Morality Question: To Kill Or Not to Kill - A Wyrmling Red Dragon

[Tzonarin]

So, my party was dispatched by the Prince of the land to claim a rare ore that was in the hoard of a Red Dragon. We thought it was going to be this massive thing, Adult at least. We planned and schemed as best as a Level 5 party could.

We found the dragon. It was a wyrmling, with all the arrogance and bad temper of a red dragon, but a 5 year old wyrmling.

The rest of the party parlayed with it - one even tried to co-opt it as an ally (a red!). My dwarf, a Lawful Good Dwarven Fighter, had another idea - dispatch an evil red dragon before it became a much more of a nightmare. We got the ore through parlay, but...

My dwarf went in alone, as the rest of the party was unwilling to engage it (but, but...it's a BABY!). The dwarf, seeing an evil red dragon (wyrmling, yes, but red dragon nonetheless), moved up and struck it in the side with a +2 Greataxe. Dragon fought back, angry and vicious. Three rounds, the dragon took to the sky and escaped...barely.

Party was horrified. Even my son, our youngest player at 11, got teary-eyed.

"Dad, you're a mean guy. You tried to kill a baby dragon"

"Friggin, evil avaricious red dragon! Y'all need to read your Draconomicon!"

So, morality question...

Do you kill the evil red dragon (wyrmling), or do you spare the little baby critter?

Dwarf made off with a 2000GP hoard for his kingdom. Not a bad haul for a 5 year old dragon.

Even now I have a very ticked off wyrmling red dragon who will have a grudge against dwarves out there.

[CharonsHelper]

It depends upon your setting.

If it's Eberron - dragons can have whatever alignment they want - they just have leanings.

If it's a setting where dragons are like 5e demons/devils - basically balls of evil alignment who are nothing but - kill the thing ASAP.

[Tzonarin]

It depends upon your setting.

If it's Eberron - dragons can have whatever alignment they want - they just have leanings.

If it's a setting where dragons are like 5e demons/devils - basically balls of evil alignment who are nothing but - kill the thing ASAP.

Wasn't Eberron. Custom world. But DM played it right on as a Red would behave.

Tzo

[Freed]

You take the dragon with you and give him to be raised with his metallic brethren, thus getting a powerful ally on the side of good. If he thinks he's a reddish copper, he might work for good. Unless he lives with his evil parents.

[Tzonarin]

You take the dragon with you and give him to be raised with his metallic brethren, thus getting a powerful ally on the side of good. If he thinks he's a reddish copper, he might work for good.

We don't have any metallic dragons to whom we could deliver it. Only other dragon we encountered was an Adult Black. Barely got away from that one (DM basically softballed that one).

Which now, we inject the nature vs. nurture question. Red dragons are evil and avaricious by nature. Could he be "raised" by a metallic without being basically eaten or destroyed on sight, as a chromatic?

Another interesting topic - would a metallic even attempt to raise a chromatic? Would they "see the potential"?

Tzo

[Freed]

I will consult my new Dragonomicon! I got it for christmas!

[Draconium]

You monster. What did we ever do to you?

Okay, but seriously. If it's a custom world, then it does depend on your DM. But even if they play it like a classic Red Dragon, you have to keep in mind - it's an intelligent creature. Dragons are just as capable of reasoning as a human, and even if 99% of a dragon species is evil, there is almost certainly going to be a capacity for that 1% to be redeemable. As it stands... I would say you and your character had reason to attack. Whether or not is was a good reason is another question.

The main issue is that you went against the party to dispatch a creature that they were willing to spare, for no other reason than it being that species. It is almost certainly going to harbor a grudge now. It's going to see a dwarf that attacked it simply on the basis of it existing. If it wasn't a monster before, congratulations. It certainly is one now - one that will grow up hating your kind as much as you hate its, fostering the grudge until one day, when it is much older and stronger, it comes across a city of your kind...

[Freed]

Yuppers. I checked and Chroms and Metallics occasionally work together and that some chromatics worship Bahumat. I believe that the metallics (being very justice-y) would raise an innocent hatchling chrom, if the chrom would worship Bahumat.

[Blackhawk748]

Was it actually being evil or was it just existing? Also it being a wyrmling means nothing, because Red Dragons are born as intelligent as your average human.

[Tzonarin]

Was it actually being evil or was it just existing? Also it being a wyrmling means nothing, because Red Dragons are born as intelligent as your average human.

The Dwarf would have considered this...if it didn't say things like this during parlay:


"I'll hunt down and eat the half-elf"
"I want to destroy the demons and rule their realm"
"Give me all of your shiny and I'll let you live"


Seemed pretty evil in intent.

Tzo

[Freed]

Was it actually being evil or was it just existing? Also it being a wyrmling means nothing, because Red Dragons are born as intelligent as your average human.

But this dragon, though intellegent, definitely had not done as much evil, or gotten accustomed to evil ways as much as an older dragon. Hell, it traded away a PIECE OF ITS HOARD! No full-grown greedy dragon would do that!
EDIT: Never mind that last part.

[Freed]

The Dwarf would have considered this...if it didn't say things like this during parlay:


"I'll hunt down and eat the half-elf"
"I want to destroy the demons and rule their realm"
"Give me all of your shiny and I'll let you live"


Seemed pretty evil in intent.

Tzo
Well, destroying demons is good behavior, Half-Elves are tasty, and that dragon has been brought up on nothing but shiny!

[Koo Rehtorb]

100% kill it every time. You did good.

The rest of the party deserves a good scolding for letting the thing play on their sympathy for it. Dragons are bad.

[Tzonarin]

The main issue is that you went against the party to dispatch a creature that they were willing to spare, for no other reason than it being that species. It is almost certainly going to harbor a grudge now. It's going to see a dwarf that attacked it simply on the basis of it existing. If it wasn't a monster before, congratulations. It certainly is one now - one that will grow up hating your kind as much as you hate its, fostering the grudge until one day, when it is much older and stronger, it comes across a city of your kind...

The dragon exhibited every aspect of its classic personality. Dwarf would not have just gone into a blood-rage to dispatch it on sight. But after parlay basically went south, forcing the party to cloak itself, steal the ore, and move on, the dwarf saw the opportunity - dispatch the wyrmling before it decides to tear across the countryside. So, either way, it would have been a monster, in the dwarf's view.

Tzo

[Draconium]

The Dwarf would have considered this...if it didn't say things like this during parlay:


"I'll hunt down and eat the half-elf"
"I want to destroy the demons and rule their realm"
"Give me all of your shiny and I'll let you live"


Seemed pretty evil in intent.

Tzo

It is also, by your own description, a Wyrmling. It's essentially a baby with a big ego. It talks evil, bit hasn't actually been, well, alive long enough to really see both sides of the coin, so to speak.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Kill it with something other than fire, ASAP.

For one, a 5 year old red is a threat equal to any minor city guard -captain- in combat. It's a hell of a long way from helpless.

For two, dragons seem to have some kind of racial memory, given that they can speak within -hours- of hatching even if there are no parental figures present. (draconomicon)

For three, outside of eberron and similar settings, they have racial predisposition for their normal alignment (may be related to the racial memory thing)

Finally, I've never encountered a baby anything capable of tearing my face off, cooking my guts with its breath, and using my bones as tooth picks while it chats gloatingly with the severely wounded and helpless survivors of my party. I don't think calling it a "baby" is at all appropriate regardless of its age, shy of a value best measured in minutes.

[Tzonarin]

Amendment:

It DID trade part of his hoard, for:

A couple gold/silver goblets
A magical flute


The dragon wanted us to go steal more. Party refused, saying other members of the party (me) would just come in and destroy the dragon if it refused. Still refused. Party cloaked, stole the ore, left the goblets and flute and left.

Druid cast some spell to cause it to cry on its hoard. Dwarf waited for spell to wear off, then engaged it in combat (at least wasn't going to attack until the dragon was as not affected by some mind-altering spell).

Tzo

[Freed]

Now, from the evidence, I need to know the answer to some questions.
Does negotiations going south mean about to attack or the dragon wouldn't trade?
If the former, did you threaten it in any way?

[Tzonarin]

Now, from the evidence, I need to know the answer to some questions.
Does negotiations going south mean about to attack or the dragon wouldn't trade?
If the former, did you threaten it in any way?

It wasn't going to attack. Just greedy. Refused to trade. Incapacitated it by magic. Made the trade according to the party's terms.

Dwarf waited for magic to wear off and attacked it, again, in character, seeing a potential threat to the kingdom.

Tzo

[Freed]

So this Prince sent you on a mission to retrieve the ore, not kill the dragon specifically, all the while the dragon was willing to trade his hoard (For an overly large amount of money, but still.) and not attack the adventurers? I think I agree with your son, man.

[Tzonarin]

So this Prince sent you on a mission to retrieve the ore, not kill the dragon specifically, all the while the dragon was willing to trade his hoard (For an overly large amount of money, but still.) and not attack the adventurers? I think I agree with your son, man.

Prince sent party out with every intent to destroy the dragon and claim the ore (only to find out dragon was only a wyrmling after all). As for "willing to trade", well, party offered two goblets and a flute. Dragon wanted more than the party was willing to trade. Not entirely certain if the dragon would have attacked directly or not, magic effect incapacitated the wyrmling before it could actually strike after parlay, so party never really gave it a chance to attack at all.

Tzo

[RazorChain]

So, my party was dispatched by the Prince of the land to claim a rare ore that was in the hoard of a Red Dragon. We thought it was going to be this massive thing, Adult at least. We planned and schemed as best as a Level 5 party could.

We found the dragon. It was a wyrmling, with all the arrogance and bad temper of a red dragon, but a 5 year old wyrmling.

The rest of the party parlayed with it - one even tried to co-opt it as an ally (a red!). My dwarf, a Lawful Good Dwarven Fighter, had another idea - dispatch an evil red dragon before it became a much more of a nightmare. We got the ore through parlay, but...

My dwarf went in alone, as the rest of the party was unwilling to engage it (but, but...it's a BABY!). The dwarf, seeing an evil red dragon (wyrmling, yes, but red dragon nonetheless), moved up and struck it in the side with a +2 Greataxe. Dragon fought back, angry and vicious. Three rounds, the dragon took to the sky and escaped...barely.

Party was horrified. Even my son, our youngest player at 11, got teary-eyed.

"Dad, you're a mean guy. You tried to kill a baby dragon"

"Friggin, evil avaricious red dragon! Y'all need to read your Draconomicon!"

So, morality question...

Do you kill the evil red dragon (wyrmling), or do you spare the little baby critter?

Dwarf made off with a 2000GP hoard for his kingdom. Not a bad haul for a 5 year old dragon.

Even now I have a very ticked off wyrmling red dragon who will have a grudge against dwarves out there.

So you decided it was evil therefore it was right to kill it.

You decided to act as a jury, judge and executioneer without any proof of crimes or atrocities

You tried to murder it preemptively

You broke a parlay

You stole it's treasure.

So basically your character is a thief, oathbreaker and a murderer?

[Freed]

Prince sent party out with every intent to destroy the dragon and claim the ore (only to find out dragon was only a wyrmling after all). As for "willing to trade", well, party offered two goblets and a flute. Dragon wanted more than the party was willing to trade. Not entirely certain if the dragon would have attacked directly or not, magic effect incapacitated the wyrmling before it could actually strike after parlay, so party never really gave it a chance to attack at all.

Tzo
You attacked first without proof that he was hostile. But still, I think it was a better plan than the rest of the party's.
Negotiation > Homacide > Stealing from a dragon who knows who you are and who you work for and leaving him there, because he refused your trade terms. He's just gonna try and kill you! So if negotiations completely failed with no hope of salvage, and he was verrrrrry aggresive during negotiations and seemed like he would attack, I actually agree with you. Otherwise...

[Kelb_Panthera]

So you decided it was evil therefore it was right to kill it.

It's a red, this is a given outside of eberron or explicit houserules.


You decided to act as a jury, judge and executioneer without any proof of crimes or atrocities

Always evil creatures are beyond redemption in all but a few fluke cases. Preventing future atrocity is also a goal of good characters.


You tried to murder it preemptively

I'd swear he said he waited until it was mobile again, giving it a fair fight. More than fair if he's level 5 or lower.


You broke a parlay

Negotiations had concluded. Parlay was over.


You stole it's treasure.

A treasure it certainly earned through honest work in some way rather than burning peasants alive for their stuff.


So basically your character is a thief, oathbreaker and a murderer?

Not what I got from his description at all.

[Tzonarin]

So you decided it was evil therefore it was right to kill it.

You decided to act as a jury, judge and executioneer without any proof of crimes or atrocities

You tried to murder it preemptively

You broke a parlay

You stole it's treasure.

So basically your character is a thief, oathbreaker and a murderer?

Hence the point of the argument and the interesting debate we have here.

Does the dwarf allow a red dragon to live near the kingdom, with the very high potential that the dragon would come back and raze the kingdom in any case (granted it will have that grudge now). What happens in a 100+ years when a bigger dragon shows up. Does the party just say, "sorry, my liege, but we decided we couldn't kill this thing, but later, it could come destroy all of us". Predisposition to evil is a very hard thing to predict.

Didn't break parlay. It refused party's offer, kept wanting more and more. Party was unwilling to barter beyond. Irreconcilable.

Treasure, well, would anyone here just leave that kind of gold behind? Not sure about that leap.

Tzo

[Koo Rehtorb]

So basically your character is a thief, oathbreaker and a murderer?

*adventurer.

[Shackel]

I certainly wouldn't consider this Lawful and it just barely scrapes on being Good only from D&D's objective "killing evil = good" sense and not much else. A sentient being refused to trade on reasonable terms, so you stole its money and then, after doing so, decided it wasn't enough, turned around and tried to brutally murder it in its own home simply for existing as a red dragon without even conversing with the team.

Extraordinarily chaotic in every way, from ignoring everyone else's will for your own belief, to stealing, to murdering someone in a blatant vigilante act. The sheer callousness of it and just trying to pass off the blatantly evil act of turning around after a deal and murdering someone in their own home as "well they're evil so they had it coming" pushes it towards objectively being Evil, but not all the way, at least, in my opinion.

However, your party now has extraordinarily good reason to think that this dwarf might just go Lawful Stupid at a moment's notice and literally create enemies not just for life but for the life of their children and their children's children just because "IT'S EVIL! EEEEEVIL!"

Worst case scenario, from an OOC perspective, a player now has reason to think that even if the party all agrees on one thing, you'll go off and potentially ruin everything because "that's what my character would do."

[Koo Rehtorb]

A red dragon existing is reason in and of itself to kill it with extreme prejudice.

[RazorChain]

*adventurer.

True and all adventurers are basically neutral evil.

[Freed]

True and all adventurers are basically neutral evil.

I once made a lawful good character and played him as such. Freakin' party members and their infighting.

[Sam K]

If it's classic D&D: Chromatic dragons are evil. Murderhobo it.

If it's eberron or another gritty, "shades of grey" setting: life is a struggle for survival. We will compromise our ideals, hurt our friends and shift our ideals in order to secure the resources needed to survive in this gritty world. Talking baby lizard is a speed bump. Murderhobo it.

Me personally: I would find the dragons parents, kill them, put the dragon in an orphanage, then murderhobo the orphanage! Now where's my bonus exp for good RPing.

[Koo Rehtorb]

True and all adventurers are basically neutral evil.

I mean... I won't deny that D&D is designed with some unfortunate implications built into it. The default assumption of the game is that the PCs are basically imperial colonialists who make a living slaughtering indigenous populations and looting their stuff. But part of that default assumption of the game is that this sort of behaviour is a good thing to be engaging in and is the right thing to do. You can twist the game so that's not the case any more if you really want to, but then you're not really playing D&D either and would probably be better served with a different system.

What I'm saying is that you sort of have to accept the unfortunate implications that come with D&D and embrace the mindset that monsters are there to be killed and it's the right thing to do.

[RazorChain]

I once made a lawful good character and played him as such. Freakin' party members and their infighting.

I once made a paladin and my DM gave me xp penalties for not murdering evil people. Then he penalized me for lying to the enemy....I am playing lawful good...not lawful stupid.

This was funny because I asked him if I could portray my paladin like a knight in a medieval religious order (knight templars, hospitalliers etc.) Then I explained how they were nothing but thugs who were religious fanatics prone to kill things they perceived as heretical.....and good was not the way to describe them. He looked at me abhorrently and explained that Paladins were lawful good in his setting....well he could have fooled me when he was penalizing me for not killing people who didn't share my characters moral philosophy.

[Shackel]

If it's classic D&D: Chromatic dragons are evil. Murderhobo it.

See that's the problem because even in general D&D haven't there been cases of good chromatic dragons? They're not like demons, or anything, they're not formed from evil itself, and I think a lone 5 year old red dragon is a pretty solid target for making one of those good chromatic dragons, or at least a neutral one.

Didn't even the big book of good stuff(Book of Exalted Deeds I think) say that killing something just for being evil is not, in fact, good at all?

[Kelb_Panthera]

See that's the problem because even in general D&D haven't there been cases of good chromatic dragons? They're not like demons, or anything, they're not formed from evil itself, and I think a lone 5 year old red dragon is a pretty solid target for making one of those good chromatic dragons, or at least a neutral one.

Unlikely. Hell of a thing to pull off though, great brownie points with the higher powers.


Didn't even the big book of good stuff(Book of Exalted Deeds I think) say that killing something just for being evil is not, in fact, good at all?

It did but it also made specific exception for always evil creatures using, IIRC, demons or chromatic dragons as the example for such.

Always doesn't necessarily mean guaranteed 100% of the time, every time but it does mean that attempts at conversion have a chance of success approaching zero and are therefore unnecessary.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I like thinking of the exceptions to "always" alignments as being like vampires in Buffy.

Vampires in Buffy are 100% guaranteed evil. They come in different flavours of evil from petty murdering thug to ambitious world destroying monster, but they're always evil. And yet, there are good vampires in Buffy. Not because they chose to be good, but because of exceptional circumstances. Angel is good because he was magically cursed to get his soul back as a punishment for pissing off some gypsies. Having his soul back suddenly meant he had to deal with the weight of everything the vampire person had done.

So sure, maybe there's a good demon or good dragon out there, theoretically. Not because they willed themselves to be good, but because maybe a djinn tricked them into putting on a helm of reverse alignment, or some other reason.

[Sam K]

See that's the problem because even in general D&D haven't there been cases of good chromatic dragons? They're not like demons, or anything, they're not formed from evil itself, and I think a lone 5 year old red dragon is a pretty solid target for making one of those good chromatic dragons, or at least a neutral one.

Didn't even the big book of good stuff(Book of Exalted Deeds I think) say that killing something just for being evil is not, in fact, good at all?

Redeeming an evil dragon (or any other always-evil creature) is def a Good thing, more Good than killing it, but the fact that there is a "more Good" solution doesn't mean that any other solution is Evil. There is Good, then there is "must always be good", and then there's Exalted. Killing an "always Evil" creature that is aggressive but not outright attacking you is probably Good.

I think it's important to remember that D&D "Good" is not always "nice" or even "fair"; it might not even be good as we think of it. It will not always be aligned with the morals of modern western society. Alignment is a metaphysical thing in D&D: "Good" is essentially defined by the gods of Good in that world; if they say that something will get you into heaven (or another Good-aligned afterlife), it is Good.

This is why I always try to write alignments with a capital letter (Good, Evil, Lawful, Stupid), to differentiate alignment Good from what-I-personally-believe-is-good.

[Frozen_Feet]

It's a good question, but one thing that doesn't really influence the decision is the age of the creature. I mean, suppose you had to ask the same question of a 1-year-old man-eating tiger? Neither the tiger nor the wyrmling are equivalent to a human child, or really any child, in sense that'd be morally relevant. Both the tiger and wyrmling are larger and stronger than grown men and have the rough personalities of gluttonous sociopaths. Whatever accusation of being a murderhobo can be leveled at your character probably applies to at least the wyrmling. Dragons more or less embody murderhoboism. The likely lifepath of a red dragon involves killing a bunch of dwarves, stealing their gold and roosting in their emptied home for good measure. Even if killing it is not Good, you can probably get Neutral on the basis of "pre-emptive self-defence".

[Sam K]

Dragons more or less embody murderhoboism. The likely lifepath of a red dragon involves killing a bunch of dwarves, stealing their gold and roosting in their emptied home for good measure.

I know it probably wasn't intended, but that was beautiful!

[Blackhawk748]

The Dwarf would have considered this...if it didn't say things like this during parlay:


"I'll hunt down and eat the half-elf"
"I want to destroy the demons and rule their realm"
"Give me all of your shiny and I'll let you live"


Seemed pretty evil in intent.

Tzo

Yaaa, id call that preemptively dealing with a problem. That thing seems to have made up its mind on how its gonna live.

[CharonsHelper]

I mean, suppose you had to ask the same question of a 1-year-old man-eating tiger? Neither the tiger nor the wyrmling are equivalent to a human child, or really any child, in sense that'd be morally relevant.

Yep - I 100% agree here. Since it doesn't sound like you're in an Eberron style morality tweaking setting, kill the thing ASAP and be sad that it's not big enough to get decent armor out of its hide.

[Tzonarin]

Worst case scenario, from an OOC perspective, a player now has reason to think that even if the party all agrees on one thing, you'll go off and potentially ruin everything because "that's what my character would do."

That's always a risk in gaming, managing the motivations. In this scenario, he had only JUST joined the party. This was his first time out with the party, so he doesn't really have any allegiances to the party built up. His motives come from directives from the Prince. So you're right about this point - there is no particular draw to party loyalty at this point in the game.

(that little problem has been a cause of many a games melting down over the years of playing - what the character would do, vs party cohesion. Different argument for a different day)


The likely lifepath of a red dragon involves killing a bunch of dwarves, stealing their gold and roosting in their emptied home for good measure.

LOL - Given that my character was a dwarf, seems to me that what we have here is a survival of the fittest at this point. Either the dwarf survives or the dragon does.

But it did get away, so that means the dwarf is going to have to hunt it down and finish the job.


Yep - I 100% agree here. Since it doesn't sound like you're in an Eberron style morality tweaking setting, kill the thing ASAP and be sad that it's not big enough to get decent armor out of its hide.

LOL - He is a pretty stout little dwarf. Probably need a juvi or an adult for some really good armor, with good horn and spike growth. Wyrmlings aren't going to have that bad *** armor quality yet. Maybe a nice pair of dragon scale socks or something.

[Blackhawk748]

LOL - He is a pretty stout little dwarf. Probably need a juvi or an adult for some really good armor, with good horn and spike growth. Wyrmlings aren't going to have that bad of armor quality yet. Maybe a nice pair of dragon scale socks or something.

I think a Medium Dragon can get you a shield.

[CharonsHelper]

I think a Medium Dragon can get you a shield.

