Morality in D&D

[BestPlayer]

This could be a very complicated discussion, so I will try and keep the initial topic brief and to the point. What I am wondering is; in a campaign taking place in the forgotten realms, should morality as it relates to alignment be based on general medieval morals or on those of our twenty first century gaming group? Repeatedly members of our group have been proclaimed as acting "evilly" by other players or by the DM when our actions seem quite in keeping with the most common views of morality in the middle ages, at least as we understand them. So what is morality based on in D&D and more specifically, Forgotten Realms?

[Sexyshoeless]

I think an important aspect to remember in a setting like FR, and indeed most of the DnD spawned settings, is that these are cosmoses where Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are real, concrete concepts. Hence the existence of Celestia, Arborea, Mechanus, the Abyss, the 9 Hells, etc, and the embodiment of these alignment extremes (Primus, Asmodeus, yadayada).

Thus, alot of the "Oh but there could be a culture where X is considered good" or "In my character's subjective view X is bad or good" arguments are weaker in this setting. Yes those characters or cultures may believe this about this action, but they are mistaken. This is where we can actually say about awesome villains that they believed that they were right.

There is an argument to be made whether ends justify means (i.e. evil acts to achieve good ends), but I do not think in FR you can argue objectively that actions are "grey."

Which actions those are is up to the DM.
Historically rather than look up medieval ethics, which one of my players is much more versed in than myself (high school history teacher vs a physical therapist T___T), my players know the guiding principles I use to determine Good vs Evil, Law vs Chaos. I try my best to let those be known and to be consistent with it, and generally, while there is disagreement, no one seems upset by the rulings I make.

So to answer directly, I'd say the morality of the FR most closely resembles the modern ethics without the grey area/subjectivity introduced by post-modernism. I think this is supported if you read many FR setting novels. Characters still can have morally complex debates and conflicts, but in the cosmic sense there is an objective ruling of good and evil.

[Ralanr]

This is probably more up to an in group discussion.

[LtPowers]

In the Forgotten Realms, morality is rigidly defined by the structure of the outer planes and the Gods who reside there. Charity, selflessness, promotion of the general welfare, and compassion are Good. Exploitation, selfishness, abuse, and malice are Evil. There's not a lot of room for argument.


Powers &8^]

[Zanos]

Here's how I like to differentiate:

Good and Evil, with uppercase G and E. This is your objective cosmological alignment. Remember that in the Realms there are planes and creatures(outsiders) physically built out of planar Good and Evil. They're physical forces, much like the elements. This generally maps on to "regular" good and evil, but in corner cases does not. Cosmologically, murdering 1 person to save 1000 is Evil, even though it might be the right thing to do.

Right and wrong, basically whether or not what you think you did was right. This is pretty much regular subjective morality. Killing 1 guy to save 1000 might not be Good, but it could be Right.

Now mechanically, your character sheet only cares about Good and Evil, which is objective, the books tell you how to determine that. It's worth noting that FR is a psuedo-medieval setting with a modern framework of right and wrong, though. Men and women are considered equal, racism is generally frowned upon (speciesism is okay, damn Drow), and the like.

What specifically was called out as being Evil?

[dejarnjc]

Just out of curiosity, what sort of actions are we talking about here?

I think that people in the middle ages probably share 90+ % of the same moral ideas as much of the western world does nowadays. Most of the differing thoughts on morality would probably be related to religion and social/cultural mores. It's important to remember that you're playing a game in a fantasy world. That fantasy world has whatever social/cultural mores that the DM wants them to have.

[Hackulator]

Well, if the DM says you are being evil, you are being evil, as the DM controls the gods and the gods determine the nature of morality in the world you are playing in. Full stop.

[LtPowers]

Thus, alot of the "Oh but there could be a culture where X is considered good" or "In my character's subjective view X is bad or good" arguments are weaker in this setting. Yes those characters or cultures may believe this about this action, but they are mistaken.

This has me thinking.

We in the modern world tend to associate Good with "things you should do" and Evil with "things you should not do". But that's because we live in a fundamentally Good society.

In your example, "a culture where X is considered good", assuming X is evil, then that culture is Evil in D&D terms. But that isn't necessarily a pejorative statement! It's not so much "a culture where X is considered good" but a culture where X is considered *proper*.

Let's say X is banditry and raiding. If you're in an evil society (like a tribe of Orcs), banditry and raiding is how your tribe survives. If you don't do banditry and raiding, you're hurting the tribe. It is therefore something you Should Do. It is objectively Evil, but that's okay. We're imposing our fundamentally Good societal ethics on this Evil society if we say they shouldn't be bandits and raiders.

