.

I cast a range spell, Perhaps searing light, but it could have been something else from the spell compendium. The Slayer's head exploded. The village was saved from her control. I castigated the Paladin for failing to uphold his oath. Harshly & without reservation.

When he level up, he took fighter. He never gained another paladin level, he couldn't walk the walk.

Vitruviansquid
2016-10-16, 11:46 PM
This is an encounter our usual DM ran in 3.5.

Background. World only had a few religions. Thus, me and the paladin were of the same faith. World was run by a strict theocracy. We were middle levels.

We had a Paladin.
I was a Cleric.
We had some weird super monk, and some other stuff that didn't matter.

Paladin did not like the cleric. My sect of the church was responsible for purity & doctrine. Torture and use of necromantic magic, was not unknown, although generally forbidden by death for anyone outside of the Order. Because of course it was all done for the glory of Saint Cuthbert.

A Slaymate (https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/165277/monster-of-the-day-slaymate)had taken over a random, nice village. There was no way to attack the slaymate, without fighting the village, and it was clear they were going to fight to the death to protect the vile undead. The whole town, and the Slaymate was protected by a wall of bodies.

After a showdown occurred between my cleric & the paladin. He felt that he would be more evil to hurt, and likely kill the towns people when they were not in control of their actions, and that we were more likely to fail. Not every member of the party was fans of the government, and it was clear I had failed to convince them to do their duty.

I had a pretty good idea, better than 50% that if I attacked, and party didn't, the party may not help me unless they were forced to by the locals.

There was no choice. It had never been a choice. When one has a proper moral compass, and sees evil, one must eradicate that evil, or one is evil themselves.

I cast a range spell, Perhaps searing light, but it could have been something else from the spell compendium. The Slayer's head exploded. The village was saved from her control. I castigated the Paladin for failing to uphold his oath. Harshly & without reservation.

When he level up, he took fighter. He never gained another paladin level, he couldn't walk the walk.

See, both my experience and instinct tells me that trying to set up a moral grey situation doesn't work as a GM. The desired effect is to get your players to start thinking about what's more right and what's more wrong, and start debating with each other, and start seriously thinking about the consequences of their actions. The result usually tends to be "meh" or the players, being different people who see things differently from the GM, decide quickly that one course of action is much better than the other: "of course you kill the one innocent girl to save the thousands of other people!" Sometimes, you'll find your group deciding to become something morally horrifying after a short debate. I also expect that sometimes the players would just look at the GM and go "really? Trying to make us feel morally grey is a real **** move, GM!"

But that was awesome.

Ravens_cry
2016-10-17, 02:00 AM
Morally grey areas need to feel organic, the tragic result of many factors, and, as GM, you should keep an open ear for reasonable alternate solutions. Done right, they can add to the feeling of a living world, a world where problems do not always have neat, obvious solutions.
They should not feel like those oh-so-clever thought experiments, like the trolly problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem), that intentionally close off possibilities to make it as much of a conundrum as possible. That creates the opposite feeling, that it's not a world, just an exercise in tin-pot sadism and GM jerkery.

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-17, 10:11 AM
This is an encounter our usual DM ran in 3.5.

Background. World only had a few religions. Thus, me and the paladin were of the same faith. World was run by a strict theocracy. We were middle levels.

We had a Paladin.
I was a Cleric.
We had some weird super monk, and some other stuff that didn't matter.

Paladin did not like the cleric. My sect of the church was responsible for purity & doctrine. Torture and use of necromantic magic, was not unknown, although generally forbidden by death for anyone outside of the Order. Because of course it was all done for the glory of Saint Cuthbert.

A Slaymate (https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/165277/monster-of-the-day-slaymate)had taken over a random, nice village. There was no way to attack the slaymate, without fighting the village, and it was clear they were going to fight to the death to protect the vile undead. The whole town, and the Slaymate was protected by a wall of bodies.

After a showdown occurred between my cleric & the paladin. He felt that he would be more evil to hurt, and likely kill the towns people when they were not in control of their actions, and that we were more likely to fail. Not every member of the party was fans of the government, and it was clear I had failed to convince them to do their duty.

I had a pretty good idea, better than 50% that if I attacked, and party didn't, the party may not help me unless they were forced to by the locals.

There was no choice. It had never been a choice. When one has a proper moral compass, and sees evil, one must eradicate that evil, or one is evil themselves.

I cast a range spell, Perhaps searing light, but it could have been something else from the spell compendium. The Slayer's head exploded. The village was saved from her control. I castigated the Paladin for failing to uphold his oath. Harshly & without reservation.

When he level up, he took fighter. He never gained another paladin level, he couldn't walk the walk.

That argument feels entirely contrived, when your character was able to slay the undead creature and save the village with such ease and nonchalance.

Segev
2016-10-17, 10:48 AM
How did a Slaymate take over a whole village? They're not that much stronger than a goblin, especially in combat, and they have no skills nor powers that make them adept at manipulating people. Even their "child" appearance is going to at best evoke pity, and more likely evoke horror and revulsion and terror from your classic helpless peasant stock.

Don't get me wrong: I adore Slaymates. I want to keep 3 around my next necromancer build so I can chain command undead out of a 2nd level spell slot. Plus they make for great twisted "families" for necromancers. But they're definitely not usually boss monsters in their own rights, and taking over towns is...well, it's impressive. I would love to know how she did it.

Verbannon
2016-10-17, 08:14 PM
I have more than three alternative solutions (well, 3 I'm presenting as there a phrethla available).
in D&D,
1) we can kill then raise her as a Necro (that undead template in Hero's of Horror): as an undead she can't become 18.
2) We can kill then reincarnate her
3) We can turn her into a Elan with a ritual: they never age and stay 17 forever. Also a Ginger.

We bypass she stays dead issue.



That is a legal not moral dilemma.
Morally, killing him is fine since as you say he is a murderer.
Legally, it would be wrong since he is innocent of that crime.

Vigilantism isnt just a legal crime. There is a laundry list of reasons why its morally wrong. Starting with, without due process you are arrogant in assuming you know that the murderer is a murderer.

root
2016-10-17, 11:24 PM
Most of those supposedly morally gray areas have a major flaw in my opinion. It's assumed that perfect knowledge exists and is in possession of the moral actor.

When you lack perfect knowledge you have to fall back on whatever moral code or intuition you have. In the case of a king who wants to enslave the population of neighboring lands in order to build some kind of a grandiouse utopia, there is no question that he is evil - there is little proof that his words are true and his plan will be successful, but slavery is viewed as morally wrong by all good societies. So you're weighting an immediate evil act against an unproven future good, it shouldn't be a hard decision for any moral character.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the trolley problem or anything similar are in no way applicable in reality or a simulation of a reality. There is never just a binary choice, and if there is an artificial one then whoever caused it is at fault in the first place.

Edit: if you want to simply make your characters question whether what they are doing is right or wrong, just make them empathize with whatever foes they are fighting. Avoid some kind of grandiouse good vs evil battles and stick closer to earth. This may be difficult in some D&D settings because by RAW alignments are a universal thing so you may be better off just ditching them all together and having humans instead of orcs.

Segev
2016-10-18, 12:08 AM
Vigilantism isnt just a legal crime. There is a laundry list of reasons why its morally wrong. Starting with, without due process you are arrogant in assuming you know that the murderer is a murderer.

That's a very LG or LN argument.

A CG counter-argument might be that "due process" is to ensure a lack of abuses by a society, and that the CG judge knows the truth because he has, in fact, been diligent in putting together the evidence he has.

Alternatively, the CG vigilante may justify it by virtue of the fact that he's a witness and knows what happened; he doesn't need "due process" when the bad guy gloated to him that he'd never be able to prove it.

root
2016-10-18, 12:37 AM
Do chaotic people even believe in due process?

Verbannon
2016-10-18, 12:45 AM
That's a very LG or LN argument.

A CG counter-argument might be that "due process" is to ensure a lack of abuses by a society, and that the CG judge knows the truth because he has, in fact, been diligent in putting together the evidence he has.

Alternatively, the CG vigilante may justify it by virtue of the fact that he's a witness and knows what happened; he doesn't need "due process" when the bad guy gloated to him that he'd never be able to prove it.

Most interrogation methods will get a false confession at least 70% of the time, especially the nice methods. And people who gloat about having done it are almost inevitably mentally unbalanced and didnt do it. And eyewitness testimony is reliable less then 40% of the time. In fact everything you just said is actually the key to making morally grey situation. Have the player witness the crime, identify some features of the man. Then have a man that shares those features confess and gloat. Then after the players kill him, reveal that the man they just murdered was innocent and forced into confessing because the real murderer held his family hostage. And if the players try to claim ignorance, have the law very reasonably inform them that there are trials just for this reason as the party is arrested for murder.

Actually its not morally grey as the players are clearly in the wrong. But close enough.

Inevitability
2016-10-18, 12:56 AM
That's a very LG or LN argument.

A CG counter-argument might be that "due process" is to ensure a lack of abuses by a society, and that the CG judge knows the truth because he has, in fact, been diligent in putting together the evidence he has.

Alternatively, the CG vigilante may justify it by virtue of the fact that he's a witness and knows what happened; he doesn't need "due process" when the bad guy gloated to him that he'd never be able to prove it.

Especially in a D&D world with mind control and illusions, someone gloating he committed a crime doesn't always mean that person actually did it. A guy with a big sword may very well kill the person he perceives as the criminal, but how can he be certain he didn't kill an innocent man?

A lawful trial, on the other hand, is much more likely to discover this kind of deception, if only because there's more people involved and therefore more chances for someone to spot the deceit.

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-18, 06:50 AM
Most of those supposedly morally gray areas have a major flaw in my opinion. It's assumed that perfect knowledge exists and is in possession of the moral actor.


Indeed -- I'm not sure how a situation is made "morally gray" by the actors not having key pieces of information.

Segev
2016-10-18, 07:17 AM
Most interrogation methods will get a false confession at least 70% of the time, especially the nice methods. And people who gloat about having done it are almost inevitably mentally unbalanced and didnt do it. And eyewitness testimony is reliable less then 40% of the time. In fact everything you just said is actually the key to making morally grey situation. Have the player witness the crime, identify some features of the man. Then have a man that shares those features confess and gloat. Then after the players kill him, reveal that the man they just murdered was innocent and forced into confessing because the real murderer held his family hostage. And if the players try to claim ignorance, have the law very reasonably inform them that there are trials just for this reason as the party is arrested for murder.

Actually its not morally grey as the players are clearly in the wrong. But close enough.


Especially in a D&D world with mind control and illusions, someone gloating he committed a crime doesn't always mean that person actually did it. A guy with a big sword may very well kill the person he perceives as the criminal, but how can he be certain he didn't kill an innocent man?

A lawful trial, on the other hand, is much more likely to discover this kind of deception, if only because there's more people involved and therefore more chances for someone to spot the deceit.

Again, all very Lawful arguments.

The Chaotic person would balk that you'd suggest his only source of information is torture (well, unless he's CE). He would also point out that the law and its enforcement are easily corrupted by the powerful and influential to allow the guilty to go free. He'd claim that his "eye witness testimony" is not as flawed as you suggest because he's not acting on something that happened in front of him quickly and then was over: he did his detective work and tracked down the bad guys. No trial would be able to create more knowledge than he has; it would only give a chance for the bad guy to act on the fact that the judge/jury weren't there to create doubt or increase the number of people he could bribe or threaten into letting him get off the hook.

The Chaotic person will argue that he's acting because he knows Don Corleone is behind this, and he's the only witness who DID NOT get killed in mysterious ways before he could testify. That "due process" failed, and he's going to enact justice anyway. You might call it "vengeance," but the Chaotic person doesn't necessarily agree, and being Chaotic, doesn't care about your opinion when it comes to his ethical and moral choices.

Note, I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. Lawful arguments have good points. But you're making a mistake in equating Law with Good. LG is a thing. So is CG. And both are less good than NG. LG will accept the risk that "due process" might allow the guilty to go free to do more harm, in the name of not victimizing the innocent. CG will accept the risk that he might make a mistake, and that not everybody's judgment is good enough to trust, in the name of not tying the hands of the innocent to defend themselves proactively. NG will try to strike a balance, trusting due process to protect the innocent most of the time, but resorting to vigilantism or other less-than-lawful means in severe enough cases where they're confident enough that the law has genuinely been abused.

root
2016-10-18, 07:37 AM
Indeed -- I'm not sure how a situation is made "morally gray" by the actors not having key pieces of information.

Situations of world-ending proportions make it even less workable in my opinion. Suppose its the question of a child that will allegedly turn into a doomsday weapon at some point(posted on previous page) - what reason do characters have to think that its true? Its not exactly something one can test out.

Assuming divinations and knowledgeable extraplanar entities exist in the setting, is there necessarily a reason to think that they are to be trusted 100%? Prophecies are generally supposed to be tricky and unreliable, if not cruelly ironic, and expecting a straight answer from an extraplanar entity that's probably unspeakably older and smarter then you is foolish.

If its a low magic setting where dialing up the spirit of knowledge for a clue is not an option even in the wake of a catastrophic event, from the character's point of view there is no dilemma. Its a mob of likely deranged people wanting to harm a child under a ridiculous notion.

If its a high magic setting where you can possibly know the outcome for sure and things are as bad as they look, you have a plethora of options. Beg help from the highest gods if a wish spell or something similar isn't enough - surely they wouldn't want to see the world or at the least, their followers come to undue harm (and if something greater than a caused it and even the gods can't fix it, what exactly can you do as a lowly mortal? Maybe the gods will petition to the supergod). Hell, you can turn the child into a statue or encase them in an antimagic field, anything is possible if you've got enough magic.

Inevitability
2016-10-18, 07:46 AM
Again, all very Lawful arguments.

Yes... we're kind of defending the lawful solution here. Lawful arguments are somewhat expectable.


The Chaotic person would balk that you'd suggest his only source of information is torture (well, unless he's CE). He would also point out that the law and its enforcement are easily corrupted by the powerful and influential to allow the guilty to go free. He'd claim that his "eye witness testimony" is not as flawed as you suggest because he's not acting on something that happened in front of him quickly and then was over: he did his detective work and tracked down the bad guys.

Except his detective work would still be inferior to that of a team of trained detectives with superior resources and the law on their side, if only because he can't be in multiple places at once.


No trial would be able to create more knowledge than he has; it would only give a chance for the bad guy to act on the fact that the judge/jury weren't there to create doubt or increase the number of people he could bribe or threaten into letting him get off the hook.

Now this is just unfair. If you're considering the possibility of the Lawful folks being easily manipulated, why keep assuming the Chaotic guy is incorruptible? If anything, it's Lawful people who hold on to their ideals tighter.

Let's say the villain bribes or threatens the vigilante, makes him kill some poor schmuck, and tell everyone his victim was the criminal. This outcome is even worse than the 'lawful person gets bribed' situation.


The Chaotic person will argue that he's acting because he knows Don Corleone is behind this, and he's the only witness who DID NOT get killed in mysterious ways before he could testify. That "due process" failed, and he's going to enact justice anyway. You might call it "vengeance," but the Chaotic person doesn't necessarily agree, and being Chaotic, doesn't care about your opinion when it comes to his ethical and moral choices.

Do you realize just how troubling that last sentence is?

This person is basing his every action on his personal feelings, believing he's completely right in doing so. You may call it 'justice', I call it 'megalomania'.


Note, I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. Lawful arguments have good points. But you're making a mistake in equating Law with Good. LG is a thing. So is CG. And both are less good than NG. LG will accept the risk that "due process" might allow the guilty to go free to do more harm, in the name of not victimizing the innocent. CG will accept the risk that he might make a mistake, and that not everybody's judgment is good enough to trust, in the name of not tying the hands of the innocent to defend themselves proactively. NG will try to strike a balance, trusting due process to protect the innocent most of the time, but resorting to vigilantism or other less-than-lawful means in severe enough cases where they're confident enough that the law has genuinely been abused.

The concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' in D&D are only remotely related to our own concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil'.

In D&D, it's good to tear someone's soul from their body, have it trapped in a gem for a year, and brainwash it.

In D&D, it's evil to create undead: even if you have them create shoes for orphans.

In D&D, it's good to kill an outside with the [Evil] subtype, even if they're good people actively doing good.

In D&D, it's evil to unintentionally betray someone.

My point is: while Lawful actions may not be the Good thing to do, they are often the best thing to do. When your moral system defines cheating at hide-and-seek as 'Evil', why not join the guys who have an actually consistent view?

Garimeth
2016-10-18, 08:04 AM
I agree with a lot of stirge's arguments but consider these:

Man comes home and finds a strange man with a bloody knife standing around the bodies of his murdered family. The murderer runs through the open door opposite the man and starts fleeing across the field. Man catches up with him and kills him. Its vigilantism, not lawful, but certainly not evil.

I agree with almost every argument that's been made, starting with these scenarios - including mine - are highly contrived. That said I do see a bit of Lawful = Good going on, and I think even IRL the chaotic option is sometimes the good one.

Inevitability
2016-10-18, 08:27 AM
Man comes home and finds a strange man with a bloody knife standing around the bodies of his murdered family. The murderer runs through the open door opposite the man and starts fleeing across the field. Man catches up with him and kills him. Its vigilantism, not lawful, but certainly not evil.

I'd argue that the man in question is doing something both unwise and wrong, though.

Garimeth
2016-10-18, 08:35 AM
I'd argue that the man in question is doing something both unwise and wrong, though.

Definitely unwise, but let's not confuse good judgment and morality.

As for wrong, it is illegal to be certain, but I think you'd have a hard time making a case for it being morally wrong. Maybe it is a "less good" option than others, but it is certainly not evil.

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-18, 08:35 AM
If the man somehow KNOWS that this is the person who murdered his family, then more power to him.

Otherwise, he may be killing an otherwise innocent person who has foolishly disturbed a crime scene.

Segev
2016-10-18, 08:51 AM
Given that the topic of the thread is "Moral Grey Areas," I must have missed where we shifted to defending the Lawful position as superior.

Law/Chaos gray areas would be Ethical Gray Areas.

It's hardly megalomania when the would-be vigilante has witnessed the law being corrupted and the enforcement agencies rendered impotent. It's simply self-reliance. Where you see arrogance, the chaotic person sees individual responsibility.

Of course Chaos can lead to harmful outcomes. So can Law. That's why the NG person is neither Lawful nor Chaotic; he's putting "Good" above either of them, and views them as methods to take advantage of when they're useful to obtaining Good. He would agree that, in aggregate, the Lawful approach is generally going to avoid the most unintended harm. He would also agree that, sometimes, such systems fail, and a fallback option is needed. Unlike the Chaotic person, he would view such as a measure to be taken with extreme caution, recognizing that Law has a point regarding individual "justice"-seeking. Unlike the Lawful person, he would trust his judgment when he had to, however, over that of a "legal system."

If Nash T. McMurder is finally caught after a series of killings, but his loyal henchfan in the cops' service "accidentally" put the key evidence that Nash is in fact the serial killer into the incinerator, then everybody who saw the evidence KNOWS Nash is guilty. If the evidence had made it to trial, there's no doubt he'd be convicted and given the death penalty. Without it, though, Nash's excellent lawyer will be able to at least hang the jury, if not persuade them that without evidence there's no proof that Nash did it. In fact, Nash's lawyer might even insinuate that the cops lost it on purpose because they knew it exonerated Nash.

A Lawful Good cop will try to find proof of this, and be heartbroken when he can't actually get the evidence to trial to convict Nash. A Chaotic Good cop (or anybody else who saw the evidence and knew with no doubt how it would have gone) would be willing to perform the execution himself, possibly quietly after the trial releases Nash. A Neutral Good cop would be willing to fabricate a duplicate of that evidence and plant it, creating the illusion that the Law was followed while breaking it in the name of justice.

It should be clear that this situation is deliberately contrived to make it unambiguous to any observer who saw the evidence that Nash T. McMurder is, in fact, the serial killer. However, despite its contrivance, it is not uncommon in fiction.

It's also worth noting that "due process" is not always relying on numbers of observers. It often just relies on trusted authorities and decision-makers. Sir Lawful the Good will bring Nash in to the King to be tried and convicted, because it's the King who has the authority to pronounce sentence, and the King is trusted to make good judgment over his zealous but emotionally-driven Knights. Who, fortunately, respect their King and let him make the emotionally-laden decisions so they don't screw up.

A Chaotic person doesn't see why some old guy has better judgment than he does just because that old guy is wearing a crown. What evidence is going to be shown to the king that the vigilante doesn't have? What makes the king wiser than him? Especially if the vigilante has little respect for the king's other, prior decisions.



But law/chaos quandaries remain ethical, not moral, gray areas.

Niek
2016-10-18, 12:02 PM
How about a situation similar to that in Nier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nier_(video_game))

A population separates their souls from their bodies in order to escape some magical plague, and produce Clone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/clone.htm) bodies to return to once the danger is past. An unforeseen complication occurs when the Clone bodies end up gaining sapience of their own, which cannot coexist in the body with the original. The displaced souls will break down without a body to inhabit.

Inevitability
2016-10-18, 12:46 PM
How about a situation similar to that in Nier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nier_(video_game))

A population separates their souls from their bodies in order to escape some magical plague, and produce Clone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/clone.htm) bodies to return to once the danger is past. An unforeseen complication occurs when the Clone bodies end up gaining sapience of their own, which cannot coexist in the body with the original. The displaced souls will break down without a body to inhabit.

Was the clones gaining sentience a one-time event, or a natural consequence of the creation of clone bodies? If it's the former, it should be easy to separate the clone souls from the new bodies and put them in new new bodies while the old souls go into the new bodies.

Niek
2016-10-18, 12:53 PM
Unfortunately access to Clone is no longer available, as the level 15 wizard who cast it has suffered the standard level loss for resurrection (as has their clone), and thus can no longer cast level 8 spells

Inevitability
2016-10-18, 01:03 PM
Unfortunately access to Clone is no longer available, as the level 15 wizard who cast it has suffered the standard level loss for resurrection (as has their clone), and thus can no longer cast level 8 spells

The morale of the story is to invest in a Thought Bottle, then. :smalltongue:

Niek
2016-10-18, 01:34 PM
Material components for ~100 castings of Clone are expensive

Mitth'raw'nuruo
2016-10-18, 03:59 PM
That argument feels entirely contrived, when your character was able to slay the undead creature and save the village with such ease and nonchalance.

The DM did not see it coming. I rolled high. Knowing the DM, if he had seen it coming, I suspected the undead would have had additional hit die.

I fully expected to die in that encounter, or at the very least, end up with lots of dead villeins, & a Paladin testify before the Church that my actions were indefensible.

I am as guilty as metagaming as the next guy, but I had no idea what the undead was. I actually thought it was a vampier. Which would have been a big problem.


How did a Slaymate take over a whole village? They're not that much stronger than a goblin, especially in combat, and they have no skills nor powers that make them adept at manipulating people. Even their "child" appearance is going to at best evoke pity, and more likely evoke horror and revulsion and terror from your classic helpless peasant stock.

Don't get me wrong: I adore Slaymates. I want to keep 3 around my next necromancer build so I can chain command undead out of a 2nd level spell slot. Plus they make for great twisted "families" for necromancers. But they're definitely not usually boss monsters in their own rights, and taking over towns is...well, it's impressive. I would love to know how she did it.

I may have cited the wrong undead. I simply remember it was a child and can't remember another child undead. We played with all the 3.5 books, & Lord knows there were a million of them. Not to mention it was several years back.

Inevitability
2016-10-18, 04:14 PM
Material components for ~100 castings of Clone are expensive

The morale of the story is to be a Dweomerkeeper, then. :smalltongue:

Mitth'raw'nuruo
2016-10-18, 04:16 PM
Most of those supposedly morally gray areas have a major flaw in my opinion. It's assumed that perfect knowledge exists and is in possession of the moral actor.

When you lack perfect knowledge you have to fall back on whatever moral code or intuition you have. In the case of a king who wants to enslave the population of neighboring lands in order to build some kind of a grandiouse utopia, there is no question that he is evil - there is little proof that his words are true and his plan will be successful, but slavery is viewed as morally wrong by all good societies. So you're weighting an immediate evil act against an unproven future good, it shouldn't be a hard decision for any moral character.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the trolley problem or anything similar are in no way applicable in reality or a simulation of a reality. There is never just a binary choice, and if there is an artificial one then whoever caused it is at fault in the first place.

Edit: if you want to simply make your characters question whether what they are doing is right or wrong, just make them empathize with whatever foes they are fighting. Avoid some kind of grandiouse good vs evil battles and stick closer to earth. This may be difficult in some D&D settings because by RAW alignments are a universal thing so you may be better off just ditching them all together and having humans instead of orcs.

Slavery is evil is a modern, western, Christian Viewpoint. That belief has never existed, anywhere else in Human History. To say slavery is inherently evil is narrow minded and bigoted, and in a world without Christ, unlikely to be possible.

Likewise, sometimes a threat is so evil that good people have to ensure that everyone is on board to stop it.

Emperor Palatine was not evil. Darth Vader was not evil.

They knew that a destructive force was coming, with limited time to prepare. A force that did not simply believe in eugenics, but in the divine superiority of their race. Simple slavery was not going to happen, but the forced torture with implants which control the mind & body. Eradication of all live in entire sectors of the galaxy. Worse than simply killing them, they were going to be erased.

The facts were that the entire galaxy needed to be ready to fight, and the only species numerous enough to allow plug and play soldiers were the humans, & near humans. A coalition of different values, species requirements, fighting styles, & equipment was doomed to failure, as we saw when the New Republic failed to even operate as a speed bump. Massive bulk numbers, with weapons tailored to beat the Yuzzhan Vong were what was needed. Fast, heavily armed & armored, not shielded, as shields were useless.

Emperor Palatine wasn't racist, in fact he cosigned the humans to take a bulk, perhaps all in real numbers and percentage of the population, of the casualties, in order to save the races of the whole galaxy. To those with massive ignorance however, he looked racist, and evil, because of their limited study of the information, of history, & politics.

root
2016-10-18, 05:04 PM
Arguing morality from a moral relativism position is pointless. Either there is a fairly objective idea of what is wrong or right or there isn't... And in D&D alignment system provides a very flawed but definitely quite objective system of morality.

Slavery is evil because it says so in one of the books, it's RAW.

I'd stick to the cliche that moral behavior is more difficult than immoral behavior (whatever axis you are using for morality) and to be truly good is to be self-sacrificing to a point. No, a paladin won't attack a tyrant running a slavery-centric society by himself at level one - that would be madness and not accomplish anything. But he would do everything he can to fight back, even if it means going away to train and form an army to liberate the city.

And if said paladin was somehow captured by an entity of great evil and given a totally binary choice of doing one horrible atrocity or the other or die, the only moral choice is to spit the monster in the eye and die for your beliefs. Morality ain't pragmatic.