I think that it has to be Large sized. (at least that's true in Pathfinder)

You could probably get a dragonskin grip for your axe out of it though.

[Blackhawk748]

I think that it has to be Large sized. (at least that's true in Pathfinder)

You could probably get a dragonskin grip for your axe out of it though.

Or at least a nice cloak made out of the wings

[qwertyu63]

All I can really give you is what would have happened if I was the DM: Your dwarf would have been knocked down an alignment peg; you are now LN.

There is a quote from Rich that applies here. If I find it, I'll edit it in.

EDIT: There are several that work, but this is the one I had in mind:


And it's ridiculous to think that any given six-year-old may have committed a horrible act worthy of being executed unless the text says otherwise, just because that six-year-old has green skin and her parents bring her to their church services. That right there is enough reason for the story to be the way it is. No author should have to take the time to say, "This little girl ISN'T evil, folks!" in order for the reader to understand that. It should be assumed that no first graders are irredeemably Evil unless the text tells you they are.

[Freed]

I was rereading oots and found comic 207. It kinda argues in both points of view.

[Koo Rehtorb]

All I can really give you is what would have happened if I was the DM: Your dwarf would have been knocked down an alignment peg; you are now LN.

There is a quote from Rich that applies here. If I find it, I'll edit it in.

EDIT: There are several that work, but this is the one I had in mind:

A first grader is not born with adult level intelligence, an "always evil" alignment and the ability to slaughter dozens of people at a time.

[CharonsHelper]

A first grader is not born with adult level intelligence, an "always evil" alignment and the ability and desire to slaughter dozens of people at a time.

100% agree with your initial statement - just added my own $0.02.

[Freed]

A first grader is not born with adult level intelligence, an "always evil" alignment and the ability to slaughter dozens of people at a time.

Ok, but this dragon had not slaughtered anyone! Sure he's smart, sure he COULD slaughter them, but he did not. A person might be lawful evil because they're mean, nasty and conniving but would you kill anyone for being a jerk most of the time?

[CharonsHelper]

Ok, but this dragon had not slaughtered anyone! Sure he's smart, sure he COULD slaughter them, but he did not. A person might be lawful evil because they're mean, nasty and conniving but would you kill anyone for being a jerk most of the time?

I don't think that the statement was meant that you should 100% kill everyone who is evil and could theoretically kill a bunch of people. It was just to point out that a 5 year old dragon is in no way comparable to a 5 yr old human.

[Talakeal]

See that's the problem because even in general D&D haven't there been cases of good chromatic dragons? They're not like demons, or anything, they're not formed from evil itself, and I think a lone 5 year old red dragon is a pretty solid target for making one of those good chromatic dragons, or at least a neutral one.

Didn't even the big book of good stuff(Book of Exalted Deeds I think) say that killing something just for being evil is not, in fact, good at all?

It does indeed.

BoVD also says that killing evil dragons is always good regardless of motive.

So....

Yeah, it isn't just class balance that is broken in 3.X

[Freed]

See that's the problem because even in general D&D haven't there been cases of good chromatic dragons? They're not like demons, or anything, they're not formed from evil itself, and I think a lone 5 year old red dragon is a pretty solid target for making one of those good chromatic dragons, or at least a neutral one.

Didn't even the big book of good stuff(Book of Exalted Deeds I think) say that killing something just for being evil is not, in fact, good at all?


It does indeed.

BoVD also says that killing evil dragons is always good regardless of motive.

So....

Yeah, it isn't just class balance that is broken in 3.X
Yes, there are good chromatics. It says you can kill evil chroms. We don't know if he checked the alignment, and if I kill a random citizen and he turns out to be evil, that still doesn't seem all that good to me.

[Solaris]

The main issue is that you went against the party to dispatch a creature that they were willing to spare, for no other reason than it being that species. It is almost certainly going to harbor a grudge now. It's going to see a dwarf that attacked it simply on the basis of it existing. If it wasn't a monster before, congratulations. It certainly is one now - one that will grow up hating your kind as much as you hate its, fostering the grudge until one day, when it is much older and stronger, it comes across a city of your kind...

I agree.

Tzo, you should have waited until it was older and worth more experience points.
It had clearly demonstrated hostile intent, was of a species that's explicitly always chaotic evil, and given the evidence presented it was only going to grow up to be a homicidal evil monster. If you're killing it to prevent further loss of life, that's a Good act. It's not the purest exalted sainthood, but it's the best we can expect your character to do with the situation.
If you're killing it because honor commands it and the prince ordered it, that's a Lawful act.
If you're killing it because it's there, that's an Evil act... even though it, itself, is Evil.


Ok, but this dragon had not slaughtered anyone! Sure he's smart, sure he COULD slaughter them, but he did not. A person might be lawful evil because they're mean, nasty and conniving but would you kill anyone for being a jerk most of the time?

So are we to assume it got its hoard through hard work and clever trades? That's not... traditionally how red dragons amass their wealth.


Yes, there are good chromatics. It says you can kill evil chroms. We don't know if he checked the alignment, and if I kill a random citizen and he turns out to be evil, that still doesn't seem all that good to me.

Remember how it threatened to eat the half-elf?
That's a bit of a declaration of being Evil.

[Freed]

I agree.

Tzo, you should have waited until it was older and worth more experience points.
It had clearly demonstrated hostile intent, was of a species that's explicitly always chaotic evil, and given the evidence presented it was only going to grow up to be a homicidal evil monster. If you're killing it to prevent further loss of life, that's a Good act. It's not the purest exalted sainthood, but it's the best we can expect your character to do with the situation.
If you're killing it because honor commands it and the prince ordered it, that's a Lawful act.
If you're killing it because it's there, that's an Evil act... even though it, itself, is Evil.



So are we to assume it got its hoard through hard work and clever trades? That's not... traditionally how red dragons amass their wealth.



Remember how it threatened to eat the half-elf?
That's a bit of a declaration of being Evil.
OK, but I threaten all the time in D&D, and rarely deliver. Also, I assume it's hoard was its parents, as it was still a wyrmling.

[Blackhawk748]

How did it get its hoard? I would assume it stole it from people it had killed, in typical Dragon fashion.

[jitzul]

Honestly the only bad thing you did op was not being able to kill the bugger. My d&d monster knowledge is not that great but if there is one thing I know it's that chromatic dragons are evil and metallic are good. Unless the setting you are in is some type of alignment is just one big grey mess except for demons, devils, and angels a red dragon is evil. And not even a game of thrones "i'm only really evil to some people who have a extremely black and white view of morality" type of evil(could not think of better example then game of thrones at the moment). But a "I'm bored so I guess i'll go destroy this village and take all there stuff just to entertain myself since the lives of anything but a dragon is worthless" type of evil. The thing that makes chromatic dragons evil is there inhuman levels of greed and ego. As long as they think they can they will burn, freeze, poison, dissolve, and electricity anything to fuel their scrooge level greed and their kanye west level ego. It does not matter if the dwarf had attacked it or not it will 99.999999% burn a village to the ground when it's big enough just for the lolz.

[Freed]

Honestly the only bad thing you did op was not being able to kill the bugger. My d&d monster knowledge is not that great but if there is one thing I know it's that chromatic dragons are evil and metallic are good. Unless the setting you are in is some type of alignment is just one big grey mess except for demons, devils, and angels a red dragon is evil. And not even a game of thrones "i'm only really evil to some people who have a extremely black and white view of morality" type of evil(could not think of better example then game of thrones at the moment). But a "I'm bored so I guess i'll go destroy this village and take all there stuff just to entertain myself since the lives of anything but a dragon is worthless" type of evil. The thing that makes chromatic dragons evil is there inhuman levels of greed and ego. As long as they think they can they will burn, freeze, poison, dissolve, and electricity anything to fuel their scrooge level greed and their kanye west level ego. It does not matter if the dwarf had attacked it or not it will 99.999999% burn a village to the ground when it's big enough just for the lolz.
I don't think they would. They're very smart and greedy, but they are smart. They'll do it for bad reasons, but not no reason at all. Angering people randomly has consequences.

[MrStabby]

Well good evil and D&D alignment are broad strokes. Breaking it down a little:

Was it a Just act? What crimes had the dragon committed and was the process by which this was determined fair and through?

The dragon had a horde - suspicious but not incriminating. The dragon engaged in hyperbole and threatened the players - maybe mean but surely not worthy of a death sentence. The dragon also did not initiate hostilities - being prepared to trade peacefully (the fact that a dragon is willing to trade peacefully kind of suggests that the horde could have been built up by similar means - or at least that the players cannot rule this out).

Was the act intended to improve the world and would "improve" be widely recognised by other people with different outlooks? Red dragons are generally trouble, and most people wouldn't pick one as a neighbour. It is possible it was done for altruistic reasons - that there was believed to be a genuine threat there. If i were deciding this I would look to see what happened to the loot - if the PC buys shiny stuff with it then the motivation was probably sullied with greed. If they donate the horde to charity then it is more in keeping with an act intended to improve the world.

Finally there is the issue of metagaming. What does the character believe about dragons? It kind of matters if they think red dragons are 60% evil, 95% evil, 99.9% evil or 100% irredeemable evil. To say something is irredeemably evil is to say it has no choice, no free will which is a pretty big judgement.

I can't see the act being lawful good. Appropriation of wealth through force, through no due process of law, extrajudicial killings based on appearance rather than any evidence of a crime does not say lawful to me. The good side of things? Maybe. Depending on who gains from the action. If it is the individual becoming very rich - probably not. Friends becoming rich? If the kingdom? Maybe, but again to nationalistic and partisan for me to feel comfortable with. People with whom the character has no affinity and whom the character does not represent nor who will reward him... yeah maybe.

My guess would be the act is on the good side of chaotic neutral.

[Kelb_Panthera]

All I can really give you is what would have happened if I was the DM: Your dwarf would have been knocked down an alignment peg; you are now LN.

There is a quote from Rich that applies here. If I find it, I'll edit it in.

EDIT: There are several that work, but this is the one I had in mind:

The difference between an orc, the creature Rich likely had in mind there, and any other humanoid is utterly dwarfed by the difference between any of those humanoids and a dragon. They are -born- at fighting age. Don't let the number throw you.


Ok, but this dragon had not slaughtered anyone! Sure he's smart, sure he COULD slaughter them, but he did not. A person might be lawful evil because they're mean, nasty and conniving but would you kill anyone for being a jerk most of the time?

As blackhawk pointed out, it had a hoard. It certainly didn't get it from honest work.



BoVD also says that killing evil dragons is always good regardless of motive.


That's not even a little accurate.

It says that attempts at redemption are basically always wasted time and effort and so it's -acceptable- to kill them. Neutral actions are acceptable, good are encouraged, and evil are unacceptable if you want to be a good character. Whether any specific instance of killing a chromatic dragon is good or neutral would depend on circumstances and motivations of the killer.


Also, I assume it's hoard was its parents, as it was still a wyrmling.

You're not real familiar with red dragon ecology then. If it got that treasure from its parents, it's as good as dead anyway and you're doing it favor if you make it quick because the parent it stole from almost certainly won't. Even getting a red to trade is an onerous task as likely as not to end in the dragon deciding that simply taking whatever you're offering from your corpse is easier unless it's not possible. They don't -give- anything away, ever, unless they're touched in the head.

[Talakeal]

To me the issue is more the betrayal of trust (both with the party and the dragon) than with the killing itself.



I had a very similar situation occur in my game many years back.

Out of curiosity, what will your reaction be if the dragon's parents come looking for revenge?

[Talakeal]

That's not even a little accurate.

It says that attempts at redemption are basically always wasted time and effort and so it's -acceptable- to kill them. Neutral actions are acceptable, good are encouraged, and evil are unacceptable if you want to be a good character. Whether any specific instance of killing a chromatic dragon is good or neutral would depend on circumstances and motivations of the killer.
.

I would say that it is more than a little accurate.

I will admit I did get it slightly wrong, after rereading the section it says that is never EVIL to kill a chromatic dragon regardless of motive, rather than it being always good.

[Alcore]

Being an avid fan/minion of red dragon: you are a mean awful person! May you burn forever in dragon fire when you die! :smallmad:


Though the player in me must say: you did the right choice. Perhaps not the only one* but a right one. Your party, if they share parts of your alignment, should have been more supporting.

Though on one hand if parlay came with non aggression then your dwarf in an honorless little heathen.... :smallannoyed:



*if book of exalted deeds it up for grabs you could (at high penalty) have redeemed him to something more neutral. It might have still gone down the same way but you would have tried.

[dps]

What I'm saying is that you sort of have to accept the unfortunate implications that come with D&D and embrace the mindset that monsters are there to be killed and it's the right thing to do.

Yep. It's just as well on a question like this that we're not allowed to discuss real-world morality here, 'cause it simply doesn't apply to the standard DnD setting.

[Freed]

You're not real familiar with red dragon ecology then. If it got that treasure from its parents, it's as good as dead anyway and you're doing it favor if you make it quick because the parent it stole from almost certainly won't. Even getting a red to trade is an onerous task as likely as not to end in the dragon deciding that simply taking whatever you're offering from your corpse is easier unless it's not possible. They don't -give- anything away, ever, unless they're touched in the head.[/QUOTE]
No, I mean, usually the wyrmling doesn't move out of his parent's cave so early, so the treasure that was there might be his parent's. (who may be gone, may be dead.)

[Tzonarin]

Ok, but this dragon had not slaughtered anyone! Sure he's smart, sure he COULD slaughter them, but he did not. A person might be lawful evil because they're mean, nasty and conniving but would you kill anyone for being a jerk most of the time?

This was uncertain. We have no information, either way, as to the history of this creature, except, somehow, it had a reputation throughout the land of being much more fearsome than what it actually was. Party went in basically farting pixie dust for all the magic enhancement and...wyrmling.

As a player, that part irked me enough. Hate it when that happens, because all that magic will just go to waste.


Honestly the only bad thing you did op was not being able to kill the bugger. My d&d monster knowledge is not that great but if there is one thing I know it's that chromatic dragons are evil and metallic are good. Unless the setting you are in is some type of alignment is just one big grey mess except for demons, devils, and angels a red dragon is evil. And not even a game of thrones "i'm only really evil to some people who have a extremely black and white view of morality" type of evil(could not think of better example then game of thrones at the moment). But a "I'm bored so I guess i'll go destroy this village and take all there stuff just to entertain myself since the lives of anything but a dragon is worthless" type of evil. The thing that makes chromatic dragons evil is there inhuman levels of greed and ego. As long as they think they can they will burn, freeze, poison, dissolve, and electricity anything to fuel their scrooge level greed and their kanye west level ego. It does not matter if the dwarf had attacked it or not it will 99.999999% burn a village to the ground when it's big enough just for the lolz.

Totally get that. And believe me, the dwarf tried. The party also has another reason for not engaging - one tiefling character is masquerading as a human, so they are fearful that if the dwarf learns of this (dwarves and tieflings are at war in this campaign), that there may be some fratricide in the future.

As to the dragon, I may have to let the dwarf become an NPC that goes off with his band to hunt the wyrmling dragon, though, because of party cohesion and direction of destiny issues. In fact, this was the first session playing the dwarf - had a centaur who, because of story, took a different path from the path.

Thank the Pantheon for HeroLab - I can roll up characters so quickly.


Out of curiosity, what will your reaction be if the dragon's parents come looking for revenge?

Umm...the same as towards their wyrmling. If the dwarf can, chop chop, although that's highly unlikely, given the predisposition of red dragons. They see the inability to defend a hoard as a sign of weakness - they may end up killing it themselves for being weak - and then go off looking for the 2000GP of lewt.


All I can really give you is what would have happened if I was the DM: Your dwarf would have been knocked down an alignment peg; you are now LN.

I would have rule lawyered that one. Alignment shifts happen because of a trend, not a single action. A character that does one thing could have been driven by any number of motivations. (ref: The Gamers: Dorkness Rising (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOUksDJCijw) 20:00 mark).

Wait...I didn't get my XP for that little baddie...

[Kelb_Panthera]

No, I mean, usually the wyrmling doesn't move out of his parent's cave so early, so the treasure that was there might be his parent's. (who may be gone, may be dead.)

Nah. Chromatics often leave their young to fend for themselves and if the treasure was big enough for even a young adult, it would've been noticed. The disparity in a wyrmling's hoarde and an adult's is orders of magnitude.

[Freed]

Nah. Chromatics often leave their young to fend for themselves and if the treasure was big enough for even a young adult, it would've been noticed. The disparity in a wyrmling's hoarde and an adult's is orders of magnitude.

Sorry the dragonomicon was really confusing about that. "Most Dragons keep their young for a long time, but some don't keep them at all and most fall in between." Can you make sense of that?

[Hawkstar]

Sorry the dragonomicon was really confusing about that. "Most Dragons keep their young for a long time, but some don't keep them at all and most fall in between." Can you make sense of that?

Red Dragons absolutely DO NOT keep their young. All Metallic dragons do, however, and a few of the chromatic dragons protect their young. But Red Dragons? "Eh, just plant the egg somewhere. If it's lucky, we'll never see it again."

People keep trying to project human maturity and family dynamics on a creature that they really, really don't apply to. A day-old Dragon is approximately as cunning, intelligent, and socially competent as a 40-year-old human.

[Freed]

OK to clarify: I checked, I was kinda wrong. Red, Gray, and Black chroms abandon their young, all the other dragons raise their young.

[Leon]

Morality aside you need to have a campaign set a significant time in years after where a red with a scar has set ruin on the kingdom

[hamishspence]

OK to clarify: I checked, I was kinda wrong. Red, Gray, and Black chroms abandon their young, all the other dragons raise their young.

Even a variant that tends to abandon its young will have exceptions. The 3.5 ed Draconomicon cover image shows a dragon parent + baby dragons.

[Frozen_Feet]

Yes, and I'm sure deities find it adorable when they watch an elven nature documentary from Godtube where a mommy dragon brings a living human to its nest and the wyrmlings happily tear the screaming human apart. D'awww.

---

To all the people saying "well it only had five years to commit evil" - we are talking about a man-sized carnivore. It has likely killed a cow-sized mammal a week to feed itself, and another for fun. Again remember the comparison to a 1-year-old man-eating tiger. These kinds of creatures are not toddlers who can only flap ineffectually under mommy's wings for 4+ years.

[hamishspence]

The difference between an orc, the creature Rich likely had in mind there, and any other humanoid is utterly dwarfed by the difference between any of those humanoids and a dragon.
Dig around a bit and you can find a strong dislike of the "genociding Chromatic Dragons is a Good Thing" view, in the Index of The Giant's Comments - and Don't Split The Party commentary also discusses the unfortunate implications of "dragon wyrmlings exist to be killed by adventurers" as a trope.

So, it isn't just "evil humanoids" that The Giant was thinking about, it appears.

[Frozen_Feet]

It starts veering into a different kind of question though.

For comparison:

Situation A: You come across a man-eating tiger.

Situation B: A man-eating tiger comes across you and tries to eat you.

Situation C: you see a man-eating tiger come across someone else and try to eat them.

Situation D: a tiger is trying to injure you because you threatened its cubs.

Situation E: a tiger is trying to injure someone else because you threatened its cubs.

Situation F: a tiger is trying to injure someone else because they threatened its cubs.


For each situation, we can ask the following questions:

1) Do you have a right to kill the tiger?
2) Can your answer to 1) be generalized to cover all tigers?
3) Does it follow from your answer to 1) that you are obligated to kill (or to not kill) the tiger?
4) Can your answer to 3) be generalized to cover all tigers?

I think a very particular systems of ethics is required to go from "yes, I have a right to kill the tiger" to "I have a right to genocide tigers".

[JAL_1138]

When making any moral decision in a game, this flowchart may be helpful.

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/images/rpg_flowchart.jpg

[Ursus the Grim]

Is that an Orc Baby I hear?

A wyrmling red dragon has the mental capacities of the average human adult, with Int 10/Wis 11/Cha 10. To compare it to a child is a false equivalency. It is, by RAW, always Chaotic Evil. Yes, exceptions occur. Very, very rare exceptions. It has the size of a medium creature and the ability to slaughter most generic watchmen and soldiers.

This dragon had a hoard. Given the chaotic, selfish nature of reds (and information from the draconomicon) it had to build that hoard itself.

Thus, we have a dangerous creature with the mental capacities of an adult human who has almost certainly killed intelligent beings to get that hoard and is almost certainly Chaotic Evil. It will only become more dangerous as time goes on.

It's not Good, in my opinion, to kill it, but not 'Un-Good' enough to warrant an alignment shift.

[DoomHat]

I find this whole conversation fairly uncomfortable as it all seems to hinge on a single dubious question...

Is racism correct?

There's a closely related question, "Is genocide acceptable?", but it's contingent on the first. Is it really true within the game's narrative that whole races/species of people are to some degree innately evil? Or is it perhaps just widely believed elfin propaganda?

Worse, still...
If it is so in the context of this fictional world, that racism is simply true, then what does that say about the players if they find such a world both believable and palatable?

[Ursus the Grim]

There's a closely related question, "Is genocide acceptable?", but it's contingent on the first. Is it really true within the game's narrative that whole races/species of people are to some degree innately evil? Or is it perhaps just widely believed elfin propaganda?


By RAW, yes.



Worse, still...
If it is so in the context of this fictional world, that racism is simply true, then what does that say about the players if they find such a world both believable and palatable?

Its a world with magical elves and concrete gods. Believability doesn't enter into it.

I would be more concerned with players exterminating goblin warrens if the concrete 'evilness' of certain species were not assumed.

[hamishspence]

I find this whole conversation fairly uncomfortable as it all seems to hinge on a single dubious question...

Is racism correct?

There's a closely related question, "Is genocide acceptable?", but it's contingent on the first. Is it really true within the game's narrative that whole races/species of people are to some degree innately evil? Or is it perhaps just widely believed elfin propaganda?

Worse, still...
If it is so in the context of this fictional world, that racism is simply true, then what does that say about the players if they find such a world both believable and palatable?
A big part of the commentary of the later OOTS book compilations (War & XPs, Don't Split the Party) is deconstructing these very assumptions.

There's also references to them in the Index Of The Giant's Comments.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Dig around a bit and you can find a strong dislike of the "genociding Chromatic Dragons is a Good Thing" view, in the Index of The Giant's Comments - and Don't Split The Party commentary also discusses the unfortunate implications of "dragon wyrmlings exist to be killed by adventurers" as a trope.

So, it isn't just "evil humanoids" that The Giant was thinking about, it appears.

That quote was about goblins, and is more fair. The point is using that quote to compare a wyrmling to a human child is disingenuous.

Beyond that, though, The Giant isn't some sort of moral authority on the correct way to play Dungeon and Dragons. His opinion isn't any more valid than anyone else.

[hamishspence]

His insights are still worth considering though.

