Is it REALLY evil??? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

View Full Version : Is it REALLY evil???

Pages : [1] 2

TheIronCorpse

2017-10-19, 05:31 PM

GlenSmash!

2017-10-19, 05:36 PM

To me a person brought up doing evil is still evil even if they are just doing what they've always done.

So yes I think Feast is evil person who came form a world where evil is normal which is casing the confusion. Normal does not make an action or character neutral.

For example, If I had a character who came form a world where slavery is normal I would still say slavery is evil.

gloryblaze

2017-10-19, 05:39 PM

You might call such behavior "unaligned" if he is truly killing for food. PHB states that creatures like sharks are unaligned rather than evil because they kill for food rather than malice. However, it's definitely not "Chaotic Neutral". In DnD, "good" generally means "I put others before myself", "neutral" is "I put myself before others", and "evil" is "I put myself before others even at the expense of others". Killing someone to eat them would definitively be Chaotic Evil if you feel uncomfortable giving a PC the "unaligned" alignment (usually reserved for nonsentient creatures in this edition). There's even precedent for that ruling - white dragons are described as barely-sentient, animalistic predators and their listed alignment is Chaotic Evil.

8wGremlin

2017-10-19, 05:44 PM

Is a tiger evil for eating a human, or is evil just the views of what society dislikes and will not tolerate?

<argument about D&D black and white alignment ensues>

Biggstick

2017-10-19, 05:47 PM

Feast sounds like a PC who's going to need quite a bit of coddling by the other PC's whenever they go anywhere that has things he can't kill. While this might be fun for the Player of the Orc Barbarian, it may or may not be fun for the Players of the other PC's. If they have to spend all of their interaction time with this Orc Barbarian who can't keep themselves from killing anyone that happens to wander by at the wrong time (when he's hungry), they might come to resent the Player for forcing them to "give up" their RP time so the Barbarian can perform his RP.

Also, to answer your question, this is most definitely evil. Just because the dumb Orc doesn't know what he's doing is evil, that doesn't make it not evil. It's as Glen said, this Orc came from a place where evil is accepted. I would drop the alignment from CN to CE.

War_lord

2017-10-19, 05:53 PM

If he has the capability to understand that his behavior is evil, and doesn't try to change or moderate that behavior, he's evil. Compare to Lizardfolk who are emotionless and certainly capable of murdering and eating others but generally restrain themselves from doing so because they understand that it's objectively destructive behavior.

Coidzor

2017-10-19, 05:55 PM

One of my new players is a full blooded Orc Barbarian who was pulled from a parallel universe into our own.

In that case I'd say you should probably contact someone about having evidence of a brand new species. Maybe see about collecting that cash reward for evidence of the supernatural for having an entity from another universe hanging around with you at the D&D table.

His name is Feast and before his unintentional dimensional travel he lived a simple life of hunting and foraging in the woods he called home. He killed and ate whatever he could in order to survive and has never known any sort of community as his village was destroyed when he was very young.
I pose the title question: “Is it REALLY evil?” because I have recently confronted a mental hurdle that I’m unsure how to approach. You see, Feast kills indiscriminately as he sees fit in order to obtain food. The Orc is 8 feet tall and has quite a gut so is often hungry. His favorite food? Raw meat. He has killed several civilians and even ripped a little girl in half in order to obtain the food he desires (the latter situation has more variables that make it a somewhat confusing argument. I have details if they are desired).

I fear for your safety, friend. This Feast fellow is probably going to eat you before too long.

P.S.
This is not my first time DMing, but his is my first time that I’ve ever been faced with this quandary.

Then you should probably know that you don't have to play D&D with 8 foot tall man-eating humanoid monstrosities that are as liable to eat you as they are to roll to attack the darkness.

Now, if this is about a player character, then you should also know that you don't have to approve of unsuitable characters. This is an obviously unsuitable character, unless you want to play a villainous game where the big stupid fighter actively tries to get them banned from towns and hunted down by anyone and everyone.