With that in mind, there should be no qualms about an Orcish society that claims to be Evil. To them, if being Good means being charitable and nice and generous, then being Good is pointless at best and actively destructive to their way of life at worst. It's a horrible way to be an Orc. So Evil is not Good, but it *is* good... for them.


Powers &8^]

[Hackulator]

This has me thinking.

We in the modern world tend to associate Good with "things you should do" and Evil with "things you should not do". But that's because we live in a fundamentally Good society.

In your example, "a culture where X is considered good", assuming X is evil, then that culture is Evil in D&D terms. But that isn't necessarily a pejorative statement! It's not so much "a culture where X is considered good" but a culture where X is considered *proper*.

Let's say X is banditry and raiding. If you're in an evil society (like a tribe of Orcs), banditry and raiding is how your tribe survives. If you don't do banditry and raiding, you're hurting the tribe. It is therefore something you Should Do. It is objectively Evil, but that's okay. We're imposing our fundamentally Good societal ethics on this Evil society if we say they shouldn't be bandits and raiders.

With that in mind, there should be no qualms about an Orcish society that claims to be Evil. To them, if being Good means being charitable and nice and generous, then being Good is pointless at best and actively destructive to their way of life at worst. It's a horrible way to be an Orc. So Evil is not Good, but it *is* good... for them.


Powers &8^]

ha hahaha.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

never change friend

[Maxilian]

That does not change that there are some things that may still have their "grey" areas (like some uses of Necromancy -Grey because they may be seen as bad for society but may not be bad in general, when it comes to the cosmology), but most actions are good or evil, normally the question is if its L or C. (normally that based on the reason of the action)

[BestPlayer]

Just out of curiosity, what sort of actions are we talking about here?

I think that people in the middle ages probably share 90+ % of the same moral ideas as much of the western world does nowadays. Most of the differing thoughts on morality would probably be related to religion and social/cultural mores. It's important to remember that you're playing a game in a fantasy world. That fantasy world has whatever social/cultural mores that the DM wants them to have.

One example of so called "evil" behavior was when one character could hardly be bothered to help a group of refugees. He didn't know any of them, it wasn't part of the mission to rescue them and it was hard to say whether they particularly needed our help after we rescued them. Basically we couldn't understand why not going out of ones way to help someone was evil, not nice clearly, but evil?

Another was when we took an evil (evil by alignment) and by actions (trying to destroy the world) cleric prisoner and tortured him for information. The DM stated that torturing him was clearly evil no matter what we learned or how many lives it saved. Torture being fairly common in the olden days as a way of getting information from those reluctant to give it ( or sometimes just to insure that what they said was true), we had a hard time believing this was an evil act.

There have been other incidents but that's all I can recall at the moment.

[Osrogue]

If going by the absolutism set by the existence of cosmic beings of pure law, good, evil, etc. that people can interact and talk to, no. There are clear unchanging examples of good and evil that powerful spellcaster can summon for a chat about philosophy.

Ignoring that, many peoples and societies develop their own codes of morality, oblivious to or in spite of the moral standards set by cosmic beings. If they don't, they probably predominantly worship only a handful of gods. Their moral code will align with that god or gods' teachings regardless of the gods' cosmic moral standing.

Aside from that, while the forgotten realms resemble medieval Europe, they aren't medieval Europe. They may have moral standards contrary to modern (insert homeland) standards, but they are fictional lands and do not need to follow the traditions of a real place.

[Maxilian]

One example of so called "evil" behavior was when one character could hardly be bothered to help a group of refugees. He didn't know any of them, it wasn't part of the mission to rescue them and it was hard to say whether they particularly needed our help after we rescued them. Basically we couldn't understand why not going out of ones way to help someone was evil, not nice clearly, but evil?

Another was when we took an evil (evil by alignment) and by actions (trying to destroy the world) cleric prisoner and tortured him for information. The DM stated that torturing him was clearly evil no matter what we learned or how many lives it saved. Torture being fairly common in the olden days as a way of getting information from those reluctant to give it ( or sometimes just to insure that what they said was true), we had a hard time believing this was an evil act.

There have been other incidents but that's all I can recall at the moment.

I wouldn't call the first evil, nor good, just something, but the DM is right when it comes to torture, it is evil, regardless if it was normal or accepted.

[Kish]

If you want to impose "middle ages morality" on D&D, you'll have to start with getting rid of all the spellcasters (say they were executed for witchcraft).