[Tzonarin]

Yes, and I'm sure deities find it adorable when they watch an elven nature documentary from Godtube where a mommy dragon brings a living human to its nest and the wyrmlings happily tear the screaming human apart. D'awww.

Weird, but okay. :P


To all the people saying "well it only had five years to commit evil" - we are talking about a man-sized carnivore. It has likely killed a cow-sized mammal a week to feed itself, and another for fun. Again remember the comparison to a 1-year-old man-eating tiger. These kinds of creatures are not toddlers who can only flap ineffectually under mommy's wings for 4+ years.

Exactly. Not to mention that during the parlay, this cute widdle baby dragie told us it was going to eat a party member and the like. Whether or not it would be able to carry those actions out, to the dwarf, was immaterial. It was a threat that would have only gotten more dangerous, and so close to his kingdom. His defense in this case is pre-emptively protecting the realm.


I think a very particular systems of ethics is required to go from "yes, I have a right to kill the tiger" to "I have a right to genocide tigers".

Tigers are very different than dragons. Tigers, even into adulthood, do not possess sentient intellect (INT 2 - unless they are Rakshasa - which are evil embodied outsiders). Wyrmling red dragons are intelligent and instinctively malevolent. Tigers, as an animal have no intellect suitable to justify an alignment other than Neutral, which is indicative of an animal. Animals are instinctively self-serving. Dragons are sentient at birth.

I would argue there is no reason for the dwarf to think of any redemptive quality here - but more plausible to believe they are a scourge.

Tzo

[DoomHat]

Its a world with magical elves and concrete gods. Believability doesn't enter into it.

I would be more concerned with players exterminating goblin warrens if the concrete 'evilness' of certain species were not assumed.

Setting aside the separate and complex discussion of the hows, whens, and whys of 'suspension of disbelief', this does nothing to address the question of palatablity.

I'll put it more bluntly: What does it say about a setting, if one were to transport a Nazi "Jew Hunter" to it, if that man would scan under magical scrutiny as Lawful Good by the standards of that world? Now, there's lots of reasons to wind up fighting goblins and feeling at least reasonably justified in doing so, but feeling justified (and wanting to feel justified) in cutting down each and ever last goblin you come across, for the simple fact that they're goblins...

Media is a mirror of its consumers. Yes, goblins aren't real, and one can invent them such that anything is justifiable in relation to them, but it can still be important to ask; why did you make them that way? Just saying "That's just how goblins are" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxV8gAGmbtk) doesn't hold a lot of weight when you're the one, at least in part, defining how goblins are.

[CharonsHelper]

Setting aside the separate and complex discussion of the hows, whens, and whys of 'suspension of disbelief', this does nothing to address the question of palatablity.

I'll put it more bluntly: What does it say about a setting, if one were to transport a Nazi "Jew Hunter" to it, if that man would scan under magical scrutiny as Lawful Good by the standards of that world? Now, there's lots of reasons to wind up fighting goblins and feeling at least reasonably justified in doing so, but feeling justified (and wanting to feel justified) in cutting down each and ever last goblin you come across, for the simple fact that they're goblins...

Media is a mirror of its consumers. Yes, goblins aren't real, and one can invent them such that anything is justifiable in relation to them, but it can still be important to ask; why did you make them that way? Just saying "That's just how goblins are" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxV8gAGmbtk) doesn't hold a lot of weight when you're the one, at least in part, defining how goblins are.

Anyone else seeing a blatant straw-man here? Or just me?

[Hawkstar]

Anyone else seeing a blatant straw-man here? Or just me?

Not just you.

[DoomHat]

Anyone else seeing a blatant straw-man here? Or just me?

Well if you're not sure, then maybe it would help to spell it out for us both? What's the actual point of discussion, and what argument am I inventing and addressing instead?

[Hawkstar]

Media is a mirror of its consumers. Yes, goblins aren't real, and one can invent them such that anything is justifiable in relation to them, but it can still be important to ask; why did you make them that way? Just saying "That's just how goblins are" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxV8gAGmbtk) doesn't hold a lot of weight when you're the one, at least in part, defining how goblins are.
I can answer the question anyway: "Because the world's not about "The Goblins". It's about being able to play a game where we can have our heroes go out and proactively fight evil monsters with fancy swords and impressive magical effects, testing their steel against foes capable of putting up intelligent, armed resistance."

Demonizing humans so we have something for our heroes to smash, stab and explode is wrong. So we made demons to demonize instead (As in the concept of irredeemably evil creatures that we can stab, whether they're called goblins, dragons, or aliens)

It's really irritating when Morality Police start busting into our hobby for our fun of killing the demons and demand we humanize them instead.

We like being able to tell stories of Morally Benign settlers embarking into a new world to explore filled with dangerous environments, and intelligent, hostile native creatures capable of putting up mirror combat without having to feel bad for what could be humanized into being Native American stand-ins.

We like to be able to tell stories of bold heroes defending their homeland against foreign hostile invaders of equal or greater technological ability without having to question or feel bad about what could be interpreted as European Colonist stand-ins.

[CharonsHelper]

Well if you're not sure, then maybe it would help to spell it out for us both? What's the actual point of discussion, and what argument am I inventing and addressing instead?

You're comparing Nazi Jew-Hunters with adventurers who fight & kill orcs & goblins in a fantasy universe, and therefore you're implying that orcs & goblins are equivalent to Jews during the holocaust.

Pretty blatant false equivalence fallacy there - which is being used to create a strawman.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Criticizing Dungeons and Dragons for promoting racism is like criticizing Star Wars for promoting (droid) slavery. It's a silly argument. A detail in a fictional setting doesn't need a reason to exist beyond "Because it's fun".

[hamishspence]

For some people it might be irritating. For others, the so-called "villain species" of the D&D setting may be more interesting than the "hero species":

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


Players themselves seem to like subverting Always Chaotic Evil tropes (or embracing them) simply because the "evil" races and cultures are much more interesting than the generic "protagonist" races. As GM and Dungeons & Dragons translator Andrey Lensky wrote long ago:
... my experience suggests: write in Monster Manual that among 100 cambions one is Good, and this one will get into adventure.

[jitzul]

Media is a mirror of its consumers. Yes, goblins aren't real, and one can invent them such that anything is justifiable in relation to them, but it can still be important to ask; why did you make them that way? Just saying "That's just how goblins are" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxV8gAGmbtk) doesn't hold a lot of weight when you're the one, at least in part, defining how goblins are.


Sometimes goblins dragons and other d&d monsters are like humans in that they are complex multilayered beings, who's motivations differ greatly between each other and are meant to represent some facet of human physiology and or society. Sometimes goblin's are just a mass of evil disposable enemies. And sometimes chromatic dragons are all greedy giant lizard's that treat all none dragons like ant's.

Look at the end of the day most of anything in d&d is whatever the dm (and in some cases the players)want's it to be. If the op and his party learned before hand or it is a unspoken rule that 100% chromatic=evil and metallic=good, then at least to me the op was in the right to try and kill something that when it get's older will(not would) wipe a village out of existence because it had some shiny thing that he wanted to add to his horde.

[DoomHat]

I can answer the question anyway: "Because the world's not about "The Goblins". It's about being able to play a game where we can have our heroes go out and proactively fight evil monsters with fancy swords and impressive magical effects, testing their steel against foes capable of putting up intelligent, armed resistance."

Demonizing humans so we have something for our heroes to smash, stab and explode is wrong. So we made demons to demonize instead (As in the concept of irredeemably evil creatures that we can stab, whether they're called goblins, dragons, or aliens)

It's really irritating when Morality Police start busting into our hobby for our fun of killing the demons and demand we humanize them instead.
I would argue that individuals or organizations with temporal villainous goals fill that role just fine. I don't see why the invention of whole populations of congenitally evil peoples is strictly necessary for grand swashbuckling pulp adventure.

I'm not looking to forbid you anything. I'm not trying to police you. I'm just trying to encourage some self reflection on the topic.


Criticizing Dungeons and Dragons for promoting racism is like criticizing Star Wars for promoting (droid) slavery. It's a silly argument. A detail in a fictional setting doesn't need a reason to exist beyond "Because it's fun".
But it doesn't "promote" droid slavery does it? It's always simply depicted as a fact of life, and a horrible one at that. The predicament of droids in the Star Wars setting is an unambiguously a tragic one. The reasons for it's inclusion can been drawn back the the original inspiration for A New Hope; Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Fortress). R2 and C3P0 being stand-ins for the pair of bumbling peasants who kick the story off, while incidentally demonstrating how horrible being stuck as a peasant is.


You're comparing Nazi Jew-Hunters with adventurers who fight & kill orcs & goblins in a fantasy universe, and therefore you're implying that orcs & goblins are equivalent to Jews during the holocaust.

Pretty blatant false equivalence fallacy there - which is being used to create a strawman.
But is it really? I mean, go check out Nazi propaganda some time. Read up on how they think the world works.

Jews are innately evil, it says so in all the literature. Sure you may get the occasional Jew that might defy their true nature, but those are virtually one in a hundred, so better safe then sorry. Best to just kill them all when the opportunity arises, and redeem their ill gotten plunder for yourself.

Red Dragons are innately evil, it says so in all the literature. Sure you may get the occasional Red Dragon that might defy their true nature, but those are virtually one in a hundred, so better safe then sorry. Best to just kill them all when the opportunity arises, and redeem their ill gotten plunder for yourself.

[jitzul]

Ah Godwin's law the law that keep on giving unfortunately.

[Koo Rehtorb]

But it doesn't "promote" droid slavery does it? It's always simply depicted as a fact of life, and a horrible one at that. The predicament of droids in the Star Wars setting is an unambiguously a tragic one. The reasons for it's inclusion can been drawn back the the original inspiration for A New Hope; Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Fortress). R2 and C3P0 being stand-ins for the pair of bumbling peasants who kick the story off, while incidentally demonstrating how horrible being stuck as a peasant is.

No one, good or bad, questions the place of droids in the galaxy. If it was a story that was trying to portray the plight of droids then it would be a thing. There'd be a scene where Luke realizes the error of his ways and emancipates R2D2 and C3P0, or something. It's just not that sort of story.

Similarly Dungeons and Dragons is a system that promotes the type of story where it's champions of law and chaos battling each other for control of the world (and sweet sweet loot). It's not a system for introspection or nuance.

1) Dungeons and Dragons provides rules for combat, monsters, loot, and PC leveling.
2) It is, therefore, a game about killing monsters for loot and XP in order to become better at killing monsters for loot and XP.

If people want to play a game where monsters are stand-ins for humans then they would probably be better suited by a different system. Might I suggest Monsterhearts? It's an excellent game. :smallsmile:

[DoomHat]

Ah Godwin's law the law that keep on giving unfortunately.
Ah, yeah, my mistake. You see, I came into the conversation because, essentially, I felt the idea of cultivating a mindset wherein a whole classification of people can be written of as degenerates (ripe for justifiable murder under all contexts) made me uncomfortable. I wanted to highlight just why it made me uncomfortable, but I forgot about good old Godwin's Law.

Godwin's Law used to mean a different thing, but nowadays it's the magic rule that states; if anyone brings up a certain National Socialist German Workers' Party, no matter how relevant it might or might not be to the topic, everyone is free to plug their ears and shout "Godwin's Law" until the offender goes away.

Whelp, so be it. Rules are rules, my point is invalid.

[Solaris]

I find this whole conversation fairly uncomfortable as it all seems to hinge on a single dubious question...

Is racism correct?

There's a closely related question, "Is genocide acceptable?", but it's contingent on the first. Is it really true within the game's narrative that whole races/species of people are to some degree innately evil? Or is it perhaps just widely believed elfin propaganda?

Your misunderstanding of the conversation hinges upon reading only part of the thread. Suffice to say that the little dragon quite clearly demonstrated itself to be selfish, greedy, and homicidally evil.

Also, it's a species that is by RAW explicitly always Chaotic Evil. Not merely usually or often, as is the case with the savage humanoids, but is in fact given as an example of creatures that are never not Chaotic Evil. It's therefore safe to assume that, given its behavior in wanting to eat the half-elf, this wyrmling was not an exception to the rule.


Worse, still...
If it is so in the context of this fictional world, that racism is simply true, then what does that say about the players if they find such a world both believable and palatable?

There is nothing I like about this statement, and the more I read it the more insufferable I find it. Suffice to say, it is beneath the discussion and it serves only to take it someplace rather miserable.
Take that kind of moralizing self-righteousness back to tumblr where it belongs. It's not a moral failing to not turn everything into a crusade.

[DoomHat]

There is nothing I like about this statement, and the more I read it the more insufferable I find it. Suffice to say, it is beneath the discussion and it contributes nothing worthwhile to this discussion save to take it someplace rather miserable.
Take that kind of moralizing self-righteousness back to tumblr where it belongs. It's not a moral failing to not turn everything into a crusade.

Then I apologize.
I don't know where I found the ill taste to drag a discussion about unfortunate moral implications into a thread titled "Morality Question: To Kill Or Not to Kill". Discussions about morality have traditionally always been lighthearted affairs that hurt no one's feelings ever. So gross of me to take it seriously.

I can honestly promise I'll never do it again.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Christ, people. I, for one, enjoy talking about moral implications in Dungeons and Dragons and other fictional settings. Could we maybe take the hostility down a few notches so this topic doesn't get banned?

[hamishspence]

But it did get away, so that means the dwarf is going to have to hunt it down and finish the job.



Which is kind of the problem with acting unilaterally without the support of the rest of the party - it means that enemies have a greater chance of escaping and becoming recurring antagonists.


OK to clarify: I checked, I was kinda wrong. Red, Gray, and Black chroms abandon their young, all the other dragons raise their young.
The impression I got from the 4E Draconomicon was that young adult chromatics of any kind frequently create clutches for abandoning, but older dragon parents nearly always create nests rather than abandoned clutches, and raise their young.

And that "forcing the young to leave the nest early due to lack of parental instinct" was a kind of insanity - commonest among gray and black dragons, but still rare even for them.

[Hawkstar]

I would argue that individuals or organizations with temporal villainous goals fill that role just fine. I don't see why the invention of whole populations of congenitally evil peoples is strictly necessary for grand swashbuckling pulp adventure.I find the "These people are Humans but affiliated with a group with goals I don't agree with, so I'm free to murder them all and take their stuff" to be MORE morally reprehensible than "These irredeemably evil creatures are a threat to our lives and world." In the former situation, you're gleefully ripping and tearing through people who are taking actions that they, through their own life experiences, have come to think as the best/most necessary to improve their welfare or exert their own agency on the world.


I'm not looking to forbid you anything. I'm not trying to police you. I'm just trying to encourage some self reflection on the topic.the "Self-relfection" argument is irritating and preachy.


But is it really? I mean, go check out Nazi propaganda some time. Read up on how they think the world works.

Jews are innately evil, it says so in all the literature. Sure you may get the occasional Jew that might defy their true nature, but those are virtually one in a hundred, so better safe then sorry. Best to just kill them all when the opportunity arises, and redeem their ill gotten plunder for yourself.

Red Dragons are innately evil, it says so in all the literature. Sure you may get the occasional Red Dragon that might defy their true nature, but those are virtually one in a hundred, so better safe then sorry. Best to just kill them all when the opportunity arises, and redeem their ill gotten plunder for yourself.
Please stop comparing jews and other real-world human people to Orcs, Goblins, Demons, and Dragons. The "I'm just trying to encourage 'Introspection'" angle is preachy and obnoxious.

DOOM is not a game about valiant-but-helplessly-doomed people fighting back against an exploitative alien menace that's draining their home's resources and unleashing an unstoppable apocalyptic monster on their world, with the player as the villain.


But on the subject at hand - Morally, killing the dragon's probably okay. But what ISN'T okay is Acting Unilaterally against the party when they made it clear that they were NOT going to kill the dragon, even if "But that's what my character would do!"

[Kish]

You were/are apparently on the same page as the DM--a page that a number of people find horrifying. Everyone else (however many people that constitutes, but including your son), was/is on a different page--a page that a number of people find "preachy."

My advice for the campaign, is sort out which page you're all going to be on going forward. If you all agree to act as though a red dragon is effectively a virus, there won't be conflict like this; if you all agree to act like a red dragon is effectively an intelligent creature, there won't be conflict like this. If arriving at a consensus is a problem, the DM could also handle it unilaterally by simply establishing that if it acts like a virus (attacking on sight), it's a virus, and if it doesn't it's an intelligent creature.

[Solaris]

Then I apologize.
I don't know where I found the ill taste to drag a discussion about unfortunate moral implications into a thread titled "Morality Question: To Kill Or Not to Kill". Discussions about morality have traditionally always been lighthearted affairs that hurt no one's feelings ever. So gross of me to take it seriously.

I can honestly promise I'll never do it again.

It's one thing to attempt the discussion in good faith.

It's another to start off by poisoning the well and implying that anyone who disagrees with you is morally deficient. That was the problem. In point of fact, putting an effort at taking the lightheartedness out of the discussion has almost always been what gets the threads locked, generally after several pages of acrimonious back-and-forth that essentially amounts to posters ranting at each other and nit-picking each others' points without really refuting them.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I find this whole conversation fairly uncomfortable as it all seems to hinge on a single dubious question...

Is racism correct?

IRL, certainly not.

In D&D, sometimes it is.

If you have -any- difficulty whatsoever in distinguishing one from the other, seek professional help ASAP.


There's a closely related question, "Is genocide acceptable?",

It is not, explicitly so if you're using BoED. However, it's essentially impossible in any case for those creatures that -are- inherently evil, either by dint of being effectively infinite in number or because they are creatures of such power that having been able to slay a mere handful is enough to make you a legend and the reality of even making an attempt at exterminating them as a group means near certain self-destruction.



Is it really true within the game's narrative that whole races/species of people are to some degree innately evil? Or is it perhaps just widely believed elfin propaganda?

Yes. This is explicit. Some "species*" are literally made of concentrated evil.


Worse, still...
If it is so in the context of this fictional world, that racism is simply true, then what does that say about the players if they find such a world both believable and palatable?

Racism isn't a blanket ideology that is either true or untrue as a whole in the game world or IRL. That's just not a coherent thought.

Some ideas that are considered racist are accurate and others are not. IRL the vast majority of prejudices are unwarranted, based on falsehoods, and should be set aside when dealing with individuals even if they are broadly accurate. In a D&D world, however, there are -vast- differences between intelligent species and at least some of those species are fundamentally inhuman and either inherently evil or too dangerous to interact with in any manner other than combat borne of necessity.

As for what it says about a player that doesn't have a problem with such things; they can suspend their disbelief further than you seem to be able, they can separate fantasy from reality, and they don't obsess over theoretical philosophical points; in other words: nothing worth noting.

*species doesn't necessarily work right as a concept in a D&D world but I lack a better alternative term.

[Tzonarin]

Anyone else seeing a blatant straw-man here? Or just me?

+1.


In point of fact, putting an effort at taking the lightheartedness out of the discussion has almost always been what gets the threads locked

And while the idea here was to have a conversation about ethics within a game, according to the ToS, bringing real-world implications is what causes problems. But this brings up a completely different dynamic that occurs in gaming: the one where RL issues pour into a game and cause the magic of the game to disappear - because it just becomes a platform for vicariously having fights between players. There's a few other threads around that speak to this dynamic, so we can discuss that one over there if you decide to join in.

Because this is EXACTLY the kinds of things that ruin good gaming!

The ethos should be constrained to the game and gaming world. Yes, we tend to judge the game ethos using an RL set of rules, but to me, that is a recipe for certain game disaster.


If arriving at a consensus is a problem, the DM could also handle it unilaterally by simply establishing that if it acts like a virus (attacking on sight), it's a virus, and if it doesn't it's an intelligent creature.

I've never been a fan of railroading campaigns for party cohesion. I know that sometimes, a good DM will have to do this, but I believe this is a card too often played, just to make a game work.

[Frozen_Feet]

Is racism correct?

Mu.

"Racism" is a set of beliefs and prejudices real-life humans have had of other humans. It has been deemed wrong because many of those beliefs were proven to be without factual basis and thus acting on them created an unfair society.

Asking whether "racism is correct" when discussing what beliefs real-life humans have of fictional non-humans is the wrong question, because even if racism towards fictional non-humans turns out to be correct, it does not follow this has any implications on whether racism towards real-life humans is correct.

Seriously, is this thread was about a 1-year-old.man-eating tiger, would you even be asking the question?


Worse, still...
If it is so in the context of this fictional world, that racism is simply true, then what does that say about the players if they find such a world both believable and palatable?

It doesn't necessarily say anything.

For it to say something, one needs to either assume or prove that the dragons are a metaphor or allegory of a real thing, and the answer to the question is meant to apply to something in reality.

But when players neither believe dragons are real nor approach dragons as a stand-in for anything real, then you can't really say anything based on that alone.

---



Tigers are very different than dragons. Tigers, even into adulthood, do not possess sentient intellect (INT 2 - unless they are Rakshasa - which are evil embodied outsiders). Wyrmling red dragons are intelligent and instinctively malevolent. Tigers, as an animal have no intellect suitable to justify an alignment other than Neutral, which is indicative of an animal. Animals are instinctively self-serving. Dragons are sentient at birth.

I thought it was obvious I was not speaking of tigers in D&D sense - they're supposed to be the real world comparison point, because you can't meet red dragons on Earth, but you can meet tigers.

In D&D, you can easily conclude tigers are non-sapient, but that's because you're essentially cheating. In real life, if you met a tiger, you wouldn't have a rule book to check its stats from, and if you tried to estimate its intellect and alignment based on its real behaviour, I don't think it's given you'd conclude it to be as dumb and amoral as the game rules say tigers are.

But if you want to use D&D rules for the tiger, it still doesn't mean the comparison is without value. People cling to the sapience argument, but fail to ask whether it has as much worth as they think. Because D&D, at various points, suggests killing evil is moral and letting evil creatures live is immoral, but does not suggest the same of animals which are neutral yet harmful nonetheless. Indeed, I'm fairly sure that if you go digging, you will find D&D does not encourage nor condone excessive cruelty or genocidal tendencies towards animals.

So in D&D, whether a creature is sapient is not necessarily the trait which has most weight when considering how moral acts against it are. Sapience has most weight when considering how moral acts by a creature are, but this is a different claim.

[Kish]

I've never been a fan of railroading campaigns for party cohesion.
This directly followed quoting me and yet it does not address what I said in any way. That makes me wonder, a little, if you wanted any answer at all.

[Alcore]

Indeed, I'm fairly sure that if you go digging, you will find D&D does not encourage nor condone excessive cruelty or genocidal tendencies towards animals

Indeed, it's funny that you should say that. Only the paladin requires for evil to be opposed. Even it's only "and punish those who harm or threaten innocents." In code of conduct. No word of killing or genocide. The local undertaker could die of old age and rise as a zombie and continue his job innocently. The paladin is not required by any rule to kill it.