Segev
2016-10-18, 06:32 PM
I am as guilty as metagaming as the next guy, but I had no idea what the undead was. I actually thought it was a vampier. Which would have been a big problem.



I may have cited the wrong undead. I simply remember it was a child and can't remember another child undead. We played with all the 3.5 books, & Lord knows there were a million of them. Not to mention it was several years back.
Ah, okay. I would actually guess "vampire" was right, then, and that you just rolled luckily high enough, because I can't think of any other explicitly "child" undead, and vampires can be children. Whereas most other templates would not likely resemble a kid that closely.


And if said paladin was somehow captured by an entity of great evil and given a totally binary choice of doing one horrible atrocity or the other or die, the only moral choice is to spit the monster in the eye and die for your beliefs. Morality ain't pragmatic.

Actually, from a broader standpoint than "my personal survival," it is quite pragmatic. By punishing the BBEG for trying to force the atrocious choice, it makes the villain less able/likely to try it in the future. Doesn't help the paladin, but it helps the paladin's society because there is no reward for pushing the "choice" onto individuals in hopes of coercing them into societally-destructive behaviors.

...now I want to build a variant on the Prisoner's Dilemma to run through a Genetic Algorithm to test this.

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-18, 06:49 PM
Slavery is evil is a modern, western, Christian Viewpoint. That belief has never existed, anywhere else in Human History. To say slavery is inherently evil is narrow minded and bigoted,


"Slavery isn't inherently evil" is a postmodernist viewpoint that is only possible from within the walls of the ivory tower.

Try telling anyone who's actually been a slave, out in the real world, beyond the blinkered, naive confines of postmodernia, that slavery isn't evil.

Verbannon
2016-10-18, 09:42 PM
There is a crucial bit of miscommunication happening here. I and those agreeing with me, are discussing real world morality. It looks like the detractors are discussing D&D morality. Lawful and Chaotic do not exist in real life. The real life legal system exists simultaneously as a moral institution as well as an institution to enforce order. But in real life the desire for order itself has a moral foundation tied inexorcably to consequence.

In D&D consequence is rarely if ever considered when determining if an action is good or evil. That way there is never any gray area. Good actions that lead to bad consequences are always good. And evil actions that lead to good consequences are always evil.

So in real life vigilantism is morally bad, though exceptions are able to be made for people under extreme emotional duress (temporary insanity).

In D&D vigilantism is simply chaotic. And since slaying evil is always automatically good. Your soul is colored automatically more chaotic and good everytime you do. Though slaying innocents is automatically evil so if you are ever wrong your soul will be colored more evil no matter how well reasoned and researched and detectivised you did before. And since according to the book of vile darkness, slaying innocents leaves a much bigger stain of evil then slaying evil leaves a stain of good, a chaotic good vigilantee will need to be super careful to avoid sliding into evil. The existence of alternative and possibly more moral means of dealing with the crime is irrelevant to the good/evil axis which deals only with the absolutes of actions. Consequence, or at least any consequence of degrees and circumstance are both ignored. With intention and reason having only a secondary impact.

Segev
2016-10-19, 03:13 PM
I'm afraid that arguing real-life morality starts treading outside the bounds of the rules of this forum, so I will not be discussing it too strongly. I tend to agree that vigilantism is a bad idea for a moral person under most assumptions made in western civilization, particularly that the legal system functions well and properly and is not corrupted by evil men who would subvert it.

Inevitability
2016-10-19, 03:32 PM
I'm afraid that arguing real-life morality starts treading outside the bounds of the rules of this forum, so I will not be discussing it too strongly. I tend to agree that vigilantism is a bad idea for a moral person under most assumptions made in western civilization, particularly that the legal system functions well and properly and is not corrupted by evil men who would subvert it.

Even if it is: the vigilante is just a singular person trusting his singular opinion. It doesn't matter if he thinks he's got the full picture, because one can never be certain all pieces of the puzzle have been found.

The 'evil man' is, at worst, a single entity who only trusts their own opinion on how to handle legal matters. How is that better or worse than what's the vigilante is doing?

hamishspence
2016-10-19, 03:35 PM
Emperor Palatine was not evil. Darth Vader was not evil.

They knew that a destructive force was coming, with limited time to prepare. A force that did not simply believe in eugenics, but in the divine superiority of their race. Simple slavery was not going to happen, but the forced torture with implants which control the mind & body. Eradication of all live in entire sectors of the galaxy. Worse than simply killing them, they were going to be erased.

The facts were that the entire galaxy needed to be ready to fight, and the only species numerous enough to allow plug and play soldiers were the humans, & near humans. A coalition of different values, species requirements, fighting styles, & equipment was doomed to failure, as we saw when the New Republic failed to even operate as a speed bump. Massive bulk numbers, with weapons tailored to beat the Yuzzhan Vong were what was needed. Fast, heavily armed & armored, not shielded, as shields were useless.

Emperor Palatine wasn't racist, in fact he cosigned the humans to take a bulk, perhaps all in real numbers and percentage of the population, of the casualties, in order to save the races of the whole galaxy. To those with massive ignorance however, he looked racist, and evil, because of their limited study of the information, of history, & politics.

That's what Imperial Remnant revisionist historians wrote 30-odd years after the Vong invasion (The Essential Guide To Warfare). A case can be made that Palpatine himself did not take the Vong seriously as a threat though - and was doing Sithly stuff long before the opportunity to find out that the Vong existed, came up:

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/the-extent-of-palpatines-vong-knowledge.50042191/

veti
2016-10-19, 04:23 PM
"Slavery isn't inherently evil" is a postmodernist viewpoint that is only possible from within the walls of the ivory tower.

Try telling anyone who's actually been a slave, out in the real world, beyond the blinkered, naive confines of postmodernia, that slavery isn't evil.

There are many different kinds of slavery. I doubt if it's possible to go into details without violating board rules, but I feel strongly that any blanket condemnation that doesn't even allow for shades of grey is painfully naive and unhelpful.

I will say that "any moral statement including the word 'inherently' is very unlikely to stand up to scrutiny".

Verbannon
2016-10-19, 06:17 PM
I'm afraid that arguing real-life morality starts treading outside the bounds of the rules of this forum, so I will not be discussing it too strongly. I tend to agree that vigilantism is a bad idea for a moral person under most assumptions made in western civilization, particularly that the legal system functions well and properly and is not corrupted by evil men who would subvert it.

If the question is how to include a morally gray area in a campaign. Then one has to use real world morality because D&D and any other alignment based system is structured to eliminate all gray.

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-19, 06:22 PM
There are many different kinds of slavery. I doubt if it's possible to go into details without violating board rules, but I feel strongly that any blanket condemnation that doesn't even allow for shades of grey is painfully naive and unhelpful.

I will say that "any moral statement including the word 'inherently' is very unlikely to stand up to scrutiny".


The same response I gave above, applies here.

Slavery is morally and ethically repugnant, full stop.

ComradeBear
2016-10-19, 07:05 PM
The same response I gave above, applies here.

Slavery is morally and ethically repugnant, full stop.

There is minimal difference between punitive slavery and making inmates do menial labor jobs for no pay as happens in modern prisons.

It's essentially the same, we just put it in a prettier package and we determined that using slavery as a punishment for murder is ok.

And in the situation I illustrated, it would be closer to being a temporary POW/Laborer for a short period to earn full citizen rights. (The Romans performed similar, and countries would literally be happy to be conquered by them, because it was no worse than what they did already and then they became Roman citizens.) And of course they could also just join the military and get similar benefits.

Edit:
The term Indentured Servitude is more accurate than slavery for what I was talking about.

Verbannon
2016-10-19, 08:16 PM
There is minimal difference between punitive slavery and making inmates do menial labor jobs for no pay as happens in modern prisons.

It's essentially the same, we just put it in a prettier package and we determined that using slavery as a punishment for murder is ok.

And in the situation I illustrated, it would be closer to being a temporary POW/Laborer for a short period to earn full citizen rights. (The Romans performed similar, and countries would literally be happy to be conquered by them, because it was no worse than what they did already and then they became Roman citizens.) And of course they could also just join the military and get similar benefits.

Edit:
The term Indentured Servitude is more accurate than slavery for what I was talking about.

Penal labor is an interesting concept. As it has some hard questions. For instance a large amount of prison labor was not productive labor. Smashing rocks, walking a treadmill, that was labor meant to use as punishment and served no economic purpose. With that in mind you think of just plain imprisonment. Now both slavery and prisons restrict or completely remove an individuals liberty.

Skipping past a long ten page logic chain that includes and defeats alternative viewpoints. One comes to the conclusion that the sin of slavery is a sin of injustice. With the sole exception of non-profit prison labor , and in many cases not even then. Slavery is an exploitation and unjust
punishment of the innocent.

Inevitability
2016-10-19, 11:13 PM
To add to the whole slavery-hard labor discussion, there's also the element of (this may sound paradoxical) fairness.

If a society punishes, say, murder with lifelong servitude in the salt mines, that's one thing. The people within said society know that if they ever murder anyone, they'll end up swinging a pick in a cramped shaft. If they consider the protection offered by this law not worth the punishment they'll receive if they ever murder someone, they're free to leave and find a nice spot of lawless wilderness to live (this is less relevant in the modern-day discussions, but in a D&D world it's quite possible).

However, if a hostile army invades and enslaves a population, or if someone is born in slavery, there is no element of fairness. This person never got to make a choice between accepting or rejecting a legal system that includes (under certain circumstances) slavery, the choice was made for them. That's a fundamentally different matter.

Verbannon
2016-10-19, 11:35 PM
To add to the whole slavery-hard labor discussion, there's also the element of (this may sound paradoxical) fairness.

If a society punishes, say, murder with lifelong servitude in the salt mines, that's one thing. The people within said society know that if they ever murder anyone, they'll end up swinging a pick in a cramped shaft. If they consider the protection offered by this law not worth the punishment they'll receive if they ever murder someone, they're free to leave and find a nice spot of lawless wilderness to live (this is less relevant in the modern-day discussions, but in a D&D world it's quite possible).

However, if a hostile army invades and enslaves a population, or if someone is born in slavery, there is no element of fairness. This person never got to make a choice between accepting or rejecting a legal system that includes (under certain circumstances) slavery, the choice was made for them. That's a fundamentally different matter.

The associated inflection of the word justice is more accurate than the word fairness imo..

Inevitability
2016-10-19, 11:41 PM
The associated inflection of the word justice is more accurate than the word fairness imo..

Guess it might be. The main point should be clear either way, though.

Segev
2016-10-20, 10:27 AM
Even if it is: the vigilante is just a singular person trusting his singular opinion. It doesn't matter if he thinks he's got the full picture, because one can never be certain all pieces of the puzzle have been found.

The 'evil man' is, at worst, a single entity who only trusts their own opinion on how to handle legal matters. How is that better or worse than what's the vigilante is doing?

And a group of people is prone to sway by propaganda, and are not exposed to all the evidence the one man had. Or, outside of "trial by jury" jurisdictions, the judge to whom the case would be given is also just one man. Why is his judgment inherently superior to the vigilante's?

And the "evil man" probably has some attitudes that pretty clearly paint his alignment. It's one thing if he's a misguided zealot who thinks he's doing "what's necessary" for "the greater good." Most Chaotic Good types will try to reason with those, first. But most are more likely the sort who think notions of "good" and "evil" are beneath them. That their victims "deserve" it for "getting in the way." Or that there just isn't value on life that isn't of use to them.

You don't have to think, "I am an evil man," to have your evil philosophy be recognizably distinct from the good-aligned vigilante's.

Inevitability
2016-10-20, 12:47 PM
And a group of people is prone to sway by propaganda, and are not exposed to all the evidence the one man had. Or, outside of "trial by jury" jurisdictions, the judge to whom the case would be given is also just one man. Why is his judgment inherently superior to the vigilante's?

How does the vigilante know he's not exposed to propaganda? At least the group of people will have many differing viewpoints and is more likely to see through any logical impossibilities the propaganda creates.

The judge's judgement is superior because he is basing his decisions on the law, which is nothing less than the condensed judgement of all who came before him. Worst case: the judge is actually corrupt and deliberately subverts the law... at which point the situation is no worse than the vigilante's. Not better, but not worse either.


And the "evil man" probably has some attitudes that pretty clearly paint his alignment. It's one thing if he's a misguided zealot who thinks he's doing "what's necessary" for "the greater good." Most Chaotic Good types will try to reason with those, first. But most are more likely the sort who think notions of "good" and "evil" are beneath them. That their victims "deserve" it for "getting in the way." Or that there just isn't value on life that isn't of use to them.

You don't have to think, "I am an evil man," to have your evil philosophy be recognizably distinct from the good-aligned vigilante's.

There's no such thing as a universal moral compass shared by all people. Just because the vigilante has a number of personal beliefs he considers 'good' doesn't give him the right to act on those as if they're universal truths. How isn't the vigilante believing 'good' and 'evil' are beneath him by choosing to kill those he considers wicked?


All this decision is showing me is that at worst, a dictator and vigilante are equally bad.

Segev
2016-10-20, 01:51 PM
How does the vigilante know he's not exposed to propaganda? At least the group of people will have many differing viewpoints and is more likely to see through any logical impossibilities the propaganda creates.

The judge's judgement is superior because he is basing his decisions on the law, which is nothing less than the condensed judgement of all who came before him. Worst case: the judge is actually corrupt and deliberately subverts the law... at which point the situation is no worse than the vigilante's. Not better, but not worse either.He is? He's basing his judgments on what somebody else has told him he should, including evidence he must trust is what those presenting it say it is.

The vigilante may or may not be influenced by propaganda, but he also likely trusts himself most when he is the one who found the evidence, who saw the crimes, who heard the gloating of the perpetrator as he did them and later again after the fact. "They'll never believe you. You'll never prove it in court."

Obviously, I'm constructing contrived scenarios, but any scenario is contrived if you get specific enough.

The vigilante can easily be wrong. The justice system's legal authority figures can, too.

That's why ethical debates exist. You clearly strongly believe in a Lawful viewpoint, considering it always superior to a Chaotic one. If I seem to be the opposite, it is more because I'm playing Devil's Advocate to illustrate why Chaotic mindsets are not inherently more Evil than Lawful ones.

Both are prone to error and to corruption; Chaos by ignorance and emotions clouding judgment, and Law by corruption within the letter to violate the spirit.



There's no such thing as a universal moral compass shared by all people. Just because the vigilante has a number of personal beliefs he considers 'good' doesn't give him the right to act on those as if they're universal truths. How isn't the vigilante believing 'good' and 'evil' are beneath him by choosing to kill those he considers wicked?The CG vigilante doesn't believe "good" and "evil" are beneath him. That's what makes him CG. Killing is not always murder, and (most) Good philosophies differentiate strongly, approving of killing when it is necessary but never approving of murder (which is never "necessary").

As to universal moral compasses...you'd be surprised, just based on how humanity in general seems to lean wrt what they can typically agree is universally wrong. But more to the point, there was a thread on objective morality, and I cannot fully discuss your assertion here without re-opening the very lengthy discussions I made in that one. Which is out of scope, I think, for this thread.


All this decision is showing me is that at worst, a dictator and vigilante are equally bad.At worst? Sure. At worst, all positions of power can be equally bad.

veti
2016-10-20, 03:45 PM
There is minimal difference between punitive slavery and making inmates do menial labor jobs for no pay as happens in modern prisons.

It's essentially the same, we just put it in a prettier package and we determined that using slavery as a punishment for murder is ok.

As a punishment for murder - okay then. How about, as punishment for lesser crimes? Assault, blackmail, vandalism, public nudity...?

Then how about prisoners of war? Enemy soldiers, who may or may not have personally done any harm to anyone, pressed into service to, e.g., build roads or other infrastructure?

If you're OK with that, then where do you stand on the ancient Spartans, who used to go to war with their neighbours for the specific purpose of capturing and enslaving them when they lost? It was the understood, accepted rule of war at the time, and the losers themselves probably wouldn't have described it as "unjust". They would have had no hesitation about enslaving their defeated enemies.

How about civilian prisoners of war? I.e. people who've been interned because they're considered a serious security risk, even though they're not (identifiably, at least) hostile combatants?

How about people who volunteered for some dangerous or unpleasant task, in the knowledge that once begun they wouldn't be able to quit, only to discover that the task was significantly more unpleasant or dangerous than they'd been led to believe?

See, this is what I mean by "shades of grey". All of these may be wrong, but I don't think it's helpful or even defensible to pretend that they're all equally wrong just because you can apply the blanket word "slavery" to all of them. Some of them are, quite clearly in my mind, more wrong than others.

Verbannon
2016-10-20, 03:52 PM
And a group of people is prone to sway by propaganda, and are not exposed to all the evidence the one man had. Or, outside of "trial by jury" jurisdictions, the judge to whom the case would be given is also just one man. Why is his judgment inherently superior to the vigilante's?

And the "evil man" probably has some attitudes that pretty clearly paint his alignment. It's one thing if he's a misguided zealot who thinks he's doing "what's necessary" for "the greater good." Most Chaotic Good types will try to reason with those, first. But most are more likely the sort who think notions of "good" and "evil" are beneath them. That their victims "deserve" it for "getting in the way." Or that there just isn't value on life that isn't of use to them.

You don't have to think, "I am an evil man," to have your evil philosophy be recognizably distinct from the good-aligned vigilante's.

Thats actually why the justice system tends to be so complex, with pretrial hearings, the actual trial and appeals. And dozens of other things that would take far too long to go into detail, which if I even tried would end up turning this post into a book.

But I'll just point out that with our modern justice system, with all its complexities and redundancies meant to help ensure the innocent are not wrongly convicted, the biggest problem with our current justice system, is that the innocent are too often convicted. Largely because prosecutors are just concerned about getting convictions, hide exonerating evidence and get supported in this action by judges who are often ex-prosecutors themselves or politicians afraid of looking like they are going easy on crime.

So any chaotic good vigilantee in real life would actually just be a bad guy, and in D&D style alignment systems, would almost certainly end up killing as many innocents as guilty anyway, which would turn him Chaotic Evil. He would just be a Chaotic Evil deluded into thinking he is Chaotic Good.

So here is probably one place where real life morality and D&D morality align.

Verbannon
2016-10-20, 04:01 PM
As a punishment for murder - okay then. How about, as punishment for lesser crimes? Assault, blackmail, vandalism, public nudity...?

Then how about prisoners of war? Enemy soldiers, who may or may not have personally done any harm to anyone, pressed into service to, e.g., build roads or other infrastructure?

If you're OK with that, then where do you stand on the ancient Spartans, who used to go to war with their neighbours for the specific purpose of capturing and enslaving them when they lost? It was the understood, accepted rule of war at the time, and the losers themselves probably wouldn't have described it as "unjust". They would have had no hesitation about enslaving their defeated enemies.

How about civilian prisoners of war? I.e. people who've been interned because they're considered a serious security risk, even though they're not (identifiably, at least) hostile combatants?

How about people who volunteered for some dangerous or unpleasant task, in the knowledge that once begun they wouldn't be able to quit, only to discover that the task was significantly more unpleasant or dangerous than they'd been led to believe?

See, this is what I mean by "shades of grey". All of these may be wrong, but I don't think it's helpful or even defensible to pretend that they're all equally wrong just because you can apply the blanket word "slavery" to all of them. Some of them are, quite clearly in my mind, more wrong than others.

Its still misleading to use the term shades of grey, as more often then not, like in this case, its just an excuse to stop thinking about it.

The important question here is actually deciding on the difference between simple imprisonment and punitive labor.

A man convicted of bank robbery sitting for 5 years in a cell with one hour of time at the cafeteria and one hour of time in the prison playground.

Compared to a man convicted of bank robbery spending 5 years breaking up rocks.

Now I think the first thing thats obvious is the latter is a harsher punishment. But what makes is a more 'immoral' punishment? That has to be qualified first.

Then we can ask further questions.

So lets say the man had a choice between 5 years of simple imprisonment or 2 years breaking up rocks. Would it be immoral to let him take the punitive punishment? With the 3 years as payment?

What about if he didn't have a choice and the government just decided to reduce prison populations by commuting more and more criminals to community service punishments?

These aren't shades of grey, these are just increasingly complex quandaries.

Segev
2016-10-20, 04:38 PM
Thats actually why the justice system tends to be so complex, with pretrial hearings, the actual trial and appeals. And dozens of other things that would take far too long to go into detail, which if I even tried would end up turning this post into a book.

But I'll just point out that with our modern justice system, with all its complexities and redundancies meant to help ensure the innocent are not wrongly convicted, the biggest problem with our current justice system, is that the innocent are too often convicted. Largely because prosecutors are just concerned about getting convictions, hide exonerating evidence and get supported in this action by judges who are often ex-prosecutors themselves or politicians afraid of looking like they are going easy on crime.So any chaotic good vigilantee in real life would actually just be a bad guy, and in D&D style alignment systems, would almost certainly end up killing as many innocents as guilty anyway, which would turn him Chaotic Evil. He would just be a Chaotic Evil deluded into thinking he is Chaotic Good.

So here is probably one place where real life morality and D&D morality align.
I don't think we really should be discussing this, here, as it is a claim that is unsubstantiatable without going into lengthy lists of citations, and will face counter-citations of evidence of its falsehood, and in short would get very political.

As for the part that isn't bolded, *shrug*. You're right to some degree as to why the legal system is complex. Whether the failures are what you listed or go the other way (the makes-good-movies "guilty gangster goes free;" which I would posit some in the US could name politicians they think this is true of), the Chaotic person would hold this up as evidence that the overly-complex system is failing because it removes the decision-makers from the evidence, and empowers the corrupt to avoid consequences for their actions.

The Lawful would make more or less the arguments you're making.

Both have good points. (In all honesty, I prefer a Lawful system to a Chaotic one, most of the time. Though I confess to being more one for distributing decision-making, as my expertise in Swarm Intelligence has given me ample evidence that this tends to work better in the short and long run.)

veti
2016-10-20, 05:22 PM
Its still misleading to use the term shades of grey, as more often then not, like in this case, its just an excuse to stop thinking about it.

How so? I would say that "inherently wrong" is the real "excuse to stop thinking about it".

"Shades of grey" is the opposite, it implies that it's possible - even necessary - to consider circumstances of each case, rather than just making a simplistic blanket ruling.

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-20, 06:18 PM
How so? I would say that "inherently wrong" is the real "excuse to stop thinking about it".

"Shades of grey" is the opposite, it implies that it's possible - even necessary - to consider circumstances of each case, rather than just making a simplistic blanket ruling.


Really? Too often I see "shades of grey" used when someone means "Well, it's all relative and nothing is actually wrong outside of a cultural context so we might as well not even try to figure out what's actually wrong." -- in other words, as cop out from actually having to think about it and make a hard moral choice.

veti
2016-10-20, 06:29 PM
Really? Too often I see "shades of grey" used when someone means "Well, it's all relative and nothing is actually wrong outside of a cultural context so we might as well not even try to figure out what's actually wrong." -- in other words, as cop out from actually having to think about it and make a hard moral choice.

If the choice is between X, Y and Z, then saying "X, Y and Z are all wrong, therefore it's impossible to choose between them" is the opposite of a "hard moral choice". It's a cop out.

"Shades of grey" means "X is wrong because A, Y is wrong because B, and Z is wrong because C. But in this case, B is less relevant or compelling because F, G and H. Therefore, we'll go with Y, even though we don't like it." That's a "hard moral choice".

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-20, 06:39 PM
If the choice is between X, Y and Z, then saying "X, Y and Z are all wrong, therefore it's impossible to choose between them" is the opposite of a "hard moral choice". It's a cop out.

"Shades of grey" means "X is wrong because A, Y is wrong because B, and Z is wrong because C. But in this case, B is less relevant or compelling because F, G and H. Therefore, we'll go with Y, even though we don't like it." That's a "hard moral choice".

If you say so.

Sometimes, there are no good answers, there is not right path, it's just multiple bad choices.

And sometimes, "crap" is just wrong, and that's it. There's no moral grey area to actual slavery, actual rape, actual abuse of a child, etc.

Segev
2016-10-20, 07:15 PM
If you say so.

Sometimes, there are no good answers, there is not right path, it's just multiple bad choices.

And sometimes, "crap" is just wrong, and that's it. There's no moral grey area to actual slavery, actual rape, actual abuse of a child, etc.

Indeed, all those things are morally black. I'm...not sure this qualifies as backing up your comment about "there is no right path, it's just multiple bad choices," though.

When "don't do that" is a valid option when asked about slavery, rape, and child abuse, there is a right choice.

I am not sure what your point is, here, though. 'cause those aren't morally gray; they're morally black.

ComradeBear
2016-10-20, 07:55 PM
Indeed, all those things are morally black. I'm...not sure this qualifies as backing up your comment about "there is no right path, it's just multiple bad choices," though.

When "don't do that" is a valid option when asked about slavery, rape, and child abuse, there is a right choice.

I am not sure what your point is, here, though. 'cause those aren't morally gray; they're morally black.

If we want to get technical, a Slave is someone who is the property of another person. The end. So slavery is the act of owning a person.

You could have someone (and this has happened) who buys slaves and then sets them free elsewhere. The funny thing is, that person practiced Slavery for as long as he owned those people.

Various laws about children make them eerily close to slaves, though at least we frown upon their mistreatment. In many other respects, however, children are treated similarly to property. We even Repo children, trade them around to various families, and adoption centers sorta sell children. It's different legally, but the similarities are eerie if you look at it.

Slavery is just owning another person as property. Which is certainly not right, but there are examples of the practice being done in ways that were as non-injurious as possible.... and quite the opposite. To put both of those ends of the spectrum as the same thing does a disservice to those who did what they could during their time to make a kinder world. For a time it was often safer to leave a slave as a slave than to set them free and have them potentially get kidnapped and brought back into slavery. Those who acted in this manner were still very much practicing slavery, but their intentions and the positive outcomes makes it a disservice to lump them in with the rest as if all instances of slavery are equally abhorrent.

This is not to say that Slavery as a concept is a good thing, but writing off an entire concept as being 100% one way shuts down learning opportunities.

Help there's a
2016-10-20, 08:09 PM
Well, here's something for "moral grey areas".
What does, oh, a half-orc barbarian do, when ambushed by a Broken-Stick Clan orc hunting party?
What does a teifling warlock do when confronted with being the sole member standing against the 1-HP-left pit fiend?
What does the dragonborn do when the Tainted Platinum Dragon begs for mercy?

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-20, 08:37 PM
If we want to get technical, a Slave is someone who is the property of another person. The end. So slavery is the act of owning a person.

You could have someone (and this has happened) who buys slaves and then sets them free elsewhere. The funny thing is, that person practiced Slavery for as long as he owned those people.