And yes, I did say and I did mean "impose." "We don't have cars yet, so it follows that everyone's a horrible violent racist who tortures casually and puts little value on life!" is pure wishful thinking, not from a D&D book. The moral codes presented in most campaign worlds are exactly like modern moral codes except in ways that are specifically caused by aspects of the setting; there is no "and the default is an imagined medieval Europe except for the bits of medieval Europe that would hobble us rather than letting us do as we please."

[Millstone85]

I reject the notion that you can feasibly have an in-game definition of good and evil that would not match the players', and more particularly the DM's.

If your DM thinks torture is never justified in real life, he is not going to run a campaign where physical embodiments of goodness condone the act.

[BestPlayer]

So if I am reading this all correctly, the consensus seems to be that the morality of the game should be determined based on 21st century views and more importantly on what the DM views as good and evil. Would this be correct to say?

[Zanos]

One example of so called "evil" behavior was when one character could hardly be bothered to help a group of refugees. He didn't know any of them, it wasn't part of the mission to rescue them and it was hard to say whether they particularly needed our help after we rescued them. Basically we couldn't understand why not going out of ones way to help someone was evil, not nice clearly, but evil?
Being a bystander isn't Evil. It isn't Good, of course, but you didn't do anything wrong. Plenty of people do nothing every day.


Another was when we took an evil (evil by alignment) and by actions (trying to destroy the world) cleric prisoner and tortured him for information. The DM stated that torturing him was clearly evil no matter what we learned or how many lives it saved. Torture being fairly common in the olden days as a way of getting information from those reluctant to give it ( or sometimes just to insure that what they said was true), we had a hard time believing this was an evil act.
First of all, torture historically is not very effective at extracting accurate information. It instead extracts whatever the torturer wants to hear. Secondly, torture is always an Evil act; the ends never justify the means as far as the planes are concerned. Did you need to torture that guy to learn valuable information? Maybe. You can be a hero and be Evil, that's why anti-heros exist after all.


So if I am reading this all correctly, the consensus seems to be that the morality of the game should be determined based on 21st century views and more importantly on what the DM views as good and evil. Would this be correct to say?
I suggest re-reading my posts if that's what you got out of them.

[Hackulator]

So if I am reading this all correctly, the consensus seems to be that the morality of the game should be determined based on what the DM views as good and evil. Would this be correct to say?

ftfy

"21st century views" is meaningless as there are plenty of people in the 21st century who believe things are morally correct that I, someone who also lives in the 21st century, find abhorrent.

[Zanos]

ftfy

"21st century views" is meaningless as there are plenty of people in the 21st century who believe things are morally correct that I, someone who also lives in the 21st century, find abhorrent.
Yeah, strongly against. Running a game where the DM uses their personal moral views to determine the morality of the game is liable to just be a pathetic soapbox upon which for the DM to rub their beliefs in your face.

[Malifice]

One example of so called "evil" behavior was when one character could hardly be bothered to help a group of refugees. He didn't know any of them, it wasn't part of the mission to rescue them and it was hard to say whether they particularly needed our help after we rescued them. Basically we couldn't understand why not going out of ones way to help someone was evil, not nice clearly, but evil?

Another was when we took an evil (evil by alignment) and by actions (trying to destroy the world) cleric prisoner and tortured him for information. The DM stated that torturing him was clearly evil no matter what we learned or how many lives it saved. Torture being fairly common in the olden days as a way of getting information from those reluctant to give it ( or sometimes just to insure that what they said was true), we had a hard time believing this was an evil act.

There have been other incidents but that's all I can recall at the moment.

The first action is neutral and the second one is evil.

[Gryndle]

I think the best you can do is come to an agreement at your table. and that would be an accomplishment. there are certain aspects of good and evil that are absolute and universal, but there is so much more that is completely subjective. people have been debating this very subject for thousands of years.

I believe that when you see someone in need, and helping them involves little risk to you or yours, and you have the actual ability to help, that it is an act of evil to NOT help. Selfishness, cowardice, laziness and apathy are all "evil" concepts to me. Because of that belief I cannot accept that we live in a "fundamentally good society". Selfishness, laziness, cowardice and apathy are far too prevalent for me accept.

BUT, I also recognize that this is not a universally shared belief, simply my own. I think to try and push that onto others, even in a game-setting among friends, would be a gross overstep.

So, back to the OP point. It seems to me that its time for a "table-talk" to determine where everyone stands. Also, a minor point about FR cosmology and there being planes and creatures of absolute Good and absolute Evil; there are also equivalents for Neutral.