D&D by RAW does not require paladins to kill evil nor any other class, race or alignment is required to do so (barring some paladin variants). It is us who do so. We are our own monsters who paint a narrative of "we are good" and the DM points and goes "they are evil" and the party goes and kills.


Horrifying what we justify :)

[Bohandas]

Mark of Justice!

Unite it to a githyanki illithid hunting party! Lesser evils!

Minimus Containment!

[Tzonarin]

This directly followed quoting me and yet it does not address what I said in any way. That makes me wonder, a little, if you wanted any answer at all.

I believe I did well enough. You argued that the party should go all in, or not, or have the DM unilaterally make some sort of ruling as to whether we attack it or not, because it may be or not a "virus" vs. an intelligent creature. Dragons are intelligent creatures in every way and are not viruses. That doesn't mean that a player or a group of players won't be determined to exterminate them.

My decision to quote you came from my objection to choice #3 - the DM unilaterally making a decision for the party that might be hamstrung on a dilemma. To me, sorting things like this out in a party is the essence of role-play.

I wasn't especially seeking advice on what to do - the dwarf has already determined what to do and regardless of the discussion in the threat, I'll continue on that tangent (a card laid is a card played).

The entire point of my posting to the board was to snapshot the scenario and see what other players and DM's would do. I know how *I* play, but sometimes, it's good to see how other people play and to get other perspectives - not to mention have a light-hearted discussion about a number of topics that interlink into the idea of RP gaming.

I apologize if my points weren't initially clear on this.

Tzo

[Bohandas]

Do nothing. That's what Boccob would do.

[Talakeal]

You know, D&D morality really bugs me.

Just reading the BoED and BoVD is really weird. Like, by RAW you could see someone walking down the road with a bag of gold on a dark night, shoot them in the back, and rob them. IF they were a member of an "always evil" race this isn't an evil action, even though you had no knowledge of what their race was and even if you did it didn't factor into your motives.

I personally think they should go with a philosophy of your alignment determines your actions rather than your actions determine alignment. That would make the whole thing a heck of a lot less objectionable when viewed through the lens of any sort of real world morality.


Umm...the same as towards their wyrmling. If the dwarf can, chop chop, although that's highly unlikely, given the predisposition of red dragons. They see the inability to defend a hoard as a sign of weakness - they may end up killing it themselves for being weak - and then go off looking for the 2000GP of lewt.

What level are you guys? Why would the DM put a wyrmling in as a thread if you can expect to single handedly defeat adult dragons without breaking a sweat?

[Kane0]

Oh thats easy. Just ask your DM "Nature or nurture?"
Their response will reveal the 'correct' course of action.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You know, D&D morality really bugs me.

Just reading the BoED and BoVD is really weird. Like, by RAW you could see someone walking down the road with a bag of gold on a dark night, shoot them in the back, and rob them. IF they were a member of an "always evil" race this isn't an evil action, even though you had no knowledge of what their race was and even if you did it didn't factor into your motives.

Have you ever looked through the various MM's and other beasty books to see just how rarely the "always evil" tag is applied? I actually can't think of a single one that's not definitively inhuman. "Always evil" creatures are -monsters- that are beyond any serious moral consideration. A common bandit would cower under his hiding bush rather than even attempt to mess with any of them.


I personally think they should go with a philosophy of your alignment determines your actions rather than your actions determine alignment. That would make the whole thing a heck of a lot less objectionable when viewed through the lens of any sort of real world morality.

That straight-jackets players into sticking to whatever the DM thinks of as the steretypical behavior for that alignment. Does that sound like a good thing to you?

If the alignment system as a whole bothers you, just scrap it. It's not that important to the function of the game.

[DoomHat]

After some thought I'd like to offer something rare in online discourse; a genuine retraction and apology.
I'm sorry for implying anything ugly about those who've disagreed with me on this point, and I failed to clearly communicate that I do not equate actions committed against fictional entities to be anything like actual crimes.

I surrender the argument, but will make one last effort to at least explain myself, if only to elucidate the error in my personal perception which lead to the offence.

Simply put, with in the context of a typical D&D world, the OP is by and large justified in their actions, yet I can't help but find the bulk of the arguments for attacking the wyrmling to be a bit distressing. Because they (fairly or not) remind me of the sort of mythologizing people throughout actual history have used to justify atrocities against other peoples. Yes, what we've done/are doing might seem hideous, but it's their natural place for that to happen to them.

I have no problem, incidentally, with conducting fictional atrocities. I've played samurai who imagine themselves to be noble and honorable as they casually trod upon the rights and dignity of peasants. I've played a cyberpunk terrorist who thought nothing of blowing up a city block to prove a point. I've played an ambitious and somewhat crazed amazon who made an effort to enslave every wolf, goblin, or other remotely tamable random encounter she could spare in combat.
It's been fun to be in their shoes, but I don't like to imagine, even though the characters see themselves as righteous, that I, the player, agree with them for a second.

[Talakeal]

That straight-jackets players into sticking to whatever the DM thinks of as the steretypical behavior for that alignment. Does that sound like a good thing to you?

If the alignment system as a whole bothers you, just scrap it. It's not that important to the function of the game.

When I DM I play core only and follow the spirit of the rules rather than the letter. Most of the nonsense only comes up when you are using the BoED or BoVD or attempting to twist the letter of the rules into something weird (for example one DM I had who insisted that showing mercy was a CE act because the description of LG says you better the forces of evil without mercy).

My current DM already railroads us using our alignment because he forbids any alignment except for LG or NG and then tells us that if we do anything that he considers chaotic or evil that he will change our alignment and then take away control of our characters. So that is really a moot point for me personally.


On a philosophical level, it doesn't seem at all weird to you that if I altruistically rush to help an old lady who is secretly a night hag in disguise I become more evil, but if I decide to sadistically murder said old lady purely for fun and or profit I become more good?


(I am basing this off of the rules for Murder on page 7 of the BoVD and the rules for Consorting with Fiends on page 8 of the BoVD by the way).

[Keltest]

When I DM I play core only and follow the spirit of the rules rather than the letter. Most of the nonsense only comes up when you are using the BoED or BoVD or attempting to twist the letter of the rules into something weird (for example one DM I had who insisted that showing mercy was a CE act because the description of LG says you better the forces of evil without mercy).

My current DM already railroads us using our alignment because he forbids any alignment except for LG or NG and then tells us that if we do anything that he considers chaotic or evil that he will change our alignment and then take away control of our characters. So that is really a moot point for me personally.


On a philosophical level, it doesn't seem at all weird to you that if I altruistically rush to help an old lady who is secretly a night hag in disguise I become more evil, but if I decide to sadistically murder said old lady purely for fun and or profit I do not?


(I am basing this off of the rules for Murder on page 7 of the BoVD and the rules for Consorting with Fiends on page 8 of the BoVD by the way).

That's because the alignment books are, to put it bluntly, bad. Exalted Deeds in particular puts no thought into the implications of its contents.

[hamishspence]

I'd say, as poorly thought out as BOED can be at times, the emphasis on making sure your opponents have done something to deserve being attacked, plus the redemption themes, and so forth, put it ahead of BOVD for me.

[Lord Raziere]

My response to this question shall be.....

Stay away from dragons. They're dragons. If one thinks your willing to kill their infant, evil or not, then they will assume your a dragon slayer and try to hunt you down forever, especially since they live longer than you and get tougher with age. Screw morality, lets think about survival for a moment. Do you want its parent after you? No.

You made the wrong choice by involving yourself with dragons at all. Dragons are super-predators who think your tasty and good with ketchup. If one comes up to you for conversation, thank your lucky stars, have a polite conversation with them and run away when your finished. Everyone thinks about the evil or the good options, what about the Neutral option of not wanting to tick off a more powerful species known for taking down entire groups of adventurers? Hm?

Be pragmatic. Stay away from dragons. Don't get involved in their affairs. Its better that way. Let the Good dragons sort out the evil dragons themselves, I say. When you see a dragon, get out. And when a dragon asks for your help, make sure to always ask "whats in it for me and why does something as powerful as a dragon need my help?" because you'll never like the answer and always have a reason to opt out.

For this specific dragon, run and let someone else who cares more about it deal with it. as an adventurer, you have better things to do than death by dragon.

[Koo Rehtorb]

For this specific dragon, run and let someone else who cares more about it deal with it. as an adventurer, you have better things to do than death by dragon.

Truly the name of the game is Dungeons and (running away from) Dragons.

[Hawkstar]

My response to this question shall be.....

Stay away from dragons. They're dragons. If one thinks your willing to kill their infant, evil or not, then they will assume your a dragon slayer and try to hunt you down forever, especially since they live longer than you and get tougher with age. Screw morality, lets think about survival for a moment. Do you want its parent after you? No.Every dragon you don't kill when you meet it is a dragon that will grow up to kill others. By failing to kill the infant, you damn not only yourself, but others as well to death by dragon.


You made the wrong choice by involving yourself with dragons at all. Dragons are super-predators who think your tasty and good with ketchup. If one comes up to you for conversation, thank your lucky stars, have a polite conversation with them and run away when your finished. Everyone thinks about the evil or the good options, what about the Neutral option of not wanting to tick off a more powerful species known for taking down entire groups of adventurers? Hm?Dragons are just as known for taking out innocent civilians as they are groups of adventurers. Your failure to act in exterminating them as you meet them does NOTHING to reduce your chances of dying to them, and actually increases your chance of dying to them because you allow even MORE of them to live, hunt, and kill.


Be pragmatic. Stay away from dragons. Don't get involved in their affairs. Its better that way. Let the Good dragons sort out the evil dragons themselves, I say. When you see a dragon, get out. And when a dragon asks for your help, make sure to always ask "whats in it for me and why does something as powerful as a dragon need my help?" because you'll never like the answer and always have a reason to opt out.There is nothing 'pragmatic' about staying away from creatures that actively hunt down humans and demihumans for sport. At best, you delay the inevitable. If an evil dragon is in the area, you don't have time to sit around twiddling your thumbs waiting for a Good Dragon to deal with it. It needs to get put down ASAP. And if a dragon asks for your help, by your own reasoning, you better be willing to help, because the arrogance of asking "What's in it for me?" has the natural answer of "Well, I wasn't going to kill you, but you're an insolent worm" followed by immediate execution.


For this specific dragon, run and let someone else who cares more about it deal with it. as an adventurer, you have better things to do than death by dragon.There is nothing better for an adventurer to do than stop a dragon from growing up to kill them or other adventurers.

[hamishspence]

There's more types of Dragon than Chromatic - there's Metallic, Gem, Planar, and so forth.

And 4e, like Eberron, chucked out "Always X alignment" for chromatics (and moved Metallic dragons from "Good" to "Unaligned on average") reflecting the way the various types of dragon tended to be portrayed in D&D fiction and in pre-3E D&D media.

The whole "exterminate all chromatic dragons as you meet them" thing seems like exactly the sort of thing D&D designers have been trying to move away from.

[Bohandas]

You know, D&D morality really bugs me.

Just reading the BoED and BoVD is really weird. Like, by RAW you could see someone walking down the road with a bag of gold on a dark night, shoot them in the back, and rob them. IF they were a member of an "always evil" race this isn't an evil action, even though you had no knowledge of what their race was and even if you did it didn't factor into your motives.

How do you explain the Blood War then? That the chief pastime of fiends is killing other fiends

[Keltest]

There's more types of Dragon than Chromatic - there's Metallic, Gem, Planar, and so forth.

And 4e, like Eberron, chucked out "Always X alignment" for chromatics (and moved Metallic dragons from "Good" to "Unaligned on average") reflecting the way the various types of dragon tended to be portrayed in D&D fiction and in pre-3E D&D media.

The whole "exterminate all chromatic dragons as you meet them" thing seems like exactly the sort of thing D&D designers have been trying to move away from.

If that's the case, they have an interesting way of trying to do it. The things that make chromatic dragons good targets are their treasure hordes and their tendency to eat people and burn villages, not their written alignment. Non-evil dragons do have treasure, but they also don't antagonize people to nearly the same degree.

[Kelb_Panthera]

When I DM I play core only and follow the spirit of the rules rather than the letter. Most of the nonsense only comes up when you are using the BoED or BoVD or attempting to twist the letter of the rules into something weird (for example one DM I had who insisted that showing mercy was a CE act because the description of LG says you better the forces of evil without mercy).

My current DM already railroads us using our alignment because he forbids any alignment except for LG or NG and then tells us that if we do anything that he considers chaotic or evil that he will change our alignment and then take away control of our characters. So that is really a moot point for me personally.

Every time you talk about the group you play with, I get a little sad. :smallfrown:



On a philosophical level, it doesn't seem at all weird to you that if I altruistically rush to help an old lady who is secretly a night hag in disguise I become more evil, but if I decide to sadistically murder said old lady purely for fun and or profit I become more good?

Murder is always evil so either ganking the nighthag gets moved to neutral or it's both good and evil, either way it doesn't really move your alignment.

As for helping her, the clear intent of the segment is about people knowingly consorting with fiends, at least partly evidenced by the use of the term "consorting." More than any other pair of books, BoED and BoVD need to be fitered through a reasonable human being. You don't have one of those running your game so I'd suggest advocating that your group drop alignment entirely.

It is curios, however, that the only complaints I -ever- hear about with these rules are ravages, afflictions, pseudo-racism, and people erroneously taking their own extrapolations as RAW. The most notably of that last includes the idea that sadism/masochism are evil and that a thing being acceptable to good characters is good when "acceptable" includes both good and neutral actions or a thing being associated with evil characters is, itself, evil; i.e. "OMG, BoVD says lying is evil" or "All killing is murder so all adventurers are evil!" in-spite of the fact BoED makes it clear that latter point isn't the case at all. They really aren't bad.

[Hawkstar]

And the BoVD makes it clear that, past the title, most of the acts it describes as "Evil" such as Murder and Lying are not so much Evil themselves as tools of Evil, and can be evil in specific contexts. Lying is evil when it's a betrayal of a deep-seated trust. Betrayal is treated as Nongood because, even when done to Evil, it erodes trust and goodwill between people, which are the pillars of Good.

And accidentally helping a Night Hag is not 'evil', nor even 'consorting'. Killing a Night Hag because she's a Fiend is Good, or at least Nonevil. Killing someone who happens to be a Night Hag without motivation is Evil, and murdering a Night Hag for sadistic thrill of inflicting harm regardless of the victim is Vile Evil.

Your group fails to read past the headlines. And the DM that thinks "Oh, because Showing Mercy isn't Lawful Good, it must be Chaotic Evil" is an idiot - Mercy is what separates True/Neutral Good from Lawful Good.

[Keltest]

Every time you talk about the group you play with, I get a little sad. :smallfrown:




Murder is always evil so either ganking the nighthag gets moved to neutral or it's both good and evil, either way it doesn't really move your alignment.

As for helping her, the clear intent of the segment is about people knowingly consorting with fiends, at least partly evidenced by the use of the term "consorting." More than any other pair of books, BoED and BoVD need to be fitered through a reasonable human being. You don't have one of those running your game so I'd suggest advocating that your group drop alignment entirely.

It is curios, however, that the only complaints I -ever- hear about with these rules are ravages, afflictions, pseudo-racism, and people erroneously taking their own extrapolations as RAW. The most notably of that last includes the idea that sadism/masochism are evil and that a thing being acceptable to good characters is good when "acceptable" includes both good and neutral actions or a thing being associated with evil characters is, itself, evil; i.e. "OMG, BoVD says lying is evil" or "All killing is murder so all adventurers are evil!" in-spite of the fact BoED makes it clear that latter point isn't the case at all. They really aren't bad.

Doesn't BoED have a spell that imprisons someone and re-writes their personality over the course of a year? And its considered good?

[Lord Raziere]

Truly the name of the game is Dungeons and (running away from) Dragons.

It says nothing about fighting dragons. Only that those two things exist. whether you fight them or not is purely optional. Its an option well within player agency. Running away is an underused tactic in the roleplaying community that doesn't get enough respect in my opinion, with people setting unrealistic standards of bravery and assuming all encounters can be won against or should be fought. such assumptions lead to murderhoboism. adjust assumptions of logic first, before adjusting assumptions of morality.

@ Hawkstar: also I don't ascribe to DnD morality. It makes no sense, and any morality that doesn't make sense isn't valid to me. I'd rather assume all sentient beings start equal in morality and throw out alignment entirely in favor of individuals making choices. Its much more interesting if villains are killed and fought against for personal reasons. Kill a dragon, just because its a dragon? No. A red dragon that isn't doing anything to anyone is left alone, a dragon who kills someone I know, that is a villain I fight and care about. You don't need in built setting racism to roleplay such hatred and death of such beings and such racism and extermination only strips away depth and potential stories and does not add any. Also this isn't the DnD forum, this a roleplaying general forum. I can take any view I please.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Doesn't BoED have a spell that imprisons someone and re-writes their personality over the course of a year? And its considered good?

It's called sanctify the wicked. If you actually read how it functions, -they- reorganize their own mind within the spell's focus. It's non-functional on true outsiders and it's primarily good as a result of using good aligned energies to facilitate its function.

If all you know about it is "cast it and the evil guy is forced to become good" then it sounds a lot, lot worse than it actually is.

[Hawkstar]

It's called sanctify the wicked. If you actually read how it functions, -they- reorganize their own mind within the spell's focus. It's non-functional on true outsiders and it's primarily good as a result of using good aligned energies to facilitate its function.

If all you know about it is "cast it and the evil guy is forced to become good" then it sounds a lot, lot worse than it actually is.

Part of the controversy is that the fluff and crunch don't quite align - the fluff says it's a fundamental, ultimately voluntary change in the creature's outlook (Sure, the other option is 'stay imprisoned forever', but keeping evil sealed away is Good, not Evil), and for some reason it can be dispelled, as though it's goodness 'bolted on' to Evil. Also - Free Will and Agency are Chaotic, not Good, concepts anyway. Even with bolting an artificial Good personality over the Evil one, it's still a Good act because it removes an objectively evil creature from the world, and replaces it with an objectively good one. But then again - the spell makes the creature's alignment match the caster's, not an actual "Good" alignment chosen by the caster or creature.

[Bad Wolf]

Interesting. I'd argue that killing a child who's misdeeds you have no proof isn't a Good act, but let's look at the consequences. All you've really done is make a dragon have a grudge against you. Bravo.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Part of the controversy is that the fluff and crunch don't quite align - the fluff says it's a fundamental, ultimately voluntary change in the creature's outlook (Sure, the other option is 'stay imprisoned forever', but keeping evil sealed away is Good, not Evil), and for some reason it can be dispelled, as though it's goodness 'bolted on' to Evil. Also - Free Will and Agency are Chaotic, not Good, concepts anyway. Even with bolting an artificial Good personality over the Evil one, it's still a Good act because it removes an objectively evil creature from the world, and replaces it with an objectively good one. But then again - the spell makes the creature's alignment match the caster's, not an actual "Good" alignment chosen by the caster or creature.

Duration's "see text." You can dispel sanctify the wicked during the year it's processing but once it's done the results can only be undone by voluntary action or mind-altering magic like mindrape or a helm of opposite alignment.

As for that last, getting it off of evil is the primary concern and sanctified spells can't be cast by evil creatures.

[Hawkstar]

Interesting. I'd argue that killing a child who's misdeeds you have no proof isn't a Good act, but let's look at the consequences. All you've really done is make a dragon have a grudge against you. Bravo.
Dragons are not children, though. They're already mentally competent agents in full control of their reasoning, and are incredibly dangerous on top of that. Sure, they do 'mature' - but only into something even more self-confident in its malevolence, and able to reproduce.

[Templarkommando]

It *really* depends on the setting tone. When I DM I probably wouldn't force an alignment change unless I went out of my way to show the party that the dragon could be a positive factor in society. Part of this is because I really despise alignment arguments because they depend on the DM's interpretation of morality a lot of the time and ignore the type of story that party members want to tell. It's another story if the party wants to ostracize your character for doing things that they find unacceptable, but as DM, I would probably remind them that we're playing the game because it's fun and alignment arguments and leaving people out of the game aren't all that much fun.

[Bad Wolf]

Dragons are not children, though. They're already mentally competent agents in full control of their reasoning, and are incredibly dangerous on top of that. Sure, they do 'mature' - but only into something even more self-confident in its malevolence, and able to reproduce.

It's a five year old, which is a wyrmling. Dragons are specifically mentioned as taking a long time to mature. It'll be petty and prideful, and not very good at making long-term decisions. The odd child genius who's smarter than most adults still isn't considered mature because it lacks the life experience and judgement to make its own decisions.

[Hawkstar]

And yet, at five years old, it's already far more mature and competent than a human. They only get more terrifying and monstrous from there.

[jitzul]

From the 4e Draconomicon


Even so, a dragon is not born with the full memories of prior generations. Rather, a wyrmling has a grasp of the generalities of the world and of its own identity. It knows how to move, how to use its innate abilities, who and what its parents are, and—perhaps most important—how to view the world around it. This awareness is one reason that even the youngest dragons are capable of surviving to adulthood. It is also why a sense of superiority and arrogance is ubiquitous among chromatic dragons: They are born already knowing that they’re among the most powerful creatures in the world (or at least will be, after they mature).

A dragon wrymling is not like a human toddler.

[Keltest]

Duration's "see text." You can dispel sanctify the wicked during the year it's processing but once it's done the results can only be undone by voluntary action or mind-altering magic like mindrape or a helm of opposite alignment.

As for that last, getting it off of evil is the primary concern and sanctified spells can't be cast by evil creatures.

Ok, but is "were going to stick you in solitary confinement until you decide to share our worldview" really better than "were going to magically compel you to share our worldview?

[hamishspence]

A dragon wrymling is not like a human toddler.

It's not like an adult human either. Dragon Magazine discussed raising wyrmling dragons (chromatic and metallic) and it made it pretty clear that, dangerous as they can be, they're still pretty immature mentally.

[Frozen_Feet]

On a philosophical level, it doesn't seem at all weird to you that if I altruistically rush to help an old lady who is secretly a night hag in disguise I become more evil, but if I decide to sadistically murder said old lady purely for fun and or profit I become more good?

On a philosophical level, it may sound really really weird that a thing could both exist and not-exist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition) at the same time, or that there is a fundamental compromise of accuracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) when trying to measure both speed and position of an object, or that there is no absolute, priviliged reference frame and all movement is relative. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity)

The fact that some concepts imply philosophically complex or unappealing things does not mean they can't be accurate models of the world.

By contrast, the fictional worlds of D&D posit things like factual existence of souls, gods, and actual demons. These have major philosophical implications across the settings and mean that several real-life ethical systems would be wrong, and in fact if you read f.ex. AD&D 1st edition's descriptions of alignment, you can notice that each alignment corresponds to some real-life philosophy!