No, I'd rather not get technical, not when it's used to avoid the actual point.

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-20, 08:58 PM
Indeed, all those things are morally black. I'm...not sure this qualifies as backing up your comment about "there is no right path, it's just multiple bad choices," though.

When "don't do that" is a valid option when asked about slavery, rape, and child abuse, there is a right choice.

I am not sure what your point is, here, though. 'cause those aren't morally gray; they're morally black.

I was speaking of two different situations, not the same situation two different ways -- but neither one is morally grey. One is a "least bad option" situation, and one is a "there's no moral question or relativism here".

Verbannon
2016-10-20, 10:40 PM
I don't think we really should be discussing this, here, as it is a claim that is unsubstantiatable without going into lengthy lists of citations, and will face counter-citations of evidence of its falsehood, and in short would get very political.

As for the part that isn't bolded, *shrug*. You're right to some degree as to why the legal system is complex. Whether the failures are what you listed or go the other way (the makes-good-movies "guilty gangster goes free;" which I would posit some in the US could name politicians they think this is true of), the Chaotic person would hold this up as evidence that the overly-complex system is failing because it removes the decision-makers from the evidence, and empowers the corrupt to avoid consequences for their actions.

The Lawful would make more or less the arguments you're making.

Both have good points. (In all honesty, I prefer a Lawful system to a Chaotic one, most of the time. Though I confess to being more one for distributing decision-making, as my expertise in Swarm Intelligence has given me ample evidence that this tends to work better in the short and long run.)
Arguments arent important for lawful and chaotics. Nothing is relative. It doesnt matter how good or roght the chaotic good guys opinion is. Every time he takes an innocent life, because of a frame up or just some honest mistakes. That is going to stain his soul and turn him evil.

Maybe if he is in someplace like Gotham where there are at least 2 active crimes ongoing down any given street, he'll rack up more then enough good deed points to offset the occassional decapitated innocent that kind of looked like the guilty party. But any regular city, the odds are he wont. I believe he needs to save 100 innocent lives for every innocent life he takes to keep the balance according to the book of vile darkness.

The exception is the greyhawk campaign setting, where it is noted that justice extends only as far as the point of a sword. And the whole setting is one giant gotham city.

ComradeBear
2016-10-20, 11:02 PM
No, I'd rather not get technical, not when it's used to avoid the actual point.

I don't know what point you're making apart from "Owning slaves is always bad" which is historically not true, as evidenced by those who would buy -and own- slaves for the purpose of keeping them in a safer place than they'd otherwise end up. That's still very much slavery, since slavery isn't defined by doing manual labor. If it was, many of the most abused slaves would no longer be on the list because the tasks they performed were more operational in nature.

Essentially, there's no real historical precedent for a thing being 100% a bad thing in all instances except maybe genocide, that I'm aware of.

Verbannon
2016-10-20, 11:43 PM
I don't know what point you're making apart from "Owning slaves is always bad" which is historically not true, as evidenced by those who would buy -and own- slaves for the purpose of keeping them in a safer place than they'd otherwise end up. That's still very much slavery, since slavery isn't defined by doing manual labor. If it was, many of the most abused slaves would no longer be on the list because the tasks they performed were more operational in nature.

Essentially, there's no real historical precedent for a thing being 100% a bad thing in all instances except maybe genocide, that I'm aware of.

The wording of your post suggests a strict moral relativism. Like "human sacrifice was not a bad thing to the Aztecs, therefore iy was not a bad thing if you were Aztec."

Though for your example of buying a slave to protect a slave, there are a multitude of ways to legally own slaves without actually practicing slavery. As per Slavery in America, I believe abolationists often purchased slaves in order to free them. So although they legally owned the slaves, at least for a short period. One is hard pressed to declare them slavers.

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-21, 06:50 AM
The wording of your post suggests a strict moral relativism. Like "human sacrifice was not a bad thing to the Aztecs, therefore iy was not a bad thing if you were Aztec."

Though for your example of buying a slave to protect a slave, there are a multitude of ways to legally own slaves without actually practicing slavery. As per Slavery in America, I believe abolationists often purchased slaves in order to free them. So although they legally owned the slaves, at least for a short period. One is hard pressed to declare them slavers.

Indeed, there's far more to actual slavery than on-paper "ownership" under law. Reducing slavery to a legal property status, is appealing to a narrow and inaccurate definition, for the sake of argument, and nothing more.

Someone paying money for people bound in slavery, under the laws of a time and place, with the intent of protecting and eventually freeing them, is not via that act alone practicing slavery.

Someone keeping people against their will and extracting labor, etc, from them via force and coercion is practicing slavery, regardless of the "legal status". Slavery is right now being practiced in places in the world where it is illegal, where it is not possible to own other human beings. By any accurate and functional definition, the people so held are slaves, until such time as they can escape or are freed.


And yes, as a side note, human sacrifice was wrong when the Aztecs did it, regardless of how any of them felt about the practice.

Segev
2016-10-21, 09:10 AM
Well, here's something for "moral grey areas".
What does, oh, a half-orc barbarian do, when ambushed by a Broken-Stick Clan orc hunting party?
What does a teifling warlock do when confronted with being the sole member standing against the 1-HP-left pit fiend?
What does the dragonborn do when the Tainted Platinum Dragon begs for mercy?With the possible exception of the last one, I'm not sure where the moral grayness comes in. Self-defense isn't evil, so the half-orc barbarian can defend himself without issue. Being the sole remaining survivor against a foe he can finish off isn't gray; it's tragic, and perhaps heroic, but hardly gray. (Even if the implication is that a tiefling warlock may not WANT to kill a Pit Fiend, the choice is still not a morally gray one. "I am tempted by evil" isn't moral grayness; it's a difficult choice for other reasons.)

Whether the "tainted platinum dragon" is a morally gray situation or not really depends on whether this is genuine redeemability or just a ploy to survive long enough to cause more harm. Which, hopefully, the paladin can figure out.


I was speaking of two different situations, not the same situation two different ways -- but neither one is morally grey. One is a "least bad option" situation, and one is a "there's no moral question or relativism here".Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying.


Arguments arent important for lawful and chaotics. Nothing is relative. It doesnt matter how good or roght the chaotic good guys opinion is. Every time he takes an innocent life, because of a frame up or just some honest mistakes. That is going to stain his soul and turn him evil. Arguable; if somebody is fooled into taking innocent life, that doesn't stain their soul with evil. But willful ignorance to allow oneself the plausible deniability would.

But the same applies to a Lawful guy: every time the judge or jury condemn an innocent man to death, it stains their souls with exactly as much evil ("none" if they're genuinely fooled; "some" to "a lot" if they're practicing willful ignorance or engaging in legalized lynching by seeking excuses to justify finding him guilty).

So this still doesn't make Law inherently more Good than Chaos.

Dragonexx
2016-10-21, 10:48 AM
There's been some attempts at explaining how things like laws and ethics work in a standard D&D setting.

https://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Dungeonomicon_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Socialomicon

Long story short, many of the things we think of as bad today are perfectly acceptable by the standards of a typical dnd setting.

Niek
2016-10-21, 11:52 AM
I was speaking of two different situations, not the same situation two different ways -- but neither one is morally grey. One is a "least bad option" situation, and one is a "there's no moral question or relativism here".

"least bad option" situations are the definition of moral grey. Moral grey is "there isn't a straightforward good option here, so I need to make a call as to which of these bitter pills I can bear to swallow"


A murderer is fleeing into the night while his latest would-be victim holds onto the edge of the bridge for dear life. If you pursue, the victim will almost certainly fall to his death. If you rush to his aid, the murderer escapes, and you do not know when you will be able to find him again. Either way, something bad happens, and you have neither knowledge of the full extent of the consequences nor the time to calculate them. That is what a moral grey scenario is.

Help there's a
2016-10-21, 12:17 PM
With the possible exception of the last one, I'm not sure where the moral grayness comes in. Self-defense isn't evil, so the half-orc barbarian can defend himself without issue. Being the sole remaining survivor against a foe he can finish off isn't gray; it's tragic, and perhaps heroic, but hardly gray. (Even if the implication is that a tiefling warlock may not WANT to kill a Pit Fiend, the choice is still not a morally gray one. "I am tempted by evil" isn't moral grayness; it's a difficult choice for other reasons.)

Whether the "tainted platinum dragon" is a morally gray situation or not really depends on whether this is genuine redeemability or just a ploy to survive long enough to cause more harm. Which, hopefully, the paladin can figure out.

Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying.

Arguable; if somebody is fooled into taking innocent life, that doesn't stain their soul with evil. But willful ignorance to allow oneself the plausible deniability would.

But the same applies to a Lawful guy: every time the judge or jury condemn an innocent man to death, it stains their souls with exactly as much evil ("none" if they're genuinely fooled; "some" to "a lot" if they're practicing willful ignorance or engaging in legalized lynching by seeking excuses to justify finding him guilty).

So this still doesn't make Law inherently more Good than Chaos.

Well, here's some clarification:
1. The half-orc's father was the cheiftain of the clan. Does he attack his tribemates? Or does he spare fellow goblinoids?
2. The pit feind is the last remaining demon who made pacts with Bael Turath. Without him/it, the teifling would never have his/her powers. Slay the beast and destroy the last remnant of a great evil-or spare it and keep a empire's future alive?
3. The dragon, touched by the power of evil, has broken through. Do you ignore its words and slay it to put it out of it's misery, or let it live, and be consumed by evil?

Cluedrew
2016-10-21, 12:35 PM
Emperor Palatine was not evil. Darth Vader was not evil.No, they were both evil.

Even acting under version of cannon where they did know about the Yuzzhan Vong (which according to the extended universe/legends, they did) they were still evil. Darth Vader is not famed for his performance reviews and court-martial trials. On the other hand he has a reputation for killing officers who slipped up even once (or in one sort of noble case, their subordinates messed up). Emperor Palatine tried to get Darth Vader killed when he found a new toy in Luke.

Saving anybody from the Yuzzhan Vong was at best justification, more likely an excuse and at possibly a footnote for their conquest of the galaxy. And lets not forget their method didn't actually work. Maybe it would have if the Rebellion had failed, but the fact the rebellion existed on such a scale shows the failings of the Empire.

Satinavian
2016-10-21, 01:08 PM
Indeed, there's far more to actual slavery than on-paper "ownership" under law. Reducing slavery to a legal property status, is appealing to a narrow and inaccurate definition, for the sake of argument, and nothing more.

Someone paying money for people bound in slavery, under the laws of a time and place, with the intent of protecting and eventually freeing them, is not via that act alone practicing slavery.

Someone keeping people against their will and extracting labor, etc, from them via force and coercion is practicing slavery, regardless of the "legal status". Slavery is right now being practiced in places in the world where it is illegal, where it is not possible to own other human beings. By any accurate and functional definition, the people so held are slaves, until such time as they can escape or are freed.
Rubbish

Slavery is in essence owning people, not more, not less. Technically some kinds of legally unfree people didn't count even if owned by someone else but those are details.

People hold against their will or even coerced to something don't count as slaves if they are not property of someone else. People not coerced and accepting someone else as owner willingly would count.

And real history produced things like this :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerialis
And similar classes with high social standing consisting of unfree people can be found all around the word.

GrayDeath
2016-10-21, 01:23 PM
Well, here's something for "moral grey areas".
What does, oh, a half-orc barbarian do, when ambushed by a Broken-Stick Clan orc hunting party?
What does a teifling warlock do when confronted with being the sole member standing against the 1-HP-left pit fiend?
What does the dragonborn do when the Tainted Platinum Dragon begs for mercy?


Well, here's some clarification:
1. The half-orc's father was the cheiftain of the clan. Does he attack his tribemates? Or does he spare fellow goblinoids?


Why, with or without Clarification, would the Barbarian simply attack?
Even if its another part of the wrong rule of "kill everything evil" (even if you have no paladin to make sure), you never tell us the alignment of the Barbarian.

So I`ll answer as if he was the epitome of the HO Barb: Chaotic neutral.
In this case. if they attack him, hze`ll slaughter them until they surrender, at which point he`ll milk the situation for what its worth (the most fun^^).




2. The pit feind is the last remaining demon who made pacts with Bael Turath. Without him/it, the teifling would never have his/her powers. Slay the beast and destroy the last remnant of a great evil-or spare it and keep a empire's future alive?

lets for a moment assume that the DM ruled that there had to be an actual pact for a Warlock (which in 3.x it doesn`t) then I`d probably adapt my choices after: A: is the Pit Fiend trying to negotiate? if not, kill him. Death is worse than temporary powerlessness.

if yes, hear what he has to offer. If he is the last remaining XYZ he cant be THAT much of a danger, and I`d probably modify the pact in "....and dont invade within my natural lifetime" or something.






3. The dragon, touched by the power of evil, has broken through. Do you ignore its words and slay it to put it out of it's misery, or let it live, and be consumed by evil?

Broken through what?
And I cannot see where an irremoveable Corruption would come from, but lets say its truly impossible to redeem him, then I`d of course kill him and allow his soul to rest where it belongs ... until someone raises him/her. :)

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-21, 02:02 PM
Rubbish

Slavery is in essence owning people, not more, not less. Technically some kinds of legally unfree people didn't count even if owned by someone else but those are details.

People hold against their will or even coerced to something don't count as slaves if they are not property of someone else. People not coerced and accepting someone else as owner willingly would count.

And real history produced things like this :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerialis
And similar classes with high social standing consisting of unfree people can be found all around the word.


Again, like the other one, you are engaged in an absurd reduction to a single aspect, in order to prop up a weak point.

Slavery -- coerced servitude by those stripped of their rights and freedoms -- existed in cultures with very different notions of ownership, very different stuctures of law, very different traditions, etc.

Segev
2016-10-21, 02:11 PM
Well, here's some clarification:
1. The half-orc's father was the cheiftain of the clan. Does he attack his tribemates? Or does he spare fellow goblinoids?
2. The pit feind is the last remaining demon who made pacts with Bael Turath. Without him/it, the teifling would never have his/her powers. Slay the beast and destroy the last remnant of a great evil-or spare it and keep a empire's future alive?
3. The dragon, touched by the power of evil, has broken through. Do you ignore its words and slay it to put it out of it's misery, or let it live, and be consumed by evil?

1. That his own father would send these people after him to kill him is tragic, but doesn't abrogate his right to self-defense. You said he's ambushed; there's nothing wrong with fighting back. If you change the scenario such that he's not being ambushed, then picking the fight is not good, no.

2. Why is this empire dependent on the one Pit Fiend's survival? Sure, losing his magical powers is a blow, but that's not moral grayness; that's again whether you value your morals or your power more.

3. This sounds less morally gray the more you describe it. In fact, "Help it if it seeks to be cleansed; kill it before it does further harm if not" sounds like the right idea in all senses.

GreatWyrmGold
2016-10-21, 08:34 PM
This thread is geared towards the moral gray areas. My purpose in this is to put my PCs through a campaign that results in them realizing (in horror) that they have become a bad guy. Or at least make them question what they're doing throughout the campaign.
...
Any other ideas would be appreciated, and I will be adding more as I think of them
A few quick bits of advice.
1. Read/watch/play media where the protagonist does exactly that. Worm's a good place to start; while Taylor never has a single definite "Oh God, what have I done?" moment, she still transforms from a relatively idealistic teenaged girl trying to get some superhero escapism to one of the supervillainous overlords of the city. (Note: Previous sentence contains spoilers.)
2. Don't assume players will do X. If you give them a chance to kill the evil overlord whose life sustains the countryside, don't assume they will do so. For that matter, don't assume they'll either kill him or let him be.
3. Give the PCs agency—otherwise the players will be annoyed. Don't force them to pick between two similarly bad options for the same people. Let their choices, desires, and goals matter. If they come up with an unforeseen third option, you'd better have a good reason to say "No" or make it turn out worse than the main options. And above all, let the players make informed decisions. It doesn't feel good to do everything right, only to be informed that—out of the blue—you did the wrong thing because of something you couldn't see coming. (If the players don't bother to search for information they should know to search for, you might get away with this, but don't block critical information because of a bad roll.)
4. Moral ambiguity isn't about the heroes doing some bad things, it's about the right thing to do not being clear. Avoid gray-and-black morality; set up situations where the PCs work for and against the interests of gray parties.
5. If you really want the PCs to do Bad Guy StuffTM and have a revelation, the best way is probably to have them fulfill someone else's evil plans—but not to have them cause too much damage on their own. (This works well with the "both sides are gray" idea—make it clear that neither side is wholly right or wholly wrong, then keep hinting that their side might be a darker shade of gray while having the PCs mostly do the lighter work [which still supports the darker gray].) Of course, if you do this, you should decide if you want the PCs to change sides or just grit their teeth and keep working. If the latter is intended, don't try to force the PCs to stay forcibly—it won't work, and it can fee railroady even if it fails. Instead, make sure the PCs know the good the wouldn't be able to do if they left and the damage which would be done if their dark gray was destroyed.


And why is that a bad thing? They should feel tricked. They have been tricked. That was the whole idea.
The trick is to make sure that the players feel like they've been tricked by the NPCs, and not the DM. Good damn luck.


OK, then how about: you're spying on the enemy, your report could save thousands of lives or even prevent the war entirely. Now the little girl is wandering, quite innocently, directly towards your hiding place. If she sees you, it's unrealistic to assume she won't scream.
You can try to distract her or silence her, but there's no really safe way to do either of those. Sometime within the next ten seconds, something or someone is going to be severely endangered. The only thing you can choose is, who's it gonna be?
Good damn luck coming up with players who don't think of a third option.
Also, this runs right back into "The GM is trying to screw us" territory. I mean, unless the PCs knew ahead of time that small children may be wandering around at night, but in that case you'd better believe the wizard's preparing sleep or hold person, or the rogue is going to get drow poison or some sort of automatic gag, or something.


Its still misleading to use the term shades of grey, as more often then not, like in this case, its just an excuse to stop thinking about it.
I'm turning this statement over in my head and trying to understand it. To me, "shades of gray" means that you need to think about it more, not less. I mean, assuming it's a matter of importance—if it's an Internet debate, it's a sign that you'll never be able to come to a decent resolution, so it's not worth the effort.


Now I think the first thing thats obvious is the latter is a harsher punishment. But what makes is a more 'immoral' punishment? That has to be qualified first.
Then we can ask further questions.
And different people will have different answers, because even if they share values they will view and calculate them differently. That's the essence of shades of grey.


Really? Too often I see "shades of grey" used when someone means "Well, it's all relative and nothing is actually wrong outside of a cultural context so we might as well not even try to figure out what's actually wrong." -- in other words, as cop out from actually having to think about it and make a hard moral choice.
If it's an Internet debate, that's not unwise. I've seen that kind of crap lead to endless circles of people saying everyone else is wrong, and their explanations are wrong, and their counterarguments are wrong, all because it's relative and none of them are willing to bend on those core ethical differences.




I would like them to slowly realize that these are long-established goblin lands, and the humans are trying to take it away from them.
Nitpick: Where's the boundary between "human land, occupied by goblins" and "goblin land, once occupied by humans"?


Okay your example isn't bad, but its not actually much of a dellimna for the adventurers. The necromancer is clearly evil as he is blackmailing the people with their own lives. The people are in the wrong because, well you know that myth in Africa where if you have aids and have 'relations' with someone without aids, you'll give them your aids and you'll be aid free? Well no one has trouble declaring those men who try that evil, even if it did truly work.

Look at every vampire, "Oh I have to suck the blood of the living or I'll die!" And the adventurers have no problem slaying him. Its not a dellimma because there are no innocents. The necromancer is a bad guy for the blackmail. The village are bad guys for giving in to the blackmail.
There's a crucial difference between those two scenarios.
The misinformed AIDS victim in the former example is trying to give someone else AIDS for selfish reasons. That is evil, whatever those selfish reasons might be. Much the same is true of the vampire. (The "natural coercion" is a tricky issue, of course, but in general I'd say that if you're not causing significantly less harm than good, it's probably a Bad Thing.)
The villagers in the latter example don't seem to be doing anything wrong to avoid dying, they're just doing things which aren't in their best interests. If they're becoming assassins or thieves or brigands or something, than you'd have a point, but they weren't.


There aren't many true moral grey areas, even in real life. Mostly all you get is imperfect solutions.
This is only true if you can get everybody to A. agree on a perfectly unambiguous moral system and B. understand it perfectly. Oh, and C. they need perfect, or at least perfectly-aligned, understanding of the situation. I'm not holding my breath.

A child has been engineered to be a super powerful bio weapon...
One example of something having a clear right answer doesn't mean everything does.


Unfortunately access to Clone is no longer available, as the level 15 wizard who cast it has suffered the standard level loss for resurrection (as has their clone), and thus can no longer cast level 8 spells
That's getting into "The GM is constructing an arbitrary situation" territory.


I'd stick to the cliche that moral behavior is more difficult than immoral behavior (whatever axis you are using for morality) and to be truly good is to be self-sacrificing to a point.
I'd argue that the core of morality is doing good—making peoples' lives better and stopping harm. Not stopping doing so when it gets hard is important and all, but the core is the good being done.


Well, here's something for "moral grey areas".
What does, oh, a half-orc barbarian do, when ambushed by a Broken-Stick Clan orc hunting party?
What does a teifling warlock do when confronted with being the sole member standing against the 1-HP-left pit fiend?
What does the dragonborn do when the Tainted Platinum Dragon begs for mercy?
The same thing anyone of their cultural and educational background in their situation would. Without more information on what the situation is, I can't give a more detailed answer.


Well, here's some clarification:
1. The half-orc's father was the cheiftain of the clan. Does he attack his tribemates? Or does he spare fellow goblinoids?
2. The pit feind is the last remaining demon who made pacts with Bael Turath. Without him/it, the teifling would never have his/her powers. Slay the beast and destroy the last remnant of a great evil-or spare it and keep a empire's future alive?
3. The dragon, touched by the power of evil, has broken through. Do you ignore its words and slay it to put it out of it's misery, or let it live, and be consumed by evil?
1. They attacked him first, didn't they?
2. The good of potentially-many versus personal ambition which may or may not cause good in the end (but since it's fueled by infernal magic, probably not)? The answer is clear in my mind. Of course, if the world is in need of an empire, that changes the situation. So, see #3.
3. Insufficient data for meaningful answer.


"least bad option" situations are the definition of moral grey. Moral grey is "there isn't a straightforward good option here, so I need to make a call as to which of these bitter pills I can bear to swallow"
I'd argue that moral greyness comes less from lacking both a good option and a bad option, and more from the distance between them.
Let's say that you need to choose between cutting off a child's hand and letting the demon bound within devour an entire city. That's not a gray situation; it's unpleasant, to be sure, but not grey.



Most interrogation methods will get a false confession at least 70% of the time, especially the nice methods. And people who gloat about having done it are almost inevitably mentally unbalanced and didnt do it. And eyewitness testimony is reliable less then 40% of the time. In fact everything you just said is actually the key to making morally grey situation. Have the player witness the crime, identify some features of the man. Then have a man that shares those features confess and gloat. Then after the players kill him, reveal that the man they just murdered was innocent and forced into confessing because the real murderer held his family hostage. And if the players try to claim ignorance, have the law very reasonably inform them that there are trials just for this reason as the party is arrested for murder.

Actually its not morally grey as the players are clearly in the wrong. But close enough.
I like this idea.
It wouldn't work in D&D; you'd need a recognizable near-modern-esque society—but one with a reasonably reputable government. I'm trying to think of systems I have access to which would work well for that, and all I can think of is a custom GURPS world of some kind.
To bring this back around to the original discussion: This is a good idea, but it won't work in every game.


Especially in a D&D world with mind control and illusions, someone gloating he committed a crime doesn't always mean that person actually did it. A guy with a big sword may very well kill the person he perceives as the criminal, but how can he be certain he didn't kill an innocent man?
A lawful trial, on the other hand, is much more likely to discover this kind of deception, if only because there's more people involved and therefore more chances for someone to spot the deceit.
And because any judicial system worth its salt in a world with magic would know to look for and negate mind-control/illusion/etc magic.


Again, all very Lawful arguments.
So...a commitment to making sure the guilty are punished and the innocent go free is Lawful, not Good?


The Chaotic person would balk that you'd suggest his only source of information is torture (well, unless he's CE).
Coercion has many faces.


He would also point out that the law and its enforcement are easily corrupted by the powerful and influential to allow the guilty to go free.
This idea that the System is easily-corruptible, but individuals are pure-hearted and nothing can change that, is one of the few tropes that I have a complete, universal, unrestricted loathing for. It's absurd, it ignores that the System is made of individuals, and worst of all it teaches completely the wrong lessons. The System isn't perfect, but it's consistently good enough—and individuals are worse on average, more strongly affected by individual biases (due to only being controlled by one individual), and worst of all vastly underequipped
I can't believe I have to say this, but due process is a ****ing critical part of justice, not an escape hatch for "corrupt people in power." There are people who use the System for their own ends, yes, but believe it or not there are people who would use vigilantism for their own ends if that was a thing—and it would be a lot harder to catch someone doing so than someone who was using the System selfishly, because the System has mechanisms for finding doing so while vigilantism—due to its inherent lack of any mechanisms—does not. Sure, you can set up a "vigilante's bureau" or something, but that becomes less "vigilantism" and more "violent police force," so that hardly seems relevant to the argument.

...By the way, you've found one of my buttons.


He'd claim that his "eye witness testimony" is not as flawed as you suggest because he's not acting on something that happened in front of him quickly and then was over: he did his detective work and tracked down the bad guys.
Bluntly put, he would be wrong. It would be less flawed, but hardly flawless—certainly more flawed than a proper trial.


No trial would be able to create more knowledge than he has; it would only give a chance for the bad guy to act on the fact that the judge/jury weren't there to create doubt or increase the number of people he could bribe or threaten into letting him get off the hook.
Laughably wrong.


The Chaotic person will argue that he's acting because he knows Don Corleone is behind this, and he's the only witness who DID NOT get killed in mysterious ways before he could testify. That "due process" failed, and he's going to enact justice anyway. You might call it "vengeance," but the Chaotic person doesn't necessarily agree, and being Chaotic, doesn't care about your opinion when it comes to his ethical and moral choices.
That sort of crap doesn't happen in realistic settings; you don't kill off all the witnesses and go free. You certainly can't kill all the evidence, let alone all the evidence of the murders you arranged. Hell, I can't even see the Don wanting to kill all the witnesses—that's hardly the only way to silence them, and makes so much mess.


Note, I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. Lawful arguments have good points. But you're making a mistake in equating Law with Good. LG is a thing. So is CG. And both are less good than NG.
Wrong on multiple counts.
1. Just because due process is Lawful doesn't mean it isn't also Good.
2. NG is not "more good" than LG or CG, any more than yugoloths are more evil than demons or devils. They're just differently evil, and LG/NG/CG are just differently Good.
3. Any CG character who doesn't consider that their anti-law policies would open the door to far more evil than they would prevent if applied to everyone (instead of just themselves) is an idiot who deserves damnation from their god of choice. A CG character who considers but ignores that isn't Good.