[Hackulator]

Yeah, strongly against. Running a game where the DM uses their personal moral views to determine the morality of the game is liable to just be a pathetic soapbox upon which for the DM to rub their beliefs in your face.

I am sorry you play with so many terrible DMs. I'd also like to see the codified laws of morality that you think DMs should use, cause I'm pretty sure there's not some "correct" version of that which exists, anywhere. Regardless of whether you are against the DM determining morality in their world, that is how things are.

[Millstone85]

So if I am reading this all correctly, the consensus seems to be that the morality of the game should be determined based on 21st century views and more importantly on what the DM views as good and evil. Would this be correct to say?It is not so much "should" than "will".

It could be interesting to design a setting where has been settled by the Gods of Cosmic Good in a way that is contrary to what anyone at the table believes. But that's just not going to happen.


Yeah, strongly against. Running a game where the DM uses their personal moral views to determine the morality of the game is liable to just be a pathetic soapbox upon which for the DM to rub their beliefs in your face.If the characters come across a magic item that "[I]requires attunement by a creature of good alignment" or have a social encounter with an archangel, what else would a DM do?

[Zanos]

I am sorry you play with so many terrible DMs. I'd also like to see the codified laws of morality that you think DMs should use, cause I'm pretty sure there's not some "correct" version of that which exists, anywhere.
I didn't suggest anything of the sort. But in general it should be similar to the real world, where there is not an absolutely "correct" philosophy or moral code, and different codes are more useful to different societies than others.


Regardless of whether you are against the DM determining morality in their world, that is how things are.
The Forgotten Realms is a printed setting concocted by a group of writers with established canon. So it isn't the DM's world. It has established moral codes for what Right and Wrong are, and both FR and D&D have established mechanics for what Good and Evil are.

I agree that a DM gets to determine what right and wrong are in their world, but the world's morality shouldn't 100% map onto the DMs beliefs, otherwise it's just a masturbatory.


If the characters come across a magic item that "requires attunement by a creature of good alignment" or have a social encounter with an archangel, what else would a DM do?
As I mentioned in my first post, there's a difference between what's cosmologically Good and Evil and what's socially right and wrong. D&D provides objective rules for the first thing, the settings cultures provides subjective variable guidelines for the second.

[Maxilian]

It is not so much "should" than "will".

It could be interesting to design a setting where has been settled by the Gods of Cosmic Good in a way that is contrary to what anyone at the table believes. But that's just not going to happen.

If the characters come across a magic item that "[I]requires attunement by a creature of good alignment" or have a social encounter with an archangel, what else would a DM do?

Read the details of the God that created the item or whoever said archangel serve, and make the "Moral Code" of it based on that?

[Maxilian]

As I mentioned in my first post, there's a difference between what's cosmologically Good and Evil and what's socially right and wrong. D&D provides objective rules for the first thing, the settings cultures provides subjective variable guidelines for the second.

Isn't that mostly shown with the C and L alignment? i mean... this is normally when we see gods that are both of the same G or E alignment but still do not agree (mostly because of the form of such actions)

[Hackulator]

I didn't suggest anything of the sort. But in general it should be similar to the real world, where there is not an absolutely "correct" philosophy or moral code, and different codes are more useful to different societies than others.


The Forgotten Realms is a printed setting concocted by a group of writers with established canon. So it isn't the DM's world. It has established moral codes for what Right and Wrong are, and both FR and D&D have established mechanics for what Good and Evil are.

I agree that a DM gets to determine what right and wrong are in their world, but the world's morality shouldn't 100% map onto the DMs beliefs, otherwise it's just a masturbatory.


As I mentioned in my first post, there's a difference between what's cosmologically Good and Evil and what's socially right and wrong. D&D provides objective rules for the first thing, the settings cultures provides subjective variable guidelines for the second.

Once the DM is running it, it's his world. He can change it however he wants, and if he is playing with experienced players he probably should because otherwise there's a high chance they will already know everything.

As for morality 100% mapping on the DMs beliefs, unless the DM has some really weird beliefs, that's pretty much how it will go. It's not about being masturbatory, its about the DM having to make decisions on what morality is and what else is he going to use other than his understanding of morality? If the DM is preachy and annoying about it, don't play with him. All my DMs are personal friends most of whom I have known for years and years, if they were preachy and annoying people I would have dropped them a long time ago.

[hamishspence]

I believe that when you see someone in need, and helping them involves little risk to you or yours, and you have the actual ability to help, that it is an act of evil to NOT help. Selfishness, cowardice, laziness and apathy are all "evil" concepts to me.