The idea that you could be "accidentally good" or "accidentally evil" may sound radical to you because of the ethical system you ascribe to in the real world, but within the context of the game it is not actually all that radical compared to much more far-reaching things.

---


Doesn't BoED have a spell that imprisons someone and re-writes their personality over the course of a year? And its considered good?

If you lock someone up in a prison and spend a year trying to teach them their past deeds were wrong, and that they should turn to light, that's called redeeming someone. It's considered in many societies not just to be a good cause, but a necessary one. Why would using magic for this be ethically different?

Fact of the matter is, if you look too hard at any attempt at teaching someone or changing their beliefs, it will start to sound like brainwashing. But ultimately such arguments rely on either equivocation or simplistic ethics which overvalue free will of a subject above any other moral principles. It is not given D&D ethics actually values freedom of will above all other qualia.

---


Interesting. I'd argue that killing a child who's misdeeds you have no proof isn't a Good act, but let's look at the consequences. All you've really done is make a dragon have a grudge against you. Bravo.

That's a particularly naive consequentalist view of things. The reason everyone everywhere has a hard time taking utilitarians and other consequentalists seriously is because future knowledge of outcome of actions is frequently extremely hard to get, so retro-actively blaming a person for unforeseen outcome of their actions is impolite at best.

As others have noted, there's also the probabilistic view that the dragon would be a problem anyway, regardless of whether it has a grudge, so it wasn't really possible to make the situation worse. You can get around this by stating the problems with induction, but once you do that you also can't found ethics on consequences, because causality is uncertain.

[Hawkstar]

Ok, but is "were going to stick you in solitary confinement until you decide to share our worldview" really better than "were going to magically compel you to share our worldview?They're both Good. Freedom and Moral Relativism are Chaotic, not Good, concepts, even if some cultures value them to the point of conflating Freedom with Goodness.

[Keltest]

They're both Good. Freedom and Moral Relativism are Chaotic, not Good, concepts, even if some cultures value them to the point of conflating Freedom with Goodness.

Right, but solitary confinement is pretty dangerously close to outright torture (unless youre using on, like, a dragon or something that doesn't actually like other people).

[Hawkstar]

Right, but solitary confinement is pretty dangerously close to outright torture (unless youre using on, like, a dragon or something that doesn't actually like other people).

Sealing evil in a can is not torture, even if it does give them such a crick in the neck.

[Frozen_Feet]

Right, but solitary confinement is pretty dangerously close to outright torture.

And execution is dangerously close to murder, yet D&D is occasionally fine with the former even when it's not fine with the latter.

This usually has to do with nature of evil creatures: a good person powerful enough to cast Sanctify the Wicked is dealing with things with which no lesser punishment can realistically achieve five principles of punishment: revenge, rehabilitation, restoration and special and general prevention.

The alternative to using SoW would often be to kill these things, which makes SoW a lesser evil from any viewpoint valuing life above freedom.

Oh, and with SoW you may actually be saving a being's soul from a literal Hell.

Which of these cave-ats apply to tortute, or normal solitary confinement?

[Talakeal]

How do you explain the Blood War then? That the chief pastime of fiends is killing other fiends

I once had a player who relief on this logic. Their character was a classic sociopath, lying, stealing, and murdering to get their way. However they insisted that because they were still travelling with the party and opposing the "real bad guys" their alignment would balance out to neutral.

I believe by BoED and BoVD raw evil simply overwhelms good. You can turn a good person evil simply by having them commit evil acts, but you can't turn an evil person good by having them commit good acts.

D&D seems to run on a principal of ethical entropy; it takes much more effort to redeem something than to cause it to fall.

The analogy I heard was water purification. You can make pure water impure by dripping pollution into it, but you can never make polluted water pure by simply dripping some clean water into it. True redemption is akin to a complicated filtration system that can actually remove the "evil" rather than simply adding more good.



Murder is always evil so either ganking the nighthag gets moved to neutral or it's both good and evil, either way it doesn't really move your alignment.

As for helping her, the clear intent of the segment is about people knowingly consorting with fiends, at least partly evidenced by the use of the term "consorting." More than any other pair of books, BoED and BoVD need to be fitered through a reasonable human being. You don't have one of those running your game so I'd suggest advocating that your group drop alignment entirely.

It is curios, however, that the only complaints I -ever- hear about with these rules are ravages, afflictions, pseudo-racism, and people erroneously taking their own extrapolations as RAW. The most notably of that last includes the idea that sadism/masochism are evil and that a thing being acceptable to good characters is good when "acceptable" includes both good and neutral actions or a thing being associated with evil characters is, itself, evil; i.e. "OMG, BoVD says lying is evil" or "All killing is murder so all adventurers are evil!" in-spite of the fact BoED makes it clear that latter point isn't the case at all. They really aren't bad.


And the BoVD makes it clear that, past the title, most of the acts it describes as "Evil" such as Murder and Lying are not so much Evil themselves as tools of Evil, and can be evil in specific contexts. Lying is evil when it's a betrayal of a deep-seated trust. Betrayal is treated as Nongood because, even when done to Evil, it erodes trust and goodwill between people, which are the pillars of Good.

And accidentally helping a Night Hag is not 'evil', nor even 'consorting'. Killing a Night Hag because she's a Fiend is Good, or at least Nonevil. Killing someone who happens to be a Night Hag without motivation is Evil, and murdering a Night Hag for sadistic thrill of inflicting harm regardless of the victim is Vile Evil.

Your group fails to read past the headlines. And the DM that thinks "Oh, because Showing Mercy isn't Lawful Good, it must be Chaotic Evil" is an idiot - Mercy is what separates True/Neutral Good from Lawful Good.

This is all a reasonable interpretation.

The problem is the BoVD and BoED explicitly uses words like "always" and "never" and often say that motive and context do not matter. I don't know why they would write "Destroying a fiend is ALWAYS a good act." (BoVD page 8) if they meant "Destroying a fiend is usually good, although one must take into account the broader context of the action..."


Every time you talk about the group you play with, I get a little sad. :smallfrown:

Me too. If it is any consolation we haven't actually played in months and I am actively looking for a new group (with little luck).

[Talakeal]

On a philosophical level, it may sound really really weird that a thing could both exist and not-exist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition) at the same time, or that there is a fundamental compromise of accuracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) when trying to measure both speed and position of an object, or that there is no absolute, priviliged reference frame and all movement is relative. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity)

The fact that some concepts imply philosophically complex or unappealing things does not mean they can't be accurate models of the world.

By contrast, the fictional worlds of D&D posit things like factual existence of souls, gods, and actual demons. These have major philosophical implications across the settings and mean that several real-life ethical systems would be wrong, and in fact if you read f.ex. AD&D 1st edition's descriptions of alignment, you can notice that each alignment corresponds to some real-life philosophy!

The idea that you could be "accidentally good" or "accidentally evil" may sound radical to you because of the ethical system you ascribe to in the real world, but within the context of the game it is not actually all that radical compared to much more far-reaching things.

I can't tell, are you agreeing with me or not?

My initial premise was that BoED / BoVD alignment is really weird and doesn't mesh up with any consistent understanding of real world morality.

I am inferring from your tone that you seem to be arguing against that statement, but the context of your statement seems to be backing me up.



If you lock someone up in a prison and spend a year trying to teach them their past deeds were wrong, and that they should turn to light, that's called redeeming someone. It's considered in many societies not just to be a good cause, but a necessary one. Why would using magic for this be ethically different?

Fact of the matter is, if you look too hard at any attempt at teaching someone or changing their beliefs, it will start to sound like brainwashing. But ultimately such arguments rely on either equivocation or simplistic ethics which overvalue free will of a subject above any other moral principles. It is not given D&D ethics actually values freedom of will above all other qualia.

Sanctify the wicked forces the change regardless of the person's nature or previous world views. It also changes their alignments on the Law/Chaos axis, so there is something more going on there beyond mere redemption.

I am pretty sure IRL if you could surgically alter someone's brain to force them to adopt your morals that would be seen as reprehensible.

But D&D doesn't seem to care, if you use sanctify the wicked its good, if you use Mind Rape its evil, if you use Programmed Amnesia its neutral. It seems that D&D morality cares less about the outcome if your spell and more about the tools which you are using to accomplish it.

[Frozen_Feet]

I personally think they should go with a philosophy of your alignment determines your actions rather than your actions determine alignment.

To paraphrase 1st edition AD&D: "alignment is prescriptive for non-player characters. For player characters, it is purely descriptive."

That is: alignment for NPCs is a part of their personality. It is a guideline for how a GM ought to play those characters.

As for PCs, a GM is supposed to evaluate how each action lines up with principles of different alignments and track where a character falls on a chart. There are various penalties for changing alignment too often, but no single alignment is prohibited for players nor does changing alignment rob a player of the control of their character's actions, at least not untill the penalties kill them.

Where your GM differs is that he has essentially implemented a corruption system similar to Lord of the Rings RPG. In LotR RPG, player characters are explicitly meant to be played according to principles of Tolkienian Heroism, and they net Corruption points for doing unheroic deeds. Once a character has enough corruption points, they are deemed a villain and become NPCs.

Which might be a workable system on its own, but it's not how D&D's alignment system was meant to work.

[Talakeal]

To paraphrase 1st edition AD&D: "alignment is prescriptive for non-player characters. For player characters, it is purely descriptive."

That is: alignment for NPCs is a part of their personality. It is a guideline for how a GM ought to play those characters.

As for PCs, a GM is supposed to evaluate how each action lines up with principles of different alignments and track where a character falls on a chart. There are various penalties for changing alignment too often, but no single alignment is prohibited for players nor does changing alignment rob a player of the control of their character's actions, at least not untill the penalties kill them.

Where your GM differs is that he has essentially implemented a corruption system similar to Lord of the Rings RPG. In LotR RPG, player characters are explicitly meant to be played according to principles of Tolkienian Heroism, and they net Corruption points for doing unheroic deeds. Once a character has enough corruption points, they are deemed a villain and become NPCs.

Which might be a workable system on its own, but it's not how D&D's alignment system was meant to work.

Yeah, except we aren't allowed to earn even a single point of "corruption", the DM merely states "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" when he doesn't like our actions.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Yeah, except we aren't allowed to earn even a single point of "corruption", the DM merely states "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" when he doesn't like our actions.

Alignment is a terrible system, but this isn't an alignment problem. This is a DM problem.

[Frozen_Feet]

I can't tell, are you agreeing with me or not?

Mu.

I'm making an additional argument that philosophical weirdness does not preclude a model from being truthful.

This applies regardless of whether I agree with your premise or not.


Sanctify the wicked forces the change regardless of the person's nature or previous world views.

The goal of any punishment is to force change. This does not make SoW morally special.


I am pretty sure IRL if you could surgically alter someone's brain to force them to adopt your morals that would be seen as reprehensible.

Debatable. Using surgery to cure mental ailments used to be seen as acceptable; it no longer is, but it's less because our morals changed, and more because the surgery turned out to not work all that well.

Compare and contrast with electric shock therapy. It fell out of favour because people started seeing it as inhumane - but it made a comeback when it turned out it actually is useful for treating certain mental maladies.

If there actually was surgical treatment for, say, criminally inclined sociopathy, the closest thing we IRL have to "Always Evil" alignment, I'd bet money we would be using it. Because our current justice systems already compel us to use force against them and incarcerate them, and we would very much like them to change, we just don't have means to compel such change.

This loops back to my response to Keltest. For certain sort of Evil creatures in D&D, SoW is the best possible punishment, as it serves the principles of revenge, restoration, rehabilitation, special and general prevention. It also may save a being from literal Hell.

Remember also: the alternative in D&D is to kill them, and D&D is often ethically fine with this.

Now ask yourself: do Mind Rape, Programmed Amnesia etc. actually have these same qualities? Are they even meant to be used this way?

[icefractal]

The elephant in the room - it's not like being an adult would automatically make it more "ok" to kill. If it was an adult red dragon, you still might not have any proof that it had eaten anyone, although you could say that it's very likely. And if we're considering that dragon alignment can vary in rare instances, that applies to an adult one as well.

Same thing with goblins or orcs, really. You can say that you should stop before slaying the goblin babies, and I agree, but really you should have stopped before coming into their settlement with weapons out and slaying anyone who came to stop you. But if the reason you were there is that they're killing people? Then it gets complicated, because hey, what about the goblins that weren't part of the raiding parties and didn't want to fight the humans to begin with? A lot of D&D adventures get into very gray territory if you start thinking about them too much.

There's a few choices, if you want to avoid that:
1) Play with a very different approach than typical, only killing when absolutely necessary.
2) Use antagonists that really are always evil, and spring into being fully aware and malevolent.
3) Don't think about it too much, and avoid situations that bring focus onto it.

So personally, I don't think the Dwarf's action was any worse than what most D&D characters do on a weekly basis - it just brought the spotlight onto it more.

[awa]

"2) Use antagonists that really are always evil, and spring into being fully aware and malevolent."
Like a red dragon?
they have decent mental stats from birth and an alignment of evil

[Lord Raziere]

Really, my reaction to this whole DnD "should we kill kids of evil races" thing is to just say "no" when people ask about doing it at all in a game and kick anyone who thinks thats fun. I'm not doing it in my game.

Because I don't roleplay for philosophy, I roleplay to have fun. killing kids isn't fun, and bringing up the stupider parts of DnD alignment isn't either. The fact that you can make a valid argument over it is not the point. Sure, I'm also on the side of nurture generally, but thats mostly because I am leery of anything that claims someone was "born wrong", aside from the most exceptional of circumstances. I am biased though.

Mostly I just don't want adventurers to act like what would be considered pillaging raiders and bandits against Designated Victim Who Totally Does Bad Stuff Honest So its Totally Okay To be a Utilitarian Killer. I want them to be actual heroes. People who kill dragons just for being dragons can go straight to the evil npc needing to be thwarted box. Doesn't have to be a BBEG who goes "I'll genocide them all with an artifact!", can be small scale like a bunch of hunters and slayers who enjoy their job WAY too much.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Really, my reaction to this whole DnD "should we kill kids of evil races" thing is to just say "no" when people ask about doing it at all in a game and kick anyone who thinks thats fun. I'm not doing it in my game.

Then don't put children of evil races in the game at all? A DM who goes "You walk into a cave and see a bunch of goblin babies, what do you do?!?" is a DM who's provoking this.

[Lord Raziere]

Then don't put children of evil races in the game at all? A DM who goes "You walk into a cave and see a bunch of goblin babies, what do you do?!?" is a DM who's provoking this.

Thats why I said no....? I didn't say I put them in. I said I would kick out anyone who'd want those kids in, in the first place.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Really, my reaction to this whole DnD "should we kill kids of evil races" thing is to just say "no" when people ask about doing it at all in a game and kick anyone who thinks thats fun. I'm not doing it in my game.

Funily enough, the 3.5 RAW is actually on your side 99.9% of the time. There are precious few races for which it is acceptable and in virtually all of those cases the creature is born dangerous enough to make it necessary to the protection of other creatures and a fair enough fight for the adventurers in that situation. Killing goblin babies is all but explicitly called out as evil.


Because I don't roleplay for philosophy, I roleplay to have fun. killing kids isn't fun, and bringing up the stupider parts of DnD alignment isn't either.

Nobody's trying to say that's the wrong way to play. If you want to keep things philosophically simple, that's fine. Some of us like things a little more complex though.


The fact that you can make a valid argument over it is not the point. Sure, I'm also on the side of nurture generally, but thats mostly because I am leery of anything that claims someone was "born wrong", aside from the most exceptional of circumstances. I am biased though.

Even IRL, people are sometimes born with mental or physical disabilities that necessarily influence their entire lives. In D&D some creatures are simply naturally incapable of not being evil; barring extremely rare, extraordinary circumstances. It doesn't say anything about real life given just how utterly inhuman are these creatures. You wouldn't expect a hydra to be able to grasp architecture, don't expect a red dragon to understand good; in both cases, it's simply beyond their grasp.


Mostly I just don't want adventurers to act like what would be considered pillaging raiders and bandits against Designated Victim Who Totally Does Bad Stuff Honest So its Totally Okay To be a Utilitarian Killer. I want them to be actual heroes. People who kill dragons just for being dragons can go straight to the evil npc needing to be thwarted box. Doesn't have to be a BBEG who goes "I'll genocide them all with an artifact!", can be small scale like a bunch of hunters and slayers who enjoy their job WAY too much.

Again, you're welcome to your taste. It's not universal. Some people like to play amoral mercenaries and some like to play puppy-kicking, mustache-twirling, baby-eating, card-carrying villains. Then there's antiheroes, people who are morally conflicted, philosophers that seek the very meaning of morality, or any of a host of other roles more complex than saturday-morning cartoon heroes. There's nothing wrong with any of those either.

And sometimes a DM will throw something like this in thoughtlessly because they haven't considered the potential fallout (that wyrmlings have stats can precipitate it, as likely happened in this case.) Don't be too quick to throw away a game over what may simply be a mistake.

[Lord Raziere]

Funily enough, the 3.5 RAW is actually on your side 99.9% of the time. There are precious few races for which it is acceptable and in virtually all of those cases the creature is born dangerous enough to make it necessary to the protection of other creatures and a fair enough fight for the adventurers in that situation. Killing goblin babies is all but explicitly called out as evil.


Nobody's trying to say that's the wrong way to play. If you want to keep things philosophically simple, that's fine. Some of us like things a little more complex though.

Ok.


Even IRL, people are sometimes born with mental or physical disabilities that necessarily influence their entire lives. In D&D some creatures are simply naturally incapable of not being evil; barring extremely rare, extraordinary circumstances. It doesn't say anything about real life given just how utterly inhuman are these creatures. You wouldn't expect a hydra to be able to grasp architecture, don't expect a red dragon to understand good; in both cases, it's simply beyond their grasp.

....Yes I know there are people with mental disabilities. I have high-functioning autism/aspergers syndrome, thats why I lean on the side of nurture. Do you think I want to be judged for/by that? No. Thats why I said was I biased.


Again, you're welcome to your taste. It's not universal. Some people like to play amoral mercenaries and some like to play puppy-kicking, mustache-twirling, baby-eating, card-carrying villains. Then there's antiheroes, people who are morally conflicted, philosophers that seek the very meaning of morality, or any of a host of other roles more complex than saturday-morning cartoon heroes. There's nothing wrong with any of those either.

Yes. That is a truth that I acknowledge exists.


And sometimes a DM will throw something like this in thoughtlessly because they haven't considered the potential fallout (that wyrmlings have stats can precipitate it, as likely happened in this case.) Don't be too quick to throw away a game over what may simply be a mistake.

Hm. I'll keep that in mind.

[Biskup]

There's a few choices, if you want to avoid that:
1) Play with a very different approach than typical, only killing when absolutely necessary.
2) Use antagonists that really are always evil, and spring into being fully aware and malevolent.
3) Don't think about it too much, and avoid situations that bring focus onto it.


This.

All depends of what hero player chosed. And im not talking about PC alignment itself, but rather its past. If there is serious grudge (like between dwarfs and red dragons), it's "justified" that dwarf killed that red-scaled baby. Now, what is totally in oposite is if should to this when taking into account that rest of the team decided not to kill it. This is something my team is currently struggling with. My character (unarmed swordsage/boxer, gentelman to boot) is almost never killing enemies. Beating them to pulp - if situation requires so, but hardly ever killing them straight. Always trying to negotiate even with obviously evil enemies. Sometimes it works, sometimes not, but he's always trying. On the other hand, there is Dwarf battlerager along with Drow (alignment neutral good) Priest, who are constantly ripping enemies apart. Literally. Even if situation - if character standing against us is "evil" for sure - is not clear. Their thinking is straight - if someone (something) is standing against them, and trying to fight them, it's supposed to be dead. For my character it's not that easy - maybe "enemy" is just a mercenary - sure, he took gold to attack and presumably kill us, but he might not be "true evil".

There was one chapter in anime Samurai Champloo which showed this mercenary-target relation perfectly. Protagonist was fightning with "enemy" warrior, who advised him, he holds no grudge against protagonist, it's just job. During their fight, person who "bought" mercenary skills, died. At this momment mercenary (even he was winning) withdraw, saying he has no reason to fight anymore, as his employer was no more among living.

moving back to RPG - what should happen in such situation? For example, my character would definitely withdraw as well, while our party Battlerager would continue fightning. Both actions seems justified to me...

[Stealth Marmot]

To answer Ops question, you have to focus on one very important aspect:

In your world, your setting, whichever laws and rules of the world you live by that has brought you to this particular point, whatever the rules are, is a Wyrmling red dragon, in fact, delicious when cooked properly?

I mean if you think about it, this is basically the highest and rarest form of veal you are likely to come across.

[Hawkstar]

There's a few choices, if you want to avoid that:
1) Play with a very different approach than typical, only killing when absolutely necessary.
2) Use antagonists that really are always evil, and spring into being fully aware and malevolent.
3) Don't think about it too much, and avoid situations that bring focus onto it.

Every time we try options 2 and 3, Goblin Rights Activists demand we use #1, because Hitler thought #2 of Jews, and European Settlers applied #3 to native people. And THAT is what gets really preachy and annoying.

[awa]

I very much agree, I almost never actually use creatures that must be killed as a species wide rule even if they are always evil; but I hate being told that all races are just human in funny hats and that an evil orc is clearly an African and I’m being raciest for allowing the pcs to kill it. I want my non humans to be non-human with different intrinsic values, wants and needs and not be told I’m evil because ogres are in fact not as intelligent as elves.
Certain species of shark kill before they are even born becoming cannibals in the womb just because it’s a baby does not means it’s not a threat it already knows everything it needs to hunt and kill. It’s not a human and demanding it act like one and be treated as one is foolish

[GungHo]

It's not like an adult human either. Dragon Magazine discussed raising wyrmling dragons (chromatic and metallic) and it made it pretty clear that, dangerous as they can be, they're still pretty immature mentally.
At what point do you stop carding them at the bar?

[Stealth Marmot]

At what point do you stop carding them at the bar?

Around the time you realize they don't have any pockets, and if they do you probably don't want to handle what they kept in them.

[Katrina]

So you decided it was evil therefore it was right to kill it.

You decided to act as a jury, judge and executioneer without any proof of crimes or atrocities

You tried to murder it preemptively

You broke a parlay

You stole it's treasure.

So basically your character is a thief, oathbreaker and a murderer?

Attempted Murderer. He clearly states it got away.

A friend of mine made a clever argument involving dragons and alignment a few years ago that has always stuck with me. "The Red dragon isn't Chaotic Evil because it believes in Evil. The Red Dragon is chaotic evil because it's a red dragon." It behaves in a fashion slated as Chaotic Evil because who is going to stop it? It's a dragon. At one year old it is already 11 HD and can reduce most creatures to a pile of lacerated ashes in a matter of rounds without sustaining injury. One must always consider the concepts of Power Corrupts.