CG will accept the risk that he might make a mistake, and that not everybody's judgment is good enough to trust, in the name of not tying the hands of the innocent to defend themselves proactively.
1. So, the CG character doesn't trust anyone else, but he trusts himself implicitly. That's not the kind of Good they should try to be. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/KnightTemplar)
2. Due process allows the innocent to defend themselves. What if the CG vigilante targets an innocent person who was mistaken for the guilty party? Will they listen to their target's pleas and arguments? Probably not. Will they give the target a chance to prepare and display evidence of their innocence? Probably not—that's due process, that's lawful, that's opposed to every reason given for vigilantism.
3. Say, isn't all of this pretty much the picture of a Lawful "Good" quasi-paladin? I never would have guessed that the Horseshoe Hypothesis applied to alignments.


I agree with a lot of stirge's arguments but consider these:
Man comes home and finds a strange man with a bloody knife standing around the bodies of his murdered family. The murderer runs through the open door opposite the man and starts fleeing across the field. Man catches up with him and kills him. Its vigilantism, not lawful, but certainly not evil.
I agree with almost every argument that's been made, starting with these scenarios - including mine - are highly contrived. That said I do see a bit of Lawful = Good going on, and I think even IRL the chaotic option is sometimes the good one.
There are plenty of situations where that would cause undeserved harm. What if the murder was justified, say being in self-defense? What if the alleged murderer is someone in the neighborhood who checked in at just the wrong time and did something stupid? What if he's just some other vigilante trying to solve the murder?
Lawful isn't always good, but it's much better on any scale larger than one paragon of virtue. C'est la vie. Real life doesn't care what Gygax had to say about alignment.


As for wrong, it is illegal to be certain, but I think you'd have a hard time making a case for it being morally wrong. Maybe it is a "less good" option than others, but it is certainly not evil.
Let's not play word games. "Less good" is the same as "more wrong". It's not as bad as doing something even more wrong, but it's still a bad course of action when better ones are available.


Given that the topic of the thread is "Moral Grey Areas," I must have missed where we shifted to defending the Lawful position as superior.
Law/Chaos gray areas would be Ethical Gray Areas.
rolls eyes
First off, they're synonyms; it's hardly wrong to use one word to encompass both. More importantly, when law/chaos debates blend into one side's proposed course of action being clearly closer to Evil than the other, it becomes in part a Good/Evil question, and hence Moral.


It's hardly megalomania when the would-be vigilante has witnessed the law being corrupted and the enforcement agencies rendered impotent. It's simply self-reliance. Where you see arrogance, the chaotic person sees individual responsibility.
It's a large leap from saying "If the system is obviously corrupt (ie, 'Evil'), it's okay to work outside the system" to saying "Vigilantism is as valid (ie, 'Good') as due process". Hell, it's a long leap between the first statement and saying that it's okay to go full vigilante on the crook. You need some form of equitable due process, even if it's not one the official government endorses.


It's also worth noting that "due process" is not always relying on numbers of observers. It often just relies on trusted authorities and decision-makers. Sir Lawful the Good will bring Nash in to the King to be tried and convicted, because it's the King who has the authority to pronounce sentence, and the King is trusted to make good judgment over his zealous but emotionally-driven Knights. Who, fortunately, respect their King and let him make the emotionally-laden decisions so they don't screw up.

A Chaotic person doesn't see why some old guy has better judgment than he does just because that old guy is wearing a crown. What evidence is going to be shown to the king that the vigilante doesn't have? What makes the king wiser than him? Especially if the vigilante has little respect for the king's other, prior decisions.
(What, getting training in law and whatnot to deliver judgement—to say nothing of getting a trial's worth of evidence—is peanuts to this CG caricature?)
Meanwhile, no one else sees why anyone should trust the Chaotic person's judgement. And it's hardly unfair of them to do so. He doesn't even have the training, experience, or reputation that the king has backing the righteousness of his actions.


But in real life the desire for order itself has a moral foundation tied inexorcably to consequence.
The desire for freedom is little different.


And a group of people is prone to sway by propaganda, and are not exposed to all the evidence the one man had.
Individuals can also be influenced by propaganda, or be ignorant of evidence. Moreover, any one man's biases and ignorance can have far more impact on a vigilante than a court (for obvious reasons).
Find me a paragon who is righteous, unbiased, and properly-informed on both matters of law and on matters of the crime; find me a way to prove that he is, and that he will not stray from that pass. Anything less, and my sense of morals cannot allow one to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Or even just judge and jury.


Or, outside of "trial by jury" jurisdictions, the judge to whom the case would be given is also just one man. Why is his judgment inherently superior to the vigilante's?
1. Proper training in law and justice, plus access to the evidence and arguments presented in the trial.
2. "This obviously incomplete system is flawed. Therefore, the correct answer is not a completed version of that system, but a completely different one." Yeah, no.


And the "evil man" probably has some attitudes that pretty clearly paint his alignment. It's one thing if he's a misguided zealot who thinks he's doing "what's necessary" for "the greater good." Most Chaotic Good types will try to reason with those, first. But most are more likely the sort who think notions of "good" and "evil" are beneath them. That their victims "deserve" it for "getting in the way." Or that there just isn't value on life that isn't of use to them.
You don't have to think, "I am an evil man," to have your evil philosophy be recognizably distinct from the good-aligned vigilante's.
I don't see how this affects Stirge's point.


The CG vigilante doesn't believe "good" and "evil" are beneath him. That's what makes him CG. Killing is not always murder, and (most) Good philosophies differentiate strongly, approving of killing when it is necessary but never approving of murder (which is never "necessary").
He still kills people who he thinks should be killed, and feels no remorse for it. Even if the logic is different, the end result is disturbingly similar. There's not much distance between a CG vigilante and a mass murderer who de facto considers himself above good and evil.


As to universal moral compasses...you'd be surprised, just based on how humanity in general seems to lean wrt what they can typically agree is universally wrong.
Everyone has agreed that murder is bad, but the definition of what deaths are "murder" and which are righteous has varied greatly. In most societies through town, there was at least one class of people which could be killed without it really being considered murder. Foreigners, heathens, savages, sometimes even perfectly civilized native peasants who were just killed by the wrong social class.


Arguable; if somebody is fooled into taking innocent life, that doesn't stain their soul with evil. But willful ignorance to allow oneself the plausible deniability would.
There are shades of gray between "ignorance" and "accurate knowledge," and even between "true ignorance" and "willful ignorance". If you know you could be wrong, you're more culpable than if you were tricked but less culpable than if you ignored evidence.


But the same applies to a Lawful guy: every time the judge or jury condemn an innocent man to death, it stains their souls with exactly as much evil ("none" if they're genuinely fooled; "some" to "a lot" if they're practicing willful ignorance or engaging in legalized lynching by seeking excuses to justify finding him guilty).
So this still doesn't make Law inherently more Good than Chaos.
The difference is simple. Law's trial process, by allowing both the prosecutor and the defendant (and his lawyer) to bring evidence forward and make their own arguments, rather than relying on one vigilante to act as both, and by allowing for time and experts to gather appropriate evidence, the results they get are more likely to be right. It's not perfect, but it's better.





Even things which I'm pretty sure don't come up much outside of academia, like moral luck or the mere addition paradox, seem like any serious discussion could be treading a bit close to the line.
No comment on moral luck (I haven't thought about it much), but there's always been a bit of a problem with it in my book.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/MereAddition.svg/500px-MereAddition.svg.png
Assuming A and A+ are morally equivalent has seemed wrong to me. It assumes that the presence of people in a worse status than one's own is inherently good or better than those people not being there, which A. seems wrong to me and B. is awfully close to the "proof' of the paradox taking as its conclusion (ie, that pure utilitarianism implies more people is better even if they have a lower standard of living) as an assumption.
It sounds like you've probably thought about it more than me, and probably know some counterarguments to this logic. I'd like to hear them.


That's a very LG or LN argument.
A CG counter-argument might be that "due process" is to ensure a lack of abuses by a society, and that the CG judge knows the truth because he has, in fact, been diligent in putting together the evidence he has.
Alternatively, the CG vigilante may justify it by virtue of the fact that he's a witness and knows what happened; he doesn't need "due process" when the bad guy gloated to him that he'd never be able to prove it.
In individual instances where the CG character knows for certain that his target committed a crime, and everyone else knows that the CG character is right (and righteous)? Sure. But those are highly artificial conditions.


Slavery is evil is a modern, western, Christian Viewpoint. That belief has never existed, anywhere else in Human History. To say slavery is inherently evil is narrow minded and bigoted, and in a world without Christ, unlikely to be possible.
I'd say that the relevant factor was humanism, not any religion. After all, it's only in the past 200-300 years that people realized that slavery wasn't very nice.
This makes sense. Slaves have consistently been classes of humans thought of as less than people (foreigners, enemies, lesser races, etc—and modern quasi-slavery, e.g. penal labor, often fits the same mold), and humanist ideals promote thinking of all humans as people.

Verbannon
2016-10-21, 10:37 PM
With the possible exception of the last one, I'm not sure where the moral grayness comes in. Self-defense isn't evil, so the half-orc barbarian can defend himself without issue. Being the sole remaining survivor against a foe he can finish off isn't gray; it's tragic, and perhaps heroic, but hardly gray. (Even if the implication is that a tiefling warlock may not WANT to kill a Pit Fiend, the choice is still not a morally gray one. "I am tempted by evil" isn't moral grayness; it's a difficult choice for other reasons.)

Whether the "tainted platinum dragon" is a morally gray situation or not really depends on whether this is genuine redeemability or just a ploy to survive long enough to cause more harm. Which, hopefully, the paladin can figure out.

Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying.

Arguable; if somebody is fooled into taking innocent life, that doesn't stain their soul with evil. But willful ignorance to allow oneself the plausible deniability would.

But the same applies to a Lawful guy: every time the judge or jury condemn an innocent man to death, it stains their souls with exactly as much evil ("none" if they're genuinely fooled; "some" to "a lot" if they're practicing willful ignorance or engaging in legalized lynching by seeking excuses to justify finding him guilty).

So this still doesn't make Law inherently more Good than Chaos.

No, The D&D books are pretty clear. To use the most commonly known example. A paladin can lose his Paladin powers by taking an innocent life even if he is wholly ignorant and has every good reason imaginable to be. Thats how the alignment works. Thats how D&D morality works.

So if a lawful court sentences an innocent man to death, only the executioner will have his soul stained.

The judge, juror ect may have their souls stained by actions that led to his execution. But it is important to note that any action they do that stains them will stain them whether the innocent man dies or not. The consequences of their actions are irrelevant.

Dragonexx
2016-10-21, 11:48 PM
Which is why alignment is stupid and should be as downplayed as possible.

Secondly, just about every instance of vigilantism I've seen has the hero go after people who are in the active process of committing a crime or who's crimes are well known. Also how does vigilantism actually apply to a D&D setting. In a standard setting, things such as due process, proper investigation aren't even concepts yet. In the modern era, there's really isn't a need for vigilatism unless you're in gotham where the entire system sans Gordon is corrupt or intimidated or any super hero setting, where law enforcement is in no way equipped to handle supervillains and alien invasions and so forth. This is even bigger in a standard, pre-enlightenment, civilization, where it's largely at the mercy of nature, what with monsters, and where high level characters are by default the military, social, and economic powerhouses.

Additionally, people who claim "the system is broken" in a country like the U.S. are patently wrong. Yes, there are high profile cases where someone escapes justice for their crimes, but that's a case of selective reporting. Nobody gives much attention to the thousands of other court cases that are handled fairly and properly. Anyways, the solution is not to toss out the system, but to instead fix the holes in the system.

Verbannon
2016-10-22, 12:44 AM
Which is why alignment is stupid and should be as downplayed as possible.

Secondly, just about every instance of vigilantism I've seen has the hero go after people who are in the active process of committing a crime or who's crimes are well known. Also how does vigilantism actually apply to a D&D setting. In a standard setting, things such as due process, proper investigation aren't even concepts yet. In the modern era, there's really isn't a need for vigilatism unless you're in gotham where the entire system sans Gordon is corrupt or intimidated or any super hero setting, where law enforcement is in no way equipped to handle supervillains and alien invasions and so forth. This is even bigger in a standard, pre-enlightenment, civilization, where it's largely at the mercy of nature, what with monsters, and where high level characters are by default the military, social, and economic powerhouses.

Additionally, people who claim "the system is broken" in a country like the U.S. are patently wrong. Yes, there are high profile cases where someone escapes justice for their crimes, but that's a case of selective reporting. Nobody gives much attention to the thousands of other court cases that are handled fairly and properly. Anyways, the solution is not to toss out the system, but to instead fix the holes in the system.

The alignment system actually works out surprisingly well when done as intended. Though it can get complicated because everything is an action in it.

Also court systems have existed in various forms since the dawn of civilization. And with them inquisitors in various forms. Some brutal some quite modernish.

Inevitability
2016-10-22, 05:54 AM
Anyways, the solution is not to toss out the system, but to instead fix the holes in the system.

This is what 99% of people complaining about Law don't seem to get.

veti
2016-10-22, 06:51 AM
Secondly, just about every instance of vigilantism I've seen has the hero go after people who are in the active process of committing a crime or who's crimes are well known.

If the perps are actually in the process of committing a crime, then stopping them probably isn't "vigilantism". (Unless you use excessive force or violence to do so, because then you're moving from "prevention" into "punishment" territory.)

If their crimes are well known, then... it becomes more like an act of war. Just about all campaigns assume there's at least one de facto low-level war going on between the forces of This and the forces of That. When someone has been unequivocally identified as a force of That, then the forces of This will start to treat them as a (para-)military target. In this case, they will probably try hard to persuade whatever authorities there are to allow them to do this thing (typically using arguments such as "he's outside your jurisdiction", "do you really want to stand up for this guy?", etc.)


Also how does vigilantism actually apply to a D&D setting. In a standard setting, things such as due process, proper investigation aren't even concepts yet.

There are still, in many places, lawful authorities, processes and structures for dealing with transgressors. Purposely bypassing those and administering your own justice would count as vigilantism, even if the processes themselves are pretty crude.

But "in many places" is the key part of that; all authorities are limited in range, and adventurers typically spend quite a lot of time in places with no authority, or at least none that they recognise, which of course makes them the outlaws.

Cluedrew
2016-10-22, 07:06 AM
Which is why alignment is stupid and should be as downplayed as possible.
[...]
Anyways, the solution is not to toss out the system, but to instead fix the holes in the system.Odd contrast there. Anyways I think the alignment itself is quite good, or at least a useable system to describe characters. The problem is the accumulation of crust around the alignment system. The basics of the alignments system are "pick one of three different regions on two different axis to describe your character".

Of course then people tried to enforce playing your alignment, people got overly restrictive definitions of the different alignments (No, Chaotic Neutral does not mean insane) and that is, in my experience, where the problems always seem to come from.

ComradeBear
2016-10-22, 12:44 PM
Again, like the other one, you are engaged in an absurd reduction to a single aspect, in order to prop up a weak point.

Slavery -- coerced servitude by those stripped of their rights and freedoms -- existed in cultures with very different notions of ownership, very different stuctures of law, very different traditions, etc.

By your definition, Slavery is practiced in prisons within the US and around the world currently. (Also any time a parent grounds their kid and makes them clean their room.)

By ignoring all nuance and restricting it down to "This thing is 100% evil at all times and in all instances" you don't arrive at any form of truth. I don't have to think Slavery was OK at the time in order to understand that there is more nuance to it than that and to point out that an oversimplification is exactly that: Oversimplified.

It's not even moral relativism. It's just pointing out that like virtually everything in history, it was more complex than that.

Seto
2016-10-22, 01:45 PM
To the OP: In my opinion, the best way to corrupt Good PCs without them realizing it, is to bring them over to a utilitarian way of thinking. Don't overdo it: as you said, make them grey. Don't necessarily make them Evil, but make them irreparably Neutral. If at the end of the campaign, it feels natural for them to say "sorry, but your life is a necessary sacrifice", or "No Ma'am, the fate of the world depends on our quest, find someone else to help you fight the zombie horde" (or the ogres, cf. first panel) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0213.html), you've done it right.

• Start with the big tentations, like, a very minor Evil act in exchange for a big reward (either material/mechanical reward, like a shiny sword or a lot of GP, or a roleplaying reward, like accomplishing a big goal). It's easier if the questionable act consists merely of omission, not action. If they turn a blind eye to some small-time shady business that will probably not affect them, they get 3000 GP (at around level 5). Or if only they don't save someone who needs saving, their mission becomes that much easier. The idea is to accustom them to the idea of compromising with their principles. Once they've accepted the idea and done it a couple times, they're a lot more vulnerable to suggestion.
• Conversely, make the Good choice the most difficult one. It's important to make the Evil or Neutral option look easy and convenient in the short run, whereas the Good option would require considerably more effort and sacrifice with no tangible compensation. Use this sparingly: the players should not feel like you're punishing them for choosing an alignment. Good should require sacrifices, but oftentimes, just the fact that you could have gotten 3000 gp if you had chosen the Evil option is enough of a sacrifice. If you wanted to go all-out, you could even penalize the Good option (make complications arise out of it every time), but I advise against it: quite frankly, it's a jerk move.
• If they bite, continue to encourage that way of thinking, but make the rewards less and less appealing, until choosing convenience over principles just becomes a habit.
• If they're still stalwart and true, put them in a position of power (hierarchical power). Dazzle them with the possibilities of using that power to advance their Good goals. Make these goals matter more than the lives and well-being of their subordinates. If possible, make the origin of this power questionable (like, having an Evil boss who's pretty hands-off and doesn't care that the PCs do Good). They probably won't refuse it, because power is power and it can be used to make a difference for Good... but they'll need to play nice with the Evil boss in order to keep that power and use it towards "Good". If they're focused on that, they probably won't admit to themselves that it's corrupting them and that they need to compromise more and more to keep the power they have.
• With great power, come great responsibilites. Blind them with big shiny Good missions. If they're fighting an Evil apocalypse, they may not have time for the little guys anymore. Make it big. Make it urgent. And make it sound reasonable to just ignore the little guys in need of saving and the small unrelated Good acts that they could do, because their precious time is above being wasted on such insignificant tasks.
• During this whole process, use your NPCs cleverly. I advise using a pragmatic Neutral NPC who's sincerely on the PC's team and cares about their goals, but values efficiency over morals. Make him sound sweet and reasonable. Through his voice, explain how the questionable option is easier and more advantageous than the Good option, that it's all worth it. Do not have the character betray them, but instead have him provide useful and reliable information besides his advice: they'll think that he represents the DM's helpful input. Similarly, because of metagame thinking, they will not ignore the minor Good acts they could do unless you give them a reason to (a major part of the corruption process), because they'll think: "Hey, plot hook!" And they won't want to ignore a plot hook. Through your NPCs, make it clear that this might be a dead end and a waste of time, that there are other things to pursue, and that it's not a case of "the DM wants you to follow that hook".

If after that, they're still heroic, give up. They've earned their moral purity, they have the right to be proud of it, and it's been a challenging campaign for everyone.
If your corruption has succeeded, but you want them to realize it at the end and have this "oh crap, we're bad guys" moment... Their evil or less-than-good actions from the campaign should come back and bite them in the ass in a very memorable way. For example... remember that shady business they turned a blind eye to months ago? That got them 3000 easy GP. Well, that business - say, drug-dealing - has grown bigger thanks to their complicity, and now one of the PC's sister has gone and died of overdose, or the dealers have burnt a house. If Raise Dead is on the table, choose something else - it should be something that they cannot fix. And it's all their fault. Were those 3000 GP worth it, I wonder?

This post has been very much inspired by Angel, the series, Season 5, a masterful corruption of heroes.

Segev
2016-10-23, 11:44 AM
:smallsigh:

Forgive me, I am not going to try to reply to the very lengthy posts responding to me point by point, because a) it would probably make a door-stopper and b) I feel like my point has been missed.

The arguments I am refuting amount to the following point: Lawful Good is more Good than Neutral or Chaotic Good.

I know that people will claim that's not what they're saying, but stop and think about it for a moment: the claim being made is that due process is always superior to vigilantism. Always. That an organization will always be less corrupt than an individual. That an organization will always make fewer mistakes than an individual. And thus, if the purpose of the organization is Good, it will always do better than an individual whose purpose is Good.

These are all very Lawful Good arguments.

I think people are taking my refutations - my Devil's Advocate positions - and thinking I'm trying to argue seriously for not just the negation of that claim, but its opposite. (i.e. that I'm arguing that CG is always more Good than LG, rather than merely that LG is not inherently more Good than CG.) And yes, if the "real CG" person would recognize that "due process" is always superior to his own judgment...what makes him different than an LG person?


The "pro-CG" arguments I've been making are deliberately from the CG perspective, but I am not saying that they hold more cachet than the LG arguments I'm countering. I'm demonstrating why the argument and disagreements exist.


Regarding due process, don't forget that the purpose of due process (from a Good perspective) is to ensure that nobody innocent is being railroaded. It is generally a failure of due process when somebody who is guilty can abuse it to force a "not guilty" verdict on technicalities or other issues. At least, Good considers it a failure of due process.

An NG person would be okay with violating due process when it is clear that the person who "got away with it" only did so because it couldn't be proven. The smug snake smirking in the defendent's chair as he says what a PITY it is that the witness who was going to testify against him was "accidentally" killed won't be able to clear his name, honest, gets away with it in due process, because the evidence doesn't stand without that testimony. The CG person isn't going to stand for that. The NG person is likely to twist the letter of the law to hold to its spirit.

Will the NG person look a lot like an LG one a lot of the time? Probably. LG has most of its structures to prevent misinformation and emotion from clouding judgment and railroading innocent people, a goal with which all Good people agree. The NG person is going to dodge that when he knows it's failed. The CG person doesn't trust the system, and will be working in hopefully parallel to it. He'll be happy to avoid forcing the LG person to acknowledge that something unlawful has happened which might interfere with due process, but if due process even looks like it's failing, the CG person is going to be ready to "help it along." The NG person is more likely to trust in it up until it's clear it's failed.


The CG person and the LG person are both willing to compromise on "good" (for respect for individual freedom and action, or for respect of a system even with its imperfections, respectively). The NG person isn't. This doesn't mean any of them will always be "right," even by their own standards. They all will make mistakes, misunderstand, and possibly even "sin" against their alignment at times. But what they point to as the ideal will be slightly different. What compromises they're willing to make in the face of mortal imperfections are different. CG is going to risk Good in the name of personal determination. LG is going to risk Good in the name of not screwing up a system that does more good than harm. NG is going to be wiling to subordinate both to just getting Good done, whatever it takes to do it best in each situation.

An LG person is a rules lawyer DM who still wants everybody to have a good time. He'll try to select rules and interpret them so that things work for everyone, but he's not going to house rule anything. A CG person is a DM who will acknowledge the rules and even work with them as long as they help him run the game he wants to, but his house rules will fly fast and loose and his consistency will be more fluff than mechanical. An NG person is a DM who will run according to the rules, but will have house rules for specific circumstances and won't worry too much if the rules hit a snarl; he'll house-rule around it for each case. (The "G" part in all three is in their willingness to DM and their focus on everybody having a good time.)

Inevitability
2016-10-23, 12:08 PM
Segev, I think some confusion has arose over the term 'Good'.

'Good' as the D&D alignment is very well-defined. It's an alignment that prohibits killing for personal gain, or destroying souls, or cheating at games. It encourages stuff like sharing with the poor, or pacifism, or abstaining from sex. Here, you are very right in that NG is more 'Good' than LG or CG. After all, NG is not compromising Goodness with other ideals as much.

'Good' as we use it on our real lives, however, is a far more abstract concept, and my personal definition of 'good' (note the lack of a capital letter) probably lies somewhere near the LN/LG border on the alignment grid. I am arguing that this LN/LG combination is 'better' (not Gooder) than CG.

Verbannon
2016-10-23, 12:53 PM
:smallsigh:

Forgive me, I am not going to try to reply to the very lengthy posts responding to me point by point, because a) it would probably make a door-stopper and b) I feel like my point has been missed.

The arguments I am refuting amount to the following point: Lawful Good is more Good than Neutral or Chaotic Good.

I know that people will claim that's not what they're saying, but stop and think about it for a moment: the claim being made is that due process is always superior to vigilantism. Always. That an organization will always be less corrupt than an individual. That an organization will always make fewer mistakes than an individual. And thus, if the purpose of the organization is Good, it will always do better than an individual whose purpose is Good.

These are all very Lawful Good arguments.

I think people are taking my refutations - my Devil's Advocate positions - and thinking I'm trying to argue seriously for not just the negation of that claim, but its opposite. (i.e. that I'm arguing that CG is always more Good than LG, rather than merely that LG is not inherently more Good than CG.) And yes, if the "real CG" person would recognize that "due process" is always superior to his own judgment...what makes him different than an LG person?


The "pro-CG" arguments I've been making are deliberately from the CG perspective, but I am not saying that they hold more cachet than the LG arguments I'm countering. I'm demonstrating why the argument and disagreements exist.


Regarding due process, don't forget that the purpose of due process (from a Good perspective) is to ensure that nobody innocent is being railroaded. It is generally a failure of due process when somebody who is guilty can abuse it to force a "not guilty" verdict on technicalities or other issues. At least, Good considers it a failure of due process.

An NG person would be okay with violating due process when it is clear that the person who "got away with it" only did so because it couldn't be proven. The smug snake smirking in the defendent's chair as he says what a PITY it is that the witness who was going to testify against him was "accidentally" killed won't be able to clear his name, honest, gets away with it in due process, because the evidence doesn't stand without that testimony. The CG person isn't going to stand for that. The NG person is likely to twist the letter of the law to hold to its spirit.

Will the NG person look a lot like an LG one a lot of the time? Probably. LG has most of its structures to prevent misinformation and emotion from clouding judgment and railroading innocent people, a goal with which all Good people agree. The NG person is going to dodge that when he knows it's failed. The CG person doesn't trust the system, and will be working in hopefully parallel to it. He'll be happy to avoid forcing the LG person to acknowledge that something unlawful has happened which might interfere with due process, but if due process even looks like it's failing, the CG person is going to be ready to "help it along." The NG person is more likely to trust in it up until it's clear it's failed.