3.0's BOVD phrases something in a way that hints at a similar view: it describes a character who has been convinced (mistakenly) that a town's population are all demons, so he poisons the town's water supply. It suggests that the act might not qualify as evil (based on motive of character).

It then has "PC sees character about to do this, they stop them by killing them - is this Evil" - and explains that it isn't: "Standing by and doing nothing is far more evil than preventing the poisoning by killing the poisoner".

So, a case could be made that some "inactions" may qualify as Evil deeds that might cause a character to suffer mechanical penalties (losing paladin class features, Exalted feats, etc).

[lunaticfringe]

There probably isn't going to be any argument found here that will help you counter a DM's opinion. I say this not to be rude or trolly but Realistic. I DM more than I play and I can be a Terrible Player if I don't check myself. To enjoy the game you have to let things go, DMs are just people. People often Suck when they have an absurd amount of control over you.

I don't even bother with alignment anymore because in my experience Players behave in a more Realistic manner. It fixes the "but my character is Good/Evil and would/wouldn't do that" Excuses for being an Asshat to your fellow players. Bob the Bard is still against torture but he will roleplay it and not freak out and start stabbing players in their sleep for being evil. (I have always found it odd that LG players often instantly go PVP when they deem their party immoral)

[Bohandas]

This has me thinking.

We in the modern world tend to associate Good with "things you should do" and Evil with "things you should not do". But that's because we live in a fundamentally Good society.

In your example, "a culture where X is considered good", assuming X is evil, then that culture is Evil in D&D terms. But that isn't necessarily a pejorative statement! It's not so much "a culture where X is considered good" but a culture where X is considered *proper*.

Let's say X is banditry and raiding. If you're in an evil society (like a tribe of Orcs), banditry and raiding is how your tribe survives. If you don't do banditry and raiding, you're hurting the tribe. It is therefore something you Should Do. It is objectively Evil, but that's okay. We're imposing our fundamentally Good societal ethics on this Evil society if we say they shouldn't be bandits and raiders.

With that in mind, there should be no qualms about an Orcish society that claims to be Evil. To them, if being Good means being charitable and nice and generous, then being Good is pointless at best and actively destructive to their way of life at worst. It's a horrible way to be an Orc. So Evil is not Good, but it *is* good... for them.


Powers &8^]
I've thought about that as well. I think in many fantasy languages the common terms for "benevolent" and "preferable" would not be the same. In particular I think that in lower planar languages the equivalent of "wicked" as in "wicked awesome" would be the common descriptor for something preferable, and on the lawful planes it would be something closer to "reasonable", "reliable", or "efficient"

[FreddyNoNose]

This could be a very complicated discussion, so I will try and keep the initial topic brief and to the point. What I am wondering is; in a campaign taking place in the forgotten realms, should morality as it relates to alignment be based on general medieval morals or on those of our twenty first century gaming group? Repeatedly members of our group have been proclaimed as acting "evilly" by other players or by the DM when our actions seem quite in keeping with the most common views of morality in the middle ages, at least as we understand them. So what is morality based on in D&D and more specifically, Forgotten Realms?

Well, these kinds of things in games can be interesting but mostly they get really old and tired very quickly. Especially to those who have played a long time. After years of playing, it is subject to the DM and how he runs his world. There is also the bit about how players should know what is right/wrong because the characters grew up and learned these things as they grew up and perhaps during class training. But ultimately it becomes a moot point because it should be known to the character first then once informed they can make a choice to follow or reject an action or situation or come up with a creative third option.

[Sigreid]

For a particular game the DM is the arbiter of right and wrong, but I personally would warn a good character at least a few times on grey area things when he was considering crossing the line.

For the situations presented.

1. Not evil. If I understand correctly you saved the people from an immediate threat, but did not assume responsibility for them going forward. This is neutral with some compassion. If I save a homeless person from drowning in the lake it does not make me evil that I then do not want to give him warm clothes, a sandwich and a place to sleep.

2. People who believe it's for the greater good can torture. People who torture are not "good". A good person, even one capable of killing when necessary, would be incapable of the deliberate cruelty required to torture. My judgement. I doubt I'll ever be swayed.

[LtPowers]

ha hahaha.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

never change friend

Yes, yes, I know why you're laughing. But I didn't mean to say that everyone in our society is fundamentally Good. What I mean is that our society values Good traits -- charity, compassion, selflessness. We celebrate people with those traits, rather than denouncing them.


Powers &8^]