That being said, in a world where "Colors are evil and Metals are good", then you have done a thing. I won't say it's a good thing, given that you made very little attempt to redeem or find out any other information about the evil creature before you decided it needed a Greataxe to the forehead. And you didn't find it actively engaged in being evil. But you did have every reason to believe that if left to its own devices, it would turn to Evil. I judge your action as firmly Lawful Neutral, given that you acted to try and prevent future evils by slaying this creature because of a pre-established pattern of behavior in its species. It is not a good action, because you did not attempt to go beyond violence. The dragon being unreasonable in trade is not a good enough reason to assume it will go out and murder people or commit atrocities. Greed is not a crime, Robbery is. Effectively what you have done is no more good or evil than killing an orc or goblin baby based on their race. It is simply a matter of scale.

In a world such as Eberron or place where Dragons are actually free thinking creatures as they kind of should be, (not being outsiders and all....); you've very nearly committed an atrocity and definitely made an enemy for life. And unfortunately, you live a long time. Not as long as a Dragon, but longer than you would like.

[Talakeal]

Attempted Murderer. He clearly states it got away.

A friend of mine made a clever argument involving dragons and alignment a few years ago that has always stuck with me. "The Red dragon isn't Chaotic Evil because it believes in Evil. The Red Dragon is chaotic evil because it's a red dragon." It behaves in a fashion slated as Chaotic Evil because who is going to stop it? It's a dragon. At one year old it is already 11 HD and can reduce most creatures to a pile of lacerated ashes in a matter of rounds without sustaining injury. One must always consider the concepts of Power Corrupts.

That being said, in a world where "Colors are evil and Metals are good", then you have done a thing. I won't say it's a good thing, given that you made very little attempt to redeem or find out any other information about the evil creature before you decided it needed a Greataxe to the forehead. And you didn't find it actively engaged in being evil. But you did have every reason to believe that if left to its own devices, it would turn to Evil. I judge your action as firmly Lawful Neutral, given that you acted to try and prevent future evils by slaying this creature because of a pre-established pattern of behavior in its species. It is not a good action, because you did not attempt to go beyond violence. The dragon being unreasonable in trade is not a good enough reason to assume it will go out and murder people or commit atrocities. Greed is not a crime, Robbery is. Effectively what you have done is no more good or evil than killing an orc or goblin baby based on their race. It is simply a matter of scale.

In a world such as Eberron or place where Dragons are actually free thinking creatures as they kind of should be, (not being outsiders and all....); you've very nearly committed an atrocity and definitely made an enemy for life. And unfortunately, you live a long time. Not as long as a Dragon, but longer than you would like.

Honestly LN is kind of that last place I would put this. Betraying both the dragon and his own party seem like very chaotic actions to me. Killing for greed is an evil motivation, killing something because it was evil is, to me, a LG motivation.

[Lord Raziere]

Honestly LN is kind of that last place I would put this. Betraying both the dragon and his own party seem like very chaotic actions to me. Killing for greed is an evil motivation, killing something because it was evil is, to me, a LG motivation.

I think that evens out to Chaotic Neutral at best. But I personally wouldn't say he stays that way for long if he keeps it up. Make those actions too many times and he is Chaotic Evil, because thats the direction he is heading.

I mean, Always Chaotic Evil actually means only like, 90% or so of the race is evil. that means every one out of ten orcs is not Chaotic Evil, statistically speaking. Therefore, its not only possible but probable that you will meet a good or neutral orc eventually, and not only that, but the biggest amounts of orcs means the biggest amounts of good or neutral orcs in their ranks out of sheer statistical inevitability. if you have 10,000 orcs marching to attack a fortress, that means at least 1000 are (probably) not evil. for whatever reason. going by this logic, its Evil to kill all orcs, its only Good to kill 90% of all orcs. Therefore if you encounter ten orcs, check which one you should knock out, then kill the rest.

Unfortunately, technically going by this logic, the survivors are going to be really mad that you almost committed genocide upon their people and intentionally only killed 90% of them. Because even if thats technically good by this logic, it still doesn't change the fact that you reduced a species population by 90% and are now this terrifying person who only stopped because some spell told you that you shouldn't do it to these certain people by some vague standard of the cosmos. Which I'm not sure is a Good action now that I think about it.

Point is, you think you can apply a standard universally and it'll be good, but when you do, it turns out not so good, and suddenly your a jerk or evil for following it so far. Follow the principle of "kill all dragons of primary colors" too far and well.....no one ever called a genocidal maniac of all dragons a "blessed savior of good" even if you go down in legend for it. instead your known as "terrifying slayer of all dragons" that everyone edges away from because they don't want to end up like the dragons and man is the way everyone treating you suspiciously similar to how people treat successful tyrants who murdered their way to power, wonder why?

Yet still, killing orcs for being evil is somehow good because you need to defend people. So while its a temporary solution, I wouldn't call it the ideal that any Good character should be working towards- just a thing that they have to do in the meantime until they can find a better solution for the "evil race problem".

[Satinavian]

There's a few choices, if you want to avoid that:
1) Play with a very different approach than typical, only killing when absolutely necessary.
2) Use antagonists that really are always evil, and spring into being fully aware and malevolent.
3) Don't think about it too much, and avoid situations that bring focus onto it.
How about

4) Kill them because the PCs are racist bigots or merciless mercenaries or because those targets could obvioulsy be a threat later and who will miss them anyway ?

Most of those killings become perfectly fine if you don't insist that PCs have to be good. There is a reason humans are usually filed under neutral and most societies PCs come from aren't good either. Thus why hold the PC group to higher standards ? Why care at all about the morality of the action that much ? If you don't want to explore moral philosophy and the stupid alignment system and have all the alignment discussions than simply let the group do things considered evil and move on. It doesn't really matter if the players disagree about how evil something is. It might matter, if the PCs disagree, but then they can discuss in character and no one needs to be proven right or wrong by the DM.

The only possible complication are rules based on PC alignment. But when a DM doesn't want alignment debates, he/she should simply not enforce those or be extremely lenient with them.

[Katrina]

Honestly LN is kind of that last place I would put this. Betraying both the dragon and his own party seem like very chaotic actions to me. Killing for greed is an evil motivation, killing something because it was evil is, to me, a LG motivation.

Hm. Killing something you know is evil or is involved in an Evil act is Good. Killing something that may be Evil...is a bit more questionable.

And in retrospect, it is more Chaotic than Lawful given that he did break Parley to do it. I will concede that.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I mean, Always Chaotic Evil actually means only like, 90% or so of the race is evil. that means every one out of ten orcs is not Chaotic Evil, statistically speaking. Therefore, its not only possible but probable that you will meet a good or neutral orc eventually, and not only that, but the biggest amounts of orcs means the biggest amounts of good or neutral orcs in their ranks out of sheer statistical inevitability. if you have 10,000 orcs marching to attack a fortress, that means at least 1000 are (probably) not evil. for whatever reason. going by this logic, its Evil to kill all orcs, its only Good to kill 90% of all orcs. Therefore if you encounter ten orcs, check which one you should knock out, then kill the rest.

Orcs are "often chaotic evil" not "always chaotic evil". And no, "always X" doesn't mean 90%. It means "exceptions can still exist". How common those exceptions are is up to individual preference, but personally I don't think 90/10 makes any sense.

[Talakeal]

I think that evens out to Chaotic Neutral at best. But I personally wouldn't say he stays that way for long if he keeps it up. Make those actions too many times and he is Chaotic Evil, because thats the direction he is heading.

I mean, Always Chaotic Evil actually means only like, 90% or so of the race is evil. that means every one out of ten orcs is not Chaotic Evil, statistically speaking. Therefore, its not only possible but probable that you will meet a good or neutral orc eventually, and not only that, but the biggest amounts of orcs means the biggest amounts of good or neutral orcs in their ranks out of sheer statistical inevitability. if you have 10,000 orcs marching to attack a fortress, that means at least 1000 are (probably) not evil. for whatever reason. going by this logic, its Evil to kill all orcs, its only Good to kill 90% of all orcs. Therefore if you encounter ten orcs, check which one you should knock out, then kill the rest.

Unfortunately, technically going by this logic, the survivors are going to be really mad that you almost committed genocide upon their people and intentionally only killed 90% of them. Because even if thats technically good by this logic, it still doesn't change the fact that you reduced a species population by 90% and are now this terrifying person who only stopped because some spell told you that you shouldn't do it to these certain people by some vague standard of the cosmos. Which I'm not sure is a Good action now that I think about it.

Point is, you think you can apply a standard universally and it'll be good, but when you do, it turns out not so good, and suddenly your a jerk or evil for following it so far. Follow the principle of "kill all dragons of primary colors" too far and well.....no one ever called a genocidal maniac of all dragons a "blessed savior of good" even if you go down in legend for it. instead your known as "terrifying slayer of all dragons" that everyone edges away from because they don't want to end up like the dragons and man is the way everyone treating you suspiciously similar to how people treat successful tyrants who murdered their way to power, wonder why?

Yet still, killing orcs for being evil is somehow good because you need to defend people. So while its a temporary solution, I wouldn't call it the ideal that any Good character should be working towards- just a thing that they have to do in the meantime until they can find a better solution for the "evil race problem".

While I don't agree with your conclusion, your figures are a little off.

There are three alignment categories, often, usually, always.

Often means that a plurality of this species is of the given alignment.
Usually means that a majority of this species is of the given alignment.
Always means that all members of that species are born / created the given alignment. Nothing stops creatures from changing their alignment later in life, but it is extremely rare, and it is very unlikely that a wyrmling would have had the opportunity to do so.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I mean, Always Chaotic Evil actually means only like, 90% or so of the race is evil. that means every one out of ten orcs is not Chaotic Evil, statistically speaking. Therefore, its not only possible but probable that you will meet a good or neutral orc eventually, and not only that, but the biggest amounts of orcs means the biggest amounts of good or neutral orcs in their ranks out of sheer statistical inevitability. if you have 10,000 orcs marching to attack a fortress, that means at least 1000 are (probably) not evil. for whatever reason. going by this logic, its Evil to kill all orcs, its only Good to kill 90% of all orcs. Therefore if you encounter ten orcs, check which one you should knock out, then kill the rest.

:sigh: "Always Evil" doesn't mean 90%. It doesn't mean 99%. It means the chance of not being evil is approaching 0 to a degree that a member of the race not being evil demands special explanation; magical influence, severe head trauma, intentional psychological reconditioning, that sort of thing.

Orcs are not always evil. They're just usually evil. For them it's cultural and they can be redeemed easily enough. Proactively seeking to wipe out an orc tribe is not good and butchering their non-combatants is evil. This is written right in the freakin' rules.


Unfortunately, technically going by this logic, the survivors are going to be really mad that you almost committed genocide upon their people and intentionally only killed 90% of them. Because even if thats technically good by this logic, it still doesn't change the fact that you reduced a species population by 90% and are now this terrifying person who only stopped because some spell told you that you shouldn't do it to these certain people by some vague standard of the cosmos. Which I'm not sure is a Good action now that I think about it.

Good thing that's -not- the logic the designers actually used then, huh. Any always evil creature you might wage war against never cared to have a reason to want to kill you beyond proximity and the power to do so for its own amusement. Even -if- you somehow managed to wipe out all but the handful of non-evil members of their kind*, there'd be too few left for their kind to recover and your genocide will be complete when age takes their last. Not that any PC race has a snowball's chance in hell of successfully genociding any such kind.


Point is, you think you can apply a standard universally and it'll be good, but when you do, it turns out not so good, and suddenly your a jerk or evil for following it so far. Follow the principle of "kill all dragons of primary colors" too far and well.....no one ever called a genocidal maniac of all dragons a "blessed savior of good" even if you go down in legend for it. instead your known as "terrifying slayer of all dragons" that everyone edges away from because they don't want to end up like the dragons and man is the way everyone treating you suspiciously similar to how people treat successful tyrants who murdered their way to power, wonder why?

Except it is good. You didn't spare one in ten, you spared one in ten million or fewer; probably fewer. Maybe you feel a little bad for him (and he'll be the only one you ever meet since some other member of your organization met the other one and those two were the only two on the prime world your campaign is on) but his kindred earned their fate and he understands since he'd have done the same in your position.


Yet still, killing orcs for being evil is somehow good because you need to defend people. So while its a temporary solution, I wouldn't call it the ideal that any Good character should be working towards- just a thing that they have to do in the meantime until they can find a better solution for the "evil race problem".

Only it's not. If you want to complain about the rules, at least make sure you have them right. :smallsigh: killing orcs just for being orcs is evil and even killing chromatic dragons just for being what they are is merely acceptable not good, FFS.

I swear. It's like people are more interested in crapping on the alignment system for even existing than really trying to understand it. Rather ironic, that.



*Obviously not possible when their kind are infinite in number, as with evil outsiders.

[awa]

Also remember most orcs are chaotic evil those that aren’t are likely neutral evil or chaotic neutral. Good (or lawful) should represent a fraction of a fraction of the orc population.
I would also expect it to be a bit clumpy that band of orc nomads who just lives in the woods hunting and gathering they probably have a disproportionate number of neutral orcs than the group burning down farms.

In my opinion an orc is different that a dragon, even if the orc is just as evil as the dragon its limited power/ potential power means that if you choose not to do something about it it’s a much smaller deal, it just can’t do as much damage and you can reasonably expect someone else to be able to solve the problem if it turns out that sparing it was the wrong decision. You can’t do the same for a dragon it’s much more dangerous now and will only continue to grow in power.

[Hawkstar]

I think that evens out to Chaotic Neutral at best. But I personally wouldn't say he stays that way for long if he keeps it up. Make those actions too many times and he is Chaotic Evil, because thats the direction he is heading.He's Lawful Good, and staying Lawful Good.


I mean, Always Chaotic Evil actually means only like, 90% or so of the race is evil. that means every one out of ten orcs is not Chaotic Evil, statistically speaking. Therefore, its not only possible but probable that you will meet a good or neutral orc eventually, and not only that, but the biggest amounts of orcs means the biggest amounts of good or neutral orcs in their ranks out of sheer statistical inevitability. if you have 10,000 orcs marching to attack a fortress, that means at least 1000 are (probably) not evil. for whatever reason. going by this logic, its Evil to kill all orcs, its only Good to kill 90% of all orcs. Therefore if you encounter ten orcs, check which one you should knock out, then kill the rest.

Unfortunately, technically going by this logic, the survivors are going to be really mad that you almost committed genocide upon their people and intentionally only killed 90% of them. Because even if thats technically good by this logic, it still doesn't change the fact that you reduced a species population by 90% and are now this terrifying person who only stopped because some spell told you that you shouldn't do it to these certain people by some vague standard of the cosmos. Which I'm not sure is a Good action now that I think about it.

Point is, you think you can apply a standard universally and it'll be good, but when you do, it turns out not so good, and suddenly your a jerk or evil for following it so far. Follow the principle of "kill all dragons of primary colors" too far and well.....no one ever called a genocidal maniac of all dragons a "blessed savior of good" even if you go down in legend for it. instead your known as "terrifying slayer of all dragons" that everyone edges away from because they don't want to end up like the dragons and man is the way everyone treating you suspiciously similar to how people treat successful tyrants who murdered their way to power, wonder why?

Yet still, killing orcs for being evil is somehow good because you need to defend people. So while its a temporary solution, I wouldn't call it the ideal that any Good character should be working towards- just a thing that they have to do in the meantime until they can find a better solution for the "evil race problem".
And no, "Always Chaotic Evil" doesn't mean "90% of the population" - it means "The entire population except the occasional special snowflake that makes itself readily obvious" (Note, "I'm going to kill you all and eat the elf" says it is NOT one of the non-evil ones!)

Also - even in 'usually chaotic evil' species, where Evil isn't guaranteed - the demographics are not equal. Some are Neutral Evil or even Lawful Evil instead. And it tends to be tribe/population wide. You can carve through entire packs of Butcher's Brood (The evil) gnolls - the Natural (Nonevil) gnolls make themselves pretty distinctive.

And, if someone managed to slay ALL the Evil Chromatic Dragons, he or she WOULD be treated as a hero very similar to the mythological Saint Patrick or Saint George.

[Alcore]

There was one chapter in anime Samurai Champloo which showed this mercenary-target relation perfectly. Protagonist was fightning with "enemy" warrior, who advised him, he holds no grudge against protagonist, it's just job. During their fight, person who "bought" mercenary skills, died. At this momment mercenary (even he was winning) withdraw, saying he has no reason to fight anymore, as his employer was no more among living.

moving back to RPG - what should happen in such situation? For example, my character would definitely withdraw as well, while our party Battlerager would continue fightning. Both actions seems justified to me...9 out of 10?

They would laugh as they hacked him apart. He is an enemy he must die..

[Segev]

It was certainly a foolish choice. 2/3 possible outcomes were all bad: the dwarf dying and what actually happened. (The dragon dying is the only possible "good" outcome.)

Evil? No, not really, given the motivation and the beliefs of the Dwarf. Good? Again, not really, since Good doesn't typically like killing things just because they talk an evil game.

Lawful? In the "hidebound" sense, certainly. If "red dragons are monsters that must be slain whenever possible" is a firm belief of his, and stems from cultural inculcation, it fits.

Chaotic? Maybe, if it's just his personal view and he's placing it above his group's. But for this specific case, I would lean more Lawful/hidebound than Chaotic/self-determined, here.

[Lord Raziere]

And, if someone managed to slay ALL the Evil Chromatic Dragons, he or she WOULD be treated as a hero very similar to the mythological Saint Patrick or Saint George.

People do not cheer for killers. They fear them.

There is no evidence that snakes ever existed in Ireland. Therefore Saint Patrick was not a killer, and therefore his "purging" was only that, a story. As well as a supposed dragon for George.

Your examples are of people idealized as protectors with no evidence that they actually killed on the scale that we are talking about. Killing a single dragon is not the same as killing them all. Having false stories that you killed a single dragon, even less so.

Kill the tyrant of an empire, you will be hailed as a hero for overthrowing that empire. Kill the empire, and your just committing cultural genocide. Otherwise the only sane people in DnD are well-intentioned utilitarian extremists with plans to wipe out most life in the monster manual. And does not the gods that created these beings count as an emperor ruling their empire of self-created servants?

[awa]

they totally cheer for killers if the ones who got killed were the other guys and that's when both sides are humans.
When one of those sides are giant man eating monsters you can bet they cheer.

[Lord Raziere]

they totally cheer for killers if the ones who got killed were the other guys and that's when both sides are humans.
When one of those sides are giant man eating monsters you can bet they cheer.

Only hate cheers for hate. No matter the side. If you do not fear the killer, you have become them. Such people are neutral at best. If you want to play out heroes who only kill for their job as an adventurer and thus do the bare minimum to keep others safe without aspiring to be any better, then by all means be Lawful Neutral, True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, but don't pretend as if thats Good.

[Shackel]

It was certainly a foolish choice. 2/3 possible outcomes were all bad: the dwarf dying and what actually happened. (The dragon dying is the only possible "good" outcome.)

Evil? No, not really, given the motivation and the beliefs of the Dwarf. Good? Again, not really, since Good doesn't typically like killing things just because they talk an evil game.

Lawful? In the "hidebound" sense, certainly. If "red dragons are monsters that must be slain whenever possible" is a firm belief of his, and stems from cultural inculcation, it fits.

Chaotic? Maybe, if it's just his personal view and he's placing it above his group's. But for this specific case, I would lean more Lawful/hidebound than Chaotic/self-determined, here.

The reason I would lean towards Chaotic Neutral rather than Lawful Neutral is that in doing so he purposefully went against the will of the group to do so for his own personal beliefs: he put himself above the will of "society."

[Malimar]

Came across a similar problem in 5e Tyranny of Dragons: We found some black dragon eggs. Rest of the party wanted to make omelets. My drow paladin of Bahamut convinced them that anybody can be redeemed (having herself been redeemed by the church of Bahamut), and so delivered them to the church of Bahamut to be raised properly.

But a wyrmling might be a little powerful for the church to raise; you probably would need to find an adult metallic dragon to try to convince to do it.

[icefractal]

Most of those killings become perfectly fine if you don't insist that PCs have to be good. There is a reason humans are usually filed under neutral and most societies PCs come from aren't good either. Thus why hold the PC group to higher standards ? Why care at all about the morality of the action that much?Doesn't matter if the PC cares about the morality of it; the rest of the world still would, so determining whether the act in question would be considered evil remains relevant.

Also, most people don't want to exclusively play as bastards. Cartoon evil is pretty fun, but real evil tends to leave a bad taste in your mouth, when you think about the implications.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Only hate cheers for hate. No matter the side. If you do not fear the killer, you have become them. Such people are neutral at best. If you want to play out heroes who only kill for their job as an adventurer and thus do the bare minimum to keep others safe without aspiring to be any better, then by all means be Lawful Neutral, True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, but don't pretend as if thats Good.

Hate doesn't preclude being otherwise good. Even acting on that hate doesn't guarantee a non-good alignment.

Humanity's never had a problem demonizing its own sub-groups and lauding those that take the fight to the demonized group with relish. If you think they'd bat an eye at doing so for something grossly inhuman, you're just plain wrong.

Now, that certanly doesn't make anyone good. If, however, it is a lone character flaw in an otherwise exemplary person, it's certainly not enough to make them non-good all by itself.

Keeping this in the realm of fantasy, let's go with the racial enmity between elf and orc.

Say you have an orc who decided in his early adulthood to abandon the ways of his people. He uses his strength and durability to defend the human city he's assimilated into, he gives to the local church of Pelor, he never raises a hand in anger to any dwarf or halfling that bad-mouths him, keeps it clean if they throw the first punch and will offer them a pint after they've had it out. He's an exemplary citizen and an all-around nice guy... Except to an elf. He hates 'em. He won't even acknowledge their existence in his presence except to defend himself if one attacks and, in that case, brutally smashes them into the ground without batting an eye and with no concern for whether or not they survive the ordeal.

That's still a good orc. He's just a good orc with a character flaw. If his hate was reserved for chromatic dragons instead, it wouldn't even be a character flaw. It'd just be common sense.

[icefractal]

That's still a good orc. He's just a good orc with a character flaw.Eh ... probably. Given as he's not the one who started the fight and is just responding with excessive force, it's probably not enough to outweigh the rest.

If he was to, say, hunt down random Elves and skin them alive - then sorry, he's not good, doesn't really matter how nice he is to non-Elves.

[Talakeal]

He's Lawful Good, and staying Lawful Good.

Are you the DM of the game in question?

If not, how can you make an absolute statement about what will happen in the future?

If so, how do you justify a character who continually acts against their party's wishes behind their back and ignores the agreed upon terms of parlay in favor of violence when they don't like the outcome to remain lawful?