The CG person and the LG person are both willing to compromise on "good" (for respect for individual freedom and action, or for respect of a system even with its imperfections, respectively). The NG person isn't. This doesn't mean any of them will always be "right," even by their own standards. They all will make mistakes, misunderstand, and possibly even "sin" against their alignment at times. But what they point to as the ideal will be slightly different. What compromises they're willing to make in the face of mortal imperfections are different. CG is going to risk Good in the name of personal determination. LG is going to risk Good in the name of not screwing up a system that does more good than harm. NG is going to be wiling to subordinate both to just getting Good done, whatever it takes to do it best in each situation.

An LG person is a rules lawyer DM who still wants everybody to have a good time. He'll try to select rules and interpret them so that things work for everyone, but he's not going to house rule anything. A CG person is a DM who will acknowledge the rules and even work with them as long as they help him run the game he wants to, but his house rules will fly fast and loose and his consistency will be more fluff than mechanical. An NG person is a DM who will run according to the rules, but will have house rules for specific circumstances and won't worry too much if the rules hit a snarl; he'll house-rule around it for each case. (The "G" part in all three is in their willingness to DM and their focus on everybody having a good time.)

The proper tern for NG is "true good" for a reason. And no one at all has actually been disputing your statements. You are right in your assertion of what a CG individual might believe.

The dispute has been over mechanics and why a mechanically a CG individual cant exist as a career vigilantee, at least not one that kills.

jayem
2016-10-23, 12:54 PM
To add to Seto's plan.

Make stuff come back, but not at the end, make it so it's a double or quits. Take a lesson from the loan sharks. Also preferably naturally and with a bit of time.
The innocent person you put under unofficial house arrest, now they really dislike you, maybe you shouldn't release them just yet. The police will be investigating the house, maybe you should move them to the cellar. You've made the threat, if they know you don't mean it...

And make it so there's just enough ambiguity. Some 'good' deeds should go unpunished, some not (perhaps seen as softness). Some bad actions can leave things nicely resolved for the greater good, some come back needing cover-ups, some you can resolve nicely later. If the difference rests on the NPC, decide already (but don't tell), don't have a Schrödinger criminal. If on the PC make it depend on a roll. Make them be in control, they can stop at any time, etc...

Verbannon
2016-10-23, 12:54 PM
Segev, I think some confusion has arose over the term 'Good'.

'Good' as the D&D alignment is very well-defined. It's an alignment that prohibits killing for personal gain, or destroying souls, or cheating at games. It encourages stuff like sharing with the poor, or pacifism, or abstaining from sex. Here, you are very right in that NG is more 'Good' than LG or CG. After all, NG is not compromising Goodness with other ideals as much.

'Good' as we use it on our real lives, however, is a far more abstract concept, and my personal definition of 'good' (note the lack of a capital letter) probably lies somewhere near the LN/LG border on the alignment grid. I am arguing that this LN/LG combination is 'better' (not Gooder) than CG.

Abstaining from sex is actually not in there.

Inevitability
2016-10-23, 01:23 PM
Abstaining from sex is actually not in there.

I said it encouraged it, not required it. Spells like Lantern Light, Blinding Beauty and Unearthly Beauty (all [Good]) all seem to encourage not having sex, though, and there's also the good-only Vow of Chasity (I'm sure you can figure out what it does).

Clearly a Good D&D character has more to gain from not having sex than an Evil one.

Verbannon
2016-10-23, 02:29 PM
I said it encouraged it, not required it. Spells like Lantern Light, Blinding Beauty and Unearthly Beauty (all [Good]) all seem to encourage not having sex, though, and there's also the good-only Vow of Chasity (I'm sure you can figure out what it does).

Clearly a Good D&D character has more to gain from not having sex than an Evil one.

There is only whats required and not required in D&D. Everything else is simply an individualistic take on it. For instance vow of chastity is not good only. There is nothing in the prerequisite that requires the person taking the sacred vow to be good or follow a good deity/cause. That is just the flavor text. An evil person could just as easily take it, maybe a follower of Bane decides that sexuality is a weakness, and so takes a sacred vow of chastity to resist that weakness and kill any damn harlot that tries to open her legs to him.

Sacred Vow

You have willingly given yourself to the service of a good deity or cause, denying yourself an ordinary life to better serve your highest ideals.

Prerequisite (Note is blank here)

Required for

Vow of Poverty (BoED) , Vow of Nonviolence (BoED) , Vow of Abstinence (BoED) , Vow of Chastity (BoED) , Vow of Obedience (BoED) , Vow of Purity (BoED) ,
Benefit

You gain a +2 perfection bonus on Diplomacy checks.
Special

This feat serves as the prerequisite for several other feats, including the Vow of Abstinence, Vow of Chastity, Vow of Nonviolence, Vow of Obedience, Vow of Peace, Vow of Poverty, and Vow of Purity.


***

Also I think it may be easiest to just describe the path a chaotic good vigilantee takes. Okay he starts how chaotic good, believing that the system can't be trusted and needs his help and all that. Thats fine and he takes out some real bad guys, hip hip hooray. But eventually he fails a sense motive or a perception check. And someone who wasn't actually guilty dies by his hand. And his soul is stained by this. Eventually it happens again, maybe not a lot but it does happen.

And everytime it does his soul grows a little darker, a little more evil, his form of justice starts to reflect that. His punishments become more brutal, more painful, more ruthless. At first it might have just been a beheading but now the heads of the villians he kills appear staked,he starts executing the bad guys in front of their families, and he kills them slower and more painfully. He justifies this to himself as him becoming simply angry, sick of how nothing seem sto change, nothing he does seems to matter.

The darkness builds steadily faster and faster, he stops caring so much about the severity of the crimes he is punishing, thieves start losing their hands, then their heads. A young child street rat that stole an apple is found one day impales to the wall, the half eaten apple he stole shoved in the kid's mouth. Anyone who speaks to him by this point might decide he is simply mad, he doesn't even seem to notice what he just did, doesn't even notice he just killed a child, all he does is mutter and rant about evil, infesting the city and how he must exterminate it wherever he finds it.

Eventually his bloodlust and darkness in him is so great that the whole 'vigilantee" thing becomes just a pretext for him to satiate his bloodlust. Anyone who is even so much as questioned by the city inquisitors might find themselves drawn and quartered by the vigilantee, along with their families. Even the prisons are not safe, men and women are found brutally murdered in their cells, those sentenced to death are stolen from the hangman, to suffer a far more cruel fate.

Until finally the darkness wins completely, the last thread of humanity snaps and the vigilantee becomes nothing more then a serial killer. Stalking his victims just to take to his lair and torture them, to hear the music of the screams, before he feels the pleasure of their death. And he wonders to himself how he was ever so foolish as to care about anything else.

Seto
2016-10-23, 02:49 PM
There is only whats required and not required in D&D. Everything else is simply an individualistic take on it. For instance vow of chastity is not good only. There is nothing in the prerequisite that requires the person taking the sacred vow to be good or follow a good deity/cause. That is just the flavor text. An evil person could just as easily take it, maybe a follower of Bane decides that sexuality is a weakness, and so takes a sacred vow of chastity to resist that weakness and kill any damn harlot that tries to open her legs to him.

Actually, that's incorrect. Sacred Vow and its whole line, including Vow of Chastity, are [Exalted] feats, which means that they require a Good alignment and DM approval. A character having those feats also emits an aura of Good and thus reacts to Detect Good with the same strength a Good Cleric or a Paladin of the same level does. That's crunch, not fluff.
Now, sure, your follower of Bane can make just as valid a case against sexuality, he can even swear a vow. But he can never take the Sacred Vow feat and gain mechanical benefits from it.

(Now, you can also call bull on that and make it open to any character, which I do when I GM. But that's a houserule).

Segev
2016-10-23, 02:56 PM
Segev, I think some confusion has arose over the term 'Good'.

'Good' as the D&D alignment is very well-defined. It's an alignment that prohibits killing for personal gain, or destroying souls, or cheating at games. It encourages stuff like sharing with the poor, or pacifism, or abstaining from sex. Here, you are very right in that NG is more 'Good' than LG or CG. After all, NG is not compromising Goodness with other ideals as much.

'Good' as we use it on our real lives, however, is a far more abstract concept, and my personal definition of 'good' (note the lack of a capital letter) probably lies somewhere near the LN/LG border on the alignment grid. I am arguing that this LN/LG combination is 'better' (not Gooder) than CG.
WHich is fine; I started the whole discussion by saying that what I was replying to (which agrees, I think, with your stated beliefs) is a very Lawful to LG perspective.

The proper tern for NG is "true good" for a reason. And no one at all has actually been disputing your statements. You are right in your assertion of what a CG individual might believe.

The dispute has been over mechanics and why a mechanically a CG individual cant exist as a career vigilantee, at least not one that kills.
Eh, I think he can even be one that kills, as long as he follows the same rules for what "deserves execution" as an LG or NG person. Not the requirements to gain approval to perform the execution - that will be quite different from an LG person's view. But the kinds of actions that make a "bad guy" worthy of being executed.

If Vigilante Vince and Constable Kate both agree that Bad Guy Bart has done something so heinous that execution is warranted, Kate is going to seek to acquire authority through the proper channels (probably including evidence-gathering, a trial, and other due process elements), while Vince is going to seek to prove to himself beyond a reasonable doubt that Bart really has done it and that it's really Bart he's about to execute. But both will execute. Vince may look more dangerous, since he won't get approval from all of society first. But Vince doesn't have lower standards for what justifies killing Bart. Only different standards for what constitutes sufficient proof that Bart really is the guy who did the justifying wrong.

Verbannon
2016-10-23, 02:56 PM
Actually, that's incorrect. Sacred Vow and its whole line, including Vow of Chastity, are [Exalted] feats, which means that they require a Good alignment and DM approval. A character having those feats also emits an aura of Good and thus reacts to Detect Good with the same strength a Good Cleric or a Paladin of the same level does. That's crunch, not fluff.
Now, sure, your follower of Bane can make just as valid a case against sexuality, he can even swear a vow. But he can never take the Sacred Vow feat and gain mechanical benefits from it.

(Now, you can also call bull on that and make it open to any character, which I do when I GM. But that's a houserule).

Well you know its polite to post a copy and paste of the passage you are referring to rather than forcing me to look it up and verify it myself. But I downloaded the exalted deeds book instead of just using the wiki and yeah you are right. So chastity is a good deed. I'll have to make a note of that.

Verbannon
2016-10-23, 03:02 PM
WHich is fine; I started the whole discussion by saying that what I was replying to (which agrees, I think, with your stated beliefs) is a very Lawful to LG perspective.

Eh, I think he can even be one that kills, as long as he follows the same rules for what "deserves execution" as an LG or NG person. Not the requirements to gain approval to perform the execution - that will be quite different from an LG person's view. But the kinds of actions that make a "bad guy" worthy of being executed.

If Vigilante Vince and Constable Kate both agree that Bad Guy Bart has done something so heinous that execution is warranted, Kate is going to seek to acquire authority through the proper channels (probably including evidence-gathering, a trial, and other due process elements), while Vince is going to seek to prove to himself beyond a reasonable doubt that Bart really has done it and that it's really Bart he's about to execute. But both will execute. Vince may look more dangerous, since he won't get approval from all of society first. But Vince doesn't have lower standards for what justifies killing Bart. Only different standards for what constitutes sufficient proof that Bart really is the guy who did the justifying wrong.

Then Vince fails his sense motive check or perception check or whatever, and beheads an innocent moments before Kate returns with a dozen NPCs with the professional class and all the investigative skills necessary to make sure there are no mistakes. Because Bart as it turns out did do it, but he had been charmed into doing it. Which means he qualifies for an atonement.

At the very least a lawful good society is smart enough to have multiple executioners so when a mistake does slip through the cracks, and the alignment takes a hit, there is time to go get an atonement spell.

Inevitability
2016-10-23, 03:04 PM
Well you know its polite to post a copy and paste of the passage you are referring to rather than forcing me to look it up and verify it myself. But I downloaded the exalted deeds book instead of just using the wiki and yeah you are right. So chastity is a good deed. I'll have to make a note of that.

Not necessarily: it is simply more attractive for Good characters.

There's [Good] spells that require you not to cast Divination spells for a certain time. Does that main abstaining from divinations is good-aligned? Is every non-eberron cleric slowly sliding towards Good for never preparing Detect Dragonmark despite being able to?

Verbannon
2016-10-23, 03:15 PM
Not necessarily: it is simply more attractive for Good characters.

There's [Good] spells that require you not to cast Divination spells for a certain time. Does that main abstaining from divinations is good-aligned? Is every non-eberron cleric slowly sliding towards Good for never preparing Detect Dragonmark despite being able to?

Inaction rarely impacts the alignment unless the inaction is actually an action. Alignments are about what you do not what you don't do.

Choosing to go after the bad guy instead of staying to protect the village from the bandits that work for the bad guy isn't evil, its a good action even if the bandits burn down the village while you are away. Likewise staying to protect the village even while the bad guy gets away is a good action even if the bad guy makes it to his death ray and blows up metropolis city anyway.

But choosing to stand by and do nothing while both happens is probably going to net you some evil points.

So they would not be sliding towards good. But again something is either good or evil (or lawful, or chaotic or neutral). If chastity isn't inherently good then the vow of chastity must be a good aligned feat for a reason that has nothing to do with the actual chastity.

jayem
2016-10-23, 03:24 PM
Then Vince fails his sense motive check or perception check or whatever, and beheads an innocent moments before Kate returns with a dozen NPCs with the professional class and all the investigative skills necessary to make sure there are no mistakes. Because Bart as it turns out did do it, but he had been charmed into doing it. Which means he qualifies for an atonement.

At the very least a lawful good society is smart enough to have multiple executioners so when a mistake does slip through the cracks, and the alignment takes a hit, there is time to go get an atonement spell.
Or if Vince is the hero, he spots the signs of charms and hides Bart. While Kate, fails the checks, sees the forms and sees that he clearly did it, and doesn't think to think outside the box and look at that bit of evidence.



So they would not be sliding towards good. But again something is either good or evil (or lawful, or chaotic or neutral). If chastity isn't inherently good then the vow of chastity must be a good aligned feat for a reason that has nothing to do with the actual chastity.

Probably the good comes from the 'fasting' discipline (v o poverty similarly)? Though you'd think they ought to have put an evil analogue at that point.
Also just thought, if there's a vow of chastity and a vow of abstinence, then chastity doesn't mean abstaining, but holding to a relationship which probably does tend to the classically good (although that would only be applicable if the v-o-a was neutral).

Verbannon
2016-10-23, 03:30 PM
Or if Vince is the hero, he spots the signs of charms and hides Bart. While Kate, fails the checks, sees the forms and sees that he clearly did it, and doesn't think to think outside the box and look at that bit of evidence.


Probably the good comes from the 'fasting' discipline? Though you'd think they ought to have put an evil analogue at that point.

This is D&D, the dice decide whether or not he spots the charms, not the plot.

jayem
2016-10-23, 03:40 PM
This is D&D, the dice decide whether or not he spots the charms, not the plot.

Comes of main experience of D&D being Oots and the like. :)
Anyway regardless of whether it's the plot, the GM's call or the dice. IMO Lawful good, neutral good and chaotic good all have their ways of failing (in outcome), and they are all their own ways. Either of those 2 could happen (together with both passing the spot check and arguing about what happens next, or both failing and arguing about what happens next). But either version with Katie and Vince swapped wouldn't.

Verbannon
2016-10-23, 04:00 PM
Comes of main experience of D&D being Oots and the like. :)
Anyway regardless of whether it's the plot, the GM's call or the dice. IMO Lawful good, neutral good and chaotic good all have their ways of failing (in outcome), and they are all their own ways. Either of those 2 could happen (together with both passing the spot check and arguing about what happens next, or both failing and arguing about what happens next). But either version with Katie and Vince swapped wouldn't.

The difference is that when Vince fails, someone dies and Vince takes the entirety of the alignment hit. When Katie fails, there is still a trial and if that still fails the actual stain of evil gets spread around and thinned.

And I'm going to ignore your insult to me there.

Segev
2016-10-23, 04:03 PM
Then Vince fails his sense motive check or perception check or whatever, and beheads an innocent moments before Kate returns with a dozen NPCs with the professional class and all the investigative skills necessary to make sure there are no mistakes. Because Bart as it turns out did do it, but he had been charmed into doing it. Which means he qualifies for an atonement.

At the very least a lawful good society is smart enough to have multiple executioners so when a mistake does slip through the cracks, and the alignment takes a hit, there is time to go get an atonement spell.


Or if Vince is the hero, he spots the signs of charms and hides Bart. While Kate, fails the checks, sees the forms and sees that he clearly did it, and doesn't think to think outside the box and look at that bit of evidence.


The difference is that when Vince fails, someone dies and Vince takes the entirety of the alignment hit. When Katie fails, there is still a trial and if that still fails the actual stain of evil gets spread around and thinned.

And I'm going to ignore your insult to me there.
Or when Kate fails, Bart gets executed anyway because the evidence of his Charm wasn't "admissible" thanks to the REAL bad guy's efforts to frame him.


Both the lawful and chaotic methods can fail. Which one's failures you emphasize usually suggests which one you are more likely to back.

Verbannon
2016-10-23, 04:08 PM
Or when Kate fails, Bart gets executed anyway because the evidence of his Charm wasn't "admissible" thanks to the REAL bad guy's efforts to frame him.


Both the lawful and chaotic methods can fail. Which one's failures you emphasize usually suggests which one you are more likely to back.

The fallacy of your post is that you are assuming one fails and the other succeeds and that somehow addresses the issue. Sure if the chaotic is right and the lawful is wrong, then yeah the chaotic is going to find himself on the side of the angels. And vice versa. But thats pretty much irrelevant. Since the issue is how often they fail and how hard they fail.

The chaotic is going to fail more often then the lawfuls and each failure is going to impact his alignment harder then it does the lawfuls.

jayem
2016-10-23, 04:36 PM
The difference is that when Vince fails, someone dies and Vince takes the entirety of the alignment hit. When Katie fails, there is still a trial and if that still fails the actual stain of evil gets spread around and thinned.

And I'm going to ignore your insult to me there.
If you mean the dice/plot thing. It wasn't meant aggressively. It was a true comment, if a bit tongue in cheek. Any alignment stuff I've really encountered is purely from comics or video games (where the structure is rigid anyway), partly taking the point that this is the D&D threads and I should have adapted, partly arguing that it didn't matter regardless of mechanics the same issue occurs.

I suppose, though I guess it depends if at that point it depends if Katy is in a supportive good structure (in which case lawful makes more sense) or in a corrupt one (which favours the a-team approach). And even without that assuming on average they both put the same effort in then on average things should be similar in terms of average alignment hit. I think. Although that only follows simply if there's enough suspects that each gets no more than one vigilantes focus. Otherwise Vince has to adjust his confidence threshold, and it gets messy.

[x post]
In my opinion that depends on the nature of the system, and in turn who people want the 'right' people to be. (Even with a bad roll, the GM and PC's will still have some control as to what the natural 1 means and what happens next). And how bureaucratic you make the lawful side/how non-communicative you make the chaotic side, and
How you make the crimes evidence work. If all random, then it's clearly even (subject to setting appropriate thresholds), if it favours specialists or polymaths you either have you could either have it like Jonathon Creek (where the maverick spots the crimes that match their expertise*) or XYZ (where the maverick can can deal with any situation) and likewise have the police team putting all skills together or delegating the right team for the job. And can easily set them to fail, by giving a situation that favours the other type.

How busy you put them,
What level of mistakes you is 'normal'. If it's very low then you get the one vigilante crashing out and retiring in shame, while the justice squad all carry a slight taint as it fades through the generation. In which case it might be better to focus it.

*or rather the criminal targets his crime in front of the appropriate detective

Verbannon
2016-10-23, 04:56 PM
If you mean the dice/plot thing. It wasn't meant aggressively. It was a true comment, if a bit tongue in cheek. Any alignment stuff I've really encountered is purely from comics or video games (where the structure is rigid anyway), partly taking the point that this is the D&D threads and I should have adapted, partly arguing that it didn't matter regardless of mechanics the same issue occurs.

I suppose, though I guess it depends if at that point it depends if Katy is in a supportive good structure (in which case lawful makes more sense) or in a corrupt one (which favours the a-team approach). And even without that assuming on average they both put the same effort in then on average things should be similar in terms of average alignment hit. I think. Although that only follows simply if there's enough suspects that each gets no more than one vigilantes focus. Otherwise Vince has to adjust his confidence threshold, and it gets messy.

Actually I don't think Katie is at any risk of an alignment hit. All she does is collect the evidence and arrest Bart. Assuming she does everything she is supposed to do in collecting evidence, takes no shortcuts and doesn't ignore anything inconvenient then I'm pretty sure she is safe regardless of what happens to Bart. Assuming these trials work similar to the American system, after that its up to the judges and lawyers to determine if that evidence is enough to constitute his guilt. And assuming if they do all their jobs right and don't cheat or anything, and Bart is still convicted because the frame up was just that good. Then its the executioner that takes the alignment hit.

Of course once that happens usually some good aligned god starts sending visions and whatnot, maybe a haunting, adventurers get hired, and the executioner is given a new job so he can be granted an atonement spell.

I don't really see a similar path possible for the chaotic. Assume he does indeed take every precaution he can think of and honestly tries to ensure Bart is the right man. When it comes time for the atonement spell, sure it won't cost him any experience. But the setting right part, that gets complicated. It requires more than just an "oops my bad". Honestly I just don't see how a single man could satisfy the demands of an atonement spell. Maybe a few times, but over a career, he is likely going to need to atone dozens of times through his career, and for what amounts to the same crime. I don't think its possible.

GrayDeath
2016-10-23, 04:57 PM
For all those arguing which Good is better, think about it like this:

In a World where all are Good, you dont need Law for it to be Paradise.

However in a World where all are Lawful, you still need Good for it not to be a kind of Hell.

Verbannon
2016-10-23, 04:58 PM
For all those arguing which Good is better, think about it like this:

In a World where all are Good, you dont need Law for it to be Paradise.

However in a World where all are Lawful, you still need Good for it not to be a kind of Hell.

No one is arguing that. The argument is about the viability of a chaotic good vigilantee that kills.

Segev
2016-10-23, 07:58 PM
The fallacy of your post is that you are assuming one fails and the other succeeds and that somehow addresses the issue. Sure if the chaotic is right and the lawful is wrong, then yeah the chaotic is going to find himself on the side of the angels. And vice versa. But thats pretty much irrelevant. Since the issue is how often they fail and how hard they fail.

The chaotic is going to fail more often then the lawfuls and each failure is going to impact his alignment harder then it does the lawfuls.

That does seem to be the case in the real world. The real strong pro-Chaos argument is that law tends to become corrupted by the fact that no legal system is perfect. Chaos has its own internal remedies (as dangerous as they are), while law allows the problem to build and build until a much more disastrous remedy must be applied.

Frankly, I aspire to NG, myself, IRL, so I tend to think the "right" way to do it is to lean on Law until Law fails. Build Law's structure so that it fails only very rarely. I am perhaps more LG to LN in my behavior, while sympathizing more with CG in terms of how I think things are most efficiently run.

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-24, 09:19 AM
By your definition, Slavery is practiced in prisons within the US and around the world currently. (Also any time a parent grounds their kid and makes them clean their room.)

By ignoring all nuance and restricting it down to "This thing is 100% evil at all times and in all instances" you don't arrive at any form of truth. I don't have to think Slavery was OK at the time in order to understand that there is more nuance to it than that and to point out that an oversimplification is exactly that: Oversimplified.

It's not even moral relativism. It's just pointing out that like virtually everything in history, it was more complex than that.


Stop fixating on simplified definitions. The point was and is that "formal ownership" was never the defining characteristic of slavery.

hamishspence
2016-10-24, 09:27 AM
How about informal ownership?

Can we generalize as to what kind of behaviour is indicative of the victim being "informally owned"?

In H. Beam Piper's Little Fuzzy books, kidnapping + illegal restraint + coerced labor = Enslavement, for example.

GreatWyrmGold
2016-10-24, 09:50 AM
Odd contrast there.
If you don't see the difference between a legal system and the D&D alignment system, you probably shouldn't be a lawyer.


Anyways I think the alignment itself is quite good, or at least a useable system to describe characters. The problem is the accumulation of crust around the alignment system. The basics of the alignments system are "pick one of three different regions on two different axis to describe your character".
Of course then people tried to enforce playing your alignment, people got overly restrictive definitions of the different alignments (No, Chaotic Neutral does not mean insane) and that is, in my experience, where the problems always seem to come from.
If you take alignment as a loose guide, it's fine. If you take alignment seriously, at face value, without tweaking it at all? Things fall apart really fast.


The arguments I am refuting amount to the following point: Lawful Good is more Good than Neutral or Chaotic Good.
I think you misunderstand us—or me, at least.
We're not talking about abstract alignments in an RPG. We're talking about the actions corresponding to those alignments. Simply put, if a CG character says vigilantism is the best response and due process is just a tool for tyrants and crooks, he's as wrong as a fallen paladin thinking that her actions are part of the gods' holy plan. Due process is crucial, and vigilantism—by bypassing due process—is bad in all cases save a few edge ones.
I'm pretty sure you're the only one trying to shoehorn "due process vs. vigilantism" into the context of the D&D alignment system, which isn't constructed to handle anything more than a cursory examination.


Or if Vince is the hero, he spots the signs of charms and hides Bart. While Kate, fails the checks, sees the forms and sees that he clearly did it, and doesn't think to think outside the box and look at that bit of evidence.
Yes, if Vince is Batman and Kate is an idiot, Vince is right.
Wait a second—is Vince's success and ability to notice the clues due to him being a vigilante, or because he's Batman? And is Kate's failure due to following due process, or because she's an idiot? By golly—it's the latter, isn't it? If Kate was Batman and Vince an idiot, the results would be the other way around!


For all those arguing which Good is better, think about it like this:
In a World where all are Good, you dont need Law for it to be Paradise.
However in a World where all are Lawful, you still need Good for it not to be a kind of Hell.
I disagree with your implications heavily.
A world of law without "good" would not be hell—or at least, it wouldn't be worse than a world without good or law.
Moreover, a world with law and some good would be better than a world with some good but no law. After all, a well-crafted law lets even people less skills/brilliant/good than the creators of the law continue doing the sort of good the creators would.
And yeah, a legal system crafted by humans won't be perfect, but no system would be worse. Even if some abuses slip through the cracks, the legal system at least stops most of the flood.

It would be ideal if men were angels, but we aren't. We've got to deal with that.