[Koo Rehtorb]

I don't think being lawful has anything to do with being bound to the decisions of the party.

[Talakeal]

I don't think being lawful has anything to do with being bound to the decisions of the party.

Lawful has never really been well defined. You can either see it as "goes along with the group and plays by the rules" or "follows a higher calling that is unyielding in the face of opposition".

But the whole "I am altering our deal, pray I don't alter it further!" mentality doesn't scream LG to me.

[awa]

Only hate cheers for hate. No matter the side. If you do not fear the killer, you have become them. Such people are neutral at best. If you want to play out heroes who only kill for their job as an adventurer and thus do the bare minimum to keep others safe without aspiring to be any better, then by all means be Lawful Neutral, True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, but don't pretend as if thats Good.

You seem to be arguing two different things the first looks like it has something to do with what I said vaguely but doesn’t appear to mean anything.

The second doesn’t have anything to do with what I talked about.

You seem to have a hard time with the concept that a hundred ton flying monster that is inherently evil, lives for centuries and wields unmatched magic and epic raw physical power is different than a human and can be held to different standards. We’re not talking about killing noncombatants no chromatic dragon is a noncombatant even the youngest weakest dragon is more than a match for most soldiers.

Evil dragons are not a stand in for an oppressed ethnic group or religion or whatever, they are monsters. Now some times killing them might not be the best choice for other reason even if they are evil but in a standard d&d setting you can’t also pretend that killing them just because they’re there is an evil act. Shure is not a good act but they have all the rest of their heroing to push them into good.

And the people will cheer and for good reason.

[Hawkstar]

People do not cheer for killers. They fear them.
Your examples are of people idealized as protectors with no evidence that they actually killed on the scale that we are talking about. Killing a single dragon is not the same as killing them all. Having false stories that you killed a single dragon, even less so.

Kill the tyrant of an empire, you will be hailed as a hero for overthrowing that empire. Kill the empire, and your just committing cultural genocide. Otherwise the only sane people in DnD are well-intentioned utilitarian extremists with plans to wipe out most life in the monster manual. And does not the gods that created these beings count as an emperor ruling their empire of self-created servants?Actually, we cheer pretty loudly for Audie Murphy, Fighting Jack Churchill and the Russian "White Death" (For being killers of Nazis). We also praise various exterminators. We also really appreciate the Orkin Man for exterminating all sorts of vermin from our homes, not fear them.

You keep comparing Dragons to People, when they're really more just overly-deadly vermin.

[Lord Raziere]

Actually, we cheer pretty loudly for Audie Murphy, Fighting Jack Churchill and the Russian "White Death" (For being killers of Nazis). We also praise various exterminators. We also really appreciate the Orkin Man for exterminating all sorts of vermin from our homes, not fear them.

You keep comparing Dragons to People, when they're really more just overly-deadly vermin.

And if one cannot make the simple connection that a guy who can kill dragon can pretty kill you pretty easily, that praise can make them conceited and corrupt in their greater power, and thus make them entitled to kill everyone weaker than them when the dragons are all gone to secure their power and what are YOU going to do about it, they can kill dragons, then they have no idea how power works at all.

Praise will turn to fear eventually when their blade and confidence makes them realize that there is no one in the world that can stop them once all dragons are dead. After all, if anyone else was strong enough to do it, they'd have done it before them.

Even if dragons are not people, one would be a fool to think that someone killing them all won't eventually turn corrupt from the sheer power they wield and the reputation they established. Soon they grow bored, not having such challenge anymore. Soon they think that if the metallic dragons didn't kill them all before you, they must've not been trying, and therefore must be evil as well, as an excuse to kill them all as well, excusing their actions as punishing them for sloth, then they kill anyone who speaks out against that, then they kill anyone who just speaks out against them period.

and if they are not people, why are there metallic dragons at all? Honestly, all these arguments are ignoring the real reason why all this DnD stuff exists: to make pointless teams for pointless conflict. When there are a thousand better ways to do good vs. evil. I don't see why your defending what is basically a cartoon level moral cosmology, that isn't even interesting for the conflict its trying to portray.

I mean, when you think about it, orcs are just green humans, and the two kinds of dragons are same beings but different colors. is good and evil only about whether or not you have the right colors on? Is even wizard who wears black robes evil? Do people just assume your good when you put on white robes? the whole DnD cosmology seems to be nothing but cosmetically different sides with the people who play them tripping over themselves to come up with reasons why it isn't. Evil only seems to be evil mostly because it has all the spiky bits and dark colors and whatnot. How shallow.

I'm starting to suspect that people only dislike Drizzt because he messes up the color consistency. I don't care for color-coded morality. If I fight something, whether their scales aren't all shiny or whether they have horns or not, should be the last things on my mind.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I'm starting to suspect that people only dislike Drizzt because he messes up the color consistency. I don't care for color-coded morality. If I fight something, whether their scales aren't all shiny or whether they have horns or not, should be the last things on my mind.

Perhaps D&D is the wrong game for you. And that's okay.

[hamishspence]

I'm starting to suspect that people only dislike Drizzt because he messes up the color consistency. I don't care for color-coded morality. If I fight something, whether their scales aren't all shiny or whether they have horns or not, should be the last things on my mind.

The Giant would apparently agree with you about D&D genocides in general, and dragons in particular - going by commentary in Don't Split The Party, and in The Index of The Giant's Comments.

So - if you ever feel a bit discouraged by the attitude that "chromatic dragons only exist in games for players to kill" - keep in mind the comic itself was written partly as a counter to this kind of attitude.
Humanity's never had a problem demonizing its own sub-groups and lauding those that take the fight to the demonized group with relish. If you think they'd bat an eye at doing so for something grossly inhuman, you're just plain wrong.
In D&D, humans are, on average, Neutral, not Good.
Perhaps D&D is the wrong game for you. And that's okay.
Or, play D&D games with a less "hack and slash" perspective on orcs, chromatic dragons, etc. Eberron in particular fits the bill, but other campaign settings as well can fit it up to a point. Forgotten Realms sometimes plays dragons that way - with chromatic dragons who get redeemed, or who negotiate with their neighbours rather than attacking them on sight.

[Lord Raziere]

Perhaps D&D is the wrong game for you. And that's okay.

Yeah but I still want massive numbers of races, lots of different types of magic, magitech, as well as awesome fighting. its mostly the whole alignment thing that can go bugger off. DnD may be the wrong game, but I still haven't found any game that gets any closer to being right, and instead goes farther away into not being as much of a mashup, or not having as much magic, or something that makes me disinterested. Not that it makes DnD any more right through relative perspective, because alignment is still stupid. Its annoying and makes me wish I had the time or the interest to write a DnD heartbreaker to get rid of alignment and have more magitech than Eberron, but I don't.

Edit: @ hamishspence: Thanks, thats kind of one of the many reasons I consider OOTS a good comic.

[hamishspence]

And 4e and 5e don't have proper "Detect alignment" spells (4e doesn't have them at all, 5e's detects creature types - Fiends, Angels, Fey, Undead, depending on the type of spell used), nor categorisations like "Always" "Usually" and "Often" - they simply give typical alignment for the listed monsters. So, in either of those games, playing a "Detect=Smiteadin" doesn't really apply.

4e's Draconomicon portrayed Chromatic dragons as sometimes patrons of adventuring parties - with plenty of room for nonviolent encounters with the patron.

Plenty of room for DMs to run games with more reasonable chromatic dragons, without "contradicting canon"

[Kelb_Panthera]

And if one cannot make the simple connection that a guy who can kill dragon can pretty kill you pretty easily, that praise can make them conceited and corrupt in their greater power, and thus make them entitled to kill everyone weaker than them when the dragons are all gone to secure their power and what are YOU going to do about it, they can kill dragons, then they have no idea how power works at all.

Lot of erroneous assumption at play here. First off, nobody is powerful enough to kill all the dragons. The great wyrms are unequivocally the most powerful mortal creatures in the setting. A genocide would demand a concerted effort from all of the common PC races and would -still- likely fail.

The odd level 17+ cleric or wizard might be equal to taking down somewhere between a few and a few dozen before he meets his match and dies a horrific death. That guy, yeah, he's dangerously powerful. He's also held in check by having others who are his near equal in the world capable of stepping up and taking him down if he acts too egregiousy against their ideas or those of their god. They also do, in fact, know the weight of their power either through massively towering intellect or otherworldly sage wisdom or else, if they somehow do not, find it taken from them by their rivals in relativey short order.

And all of that before you even -touch- the power politics of kings and emperors who can stand surprisingly firmly against the goals of such powerful beings.


Praise will turn to fear eventually when their blade and confidence makes them realize that there is no one in the world that can stop them once all dragons are dead. After all, if anyone else was strong enough to do it, they'd have done it before them.

No such single being can exist. If he could, maybe you'd have something. Also, just because someone else has such power doesn't mean they have any interest in turning it to that particular goal. Ultimately, if nothing else, the gods are real in D&D settings and can step in to deal with an uppity mortal causing problems if they see it is necessary.


Even if dragons are not people, one would be a fool to think that someone killing them all won't eventually turn corrupt from the sheer power they wield and the reputation they established. Soon they grow bored, not having such challenge anymore. Soon they think that if the metallic dragons didn't kill them all before you, they must've not been trying, and therefore must be evil as well, as an excuse to kill them all as well, excusing their actions as punishing them for sloth, then they kill anyone who speaks out against that, then they kill anyone who just speaks out against them period.

This is just hillariously outside the scope of power of any single... god, actually. Short of a death god simply smiting the race from existence in the absence of opposition from the chief of the dragons' gods. It's just not a thing that can happen.


and if they are not people, why are there metallic dragons at all? Honestly, all these arguments are ignoring the real reason why all this DnD stuff exists: to make pointless teams for pointless conflict. When there are a thousand better ways to do good vs. evil. I don't see why your defending what is basically a cartoon level moral cosmology, that isn't even interesting for the conflict its trying to portray.

Metallic dragons are -not- the same kind of creature as chromatics. They're as different as a brown bear and a panda. They're similar in shape and power but ultimately, fundamentally different.

That out of the way, you're at least partially right. The surface level cartoonishly simple moralization of chromatic/metalic dragons and other similar creatures is, in point of fact, designed to make for simple, "here are the acceptable targets" play possible. That's what some groups want. However, deeper explanations for why these creatures are the way they are were also written in a way that -does- make sense unless you only half-exam them or willfully misinterpret them.

Also, -all- of the armed conflict in -any- gaming is pointless. It's passtime stuff. People don't play to try and gain some deeper understanding of the world around them. They play for a variety of reasons but that ain't one of 'em unless they're batty enough they should be seeking professional help.


I mean, when you think about it, orcs are just green humans, and the two kinds of dragons are same beings but different colors. is good and evil only about whether or not you have the right colors on? Is even wizard who wears black robes evil? Do people just assume your good when you put on white robes? the whole DnD cosmology seems to be nothing but cosmetically different sides with the people who play them tripping over themselves to come up with reasons why it isn't. Evil only seems to be evil mostly because it has all the spiky bits and dark colors and whatnot. How shallow.

Here's your fundamental problem, right here. Orcs are -not- just green humans. That's you oversimplifying. They are biologically, physiologically, and psychologically different from humans. A red dragon and a silver dragon even moreso. That's like saying an orangutan and a gorilla or a tiger shark and a minnow are the same thing. Similar, yes, not the same.

It's absurd for you to be dissapointed in a system you've given no real examination for assumptions and projections you've put onto it.


I'm starting to suspect that people only dislike Drizzt because he messes up the color consistency. I don't care for color-coded morality.

People dislike Drizz't because he's an angsty, moralizing, border-line self-righteous marty stu. The books were decent in-spite of his hackneyed characterization. Salvatore's not a bad writer, all-in-all, but drizz't being one of his earlier characters is kinda obvious.


If I fight something, whether their scales aren't all shiny or whether they have horns or not, should be the last things on my mind.

Really? So having no idea what a creature's temperament and/or weaknesses might be is just a-okay with you? Seems like the fast-track to a shallow, unmarked grave to me.

[Satinavian]

Doesn't matter if the PC cares about the morality of it; the rest of the world still would, so determining whether the act in question would be considered evil remains relevant. Yes, but the world doesn't need to be objectively right in their assessment. Just because a bunch of people hating dragons think it was good and a bunch of other people think it was evil, it doesn't make one group right. The PCs can have to deal with the consequences and how the world perceives them without using any objective morality at all.


Also, most people don't want to exclusively play as bastards. Cartoon evil is pretty fun, but real evil tends to leave a bad taste in your mouth, when you think about the implications.If people don't want to play as bastards, they should not do things bastards would do. Simple as that.

If people are uncomfortable because the players thing what the characters did was not right and doesn't fit how they imagine their shining hero, it is on them to change what their character does. Why do you need a GM handing out disaproval and alignment change or approval and no alignment change ?


The problem in this thread is that most players of the group think that what the dwarf did was wrong, evil and villianous. Why do you need a DM or a rule saying "Yes, it was" or "No, it wasn't" ? Would that really change the mind of the players about the act?



None of the D&D groups i was in ever really played as murder-hobos. Because the characters were for the most parts not intended to be murderous bastards and thus were not played that way. Even most of the evil ones behaved better and the rest did not last.

[hamishspence]

Orcs are -not- just green humans. That's you oversimplifying. They are biologically, physiologically, and psychologically different from humans.

That's how they're played in practice though.

As The Giant put it:


Because all authors are human, it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to imagine a fully realized non-human intelligence. It has been done maybe a dozen times in the history of speculative fiction, and I would venture not at all in the annals of fantasy roleplaying games. (Certainly, goblins, dwarves, and elves don't qualify, being basically green short humans, bearded greedy humans, and pointy-eared magical humans.) Therefore, it's a moot distinction and one not worth making. Statistically speaking, ALL depictions of non-human intelligence—ever—are functionally human with cosmetic differences. Which is as it should be, because only by creating reflections of ourselves will we learn anything. There's precious little insight into the human condition to gain from a completely alien thought process.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's how they're played in practice though.

As The Giant put it:

See my comment about -not- seeking deeper understanding of the real world for my rebuttal. It's a fine sentiment for a fiction writer. It's more than a little pretentious for gaming. You don't open the books of exalted deeds or vile darkness looking for a deeper understanding of the human condition.

[Lord Raziere]

See my comment about -not- seeking deeper understanding of the real world for my rebuttal. It's a fine sentiment for a fiction writer. It's more than a little pretentious for gaming. You don't open the books of exalted deeds or vile darkness looking for a deeper understanding of the human condition.

Well I'm not seeking a deeper understanding either, I just the find cartoonish color-coded morality distasteful, because it doesn't actually add anything and I could probably still get just enough action and combat without it. It cuts off more character concepts than it adds, in more ways than one. it diminishes both sides of a conflict. and I find one aesthetic or another being used as a label of "kill on sight" as particularly distasteful, because not everyone likes the halos and light aesthetic you know, it gets old.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well I'm not seeking a deeper understanding either, I just the find cartoonish color-coded morality distasteful, because it doesn't actually add anything and I could probably still get just enough action and combat without it. It cuts off more character concepts than it adds, in more ways than one. it diminishes both sides of a conflict. and I find one aesthetic or another being used as a label of "kill on sight" as particularly distasteful, because not everyone likes the halos and light aesthetic you know, it gets old.

Hey, taste is taste. I'm not asking you to like the existing system or even to accept it. I'm just asking you not to crap on it for things it doesn't actually say or imply.

I'm gonna have to disagree with your assessment of cutting off more concepts than it creates since, for most races, alignment is descriptive rather than prescriptive. That said, the game does work just fine without it. A very few things do need some minor adjustment but nothing difficult or involved.

[Frozen_Feet]

The idea that RPGs cannot be used to learn anything about "the human condition" is pretty damn limited.

Let's not forget: RPGs are a hobby offshoot of wargames. Wargames, to this day, are used by militaries worldwide to study strategy and make actual decisions of who should live or die. Just as well militaries and other pedagogic institutions employ LARPs and thought-experiments similar to tabletop games to teach various skills.

Even within confines of fantasy, nothing stops you from teaching ethics or other philosophy. There's nothing "batty" about it. However, at that point you have larger concerns than what's "fun" or "tasteful".

[Hawkstar]

And if one cannot make the simple connection that a guy who can kill dragon can pretty kill you pretty easily, that praise can make them conceited and corrupt in their greater power, and thus make them entitled to kill everyone weaker than them when the dragons are all gone to secure their power and what are YOU going to do about it, they can kill dragons, then they have no idea how power works at all.

Praise will turn to fear eventually when their blade and confidence makes them realize that there is no one in the world that can stop them once all dragons are dead. After all, if anyone else was strong enough to do it, they'd have done it before them.

Even if dragons are not people, one would be a fool to think that someone killing them all won't eventually turn corrupt from the sheer power they wield and the reputation they established. Soon they grow bored, not having such challenge anymore. Soon they think that if the metallic dragons didn't kill them all before you, they must've not been trying, and therefore must be evil as well, as an excuse to kill them all as well, excusing their actions as punishing them for sloth, then they kill anyone who speaks out against that, then they kill anyone who just speaks out against them period. Do you even Dovahkiin?


and if they are not people, why are there metallic dragons at all? Honestly, all these arguments are ignoring the real reason why all this DnD stuff exists: to make pointless teams for pointless conflict. When there are a thousand better ways to do good vs. evil. I don't see why your defending what is basically a cartoon level moral cosmology, that isn't even interesting for the conflict its trying to portray.

I mean, when you think about it, orcs are just green humans, and the two kinds of dragons are same beings but different colors. is good and evil only about whether or not you have the right colors on? Is even wizard who wears black robes evil? Do people just assume your good when you put on white robes? the whole DnD cosmology seems to be nothing but cosmetically different sides with the people who play them tripping over themselves to come up with reasons why it isn't. Evil only seems to be evil mostly because it has all the spiky bits and dark colors and whatnot. How shallow.Yes, it's pointless conflict that's shallow. But that's what makes it fun. You can be an awesome hero who kills demons, dragons, and Evil Gods.


Lot of erroneous assumption at play here. First off, nobody is powerful enough to kill all the dragons. The great wyrms are unequivocally the most powerful mortal creatures in the setting. A genocide would demand a concerted effort from all of the common PC races and would -still- likely fail.

The odd level 17+ cleric or wizard might be equal to taking down somewhere between a few and a few dozen before he meets his match and dies a horrific death. That guy, yeah, he's dangerously powerful. He's also held in check by having others who are his near equal in the world capable of stepping up and taking him down if he acts too egregiousy against their ideas or those of their god. They also do, in fact, know the weight of their power either through massively towering intellect or otherworldly sage wisdom or else, if they somehow do not, find it taken from them by their rivals in relativey short order.Do you even Dovahkiin?


And all of that before you even -touch- the power politics of kings and emperors who can stand surprisingly firmly against the goals of such powerful beings.Unless they can't. Then we get a NEW King, if the trigger-happy ones get too dumb about a legendary badass making their problems go away!


No such single being can exist. If he could, maybe you'd have something. Also, just because someone else has such power doesn't mean they have any interest in turning it to that particular goal. Ultimately, if nothing else, the gods are real in D&D settings and can step in to deal with an uppity mortal causing problems if they see it is necessary.Unless the gods see what this hero is doing and say "Nope, I'm not risking my existence against this dude"


This is just hillariously outside the scope of power of any single... god, actually. Short of a death god simply smiting the race from existence in the absence of opposition from the chief of the dragons' gods. It's just not a thing that can happen.But NOTHING is outside the scope of power of a sufficiently high-level hero.

[Lord Raziere]

Do you even Dovahkiin?

Yes, it's pointless conflict that's shallow. But that's what makes it fun. You can be an awesome hero who kills demons, dragons, and Evil Gods.

Do you even Dovahkiin?

Unless they can't. Then we get a NEW King, if the trigger-happy ones get too dumb about a legendary badass making their problems go away!

Unless the gods see what this hero is doing and say "Nope, I'm not risking my existence against this dude"

But NOTHING is outside the scope of power of a sufficiently high-level hero.

1. Do you even Dovahkiin? Tell me: whats the thing that players start doing when they've finished all the quests and defeated the main boss in Skyrim? oh right, they start killing all the NPC's just because they can, Elder Scrolls games are KNOWN for players finishing the main quest early then pretty much screwing around with the world, killing guards and using their power however they want. Elder Scrolls games are basically fantasy Grand Theft Auto. You picked pretty much the best example possible to prove me right.

2. and it also prevents me from playing a good demon or dragon in a pointless conflict thats shallow. Unless I want to Drizzt it, and no one seems to want to deal with that anymore. I want to be an awesome hero, I just don't see any reason why any race should be locked out of that because there are character concepts I want to play.

3. The legendary badass IS the trigger happy guy that is stupid, once he gets on the throne. Guy who gets on the throne through force? has only used force throughout his entire life to solve all his problems? probably going to keep using force and will thus will be a bad leader.

[Spellbreaker26]

2. and it also prevents me from playing a good demon or dragon in a pointless conflict thats shallow. Unless I want to Drizzt it, and no one seems to want to deal with that anymore. I want to be an awesome hero, I just don't see any reason why any race should be locked out of that because there are character concepts I want to play.

Demons being good is a whole different kettle of fish to dragons. Dragons are physical creatures; demons are made of evil.

[Kelb_Panthera]

However, at that point you have larger concerns than what's "fun" or "tasteful".

Yeah. You have a barmy DM trying to sermonize at you instead of playing a game.

Someone looking into gaming from the outside might learn something about the human condition by observing a number of independent gaming groups. The players at a table aren't, and shouldn't be, there to try and learn something. That's not the point of gaming, at all. It's a leisure activity. You want to learn about humanity, get some philosophy textbooks and spend your time discussing such things directly. Don't try to forcefeed it to the people who just want some fantasy escapism.


Do you even Dovahkiin?

Unless they can't. Then we get a NEW King, if the trigger-happy ones get too dumb about a legendary badass making their problems go away!

Unless the gods see what this hero is doing and say "Nope, I'm not risking my existence against this dude"

But NOTHING is outside the scope of power of a sufficiently high-level hero.

D&D is not Skyrim. It's a system in which what is available to PC's is available to NPC's. There is no one special-snowflake character capable of completely outstripping the world around him. If there's anything that can be said to be close to that, it's a red or gold dragon at the normal range of play or a prismatic dragon in epic levels, none of which is a unique being.

Even then, the Dhovakiin never stands directly against one of the Daedric lords in one-on-one combat, so the presumption that he's powerful enough to take one in a straight fight is based on nothing at all.



As for the hilarious presumption that a character can simply become a tyrant by slaying the monarch and demanding the people do his will, no. That's not how that works. The capital city might bend knee out of fear but the nation itself will fragment and collapse, guaranteed. When that happens, either cities start declaring themselves independent and/or neighboring nations start absorbing the fragments as the demoralized military drags its feet in opposition or begins defecting, refusing the usurper altogether.

Might makes right gets you petty warlords who control minor city states. Real empires require a strong, loyal military and an at least passive, if not particularly loyal, people. One tyrant does not a kingdom make.

And that's before you even consider other nations undermining your rule and fommenting rebellion simply because you -are- a usurper.

[Hawkstar]

Yeah. You have a barmy DM trying to sermonize at you instead of playing a game.

Someone looking into gaming from the outside might learn something about the human condition by observing a number of independent gaming groups. The players at a table aren't, and shouldn't be, there to try and learn something. That's not the point of gaming, at all. It's a leisure activity. You want to learn about humanity, get some philosophy textbooks and spend your time discussing such things directly. Don't try to forcefeed it to the people who just want some fantasy escapism.



D&D is not Skyrim. It's a system in which what is available to PC's is available to NPC's. There is no one special-snowflake character capable of completely outstripping the world around him. If there's anything that can be said to be close to that, it's a red or gold dragon at the normal range of play or a prismatic dragon in epic levels, none of which is a unique being.

Even then, the Dhovakiin never stands directly against one of the Daedric lords in one-on-one combat, so the presumption that he's powerful enough to take one in a straight fight is based on nothing at all.



As for the hilarious presumption that a character can simply become a tyrant by slaying the monarch and demanding the people do his will, no. That's not how that works. The capital city might bend knee out of fear but the nation itself will fragment and collapse, guaranteed. When that happens, either cities start declaring themselves independent and/or neighboring nations start absorbing the fragments as the demoralized military drags its feet in opposition or begins defecting, refusing the usurper altogether.

Might makes right gets you petty warlords who control minor city states. Real empires require a strong, loyal military and an at least passive, if not particularly loyal, people. One tyrant does not a kingdom make.

And that's before you even consider other nations undermining your rule and fommenting rebellion simply because you -are- a usurper.

There really isn't a power cap on D&D characters, especially if you go into 3.5's epic levels. And the rate at which PCs gain XP and gain levels can be outright obscene (However, most tables can't actually handle it).

Powerful PCs are known for murderhoboing anything that is openly adversarial toward them, while also often having a strong sense of self-righteous justice. (I probably should have used any Light-Side Bioware Hero instead. Or Diablo). But to the common folk, they gain reputations as legendary defenders and guardians.

[Alcore]

1. Do you even Dovahkiin? Tell me: whats the thing that players start doing when they've finished all the quests and defeated the main boss in Skyrim? oh right, they start killing all the NPC's just because they can, Elder Scrolls games are KNOWN for players finishing the main quest early then pretty much screwing around with the world, killing guards and using their power however they want. Elder Scrolls games are basically fantasy Grand Theft Auto. You picked pretty much the best example possible to prove me right.

See.... your insinuating that is what I do and I take offense to that. I won't take it to heart as I believe you didn't mean it that way. Your using absolutes.


"All players kill NPCs for fun". Your doing the same thing the dwarf did that started this whole thread. Stop hitting on the "baby dragon" and listen to the people around you. I have; it's educational

[Lord Raziere]

See.... your insinuating that is what I do and I take offense to that. I won't take it to heart as I believe you didn't mean it that way. Your using absolutes.


"All players kill NPCs for fun". Your doing the same thing the dwarf did that started this whole thread. Stop hitting on the "baby dragon" and listen to the people around you. I have; it's educational

I'm sorry, I don't think I was talking to you, and didn't know you where here until now? It doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of people who do that. Murderhobos and Grand Theft Auto playstyle gameplay is a cliche for a reason. You may not do it, and some other people may not do it, but its still a thing that is done. :smallconfused:

I am a little confused at this post in general where it seems to taking personally what I wasn't directing at anyone. Learn to not take anything personally on the net, you'll feel much more emotionally calm. If I got riled up by every person pointing out niggling details in my posts, my head would've exploded by now. Its shorthand dude, not everyone has time to be completely exact in their wording.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There really isn't a power cap on D&D characters, especially if you go into 3.5's epic levels. And the rate at which PCs gain XP and gain levels can be outright obscene (However, most tables can't actually handle it).

NPC's -also- advance in the same way and are similarly uncapped. A true dragon like a red has, bar none, the best starting chassis of basically any creature in the game, period. PC races are playing catch up from go and even elves have no where near the same length of time to spend on gaining power, nevermind simply doing so just for failing to die.

Once you hit epic, epic spellcasting is all that matters and only whites and blacks fail to qualify by racial features alone, amongst the chromatics.

There is no point at which a PC could simply stomp-out the entirety of evil dragons even -without- the direct interference of the gods.


Powerful PCs are known for murderhoboing anything that is openly adversarial toward them, while also often having a strong sense of self-righteous justice. (I probably should have used any Light-Side Bioware Hero instead. Or Diablo). But to the common folk, they gain reputations as legendary defenders and guardians.

...why bring up completely irrelevant video-game characters at all? Videogames are -fundamentally- different from pen and paper even simply on the face of it.

I mean, you're not wrong about powerful smiters of "the enemy" being lauded regardless of how "the enemy" is defined but genocidal level personal power of the kind needed to level against dragons can be matched by the oldest and most powerful dragons themselves and for fiends you're talking outright omnipotence. It's just not a relevant argument to make.

[Frozen_Feet]

Yeah. You have a barmy DM trying to sermonize at you instead of playing a game.

Someone looking into gaming from the outside might learn something about the human condition by observing a number of independent gaming groups. The players at a table aren't, and shouldn't be, there to try and learn something. That's not the point of gaming, at all. It's a leisure activity. You want to learn about humanity, get some philosophy textbooks and spend your time discussing such things directly. Don't try to forcefeed it to the people who just want some fantasy escapism.

Wrong.

You get a negative cookie for getting the entire spirit of my post backwards and drawing exactly the opposite conclusion I wanted you to draw.

Because my actual point was, as the lead-up concerning military war games should've hinted, that once you have a serious pedagogic angle in a game, it's no longer leisure activity, it's not escapism, and it's no longer about "having fun". Basically, the train of thought your post exemplifies should be shoved in its entirety, because it no longer applies.

[Segev]

Only hate cheers for hate. No matter the side. If you do not fear the killer, you have become them. Such people are neutral at best. If you want to play out heroes who only kill for their job as an adventurer and thus do the bare minimum to keep others safe without aspiring to be any better, then by all means be Lawful Neutral, True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, but don't pretend as if thats Good.



And if one cannot make the simple connection that a guy who can kill dragon can pretty kill you pretty easily, that praise can make them conceited and corrupt in their greater power, and thus make them entitled to kill everyone weaker than them when the dragons are all gone to secure their power and what are YOU going to do about it, they can kill dragons, then they have no idea how power works at all.

Praise will turn to fear eventually when their blade and confidence makes them realize that there is no one in the world that can stop them once all dragons are dead. After all, if anyone else was strong enough to do it, they'd have done it before them.
You're making a grand fallacious assumption, here: that the killers are going to kill indiscriminately. That their only criterion is "can I do it?"

That is only true of the Evil. Not all killers are evil. Paladins kill, and no matter what you might think, that doesn't make them evil. It makes them dangerous, absolutely, but not evil. Killing can be a good thing, if the life taken is guilty enough to deserve it and the death helps preserve innocent life. This almost (but not quite) invariably only applies when one is, therefore, killing a murderer (or somebody whose crimes are worse than murder) and said murderer is likely to do so again if not stopped. Note: not "if somebody is likely to murder, but hasn't yet." This requires they already have done so. (Self-defense and defense of other innocent lives is also a valid reason. But that takes active demonstrated intent and action to justify; "I thought he looked like he might be thinking about it" isn't self-defense.)

Note, too, the distinction between "murder" and "killing." Murder is killing an intelligent being who has not done something to make him an acceptable target.

Drawing no line between "murder" and "killing" and then condemning all killing is naive, at best, and possibly dangerous due to the harm and evils it can protect and unleash. Persecuting and fearing those who would only cause harm for good reasons, who do show self-restraint, is only going to embolden the evil who would kill you anyway.


The reason I would lean towards Chaotic Neutral rather than Lawful Neutral is that in doing so he purposefully went against the will of the group to do so for his own personal beliefs: he put himself above the will of "society."Depends. Is his party "society," or is his party a small group of people where his society is a massive culture in which he grew up?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Wrong.

You get a negative cookie for getting the entire spirit of my post backwards and drawing exactly the opposite conclusion I wanted you to draw.

Because my actual point was, as the lead-up concerning military war games should've hinted, that once you have a serious pedagogic angle in a game, it's no longer leisure activity, it's not escapism, and it's no longer about "having fun". Basically, the train of thought your post exemplifies should be shoved in its entirety, because it no longer applies.

I'm sorry but taking a P&P RPG that seriously is insane. Like, that old chic-tract where the girl kills herself because her thief character got killed in the game insane.

Military war-games only ever were games in a technical sense. They are, first and foremost, a training exercise for the military personnel involved. Tabletop gaming is not that. It was never intended to be that.

If you're taking your gaming that seriously, as in; you think lives may hinge on you picking up and proving the skills the game "teaches" at some point in the future, then you don't need better roleplaying or DM-ing tips. You need a trained psychologist and maybe some psychoactive drugs.

If you think it's your duty to teach the people at the table with you then you deserve a swift kick in the ass to unseat you from your high-horse.

Gaming is not, and should not be, a philosophical excersize. It's not intended for nor suited to being that.

[Alcore]

I'm sorry, I don't think I was talking to you, and didn't know you where here until now? It doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of people who do that. Murderhobos and Grand Theft Auto playstyle gameplay is a cliche for a reason. You may not do it, and some other people may not do it, but its still a thing that is done. :smallconfused:

Oh, i've been here for awhile. Most of my posts are ignored. I think you'll see me in the first 5 pages but it's been awhile. Its an open discussion; if you don't like seemingly random people replying to a discussion of morality, of all things, might want to pack up and go elsewhere.:smallamused:


I haven't had so much fun listening in awhile.


Edit: my page three, near the top.

[Spellbreaker26]

There's another problem with trying to treat games as a morality play - it becomes a game not of roleplay but "guess the DM's point of view".

If you're in the underdark and a distressed Drow comes to you for help, by helping her what will happen? Is she innocent or will she lead you into a trap? It's not a question of what your character would do, or even what you would do, it's a question of "Does the DM believe in the Farmer and the Viper or Androcles and the Lion?"

You can't prove that a philosophy is right in the pages of a novel, neither can you do so in a game. You can show what the DM believes, but that isn't the same as making a case for it.

[Frozen_Feet]

I'm sorry but taking a P&P RPG that seriously is insane.

There is nothing insane in about using tabletop RPGs as a teaching tool. You're just building a strawman in your head because you can't think how it's done. How about you google "roleplaying games as teaching tools" and realize how limited your view on the subject is?


Military war-games only ever were games in a technical sense. They are, first and foremost, a training exercise for the military personnel involved. Tabletop gaming is not that. It was never intended to be that.

As I already noted, you got it backwards. Hobby RPGs and wargames evolved from a serious teaching tool. Playing wargames for "fun" is as much "unintended" usage as using RPGs as a teaching tool. It does not actually follow that the "unintended" usage is either morally or practically unsound. It turned out RPGs have pedagogic utility, so there's no reason to not use them for that.

In any case, the line in the sand you're drawing is stupid. Training exercise is a motive for doing something; games are a method, a tool for achieving it. No-one involved with military wargames nor any ludologist would argue they're not games because they are played with serious intent.


If you're taking your gaming that seriously, as in; you think lives may hinge on you picking up and proving the skills the game "teaches" at some point in the future, then you don't need better roleplaying or DM-ing tips. You need a trained psychologist and maybe some psychoactive drugs.

It is trivial to state that tabletop games can be used to teach math, and trivial to state lifes may hinge on whether a person knows math or not. When an elementary school teacher makes kids play a game to teach them math, do you honestly think they need psychological help?

Seriously, bro. Not just RPGs, there are countless computer games dedicated to this kind of stuff.


If you think it's your duty to teach the people at the table with you then you deserve a swift kick in the ass to unseat you from your high-horse.

I have, in fact, been in a situation where it is my duty to teach the people at my table. You think I should be kicked for being a scout leader, huh?


Gaming is not, and should not be, a philosophical excersize. It's not intended for nor suited to being that.
This is wrong not just about RPGs, but gaming in general. Games are part of actual school curriculums worldwide because they have pedagogic value.

[icefractal]

The issue with "RPGs should be used as a serious morality-instruction tool" is that - no offense - there are very few GMs who I would consider a superior moral/philosophical authority. The "teaching" angle only makes sense if you consider the GM to be more knowledgeable/correct about morality than the players are, and why exactly would you expect that?

[Talakeal]

There is nothing insane in about using tabletop RPGs as a teaching tool. You're just building a strawman in your head because you can't think how it's done. How about you google "roleplaying games as teaching tools" and realize how limited your view on the subject is?



As I already noted, you got it backwards. Hobby RPGs and wargames evolved from a serious teaching tool. Playing wargames for "fun" is as much "unintended" usage as using RPGs as a teaching tool. It does not actually follow that the "unintended" usage is either morally or practically unsound. It turned out RPGs have pedagogic utility, so there's no reason to not use them for that.

In any case, the line in the sand you're drawing is stupid. Training exercise is a motive for doing something; games are a method, a tool for achieving it. No-one involved with military wargames nor any ludologist would argue they're not games because they are played with serious intent.



It is trivial to state that tabletop games can be used to teach math, and trivial to state lifes may hinge on whether a person knows math or not. When an elementary school teacher makes kids play a game to teach them math, do you honestly think they need psychological help?

Seriously, bro. Not just RPGs, there are countless computer games dedicated to this kind of stuff.



I have, in fact, been in a situation where it is my duty to teach the people at my table. You think I should be kicked for being a scout leader, huh?


This is wrong not just about RPGs, but gaming in general. Games are part of actual school curriculums worldwide because they have pedagogic value.

I have to say, I agree with Frozen_feet.

I remember playing a western RPG in school in fifth grade to teach us about American history.

And while I think that the DM would be on a high horse if they were trying to "teach" people morality (I don't really know if anyone, even a Dr. of philosophy or Theology or a Nobel Peace Prize winner necessarily has a superior understanding of morality to the common man or the authority / ability to teach it), but I have certainly played in RPGs that have raised complex moral questions as part of the narrative and in exploring the concept I have come away with a greater personal understanding of the issues at hand.

[Tzonarin]

This is wrong not just about RPGs, but gaming in general. Games are part of actual school curriculums worldwide because they have pedagogic value.

Respectfully, this one is what I would call post hoc ergo propter hoc, a logical fallacy which says, "after this, therefore because of this".

In my RL, I am an educator in post-secondary education, and have been teaching, formally, in the collegiate classroom since 2007. In that time, I have used gaming to achieve educational objectives; in fact, gamification is an excellent way to promote learning. But, education is not built on gamification. There are plenty of instances where gaming is very much not appropriate to use in the classroom. So, the apparatus works in one direction, but not the other.

I would also submit that if RPG's are being leveraged to teach people ethics and morality, that the RPG is just one means to the end, but should not be thought of in the reverse. After all, it is just a game, right?

Unless this has happened, or something:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFxMhlNC3ss

The original intent of my query, while utilizing the word "morality" was to get more of the community's take on the ethics of the overall situation, itself. Maybe utilizing the word "morality" was an error, since so many people, even out here in this forum, will have many different ideas of what morality is, and what is considered "moral" or not. As the game is now playing out, I'm already rolling up a new character, since the character may just refuse to travel with the party over their reaction and the party may not want the dwarf.

But the conversation, thus far, has been very interesting, so thank you everyone for weighing in! I really had no idea that my inaugural post to this forum would take off like this.

Not saying we should bring it to a close, but I do want to weigh back in, myself, and provide my gratitude for everyone's input!

Tzo

[Kelb_Panthera]

There is nothing insane in about using tabletop RPGs as a teaching tool. You're just building a strawman in your head because you can't think how it's done. How about you google "roleplaying games as teaching tools" and realize how limited your view on the subject is?

Let me make my position perfectly clear, since we seem to be talking past each other.

Normal P&P RPG's being used as they were intended by normal users do not represent a platform for teaching anything. Trying to force that square peg into this round hole is not appropriate.

In the more general sense, elements of gaming can be used in a teaching environment to improve student engagement but that's not what this discussion is about.


As I already noted, you got it backwards. Hobby RPGs and wargames evolved from a serious teaching tool. Playing wargames for "fun" is as much "unintended" usage as using RPGs as a teaching tool. It does not actually follow that the "unintended" usage is either morally or practically unsound. It turned out RPGs have pedagogic utility, so there's no reason to not use them for that.

I think the problem we're having is that you and I are using the same words to discuss different ideas.

When I say "wargames" I'm not talking about games, in a general sense, that involve thematic elements of warfare. I'm talking about the specific event wherein actual soldiers engage with one another using blank ammunition in a simulation of actual combat.

Tabletop wargames, such as those D&D evolved from, are obsolete as an actual military training tool. War simply isn't conducted that way anymore. This becomes ever more true as you insert fantasy elements.

The only thing you can actually objectively "teach" through P&P RPG's is critical thinking and even that isn't so much teaching as offering opportunity to practice.


In any case, the line in the sand you're drawing is stupid. Training exercise is a motive for doing something; games are a method, a tool for achieving it. No-one involved with military wargames nor any ludologist would argue they're not games because they are played with serious intent.

Accuse me of a logica fallacy (strawman) then use the rhetorical tactic of broadening the scope of the discussion to make it look true. Clever but not clever enough. Let's stick to the game in question instead of getting off into the academic weeds, shall we?


It is trivial to state that tabletop games can be used to teach math, and trivial to state lifes may hinge on whether a person knows math or not. When an elementary school teacher makes kids play a game to teach them math, do you honestly think they need psychological help?

TTRPG's provide the opportunity to practice elementary level math. Unless you're gaming with small children and already in a position to be teaching them (parent or teacher or the like) your example is entirely moot. If you're not -already- in a teaching position, trying to force it into leisure activity is wholly inappropriate.


Seriously, bro. Not just RPGs, there are countless computer games dedicated to this kind of stuff.

And they were -designed- to be teaching tools. D&D and its ilk were not. You can't turn a bolt with a hammer.


I have, in fact, been in a situation where it is my duty to teach the people at my table. You think I should be kicked for being a scout leader, huh?

Abnormal play situation is abnormal. How much did you have to twist the game to make it work? More importantly, the gaming wasn't the point in you being there. The teaching was. You could've chosen any of a number of activities; various sports, camping, simple lecture (good luck with engagement).


This is wrong not just about RPGs, but gaming in general. Games are part of actual school curriculums worldwide because they have pedagogic value.

Games as a concept, sure. Every specific, individual game; hell no.

This discussion was about one particular game from a subset of games that are not intended as teaching tools. We're clearly not having the same discussion anymore.

[Spellbreaker26]

I think that there's a middle ground here. Games not suited to being teaching tools can still be edifying experiences.

[Malimar]

It's fine and good to use a TTRPG as a teaching tool or a tool for exploring complex problems, especially moral problems.

It's fine and good to use a TTRPG as nothing more complex than mindless escapism.

It's not fine or good to take one side and insist the other side is Doing It Wrong.

[Spellbreaker26]

It's fine and good to use a TTRPG as a teaching tool or a tool for exploring complex problems, especially moral problems.

It's fine and good to use a TTRPG as nothing more complex than mindless escapism.

It's not fine or good to take one side and insist the other side is Doing It Wrong.

Most importantly, a DM using it as a teaching tool needs to make that clear to his players; otherwise it is an exercise in frustration.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's fine and good to use a TTRPG as a teaching tool

If it's explicit that you're doing so from the beginning, maybe. I suppose you can drive a nail with a wrench if you insist.


or a tool for exploring complex problems,

Such as? I rather doubt you could come up with an example that isn't entirely a constuct within that game or that doesn't rely on the DM being an authority on the matter and the game just a vehicle to explain what could be explained just as well in a lecture, such as basic economics.



especially moral problems.

Proselytizing your own moral outlook from a position of authority unrelated to moral philosophy is not "exploring" moral problems. At best it's grand-standing, at worst it's a feeble attempt at brain-washing. The fact of the matter is that a DM has final say and getting into the minutiae of morality will, inevitably, either grind the game to a deadly halt or force the DM to exercise his authority in a way that is -very- likely to leave lingering bad-blood.

It's a land-mine unless you stick -hard- to a rules construct or you're certain your group are all on the same philosophical page. The latter makes "exploration" a pointless excersize.



It's fine and good to use a TTRPG as nothing more complex than mindless escapism.

Escapism needn't be mindless but it's -very- important to remember that it's just a game at the end of the day. Trying to make it more than that is where trouble starts.


It's not fine or good to take one side and insist the other side is Doing It Wrong.

I'm sorry but not all positions are equally valid. If you're trying to make a game into something it's not, that's a problem. If you're supposed to be teaching anyway, using some sort of game as a tool to facilitate engagement of the material is one thing but there's -no- indication that this was the case in the OP and it's an atypical position for common users of the -category- of game in question. Educational games are typically labeled as such.

[Hawkstar]

Have you heard the story about the guy playing D&D in prison? The dude was just trying to play the game (Though he and his players use cards since dice are contraband), but apparently it's been having a positive effect on the other inmates playing the game. The DM's not trying to teach them anything (He's a prisoner himself), but his players (And he) are still learning.

Tabletops are very much learning tools. Teaching tools? Not so much.

But this is all a complete side discussion to the main point.

[Keltest]

Have you heard the story about the guy playing D&D in prison? The dude was just trying to play the game (Though he and his players use cards since dice are contraband), but apparently it's been having a positive effect on the other inmates playing the game. The DM's not trying to teach them anything (He's a prisoner himself), but his players (And he) are still learning.

Tabletops are very much learning tools. Teaching tools? Not so much.

But this is all a complete side discussion to the main point.

Erm... learning what, exactly? There may well be a correlation between their behavior and their game playing, but I would wager its because theyre having fun, not because theyre learning anything.

[Slayn82]

I think the Dwarf acted very Lawfully, to the view of his own people and his Lord. Those are the people he had sworn loyalty, and his compromise should be to safeguard their safety and well being. The Dragon could be harmless to him and the party, but I understand his view that it should be contained for the safety of those people. It's a being with a lot of power, and demonstrated it was too willing to use it on creatures weaker than him.

Personally, I would argue for live and let live. Would take his demands back to the Lord, unless the Dragon had surpassed the stipulated maximum price and under instruction to bring the ore at any cost. But, once someone started fighting the Dragon, it's knock out the monster first, second it's fate later.