That does seem to be the case in the real world. The real strong pro-Chaos argument is that law tends to become corrupted by the fact that no legal system is perfect. Chaos has its own internal remedies (as dangerous as they are), while law allows the problem to build and build until a much more disastrous remedy must be applied.
I literally laughed at this, because of how counter to the truth it runs.
Every legal system has some method of self-correction, and none has any sort of auto-corrupt system. Yes, individual corrupt people ca bend the system to their own ends, but every system has its ways of dealing with those that do so (from crude corrections like dukes overthrowing a corrupt king by force to modern, precise measures like lawsuits and disbarment). Each generation of lawmakers iterates on the laws, and corrects any flaws they find (either due to mistakes or due to changing circumstances).
Meanwhile, chaos has nothing. It can't correct itself, because it has nothing to correct itself with. There's no system to abuse, but there's no system to stop abuse, either—and the latter has proved more critical every time the question comes up.

Segev
2016-10-24, 09:58 AM
The "corrective" properties of Chaos are actually inherent: if you do wrong by others, they'll wrong you right back. Law elevates us above having to constantly defend ourselves and others by making it a group effort.

It is important to the context of D&D-type games that vigilantism be a useful role for the CG type to fill. The un-deputized "superhero" types who go about and right wrongs because they can are a useful trope, and it is satisfying to play them as genuinely heroic rather than constantly being mired in "but you're really neutral-to-evil because you flout the law/due process/etc."

Which is I suppose the core of my argument in favor of avoiding ascribing "Law is better than Chaos" in terms of behavior for the Good end of the moral axis.

Verbannon
2016-10-24, 10:00 AM
The "corrective" properties of Chaos are actually inherent: if you do wrong by others, they'll wrong you right back. Law elevates us above having to constantly defend ourselves and others by making it a group effort.

It is important to the context of D&D-type games that vigilantism be a useful role for the CG type to fill. The un-deputized "superhero" types who go about and right wrongs because they can are a useful trope, and it is satisfying to play them as genuinely heroic rather than constantly being mired in "but you're really neutral-to-evil because you flout the law/due process/etc."

Which is I suppose the core of my argument in favor of avoiding ascribing "Law is better than Chaos" in terms of behavior for the Good end of the moral axis.

You are ignoring the actual mechanics for the sake of narration. And if you do that then there is nothing to discuss as its no longer the alignment system. Its your own custom system.

Segev
2016-10-24, 10:05 AM
You are ignoring the actual mechanics for the sake of narration. And if you do that then there is nothing to discuss as its no longer the alignment system. Its your own custom system.

In what way am I ignoring mechanics? Accusations like that require some backing, because otherwise the only reply I can give is, "No, I'm not." And that's not conducive to discussion, nor to persuading me I'm wrong (if, in fact, I am).

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-24, 10:13 AM
How about informal ownership?

Can we generalize as to what kind of behaviour is indicative of the victim being "informally owned"?

In H. Beam Piper's Little Fuzzy books, kidnapping + illegal restraint + coerced labor = Enslavement, for example.

Yes, that would fall under slavery.

The objection I have is to this is notion that it just cannot be slavery without some sort of formal ownership. Slavery exists today, in the real world, in some places where it is illegal, and where there is no legal mechanism by which to own a human being.

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-24, 10:14 AM
You are ignoring the actual mechanics for the sake of narration. And if you do that then there is nothing to discuss as its no longer the alignment system. Its your own custom system.

What mechanics exist for Alignment? It pretty much comes down to a tag on the character or creature, a few conditional spells and such, and a whole lot of GM fiat.

Verbannon
2016-10-24, 10:18 AM
In what way am I ignoring mechanics? Accusations like that require some backing, because otherwise the only reply I can give is, "No, I'm not." And that's not conducive to discussion, nor to persuading me I'm wrong (if, in fact, I am).

That entire post you made was just you saying that you thing Chaotic Goods should be able to fill the role of a vigilantee, just because you feel that its satisfying to play them as genuinely heroic. The rest of your post was irrelevant as no one has actually said they can't be good because they flout the law, its been said they can't be good because the mechanics of alignment prevent it. So


than constantly being mired in "but you're really neutral-to-evil because you flout the law/due process/etc."

Is just a strawman.

Segev
2016-10-24, 10:23 AM
That entire post you made was just you saying that you thing Chaotic Goods should be able to fill the role of a vigilantee, just because you feel that its satisfying to play them as genuinely heroic. The rest of your post was irrelevant as no one has actually said they can't be good because they flout the law, its been said they can't be good because the mechanics of alignment prevent it. So



Is just a strawman.

Okay, so your position is that CG doesn't exist because the mechanics of alignment prevent anybody from NOT being Lawful while still being Good?

If that is not your position, then please provide an example of how one can be CG without running afoul of the mechanics in question. (Yes, you can be CG without being a vigilante, but you still need to provide some example of how a CG person can exist given the reasons provided that a CG vigilante cannot. As it stands, I can't see how not to extend all those arguments to CG in general.)

Verbannon
2016-10-24, 10:33 AM
What mechanics exist for Alignment? It pretty much comes down to a tag on the character or creature, a few conditional spells and such, and a whole lot of GM fiat.

The hero's builder, and book of vile darkness give the mechanics for alignment. The mechanics are as follows.

1. The alignment is not a personality, it is an actual energy or trait that builds and declines within a character's soul.

2. Alignment is determined by the actions a character takes.

3. If a character takes an action against their alignment, even in ignorance that the action is evil, they still suffer the full impact of the hit to their alignment. (There is some complexity though in determining what is and isn't an action. A Paladin racing up a mountain to chase a badguy and accidentally causing a landslide that wipes out a village did not commit an evil act. However if he knew there was a possibility of a landslide and did it anyway, it is an evil act. However it is notable that even if there was no landslide, the fact he took such a risk with innocent lives would have still impacted his alignment. The reason the first example doesn't impact his alignment is because no act he took was actually evil. Chasing the badguy, going up the mountain, fighting the badguy, even though these good acts caused an evil result, they are still considered good actions. But if he had known about the risk, then that would add a fourth action which would be evil. Disregard for innocent life.)

4.Whenever a character commits an evil action, their soul is stained by evil, even if they unwittingly committed the evil action, this can drive them to commit more evil actions.

ComradeBear
2016-10-24, 10:47 AM
Stop fixating on simplified definitions. The point was and is that "formal ownership" was never the defining characteristic of slavery.

If there is no definition at all, then you can justify virtually anything as slavery. Even wage work, so long as you're being coerced. (I have to have a job so I don't starve and die, for instance.)

And, by the definition you are claiming to use, a lot of things that you would say aren't slavery fit within your definition. Meaning it's a case of "I know it when I see it" AKA "things only count as slavery if they agree with my personal notions about it" which isn't helpful to discussion at all, and as we've already seen, turns into a guessing game where we try to figure out what the heck you're getting at other than "slavery has no nuance and is always the same level of evil, based on my cherrypicking what does and does not count."
Which is an intellectual dead end.

Again, my argument is as follows:
History shows that there's almost always more nuance than that. Things are virtually never as straightforward as "all instances of X thing were equally good/evil in all regards." Slavery is not an exception to that rule. There were cruel slave owners, (many in the south,) and there were kind slave owners (Thomas Jefferson, who was so well liked by his slaves that when they were freed many took his last name to remember him)

Slavery as a practice is not a good thing, certainly. I've never argued that, and never will. But you can't say Jefferson didn't practice slavery (he very much did) but you also can't say he was the sort of slaveowner who would regularly beat and mistreat his slaves in vile ways, because that is also untrue. And you have to at least say that is turned out as good as.it possibly could have. To simplify the situation down to "All of it is the same level of evil" is just not factually supported, unless you want to assert that being kind to your slaves is just as bad as being cruel to them, but that opens a whole new jar of morality worms once anyone starts asking "why."

Basically, I'm only dealing with your previous assertion that all instances of slavery are equally bad, when there is a lot of nuance within that ugly space, as there is in all human endeavour.

Verbannon
2016-10-24, 10:49 AM
Okay, so your position is that CG doesn't exist because the mechanics of alignment prevent anybody from NOT being Lawful while still being Good?

If that is not your position, then please provide an example of how one can be CG without running afoul of the mechanics in question. (Yes, you can be CG without being a vigilante, but you still need to provide some example of how a CG person can exist given the reasons provided that a CG vigilante cannot. As it stands, I can't see how not to extend all those arguments to CG in general.)

Well thats simple, the problem is that mistakes in judgement can cause a Chaotic Good Vigilantee to commit evil acts. So if the Vigilantee makes like Batman and avoids killing except in self defense, focusing on the gathering of evidence just outside the law that could work.

The CG character could actually be a member of the town guard, but just be a loose cannon that ramps his horse on fruit carts, ramming it through walls, escaping seconds before it explodes, but drag in the bad guy kicking and screaming anyway. Then smokes a cigar while rolling his eyes while the guard captain yells at him and threatens to take his badge.

Or the Chaotic Good vigilantee could focus on less lethal punishments. If a merchant makes his fortune by hiring assassins to eliminate his competitors. And no evidence can be found to prove this. The Chaotic Good might break into the merchant's house, tie him down in his bed, carve a warning over his bedpost, then empty out his vault in the house and give it all to the poor. This way if it turns out this merchant really wasn't hiring assassins, the hit to the alignment is small and can be made up by simply paying the merchant back his money, with some extra on top to satisfy the requirements of an atonement spell and voila. And if the merchant is guilty, the CG vigilantee would end up with assassins on his trail, giving him ample opportunity to find the necessary evidence to convict.

Also remember that Mercy and Redeeming Evil are two of the defining traits of a good aligned character. Difficult to be Merciful when your character is cutting the throats of evil aligned merchants who have nothing but money to protect themselves with.

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-24, 10:50 AM
The hero's builder, and book of vile darkness give the mechanics for alignment. The mechanics are as follows.

1. The alignment is not a personality, it is an actual energy or trait that builds and declines within a character's soul.

2. Alignment is determined by the actions a character takes.

3. If a character takes an action against their alignment, even in ignorance that the action is evil, they still suffer the full impact of the hit to their alignment. (There is some complexity though in determining what is and isn't an action. A Paladin racing up a mountain to chase a badguy and accidentally causing a landslide that wipes out a village did not commit an evil act. However if he knew there was a possibility of a landslide and did it anyway, it is an evil act. However it is notable that even if there was no landslide, the fact he took such a risk with innocent lives would have still impacted his alignment. The reason the first example doesn't impact his alignment is because no act he took was actually evil. Chasing the badguy, going up the mountain, fighting the badguy, even though these good acts caused an evil result, they are still considered good actions. But if he had known about the risk, then that would add a fourth action which would be evil. Disregard for innocent life.)

4.Whenever a character commits an evil action, their soul is stained by evil, even if they unwittingly committed the evil action, this can drive them to commit more evil actions.


So in other words, bad rules in optional books?


Sorry, but any morality system that treats "good" and "evil" as actual energies with "taint", and doesn't factor in intent, and so on -- is a wretched system. The very idea that someone could be lied to, fed bad information, and do something "in good faith" that turns out to have been unwittingly wrong, and be somehow "tainted" and "driven to commit more evil acts" is... idiotic, and repugnant, and that's putting it mildly.


Just more proof that the concept of alignment is trash.

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-24, 10:51 AM
If there is no definition at all, then you can justify virtually anything as slavery.


No one said there was no definition at all -- knock it off.

Verbannon
2016-10-24, 10:53 AM
So in other words, bad rules in optional books?


Sorry, but any morality system that treats "good" and "evil" as actual energies with "taint", and doesn't factor in intent, and so on -- is a wretched system. The very idea that someone could be lied to, fed bad information, and do something "in good faith" that turns out to have been unwittingly wrong, and be somehow "tainted" and "driving to commit more evil acts" is... idiotic, and that's putting it mildly.


Just more proof that the concept of alignment is trash.

I have not seen a better system of absolute morality. Which is essential if you are going to have classes that depend on morality to function. Otherwise its just the DM's definition of right and wrong the games goes by. And thats much more idiotic.

Segev
2016-10-24, 10:54 AM
Well thats simple, the problem is that mistakes in judgement can cause a Chaotic Good Vigilantee to commit evil acts. So if the Vigilantee makes like Batman and avoids killing except in self defense, focusing on the gathering of evidence just outside the law that could work.

The CG character could actually be a member of the town guard, but just be a loose cannon that ramps his horse on fruit carts, ramming it through walls, escaping seconds before it explodes, but drag in the bad guy kicking and screaming anyway. Then smokes a cigar while rolling his eyes while the guard captain yells at him and threatens to take his badge.

Or the Chaotic Good vigilantee could focus on less lethal punishments. If a merchant makes his fortune by hiring assassins to eliminate his competitors. And no evidence can be found to prove this. The Chaotic Good might break into the merchant's house, tie him down in his bed, carve a warning over his bedpost, then empty out his vault in the house and give it all to the poor. This way if it turns out this merchant really wasn't hiring assassins, the hit to the alignment is small and can be made up by simply paying the merchant back his money, with some extra on top to satisfy the requirements of an atonement spell and voila. And if the merchant is guilty, the CG vigilantee would end up with assassins on his trail, giving him ample opportunity to find the necessary evidence to convict.

Also remember that Mercy and Redeeming Evil are two of the defining traits of a good aligned character. Difficult to be Merciful when your character is cutting the throats of evil aligned merchants who have nothing but money to protect themselves with.

Alright, I'll concede the point, mostly.

Though I do question how breaking into the merchant's house, tying him to his bed, carving a warning over his bedpost, and emptying out his vault is not going to be equally impossible for the CG vigilante, out of similar fear that he's traumatizing, humiliating, endangering, and ruining an innocent man.

i.e. how the same arguments against execution don't apply.

Verbannon
2016-10-24, 11:00 AM
Alright, I'll concede the point, mostly.

Though I do question how breaking into the merchant's house, tying him to his bed, carving a warning over his bedpost, and emptying out his vault is not going to be equally impossible for the CG vigilante, out of similar fear that he's traumatizing, humiliating, endangering, and ruining an innocent man.

i.e. how the same arguments against execution don't apply.

The difference is in the atonement process. Its much easier to atone for a wrong done to someone. If that someone is still alive.

Segev
2016-10-24, 11:01 AM
Fair enough. I'll concede the point; I don't think I disagree that much with your position, anyway. If at all.

Verbannon
2016-10-24, 11:03 AM
Fair enough. I'll concede the point; I don't think I disagree that much with your position, anyway. If at all.

Cheers! :smile: Need a beer emote.

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-24, 11:18 AM
I have not seen a better system of absolute morality. Which is essential if you are going to have classes that depend on morality to function. Otherwise its just the DM's definition of right and wrong the games goes by. And thats much more idiotic.

And part of the problem is treating morality as absolute in the sense used here.

While I do think that some things are just plain wrong no matter what, that's clearly not what's being asserted by the alignment system and rules you describe.

Verbannon
2016-10-24, 11:26 AM
And part of the problem is treating morality as absolute in the sense used here.

While I do think that some things are just plain wrong no matter what, that's clearly not what's being asserted by the alignment system and rules you describe.

The odds of a player with a Paladin and his DM sharing the same view on good and evil is very small. So having an actual clear cut definition of good and evil and how to determine it,is important. And I've found that the way the alignment is defined in the books, tends to work out pretty well, not perfect, but pretty well. Even the whole "getting charmed or tricked into doing evil" works, and makes for some nice roleplay.

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-24, 12:28 PM
The odds of a player with a Paladin and his DM sharing the same view on good and evil is very small. So having an actual clear cut definition of good and evil and how to determine it,is important. And I've found that the way the alignment is defined in the books, tends to work out pretty well, not perfect, but pretty well. Even the whole "getting charmed or tricked into doing evil" works, and makes for some nice roleplay.


Strict act-based "morality", combined with "you can be morally tainted while tricked or charmed", would seem to be far more vulnerable to GM abuse, than one in with room for some nuance and judgement, and importantly, consideration for the intent behind the act.


The alignment "moral structure" described in your post is one in which, conceptually, the person accidentally breaking someone's arm while trying to pull them from a raging flooded river, bears the same moral "taint" as the person who deliberately breaks someone's arm in order to revel in the pain and suffering and power.

Segev
2016-10-24, 02:13 PM
Generally speaking, if alignment is actually important to a character's build for some reason - or important to the player's enjoyment of the character - I consider it a DM's responsibility to inform his player if he's about to take an action which his character should know is going to put his alignment at risk. Assuming the player knows amounts to risking springing it on him unexpectedly. Which isn't cool.

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-24, 02:16 PM
Generally speaking, if alignment is actually important to a character's build for some reason - or important to the player's enjoyment of the character - I consider it a DM's responsibility to inform his player if he's about to take an action which his character should know is going to put his alignment at risk. Assuming the player knows amounts to risking springing it on him unexpectedly. Which isn't cool.


Yes -- rather than "we disagree on what is evil", I'd consider the "GOTCHA!" of the unknowing or unwitting violation to be far more troublesome in that adjudication.

Verbannon
2016-10-24, 03:25 PM
Strict act-based "morality", combined with "you can be morally tainted while tricked or charmed", would seem to be far more vulnerable to GM abuse, than one in with room for some nuance and judgement, and importantly, consideration for the intent behind the act.


The alignment "moral structure" described in your post is one in which, conceptually, the person accidentally breaking someone's arm while trying to pull them from a raging flooded river, bears the same moral "taint" as the person who deliberately breaks someone's arm in order to revel in the pain and suffering and power.

Thats not correct. The arm break is a consequence not an act. Pulling someone from the river is the 'action' which is good, the 'consequence' of the arm being broken is irrelevant. In the latter case, the 'action' is torture.

As long as the rules are known, a GM should not be able to abuse this. At worst, you get the Paladin charmed, he loses his powers. The party makes a trip to the nearest druid or cleric, one atonement spell later and alls well. With atonement spells intent does matter, so its zero cost if the Paladin was charmed. Though he might be guilty of foolishness or negligence if he did wrong out of ignorance.

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-24, 04:08 PM
Thats not correct. The arm break is a consequence not an act. Pulling someone from the river is the 'action' which is good, the 'consequence' of the arm being broken is irrelevant. In the latter case, the 'action' is torture.

As long as the rules are known, a GM should not be able to abuse this. At worst, you get the Paladin charmed, he loses his powers. The party makes a trip to the nearest druid or cleric, one atonement spell later and alls well. With atonement spells intent does matter, so its zero cost if the Paladin was charmed. Though he might be guilty of foolishness or negligence if he did wrong out of ignorance.

If "breaking someone's arm" is not "the action", then in the rules and examples as you laid them out above, the rocks falling on the village is not the action, and so on.

Verbannon
2016-10-24, 04:09 PM
If "breaking someone's arm" is not "the action", then in the rules and examples as you laid them out above, the rocks falling on the village is not the action, and so on.

Correct. As I pointed out, the Paladin would suffer an alignment blow just by disregarding the risk to the village whether the rocks fell or not.

veti
2016-10-24, 04:20 PM
I have not seen a better system of absolute morality. Which is essential if you are going to have classes that depend on morality to function.

Counterpoint: no, it's not. It's perfectly reasonable to have people who are bound by a moral code that is (recognised as) relative.


Otherwise its just the DM's definition of right and wrong the games goes by.

Again, no. Well, not necessarily. There's also the player's definition to be considered. Or whatever third-party definition the two of them might agree applies to this character. (The mere fact of it being a third-party definition does not make it "absolute", because it could be only one of many such definitions that characters could theoretically be bound by. See also "religion".)

Verbannon
2016-10-24, 04:50 PM
Counterpoint: no, it's not. It's perfectly reasonable to have people who are bound by a moral code that is (recognised as) relative.



Again, no. Well, not necessarily. There's also the player's definition to be considered. Or whatever third-party definition the two of them might agree applies to this character. (The mere fact of it being a third-party definition does not make it "absolute", because it could be only one of many such definitions that characters could theoretically be bound by. See also "religion".)

Losing your powers due to failing to uphold a code of relative morality.

Dragonexx
2016-10-24, 05:19 PM
Or the Chaotic Good vigilantee could focus on less lethal punishments. If a merchant makes his fortune by hiring assassins to eliminate his competitors. And no evidence can be found to prove this. The Chaotic Good might break into the merchant's house, tie him down in his bed, carve a warning over his bedpost, then empty out his vault in the house and give it all to the poor. This way if it turns out this merchant really wasn't hiring assassins, the hit to the alignment is small and can be made up by simply paying the merchant back his money, with some extra on top to satisfy the requirements of an atonement spell and voila. And if the merchant is guilty, the CG vigilantee would end up with assassins on his trail, giving him ample opportunity to find the necessary evidence to convict.

Or just kick in the merchants door, drag him in front of a court, and present your case and evidence.

Of course this assumes that the courts are fair, when quite a lot of courts from previous ages were heavily biased, with racism, sexism, classism, faithism, and probably a ton of other prejudices. Not to mention the idea of evidence-based investigation and innocent until proven guilty not being a universal concept, trial by jury being exceedingly rare, laws not being at all enforceable on the people you'd want to enforce them on and there being no such thing as nations anyways.

Also, moral ambigiuity/alignment system, pick one.

Verbannon
2016-10-24, 09:17 PM
Or just kick in the merchants door, drag him in front of a court, and present your case and evidence.

Of course this assumes that the courts are fair, when quite a lot of courts from previous ages were heavily biased, with racism, sexism, classism, faithism, and probably a ton of other prejudices. Not to mention the idea of evidence-based investigation and innocent until proven guilty not being a universal concept, trial by jury being exceedingly rare, laws not being at all enforceable on the people you'd want to enforce them on and there being no such thing as nations anyways.

Also, moral ambigiuity/alignment system, pick one.
D&D makes a point that "good" in D&D uses modern senses of morality. Not even a lawful good character will make use of a lawful neutral legal system. At least not use it as intended.

Generally when confronted with a legal system rife with corruption, that cares more about getting convictions then justice, or just plain sucks. A lawful good person will attempt to change said system. Though only through violence as a last resort. Will probably try to change it through public opinion, seeking out whatever high ranking figures there are that are good and getting their help and vice versa, finding ways to force the current system to work in spite of itself and of course boldly walking up to a gallows where an innocent man is about to be hung and cutting him down in front of everybody. So at least if violence occurs he technically didnt throw the first blow.

Actually when faced with a corrupt system a LG and a CG will take many of the same actions. Difference is the LG wants to fix the system and the CG wants to be rid of it.

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-24, 10:08 PM
Correct. As I pointed out, the Paladin would suffer an alignment blow just by disregarding the risk to the village whether the rocks fell or not.

In your example, the moral penalty didn't appear to kick in until the rocks actually fell.

Verbannon
2016-10-24, 10:59 PM
In your example, the moral penalty didn't appear to kick in until the rocks actually fell.

I think I jumbled up my words a bit, mentioning the penalty in the middle instead of at the beginning of the paragragh. I do that sometimes. Particularily when Im thinking as I type. I end up with a stream of thought, with corrections inserted. You know how it is, you have to say something 2 or 3 times before you have successfully said what you mean to say like you meant to say it.

veti
2016-10-25, 01:38 AM
Losing your powers due to failing to uphold a code of relative morality.

No matter how incredulously you say it, that doesn't actually qualify as an argument that it's impossible or unplayable. Or even unlikely.

Lancelot, the prototype for all falling paladins, falls for the sin of adultery - which as far as I can tell, wouldn't even register as a moral act in your D&D morality.

hamishspence
2016-10-25, 04:59 AM
Was Lancelot ever portrayed as having Special Powers and losing them, though?

In the context of BOVD, "betrayal" is traditionally an Evil act - as is "cheating" - and Lancelot is Guinevere's accomplice in the betrayal of Arthur.

BOVD does suggest that some traditionally evil acts, like lying, are not always evil - but I think you need very strong Good intentions, and a very deserving victim, for it to work.

GreatWyrmGold
2016-10-25, 01:20 PM
The "corrective" properties of Chaos are actually inherent: if you do wrong by others, they'll wrong you right back.
Only if they're strong enough. In practice, might makes right. If a 3rd- or 4th-level fighter beats up and robs a bunch of farmers, they're relying on a bunch of adventurers to altruistically stop that guy—and reliance on the charity of a third party who may or may not exist is never a good thing. It gets worse if the world is somehow stable enough for social classes to develop. If a rich merchant/industrialist/corporate executive/etc can do whatever he wants to the poor working class as long as they don't have the strength to band together, they're going to continue doing so; much the same is true of kings and other forms of direct dictators. The only hope such underclasses have is that they can find another powerful person willing to overthrow the current ruling class, or that the next generation is kinder.
I'm pretty sure chaotic evil would be fine with such an arrangement—it's the goal of at least a few fictional villains—but even chaotic neutral would think it's cruel and stupid. Anyone claiming to be Chaotic Good should oppose that system if they think about it for more than a couple of seconds.


Law elevates us above having to constantly defend ourselves and others by making it a group effort.
I'm not sure I follow. Putting aside how at least the 99% have the ability to defend themselves, it's hardly a constant effort. If the legal system isn't horribly-designed, it shouldn't even be too much of a burden.


It is important to the context of D&D-type games that vigilantism be a useful role for the CG type to fill. The un-deputized "superhero" types who go about and right wrongs because they can are a useful trope, and it is satisfying to play them as genuinely heroic rather than constantly being mired in "but you're really neutral-to-evil because you flout the law/due process/etc."
That's all well and good, but such a game is deliberately sacrificing realism for fun, and that needs to be recognized.


Of course this assumes that the courts are fair, when quite a lot of courts from previous ages were heavily biased, with racism, sexism, classism, faithism, and probably a ton of other prejudices. Not to mention the idea of evidence-based investigation and innocent until proven guilty not being a universal concept, trial by jury being exceedingly rare, laws not being at all enforceable on the people you'd want to enforce them on and there being no such thing as nations anyways.
I'm not sure how relevant all of this. One should endeavor to provide proper justice even if local traditions and morals don't align with it. In principle, this would extend to running your own trial (a la Aviary Attorney), but even barring that, pure vigilantism is far from the best option.


Also, moral ambigiuity/alignment system, pick one.
I'm not sure where moral ambiguity came into this discussion...


Generally when confronted with a legal system rife with corruption, that cares more about getting convictions then justice, or just plain sucks. A lawful good person will attempt to change said system. Though only through violence as a last resort. Will probably try to change it through public opinion, seeking out whatever high ranking figures there are that are good and getting their help and vice versa, finding ways to force the current system to work in spite of itself and of course boldly walking up to a gallows where an innocent man is about to be hung and cutting him down in front of everybody. So at least if violence occurs he technically didnt throw the first blow.
Actually when faced with a corrupt system a LG and a CG will take many of the same actions. Difference is the LG wants to fix the system and the CG wants to be rid of it.
Precisely.

ComradeBear
2016-10-25, 02:56 PM
I'm not sure where moral ambiguity came into this discussion...


Ummm... the thread title?

Dragonexx
2016-10-25, 04:11 PM
You have to remember, when dispensing justice, that social structures are very different in D&D than they are in real life. In real life, a single person cannot fight society and win, and cannot do significant damage without a large amount of effort, planning and preparation that can be detected and foiled. In D&D land you have necromancers who can raise an army of spawn creating undead, super-widened spells can obliterate entire villages, dragons can rage across the countryside burninating crops and people, and high level characters can seriously just go Dynasty Warriors on armies. How can any legal and court system handle people like this?

Say a 12th level warlock busts down commoners shop because they happened to have a magical reagent they wanted. What can a legal system do against people who can use illusions and enchantments and shapeshifting and summons, without relying on their own high powered people, and then having to trust that those people have their best interests at heart?

Cluedrew
2016-10-25, 05:42 PM
If you don't see the difference between a legal system and the D&D alignment system, you probably shouldn't be a lawyer.Luckily I have no plans to become one. Anyways I didn't mean to suggest they were the same, just that they are both imperfect systems.

Maybe I have turned alignment into something different than it was, but I feel the core idea is the same.

GreatWyrmGold
2016-10-25, 09:20 PM
Ummm... the thread title?
...Oh, right. Completely forgot that.
I think it's fair to say that we derailed the discussion a bit.


Luckily I have no plans to become one. Anyways I didn't mean to suggest they were the same, just that they are both imperfect systems.
Maybe I have turned alignment into something different than it was, but I feel the core idea is the same.
They really aren't. They're completely different systems, meant to fulfill completely different goals. The D&D alignment system is meant to facilitate roleplaying characters, helping novice roleplayers* understand how to play their characters differently from other characters and themselves. The legal system is intended to deliver punishment to the guilty, freedom to the innocent, and justice to all. I hope I don't have to describe how the ways the systems' implementation of these ideas—to say nothing of the values on which they're built—differ.

*Remember that when D&D and its alignment system were created, everyone was a novice roleplayer. I could go more into how D&D is still designed to be an introductory RPG and why that's not as bad of a thing as it sounds, but that would derail the thread even more.


You have to remember, when dispensing justice, that social structures are very different in D&D than they are in real life...
On the other hand, vigilantism breaks down as well—especially if it's relying on the "self-correcting principles" Segev describes.
Let's face it—living in a world where 1% of the population is powerful enough to single-handedly destroy entire armies and completely ignore conventional justice would suck, no matter what Marvel and DC would tell you.

Verbannon
2016-10-25, 09:25 PM
No matter how incredulously you say it, that doesn't actually qualify as an argument that it's impossible or unplayable. Or even unlikely.

Lancelot, the prototype for all falling paladins, falls for the sin of adultery - which as far as I can tell, wouldn't even register as a moral act in your D&D morality.
The incrediluity is the argument. On one hand you have losing your powers to a mechanic. On the other hand, you have losing your powers to the dm or a consensus of the players. The point of playing a game like D&D with its rules and dice is to get away from the arguments of two five year olds playing cops and robbers "bang I hit you!" "nuh uh!" "yeah huh!" And thats basically what using relative morality it.

"Bang! You punched that prisoner to get info! Thats torture! You lose your paladinhood!"

"Nuh uh! Its just a few bruises, and because of that we can now go save those orpgans from being sacrificed to Gruumsh!"

"Yeah huh!"

"Nuh uh!"

Cluedrew
2016-10-25, 09:27 PM
To GreatWyrmGold: Pardon, but they really aren't what?

GreatWyrmGold
2016-10-25, 09:37 PM
To GreatWyrmGold: Pardon, but they really aren't what?
The same. The D&D alignment system and any legal system—real-world, D&D-world, or otherwise—are just about completely unrelated, from core to surface.

Verbannon
2016-10-25, 09:38 PM
You have to remember, when dispensing justice, that social structures are very different in D&D than they are in real life. In real life, a single person cannot fight society and win, and cannot do significant damage without a large amount of effort, planning and preparation that can be detected and foiled. In D&D land you have necromancers who can raise an army of spawn creating undead, super-widened spells can obliterate entire villages, dragons can rage across the countryside burninating crops and people, and high level characters can seriously just go Dynasty Warriors on armies. How can any legal and court system handle people like this?

Say a 12th level warlock busts down commoners shop because they happened to have a magical reagent they wanted. What can a legal system do against people who can use illusions and enchantments and shapeshifting and summons, without relying on their own high powered people, and then having to trust that those people have their best interests at heart?

The legal system can put all its weak level 1 soldiers together, and declare them a single unit swarm enemy. Then just keep adding mooks until the swarms level or CR is greater then the current threat. Or if they have access to the war machine declare its rules in play. Then sit back and relax as no matter how strong the opponent is, his BR cannot possible be enough to defeat 100 guys who even with a combined BPR of 2 would have a high enough multiplier to trounce any opponent.

Or maybe we should just try to continue talking about morality instead of trying to fathom how the rules realistically do impact a D&D world. And just take the D&D worlds as presented. Roughly medieval technology and culture but with modern values.

GreatWyrmGold
2016-10-26, 09:40 AM
The legal system can put all its weak level 1 soldiers together, and declare them a single unit swarm enemy. Then just keep adding mooks until the swarms level or CR is greater then the current threat. Or if they have access to the war machine declare its rules in play. Then sit back and relax as no matter how strong the opponent is, his BR cannot possible be enough to defeat 100 guys who even with a combined BPR of 2 would have a high enough multiplier to trounce any opponent.
I ran the numbers a while back. A few hundred low-level fighters with bows could kill basically any PC in less than a minute. Throw in some meatshields and make sure the enemy gets put down before your army can rout, and call it a day.
Of course, if the enemy has access to wind wall, the army is screwed. But that's a remarkably underpicked spell.

Satinavian
2016-10-26, 11:49 AM
You have to remember, when dispensing justice, that social structures are very different in D&D than they are in real life. In real life, a single person cannot fight society and win, and cannot do significant damage without a large amount of effort, planning and preparation that can be detected and foiled. In D&D land you have necromancers who can raise an army of spawn creating undead, super-widened spells can obliterate entire villages, dragons can rage across the countryside burninating crops and people, and high level characters can seriously just go Dynasty Warriors on armies. How can any legal and court system handle people like this?

Say a 12th level warlock busts down commoners shop because they happened to have a magical reagent they wanted. What can a legal system do against people who can use illusions and enchantments and shapeshifting and summons, without relying on their own high powered people, and then having to trust that those people have their best interests at heart?
If the D&D-World really is one where single people can became so powerful and this has always been so, then every law that actually still exists is enforced by such powerful persons or councils of them.

Even in real history the power to make laws and enforce them always goes hand in hand.

But as those guys probaly would be able to solve all mid-level adventure hooks that threaten someone, it is best to ignore how the insane power of individuals in D&D interacts with law or society.

Segev
2016-10-26, 12:48 PM
Ultimately, ALL enforcement is "might makes right," because power wins, period. Whoever has the power (and will to use it) in excess of all who oppose him will get what he wants, for good or ill. In a Lawful society, such a man is an "outlaw" if he flouts the legal system, but if he has the power to defeat the law's enforcers, he wins. In a Chaotic society, such a man's victory is even more obvious.

The key to an LG person is to construct laws and systems to band people together to oppose such anarchic despotism, and to shape them to be for the benefit of all. Fair, egalitarian, and righteous. The key to a CG person is to teach a philosophy of personal responsibility, and to stand up against bad actors (or convert them to good actors). To gather like-minded, righteous people to oppose villainy where needed, and go back to their own thing when not.

I doubt any Chaotic person would disagree that their way is the harder path. "Freedom requires more effort than slavery," they might say. Whether they're right that you can only be free when laws are minimal is core to the LG/CG debate, I think.

Cluedrew
2016-10-26, 02:31 PM
To GreatWyrmGold: Let my try explaining myself again, going to be really verbose this time. I was responding to comment about an imperfect legal system. How it should be fixed instead of thrown out. I wanted to raise the idea that the D&D alignment system, as an imperfect system, might be worth fixing instead of throwing out.

And that is it. The only point of similarity (if you want to call it that) they have is that fall into the very broad category of imperfect systems.

To Segev: I like that, I'd have to think it over a bit more to make an intelligent comment but it sounds good.

Verbannon
2016-10-26, 02:52 PM
To GreatWyrmGold: Let my try explaining myself again, going to be really verbose this time. I was responding to comment about an imperfect legal system. How it should be fixed instead of thrown out. I wanted to raise the idea that the D&D alignment system, as an imperfect system, might be worth fixing instead of throwing out.

And that is it. The only point of similarity (if you want to call it that) they have is that fall into the very broad category of imperfect systems.

To Segev: I like that, I'd have to think it over a bit more to make an intelligent comment but it sounds good.

You have a strange definition of verbosity.

veti
2016-10-26, 03:57 PM
The incrediluity is the argument. On one hand you have losing your powers to a mechanic. On the other hand, you have losing your powers to the dm or a consensus of the players. The point of playing a game like D&D with its rules and dice is to get away from the arguments of two five year olds playing cops and robbers "bang I hit you!" "nuh uh!" "yeah huh!" And thats basically what using relative morality it.

"Bang! You punched that prisoner to get info! Thats torture! You lose your paladinhood!"

"Nuh uh! Its just a few bruises, and because of that we can now go save those orpgans from being sacrificed to Gruumsh!"

"Yeah huh!"

"Nuh uh!"

Okay, if that's how you imagine the discussion going at your table, then you have bigger problems than the alignment system.

But seriously, I don't see where you get the idea that "relative morality" is any harder to adjudicate fairly than "absolute morality". Both of them rely on a codified set of rules (and, I would add, even "absolute" morality still requires human interpretation). It's just that in one case, you have a single set of rules that applies equally to everyone everywhere everywhen. In the other case, you have a set of rules that applies to this character in this context. And if the player wants to argue that the context has changed sufficiently to justify changing the rules, then that's an argument you can have as mature adults, thankyouverymuch.

Verbannon
2016-10-26, 04:21 PM
Okay, if that's how you imagine the discussion going at your table, then you have bigger problems than the alignment system.

But seriously, I don't see where you get the idea that "relative morality" is any harder to adjudicate fairly than "absolute morality". Both of them rely on a codified set of rules (and, I would add, even "absolute" morality still requires human interpretation). It's just that in one case, you have a single set of rules that applies equally to everyone everywhere everywhen. In the other case, you have a set of rules that applies to this character in this context. And if the player wants to argue that the context has changed sufficiently to justify changing the rules, then that's an argument you can have as mature adults, thankyouverymuch.

There is no shortage of situations where having the rules based on an individual's opinion of good and evil causes problems. Aligned spells, aligned feats, aligned equipment. Does every single sentient good aligned sword gets its own opinion of good and evil? And even discounting that, you are putting far too much faith in the maturity of the average player. Especially when it comes to their character, their ego and their powers. That goes double for the average DM in a roleplaying heavy game.

Player: "Well my character is true good, as long as he is working towards the greater good then, he his alignment is fine."

DM: "Sounds great."

Player: "I believe it would be in the interest of the greater good to burn down that orphanage and kill every single brat that tries to flee."

DM: "What."

Player: "well we know one of them is (Some D&D equivalent of the antichrist) and we aren't sure which one. So we kill these kids and we potentially save millions of lives. Greater. Good. Also we need equipment to help us fight for the greater good. We should go ahead and strip this town of its wealth while we are at it."

Maybe this is an extreme case, but I find extreme cases far better illustrate the principle then the more reserved cases like

"Player: "Well... you know we are ICly best friends and clanmates, so I know I am a lawful good Dwarven Paladin and probably should stop him from torturing these prisoners of ours for info. But you know, friendship is an important value to uphold so I think my Paladinhood is safe even if I turn a blind eye here. After all it is a grey area for my character. "

DM: "I'm going to have to disagree..."

Player: "Why are you enforcing your opinion of right and wrong on my character!?"

And if you have a group completely immune to these kind of disagreements, then you have an extreme rarity.

Max_Killjoy
2016-10-26, 04:27 PM
The cleanest solution is to remove the idea of "good" and "evil" and "law" and "chaos" as literal energies or forces of nature from the game.

Verbannon
2016-10-26, 04:30 PM
The cleanest solution is to remove the idea of "good" and "evil" and "law" and "chaos" as literal energies or forces of nature from the game.

You could do that, but thats outside the bounds of this discussion as that would quite radically alter the gamescape.Though there are rules for doing that within the book of vile darkness. The effect is still a radical altering of the gamescape and lore.

Cluedrew
2016-10-26, 04:59 PM
You have a strange definition of verbosity.... Why what does the dictionary say about- Oh...

I jest. That just happened as I edited it.

ComradeBear
2016-10-26, 08:15 PM
You could do that, but thats outside the bounds of this discussion as that would quite radically alter the gamescape.Though there are rules for doing that within the book of vile darkness. The effect is still a radical altering of the gamescape and lore.

Not really. Remove a couple of limited-use spells, have the Paladins have a codified Code of Conduct, and away you go. The rest can be turned to fluff pretty easily or just discarded. It also allows for things like a Paladin weilding a Demonic Blade against demons as a sort of ironic revenge, but to pull in the Evil the Blade whispers to him about Betrayal and Murder and Hate, and a simple Will save every now and then keeps him on the righteous side of things according to his code of conduct. Done. Nothing particularly radical. The alignments of gods become a rough description rather than a hardline rule, and you use those rough descriptions to guide clerics. "Clerics of Pelor can't Rebuke Undead, they have to Turn them."
"But why?"
"Because your god wants you to kill them, not command them, and if you want his power you play by his rules."
"Oh. Okay."


Also, assuming most players are rational human beings is the right things to do. If they aren't... stop playing with them.

GreatWyrmGold
2016-10-26, 08:40 PM
Ultimately, ALL enforcement is "might makes right," because power wins, period.
In theory, yes. But a legal system at least partly averts this in practice by putting overwhelming force in the hands of people who have it very much in their best interests to keep the peace (with attempts to make the public good as a whole, rather than just parts of it, in their best interests, usually coupled with ways to make sure the people in charge of power can be punished or replaced if they try to subvert the system). This greatly reduces the amount of inherent goodness required for a properly-run system. A decently-run legal system works well if the (relatively small group of) leaders are good and well if many of them are neutral. Anarchy needs everyone to be good to run well, and things take a nosedive much more quickly the more people stop being sufficiently good.


The key to an LG person is to construct laws and systems to band people together to oppose such anarchic despotism, and to shape them to be for the benefit of all. Fair, egalitarian, and righteous. The key to a CG person is to teach a philosophy of personal responsibility, and to stand up against bad actors (or convert them to good actors). To gather like-minded, righteous people to oppose villainy where needed, and go back to their own thing when not.
I doubt any Chaotic person would disagree that their way is the harder path. "Freedom requires more effort than slavery," they might say. Whether they're right that you can only be free when laws are minimal is core to the LG/CG debate, I think.
I wouldn't have gone with "harder," just "less effective". Hell, I'd say the Chaotic path is easier. Setting up a legal system that stands the test of time isn't exactly easy. There's a reason Hammurabi is one of the most famous leaders in history.

Segev
2016-10-26, 08:47 PM
In theory, yes. But a legal system at least partly averts this in practice by putting overwhelming force in the hands of people who have it very much in their best interests to keep the peace (with attempts to make the public good as a whole, rather than just parts of it, in their best interests, usually coupled with ways to make sure the people in charge of power can be punished or replaced if they try to subvert the system). This greatly reduces the amount of inherent goodness required for a properly-run system. A decently-run legal system works well if the (relatively small group of) leaders are good and well if many of them are neutral. Anarchy needs everyone to be good to run well, and things take a nosedive much more quickly the more people stop being sufficiently good.In theory. "Keeps the trains running on time" is a major selling point of the LE tyranny over the CG pseudo-anarchy. (And you're right, in reality, anarchy always devolves to despotism.)

But CG will point out that L* incentivizing people to seek power incentivises them to corrupt the institutions and institutionalize the corruption until the "G" is slain.

Of course, the fact that anarchy always devolves to despotism or to a strong hero-based kingdom is equally telling.


I wouldn't have gone with "harder," just "less effective". Hell, I'd say the Chaotic path is easier. Setting up a legal system that stands the test of time isn't exactly easy. There's a reason Hammurabi is one of the most famous leaders in history.
No, the chaotic path is easier if you don't care about Good. It's a lot harder if you do, because you have to be constantly vigilent, constantly personally responsible for your own actions (never having the luxury of relying on a system you trust to guide your choices without misleading you), and you have to always be willing to gather with others to defend your own and others' liberties against tyranny; there's no organized law enforcement to do that for you.

And all of this, you must do while being firmly and thoroughly educated in sufficient philosophy to not forget the Good part of your alignment and what it requires.

CG is not easy; it just looks it from the outside because its problems are different from LG's. It never has to worry about the rules getting in the way of what's right, but it also never can relax and rely on the rules to absolve it of understanding the situation through and through, let alone to make it somebody else's responsibility to handle any given problem.



Again: I fully expect that you find it less effective and less right and less righteous. I am playing devil's advocate, here. (I personally probably am somewhere in the LN with G tendencies area in practice, despite philosophically preferring NG.)

Verbannon
2016-10-26, 09:36 PM
Not really. Remove a couple of limited-use spells, have the Paladins have a codified Code of Conduct, and away you go. The rest can be turned to fluff pretty easily or just discarded. It also allows for things like a Paladin weilding a Demonic Blade against demons as a sort of ironic revenge, but to pull in the Evil the Blade whispers to him about Betrayal and Murder and Hate, and a simple Will save every now and then keeps him on the righteous side of things according to his code of conduct. Done. Nothing particularly radical. The alignments of gods become a rough description rather than a hardline rule, and you use those rough descriptions to guide clerics. "Clerics of Pelor can't Rebuke Undead, they have to Turn them."
"But why?"
"Because your god wants you to kill them, not command them, and if you want his power you play by his rules."
"Oh. Okay."


Also, assuming most players are rational human beings is the right things to do. If they aren't... stop playing with them.

By gamescape, I didnt mean the mechanics. I meant the combined game experience and its spacialities.

The alignment system serves an important role in the way the D&D universes have formed and exist. It is like fate of the old greek mythology, a force that no being is above. And many, many, many of the conventions in D&D's various lores break down in the vacuum of moral relativism.

Verbannon
2016-10-26, 09:43 PM
Also I dont see the point of using the alignment system at all if you have moral relevatism. Lawful and chaotic for instance simply do not exist in real life. What D&D calls lawful and chaotic in the real world are simply alternate means to achieve good or evil ends.

D&D 4e eliminated its alignment system and, well it tends to be in the top 3 reasons why 4e sucks for most people. 4e is actually planned orginally to expand the alignment system and add another axis. One for balance.

veti
2016-10-27, 01:00 AM
There is no shortage of situations where having the rules based on an individual's opinion of good and evil causes problems. Aligned spells, aligned feats, aligned equipment. Does every single sentient good aligned sword gets its own opinion of good and evil? And even discounting that, you are putting far too much faith in the maturity of the average player. Especially when it comes to their character, their ego and their powers. That goes double for the average DM in a roleplaying heavy game.

Again, this strange assumption that "non-absolute" morality can only translate to "an individual's opinion". This is just nonsense.

In the first place: in the real world, there are many religions, and also at least a handful of non-religious moral philosophies. Each has their own moral prescriptions for their adherents. This is in no way "an individual's opinion" - an observant individual is bound by the rules and conventions of their own faith, as developed by countless predecessors over many generations - they're not just "making it up as they go along". The rules are still written down, there's no earthly reason why they should be any less clear than your "absolute morality".

In the second place, to the extent that relative morality is subjective, so is "absolute morality". Both depend on an individual's interpretation of a set of rules. By adding splatbooks like BoVD and BoED, all you are doing is making the ruleset more complicated, and thus introducing more subtle and sophisticated points of contention. If you think that "adding more rules" is a way to reduce arguments - well, I would draw your attention to the fact that the USA today has more full-time lawyers than it has cops.

In the third place - I don't play with people as childish as you seem to be talking about. I've been playing with them for over 30 years, and we've had our share of nonsensical arguments in that time - but never anything remotely like what you describe. I've never seen the loser of an argument do anything worse than sulk for a couple of hours - which, on the whole, I can live with - and even that reaction is very rare.

Verbannon
2016-10-27, 01:14 AM
Again, this strange assumption that "non-absolute" morality can only translate to "an individual's opinion". This is just nonsense.

In the first place: in the real world, there are many religions, and also at least a handful of non-religious moral philosophies. Each has their own moral prescriptions for their adherents. This is in no way "an individual's opinion" - an observant individual is bound by the rules and conventions of their own faith, as developed by countless predecessors over many generations - they're not just "making it up as they go along". The rules are still written down, there's no earthly reason why they should be any less clear than your "absolute morality".

In the second place, to the extent that relative morality is subjective, so is "absolute morality". Both depend on an individual's interpretation of a set of rules. By adding splatbooks like BoVD and BoED, all you are doing is making the ruleset more complicated, and thus introducing more subtle and sophisticated points of contention. If you think that "adding more rules" is a way to reduce arguments - well, I would draw your attention to the fact that the USA today has more full-time lawyers than it has cops.

In the third place - I don't play with people as childish as you seem to be talking about. I've been playing with them for over 30 years, and we've had our share of nonsensical arguments in that time - but never anything remotely like what you describe. I've never seen the loser of an argument do anything worse than sulk for a couple of hours - which, on the whole, I can live with - and even that reaction is very rare.

We arent talking about the average beliefs of millions or the codefied beliefs of religions. But the specific beliefs of 5 to 7 people sitting around the table. Where it is unlikely any two share more then a small majority of their beliefs.

And you are right, partially. But what those rules mean is that there are definative answers. The nuanced grey areas where there is room for multiple equally correct interpretations is tiny. If there is a disagreement, then you can be confident one party is in fact wrong.

And again you are very lucky, But what you have is exceedingly rare. For one reason, when it comes to things that are subjective, nobody is actually ever wrong, so they cant actually lose or win an argument.

veti
2016-10-27, 02:57 AM
We arent talking about the average beliefs of millions or the codefied beliefs of religions. But the specific beliefs of 5 to 7 people sitting around the table. Where it is unlikely any two share more then a small majority of their beliefs.

You may be talking about that, but I'm not. I'm talking about a set of rules agreed between DM and player(s) during character generation. This is the character's creed. It can be written down in as much detail as you like, I've seen it run to multiple pages, although usually it's just a handful of bullet points.

These beliefs don't have to reflect any particular moral or ethical beliefs of the DM or players. In fact it's easier all round if they don't. But they reflect the social, cultural and religious background of that character, and they are every bit as binding on them as your "absolute morality".

Verbannon
2016-10-27, 03:32 AM
You may be talking about that, but I'm not. I'm talking about a set of rules agreed between DM and player(s) during character generation. This is the character's creed. It can be written down in as much detail as you like, I've seen it run to multiple pages, although usually it's just a handful of bullet points.

These beliefs don't have to reflect any particular moral or ethical beliefs of the DM or players. In fact it's easier all round if they don't. But they reflect the social, cultural and religious background of that character, and they are every bit as binding on them as your "absolute morality".

Oh. Still makes it pointless to use alignments.

Segev
2016-10-27, 11:05 AM
Like much of human language, alignments give labels - names - to concepts that are otherwise hard to categorize. Labeling things helps humans think about them in meaningful ways. Alignments are useful terms because of this. Particularly in games, where transforming qualifiers into quantifiable rules is important.

azaph
2016-10-27, 05:52 PM
Again the actual moral choice isnt there, as now they are just ignorant. And it becomes a simple risk management assessment. For example, Since if they dont know if she is even a threat, they cant know if killing her would end the threat. So instead of discussing the morality of the situation, players will simply argue the odds. And in the end theyll spare her as they go info hunting.

Maybe if the very specific situation came up where they knew the nature of the threat, knew killing her would solve it but had no way of determining if she was a threat. And had no way of simply isolating her. And the players didnt right away scream bull**** at how contrived it is. Then yeah you have a moral gray situation. Still an obvious logical lesser of two evils, but its gray at least.

Oh right. And this threat has to be like a genetic disease or something. Otherwise the moral responsibility would shift to whoever turned the girl into a potential threat. And the party would be absolved regardless of what they chose.

I forgot about this thread!
OK, metaethics point - probability and ignorance are a fundamental part of ethical reasoning, because every moral choice made in real life is made from a position of ignorance, and taking into account probabilities, because we absoloutely never have perfect knowledge of the situation we're dealing with. To say that ignorance changes the moral choice one is making, is accurate (A few philosophers might disagree, but one can say that about literally everything). To say it removes it entirely, implies that there exist no moral choices in reality.
As to what the players will do, I think that could be dealt with by DM management. Give them a ticking clock, so info hunting isn't an option. Have the NPCs be pressuring them to make a decision. Or even have them not able to leave without making a decision.
All those are pretty railroady (though not unrealistic in such a situation), and I wouldn't use them in my campaign. But there are GMs who do have that kind of style.

I will now finish reading the thread.
(EDIT: There's a lot more I'd like to comment on, actually, but I don't think I can without breaking forum rules. The way I think about ethics is too wrapped up with RW politics.)

EDIT 2:
Edit 1 is a bit of a lie. I can reply to the mere addition thingy. It's just long and off topic.

The first thing to remember is that mere addition was developed in part to attack utlitarianism - it's generally presented as accepting it as a kind of reducto ad absudum.
The problem for non-utilitarian philosophers like me, is that it actually turns out to do a lot more damage than that.
The thing is, A+ doesn't have to be better than A - all it has to be, is 'just as good'. And the only way it can not be that, is if it's worse - which implies that the society is made worse by the existence of depressed people.
It's kind of tricky to stick to one's guns and declare 'society would be better off if depressed stopped existing', but some philosophers do.
At which point you run into the mere subtraction paradox. Where 'A' consists of one guy, who has stupidly high utility, and 'A+' adds a bunch of people who have merely ridiculous utility. And you declare that A is better than (or at least no worse than) A+, so you remove them.
Reducing the population of the world to one insanely happy person is clearly not a good idea, so you seem to have to set a value where it is 'better' to exist than not to exist somewhere, to avoid mere subtraction. But that's where 'barely worth living' comes in. The higher that bar is, the more you seem to be getting rid of people who have perfectly reasonable lives, and would prefer to be allowed to live them tyvm. And the lower it is, the harder you get hit by mere addition. If you set it where most people do (at the point at which the people would themselves prefer to be alive), your bar for how badly off people can be is ridiculously low, and mere addition grinds everyone down to that level (or just above).
(My personal soloution is currently to argue that existence and nonexistence are incomparable, so that you can't make a ranking including A and any of the other states. But that soloution only gets me halfway to where one wants to be, and introduces its own problems. I wrote a long thing on what those problems are, but it was boring. Also, it requires me to use counterpart theory to make it work, which is worrying, because modal realism is, politely, cuckoo.)
(Mere addition for non-consequentialist theories is kinda possible, but relies either on those theories devolving partially into consequentialism at this level to avoid other objections, or on weird quirks of the system)

GreatWyrmGold
2016-10-27, 08:25 PM
(and, I would add, even "absolute" morality still requires human interpretation)
Not if it's stupid enough.


"Player: "Well... you know we are ICly best friends and clanmates, so I know I am a lawful good Dwarven Paladin and probably should stop him from torturing these prisoners of ours for info. But you know, friendship is an important value to uphold so I think my Paladinhood is safe even if I turn a blind eye here. After all it is a grey area for my character. "
DM: "I'm going to have to disagree..."
Player: "Why are you enforcing your opinion of right and wrong on my character!?"
This example can easily be twisted to something which is a problem even if you have "absolute" morality. E.g, "I need to let my party torture these prisoners for information to stop the BBEG."


In theory. "Keeps the trains running on time" is a major selling point of the LE tyranny over the CG pseudo-anarchy.
...I don't remember bringing up anything related to "trains-run-on-time". (And fun fact, dictatorships tend to not be very good at that. Not even Mussolini, for whom the phrase was coined.)


But CG will point out that L* incentivizing people to seek power incentivises them to corrupt the institutions and institutionalize the corruption until the "G" is slain.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying "These institutions will inevitably have holes in them which can be exploited, so we shouldn't even try to set them up" or "These institutions will inevitably be changed for the benefit of those in power when they don't care enough about the common good, so we shouldn't bother"? In the latter case, that's what checks and balances are for (even pre-modern government forms had those in some form—guess how long a king reigned if he pissed off enough nobles, or vise versa). In both cases...the "CG" method has it worse.


No, the chaotic path is easier if you don't care about Good. It's a lot harder if you do, because you have to be constantly vigilent, constantly personally responsible for your own actions (never having the luxury of relying on a system you trust to guide your choices without misleading you), and you have to always be willing to gather with others to defend your own and others' liberties against tyranny; there's no organized law enforcement to do that for you.
And all of this, you must do while being firmly and thoroughly educated in sufficient philosophy to not forget the Good part of your alignment and what it requires.
Yeah...that's not happening. It's the ideal case, yes, but the ideal case of LG is equally impossible to pull off.

I don't think CG would advocate a complete lack of government, or of law and order and justice. LG and CG would both agree that that's important. What I feel they'd disagree on is implementation. "For what crimes is capital punishment warranted?" "Should the government try to protect the citizens at the expense of freedom or provide liberty at the expense of safety?" "Should the government help the poor at the wealthy's expense, or let the free market run unimpeded?" (Though some of these depend as much on how one interprets their alignment as said alignment. For instance, robbing the rich to feed the poor is classic CG behavior, but it's not hard to see another CG character opposing market regulations.)


The alignment system serves an important role in the way the D&D universes have formed and exist. It is like fate of the old greek mythology, a force that no being is above. And many, many, many of the conventions in D&D's various lores break down in the vacuum of moral relativism.
The details of D&D ore aren't terribly relevant to the mechanics. And it's not like most people don't already play in a custom world (whether it's little beyond a kingdom not found in Greyhawk or Faeurn or a full-blown alternate Earth with its own cosmology and pantheon).


Also I dont see the point of using the alignment system at all if you have moral relevatism. Lawful and chaotic for instance simply do not exist in real life. What D&D calls lawful and chaotic in the real world are simply alternate means to achieve good or evil ends.
That's kind of what law and chaos are in D&D, too. I mean, there are a few beings of pure law/chaos, but when you look at the alignments as intended for normal mortals (at least 99% of PCs and 90% of significant NPCs), they don't describe LG as someone who is "lawful" and also "good," but someone who uses lawful means to achieve good ends.


We arent talking about the average beliefs of millions or the codefied beliefs of religions. But the specific beliefs of 5 to 7 people sitting around the table. Where it is unlikely any two share more then a small majority of their beliefs.
Studies suggest most people game with people in their community, if not their circle of friends and/or family, and that such people have a much greater percentage of shared beliefs than two random people from around the world.



The thing is, A+ doesn't have to be better than A - all it has to be, is 'just as good'. And the only way it can not be that, is if it's worse - which implies that the society is made worse by the existence of depressed people.
It's kind of tricky to stick to one's guns and declare 'society would be better off if depressed stopped existing', but some philosophers do.
At which point you run into the mere subtraction paradox. Where 'A' consists of one guy, who has stupidly high utility, and 'A+' adds a bunch of people who have merely ridiculous utility. And you declare that A is better than (or at least no worse than) A+, so you remove them.
Reducing the population of the world to one insanely happy person is clearly not a good idea, so you seem to have to set a value where it is 'better' to exist than not to exist somewhere, to avoid mere subtraction. But that's where 'barely worth living' comes in. The higher that bar is, the more you seem to be getting rid of people who have perfectly reasonable lives, and would prefer to be allowed to live them tyvm. And the lower it is, the harder you get hit by mere addition. If you set it where most people do (at the point at which the people would themselves prefer to be alive), your bar for how badly off people can be is ridiculously low, and mere addition grinds everyone down to that level (or just above).
This is the first I've heard of the "mere subtraction problem," and I've never thought about reversing the mere addition problem. So I've already learned something useful from this!
Hm. I'm trying to think of a solution which doesn't borrow elements from yours. The best I can think of is adding in the idea that community sizes above a certain size are desirable in and of themselves and erring on the side of mere subtraction, but that feels clunky.


(My personal soloution is currently to argue that existence and nonexistence are incomparable, so that you can't make a ranking including A and any of the other states. But that soloution only gets me halfway to where one wants to be, and introduces its own problems. I wrote a long thing on what those problems are, but it was boring. Also, it requires me to use counterpart theory to make it work, which is worrying, because modal realism is, politely, cuckoo.)

You have at least one person who wouldn't find it boring.
Unless you mean it was boring to write, in which case never mind. I have no intent to be a burden.

Segev
2016-10-28, 08:48 AM
...I don't remember bringing up anything related to "trains-run-on-time". (And fun fact, dictatorships tend to not be very good at that. Not even Mussolini, for whom the phrase was coined.)And yet, the stereotype is that they do. Like I said, it's a "selling point." Recall that D&D works with a lot of assumptions that don't hold in reality. I am trying very hard to avoid delving into what really works from an objective standpoint, because objective morality can be inferred from examining what has and has not worked, and the consequences of a full appraisal of what leads to greater prosperity and happiness overall given human nature will definitely lean towards a particular LG philosophy that is absolutely LOATHED by a great many people in the real world.

And, since arguing real-world philosophy is beyond the scope of this thread (and, if not expressly so, dangerously close to violating the rules of the forum), I am trying to hold to "what the holders of these alignments in D&D would argue" while adhering to the assumptions of the system - e.g. LE does run a smoothly-operating system, except where there's deliberate red tape.


I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying "These institutions will inevitably have holes in them which can be exploited, so we shouldn't even try to set them up" or "These institutions will inevitably be changed for the benefit of those in power when they don't care enough about the common good, so we shouldn't bother"? In the latter case, that's what checks and balances are for (even pre-modern government forms had those in some form—guess how long a king reigned if he pissed off enough nobles, or vise versa). In both cases...the "CG" method has it worse.You can argue that CG does it worse, certainly. CG would counter that it is the harder path to follow, but the better one. Both require constant vigilance, but only CG is honest about it and only CG fails to breed complacency while allowing the freedoms of those who do remain vigilant to be curtailed to the point they can't do anything about the corruption.

Also, checks and balances are a wonderful idea, but corruption can crush them, too. We have only to look at some highly prominent real-world institutions built around their concept to see how they fail, particularly when those who are supposed to check and balance refuse to do so.


Yeah...that's not happening. It's the ideal case, yes, but the ideal case of LG is equally impossible to pull off.Indeed. Which is why NG argues that a middle path is best.


I don't think CG would advocate a complete lack of government, or of law and order and justice. LG and CG would both agree that that's important. What I feel they'd disagree on is implementation. "For what crimes is capital punishment warranted?" "Should the government try to protect the citizens at the expense of freedom or provide liberty at the expense of safety?" "Should the government help the poor at the wealthy's expense, or let the free market run unimpeded?" (Though some of these depend as much on how one interprets their alignment as said alignment. For instance, robbing the rich to feed the poor is classic CG behavior, but it's not hard to see another CG character opposing market regulations.)Sure. But that disagreement can get pretty vast. To use real-world modern-American terms, LG will tend to be more "big government" and CG will tend to be more "small government." This isn't 100% accurate; you can absolutely have an LG sort who feels localized government which interferes minimally is best. But the more he believes that, the more likely he is to be NG with L tendencies.

Ultimately, the MAIN difference is in how willing they are to overthrow or ignore the institutions set up by breaking the institutions' rules. CG will ignore them any time they don't "work." NG will ignore them occasionally, preferring to bend rather than break, and will resist overthrow more than CG (but ultimately will do it if the system is corrupted beyond reasonably-easy repair). LG will endure with the system and its flaws for as long as possible, striving to repair any corruption from within. Likely will only go for "overthrow" if the corruption is so bad that the system has become a catch-22 where only evil can prevail. (And even THEN will be seeking to re-establish order ASAP.)


This is the first I've heard of the "mere subtraction problem," and I've never thought about reversing the mere addition problem. So I've already learned something useful from this!
I'm not familiar with either; I'll have to look them up.

GreatWyrmGold
2016-10-28, 01:43 PM
And, since arguing real-world philosophy is beyond the scope of this thread (and, if not expressly so, dangerously close to violating the rules of the forum), I am trying to hold to "what the holders of these alignments in D&D would argue" while adhering to the assumptions of the system - e.g. LE does run a smoothly-operating system, except where there's deliberate red tape.
I never brought up LE, either. The closest I got was saying that a lawfully-fun system would work well, which you countered by saying...what? That because it works well, and LE societies work well, it's actually LE no matter if it's done anything evil?


You can argue that CG does it worse, certainly. CG would counter that it is the harder path to follow, but the better one. Both require constant vigilance, but only CG is honest about it and only CG fails to breed complacency while allowing the freedoms of those who do remain vigilant to be curtailed to the point they can't do anything about the corruption.
Okay, is your whole argument going to just be "Yes, you could say it; I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I'm certainly going to make it clear you're not right. Not that I'll give any kind of explanation why, aside from the fact that other people will say it is."


Also, checks and balances are a wonderful idea, but corruption can crush them, too. We have only to look at some highly prominent real-world institutions built around their concept to see how they fail, particularly when those who are supposed to check and balance refuse to do so.
Which is why every government system has devolved to tyranny within a few generations.
Oh wait, that's not right. Tyranny is shockingly rare, if you think it's so inevitable, and isn't it curious how tyrants always feel the need to find ways to remove checks and balances or occasionally control the people checking them rather than just circumventing them as you seem to think is so simple?


Indeed. Which is why NG argues that a middle path is best.
What, "It's impossible to succeed at either, so rather than bother trying, we should take a middle path and hope that works"?


Sure. But that disagreement can get pretty vast. To use real-world modern-American terms, LG will tend to be more "big government" and CG will tend to be more "small government." This isn't 100% accurate; you can absolutely have an LG sort who feels localized government which interferes minimally is best. But the more he believes that, the more likely he is to be NG with L tendencies.
I think it's fair to say that no one in real-world modern America—be they the "big-government" Democrats or "small-government" Republicans, be they members of Congress or powerful executives or working-class nobodies—would support the positions which were held up as Chaotic Good, and which I was saying weren't good in any way, shape, or form.

Segev
2016-10-28, 01:58 PM
I never brought up LE, either. The closest I got was saying that a lawfully-fun system would work well, which you countered by saying...what? That because it works well, and LE societies work well, it's actually LE no matter if it's done anything evil?I...don't think you're following my arguments at all. I'm sorry, this is so twisted around from what I was saying that I don't even know where to begin to correct it.


Okay, is your whole argument going to just be "Yes, you could say it; I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I'm certainly going to make it clear you're not right. Not that I'll give any kind of explanation why, aside from the fact that other people will say it is."As I've said repeatedly, I'm playing devil's advocate in this thread. I acknowledge you have good points. I am not saying you're wrong. I am outlining the position of those who might disagree with you and demonstrating that they also have valid points.

The whole notion of alignment as pertains to D&D is that all of them "work" for those who follow them, as long as those who follow them have goals in alignment with their philosophical ends. So CG is no LESS valid an approach to Good than LG (though I would argue that NG is going to be the most effective, just by virtue of not valuing L or C enough to compromise G at any point for either).

So yes, that really is my whole argument, though not phrased in a manner deliberately and unfairly designed to make it sound silly. You have good points. But you're not objectively more right than the hypothetical CG person for whom I'm speaking.

One could make a case that any Good alignment is "more right" than any Evil alignment, but that's kind of getting into semantic weeds, since "right for whom?" becomes a valid question. Certainly, Good is definitionally more righteous than Evil. But Law and Chaos are not concerned with Good and Evil, and I will strongly object to anybody who attempts to make a case that LG is objectively "more Good" than CG.

Not because I inherently agree with CG, but because while LG has great points to it, so does CG, and neither can objectively prove that the other's failure points are worse than their own.



Which is why every government system has devolved to tyranny within a few generations."Democracy is always only one generation away from tyranny."

Oh wait, that's not right. Tyranny is shockingly rare,You...are obviously not a student of modern geopolitics, if you believe that. Tyranny is the NORM in terms of governments, historically and today. We're blessed to be largely free of it in our first world western society.


if you think it's so inevitable, and isn't it curious how tyrants always feel the need to find ways to remove checks and balances or occasionally control the people checking them rather than just circumventing them as you seem to think is so simple?And here I cannot reply without violating forum rules. Suffice it to say that I disagree with the underlying factual assumption you're making here.


What, "It's impossible to succeed at either, so rather than bother trying, we should take a middle path and hope that works"?Nope. "Both will have failures; take what works from both and apply them. When a failure arises, resolve it with an exception, on case-by-case bases."


I think it's fair to say that no one in real-world modern America—be they the "big-government" Democrats or "small-government" Republicans, be they members of Congress or powerful executives or working-class nobodies—would support the positions which were held up as Chaotic Good, and which I was saying weren't good in any way, shape, or form.You're welcome to that opinion. Honestly, I agree that legal systems are good things, because I am more a subscriber to Locke than Rousseau when it comes to human nature. I agree with nearly all the arguments made on the pro-LG side. (It may be why my devil's advocacy is not particularly effective.)

However, from a D&D perspective, CG has the points it wishes to make. And its points are not invalid. And to tell CG that it is "less good" because it isn't LG is a decidedly LG perspective, and not one with objective merit in D&D.

azaph
2016-10-29, 12:25 PM
This is the first I've heard of the "mere subtraction problem," and I've never thought about reversing the mere addition problem. So I've already learned something useful from this!
Hm. I'm trying to think of a solution which doesn't borrow elements from yours. The best I can think of is adding in the idea that community sizes above a certain size are desirable in and of themselves and erring on the side of mere subtraction, but that feels clunky.


You have at least one person who wouldn't find it boring.
Unless you mean it was boring to write, in which case never mind. I have no intent to be a burden.


Should we have this conversation via PM/in a new thread? I feel it's a while from the topic :P.

Fortunately, I'm pretty sure the Giant has said that philosophy is fine, as long as it doesn''t stray into politcs.

(Also, trying very hard to stay on the right side of forum rules, there are a lot of failed democracies, but it is actually quite rare for a democracy that has lasted more than one generation to become a non-democracy again.)


Heh, no, I just meant I thought noone would care enough to read it :smallsmile:.

TBF, I think the name 'mere subtraction' might be a bit rarer - I certainly didn't invent it, but it's not as common as the argument I was using it for.

So the big problem I can't solve is that by making neither of them compulsory, I make both of them permitted. I can't ever say that even the worst cases of mere addition/subtraction are making things worse. I can't even argue that A+++ (where you add new people and move everyone to a higher level of utility) is better than A (I can object to the methods used to GET to A, but not the results.). I think that's worth it, but it's a tradeoff.

The second big problem is that in actual mere addition cases, we're normally chosing between two future populations. Generally speaking, it's possible to make the argument that none of the populations (A, A+, B-, B) have the same people in them, so I need to have a way of matching up people from A+ with people from B despite them being completely different in every way. I think that's possible via counterpart theory, where you match people to their 'closest' equivalent, but it's not obvious that the counterpart relation is a meaningful one. And if it isn't,things get weird. (I have a vague memory that there was a way to solve the first problem with counterpart theory, but I can't remember it :(.)

Then there's the awkward moment when someone asks 'so, if 'not existing' isn't worse than existing, what's wrong with murder? I can't be said to be hurting uncle Tom when I slip him the neurotoxin, it's painless. And everyone else would be much happier if the old bastard would just die already.
It's not like one can't answer that. You just can't answer it with utilitarianism. One might argue that Tom's right to control what happens to his own body is more important than the happiness of others, or one might say that killing Tom would not be an action which one would wish to become a universal law. Or you might use another solution, but whatever you choose, you would have to apply that through the rest of one's ethical and political philosophies, and that usually has... odd results. (You could just argue for an afterlife, but that implies that killing would be fine if there wasn't one - so Miko wold have been morally fine if she just threw Shojo to the Snarl instead of stabbing him).

The problem with 'communities above a certain size are desirble in and of themselves, is that the obvious question is 'why?'

Segev
2016-10-30, 11:09 AM
Re: democracies becoming dictatorships - Rome did. It took a long time to drop the pretense, and Senators were essentially Dikes for centuries, but it definitely was not a Republic anymore after Caesar.

azaph
2016-10-30, 12:42 PM
Yeah, like I said, there absoloutely are examples (though the actual level of democracy in ancient Rome is arguable). But I'd still argue that there is evidence that "Democracy is always only one generation away from tyranny." isn't entirely accurate. In general, I'm not sure if democracy actually is more common worldwide today. I think it depends exactly how you define democracy, so probably best to avoid that. But regardless, dictatorship seems to be in decline, worldwide.

Segev
2016-10-31, 09:49 AM
Yeah, like I said, there absoloutely are examples (though the actual level of democracy in ancient Rome is arguable). But I'd still argue that there is evidence that "Democracy is always only one generation away from tyranny." isn't entirely accurate. In general, I'm not sure if democracy actually is more common worldwide today. I think it depends exactly how you define democracy, so probably best to avoid that. But regardless, dictatorship seems to be in decline, worldwide.

Sadly, I must disagree. Dictatorships are by far the majority of national governments right now, and two of the three contenders for "superpower" status in the world arguably have little to no more democracy than any People's Liberated Free Democratic Republic. (I would say "all three," but I'd rather leave myself the hedge of allowing people to argue that at least one isn't.)

But less depressingly, it is the nature of power to attract corruptible (or already corrupt) people, who will deliberately corrupt any system over which they have power to prevent that power from being taken away and protect themselves from the consequences of their corrupt behavior. And checks and balances only work as long as the corruption is kept from colluding, which...takes work and effort and vigilance on the part of the uncorrupt. Or at least those who are not in a position to benefit from the corrupted power.

GreatWyrmGold
2016-10-31, 12:44 PM
Segev: I had a longer reply, but my computer ate it, and so I'll summarize my most important point as such.
I would have thought I'd made it clear by now that I don't think your viewpoint is one that anyone—CG or no—would follow. You've responded to this by insisting that CG characters would follow it, and that therefore they have a point in a D&D world (without explaining why). You've not only left gaps in your logic, you've failed to address my actual point. Which is frustrating.



Re: democracies becoming dictatorships - Rome did. It took a long time to drop the pretense, and Senators were essentially Dikes for centuries, but it definitely was not a Republic anymore after Caesar.
I'm not sure that's a perfect comparison. The Roman Republic probably has more in common with modern democracies than either does with, say, feudalism, but I'm reasonably certain that the USSR's government and modern democracies have more in common than either does with Rome, and I doubt anyone would call the USSR a model of democracy.
The biggest difference is, arguably, the fact that Roman citizenship was restricted to a minority of the most prominent residents of the Empire rather than being something which every resident received. The lack of multiple governing bodies (and hence proper checks and balances) is also an issue. I've also heard that the authority of the Senate came from the Senators being trusted, rather than the Senators' power deriving from being members of the Senate, which obviously changes the governmental dynamics on a fundamental level, but I haven't found any sources which quantify this.



Sadly, I must disagree. Dictatorships are by far the majority of national governments right now, and two of the three contenders for "superpower" status in the world arguably have little to no more democracy than any People's Liberated Free Democratic Republic. (I would say "all three," but I'd rather leave myself the hedge of allowing people to argue that at least one isn't.)
Before we continue any discussion in this vein, define what you mean by "dictatorship," "little democracy," and so on. I suspect that the reason for this discussion has as much to do with different interpretation of words as it does with different interpretations of the world.
And yeah, little quasi-dictatorships make up many governments in the most turbulent regions in Africa, and "banana republics" based on oil and other resources aren't uncommon, most of the world's population and nearly all of its industrial/economic capacity are held by governments which can't be classified under any reasonable definition of dictatorship. (And China; I can see the argument there, even though I feel they've cleaned up their act a good bit since the definite-tyranny decades.)


And I'm moving the conversation with azaph to a new thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?504881-Philosophy-in-the-Playground-A-Moved-Derailment&p=21354003#post21354003).

Segev
2016-10-31, 02:38 PM
Given the forum's purpose and rules, I am going to apologize, but bow out of continuing discussion of real-world democracies, republics, and dictatorships.

I do think you're wrong about CG, mainly because you've provided no counterpoint that I recall seeing (apologies if I missed it or have forgotten) that spells out what CG is. The take-away I get from your posts is that CG doesn't exist and cannot exist because Good doesn't countenance any non-Lawful ethos. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. There was a decent effort at a CG that wasn't quite what I was describing, but at the same time that CG seemed an awful lot like NG, to me, in that it respected laws and thought they were a good idea that just occasionally needed to be re-examined.

So please, to make your point stronger, outline what you think CG really looks like.


--oh! And somebody suggested CG just takes the "never kill" thing further than LG does, because true CG would never trust they had "the right person" under any circumstances. I disagree simply because that logic doesn't hold: if the risk that you have the wrong person is too great to permit the death penalty, then adding layers of law to it doesn't make that risk sufficiently reduced.

Though I do agree that CG would hesitate to resort to killing. As would LG. It is always a last resort, to be done to people who clearly pose too great a threat to innocents to be allowed to continue to live. How that judgment is arrived at will differ for CG vs LG, but I do not think it impossible for CG to validly reach that conclusion.

2D8HP
2016-11-01, 01:15 PM
I fully expect that you find it less effective and less right and less righteous. I am playing devil's advocate, here. (I personally probably am somewhere in the LN with G tendencies area in practice, despite philosophically preferring NG.)In that case (at least according to the guy who made these terms up) you fit in with the majority of humanity:


http://hilobrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/gygax-futurama.jpg
As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil. - The Strategic Review, February 1976 issue


In the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions) by Poul Anderson,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg/220px-ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg
which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict, it was only sometimes "Law", and usually it was indeed "Order" vs. "Chaos", and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

To learn what is ment by "chaotic/good", "lawful/evil" etc. ask the DM of that particular table, it means what the DM says it means

If you want you can also read the article which first had the term.

I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which is next to me. It reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)




illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KYLvpKSI/AAAAAAAAGrk/gxPmMlYaDIQ/s1600-h/illus1%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KaWTQKmI/AAAAAAAAGrs/EY_aYEhHcvs/s1600-h/n1%5B5%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KcgaWCfI/AAAAAAAAGr0/cZZSquIxTn4/s1600-h/n2a%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KfERen3I/AAAAAAAAGr8/Sb0VAeS3nKM/s1600-h/N2b%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KifB_yhI/AAAAAAAAGsI/O4eV2OSXAng/N3_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KhU85a1I/AAAAAAAAGsE/nnA-2gMCFyI/s1600-h/N3%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600-h/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KmQCwDXI/AAAAAAAAGsU/_suYkwtUadA/s1600-h/Illus3%5B2%5D.jpg)



THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL

by Gary Gygax

FEBRUARY 1976

Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined. In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil. Before going into the definitions of these four terms, a graphic representation of their relative positions will help the reader to follow the further discourse. (Illustration I)

Notice first that the area of neutrality lies squarely athwart the intersection of the lines which divide the four behavioral distinctions, and it is a very small area when compared with the rest of the graph. This refers to true neutrality, not to neutrality regarding certain interactions at specific times, i.e., a war which will tend to weaken a stronger player or game element regardless of the “neutral” party’s actions can hardly be used as a measure of neutrality if it will benefit the party’s interest to have the weakening come about.

Also note that movement upon this graph is quite possible with regard to campaign participants, and the dungeonmaster should, in fact, make this a standard consideration in play. This will be discussed hereafter.

Now consider the term “Law” as opposed to “Chaos”. While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e., a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

Basically, then, “Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification various creatures is shown on Illustration II.

Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that selfseeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category. What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration. Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are not subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.

As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil.

Three graphs on alignment

Made simple-
https://1d4chan.org/images/thumb/4/45/Alignment_Demotivational.jpg/350px-Alignment_Demotivational.jpg

From Pratchett's Discworld-
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/71/47/1c/71471c4a84496bb6ae3cb129d35b036c.jpg

And from
THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL
by Gary Gygax

In the February 1976 issue of The Strategic Review (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)

http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg

Hope they help!

There will be a test.

:amused:

https://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/blogs/geekdad/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Otus_cover_Cheers_Gary.jpg

Max_Killjoy
2016-11-01, 02:00 PM
That's all well and good, and he is the guy who invented the system.

However, I also fundamentally disagree with Mr Gygax on many of the statements he makes there.

2D8HP
2016-11-01, 02:19 PM
That's all well and good, and he is the guy who invented the system.

However, I also fundamentally disagree with Mr Gygax on many of the statements he makes there.
What, you don't agree that helping with the harvest morally balances out the occasional human sacrifice?

:confused:


Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral

Inevitability
2016-11-01, 04:11 PM
What, you don't agree that helping with the harvest morally balances out the occasional human sacrifice?

:confused:


I wonder whether the villagers share this perspective?

"Okay guys, nice job on the harvest. Thanks for helping us out, druids fellows!"
"No problem. Now, if one of your healthy young folks could come with us to be covered in deer's blood and set on fire for the glory of our gods, that would be great."

Segev
2016-11-02, 09:16 AM
I wonder whether the villagers share this perspective?

"Okay guys, nice job on the harvest. Thanks for helping us out, druids fellows!"
"No problem. Now, if one of your healthy young folks could come with us to be covered in deer's blood and set on fire for the glory of our gods, that would be great."

Twisted as it is, evidence suggests that there are multiple cultures where being the sacrifice was a great honor for which people competed. Death cults are scary that way.