Is a tiger evil for eating a human, or is evil just the views of what society dislikes and will not tolerate?

<argument about D&D black and white alignment ensues>

Tigers aren't moral entities in D&D alignment, so they're irrelevant.

Puh Laden

2017-10-19, 05:57 PM

Chaotic evil if he has done so after the PCs have warned him that you can't kill sapient beings for food. As chaotic evil means "can't control violent impulses." Possibly either neutral or chaotic neutral otherwise as neutral means "go with flow," more-or-less, and chaotic neutral means "puts freedom of self first." But if the other PCs aren't doing anything about it, they're potentially evil or neutral as well.

Also, where's the angry mob?

You don't have to change the alignment on the sheet, mind you; there are so few instances in the rules where alignment matters and you can just say that "actual alignment" affects those things, not "character sheet alignment." Reward inspiration for following the written alignment of chaotic neutral.

Honest Tiefling

2017-10-19, 05:58 PM

alchahest

2017-10-19, 06:01 PM

While Feast is asleep have another character chop off his hands and feed them to a dog.

he shouldn't REALLY be mad, after all it's just feeding a dog. And Feast isn't truly sentient if he's ruled entirely by instinct, so it's not even that big a deal!

(of course it's that big a deal. I think that the players need to have a discussion with him or part ways.)

War_lord

2017-10-19, 06:04 PM

If he's truly unable to restrain himself, I'd say he's more unaligned. He doesn't understand anything more complex then hunger = get food. He's unable to make moral or ethical decisions because of his state, then he really is no better then an animal and should have the alignment of such.

Unaligned is for beasts and monstrous creatures that literally lack the ability to tell right from wrong because they literally act on basic animal instincts. Any player character is by definition acting on some sort of logic, even flawed logic and thus is able to be good or evil. The only exception to this I can think of are the basic corporal undead, who could be considered unaligned but are evil because they're animated by inherently evil forces.

Question for thread starter:

Out of the OP's scope, why on earth is your table allowing this character?

Honest Tiefling

2017-10-19, 06:08 PM

Unaligned is for beasts and monstrous creatures that literally lack the ability to tell right from wrong because they literally act on basic animal instincts.

[QUOTE=TheIronCorpse;22493308Now, normally it would be NO QUESTION if those actions were “evil” because of the heartlessness a person would have to possess in order to conceive of that in the first place. However, because of his 100% feral background can these actions be considered evil enough to change Feast’s alignment from Chaotic Neutral to some form of Evil? Some in my group say yes, but Feast’s player insists that Feast is only doing what he has done his entire life. Feast isn’t preforming these actions out of malice or spite or any form of negative emotion. He merely is VERY dumb and a total savage who has never know another sentient creature.[/QUOTE]

War_lord, it seems like the player's entire argument to remain neutral is that they are 100% acting on instinct and cannot tell right from wrong. If I am mistaken, another alignment is more valid, but from what I can tell, Feast really is on par with a tiger.

If Feast is refusing to learn right from wrong...That's a different matter entirely. I'd say that is more evil, because they just don't want to learn that their actions to satisfy their own impulses are somehow wrong. In this case, I also think there is the argument that they would probably know something is wrong because the party is screaming at them.

Contrast

2017-10-19, 06:08 PM

He merely is VERY dumb and a total savage who has never know another sentient creature.

If he's so dumb he's not sapient or capable of realising the creatures he's killing are sapient/sentient then you might have an argument. Morality is a social construct - if he's capable of grasping the idea of social constructs then he's culpable to be judged by them.

I assume he can speak and use weapons and the like so pretty sure he's not that dumb. If he is that dumb then he isn't really PC material - at least not in any sort of normal game.

My suggestion would be pointing out to the player that you don't survive on your own in the wilderness by being incautious. Perhaps he should treat this new environment with caution and follow the lead of those around him and learn their ways like he learned the ways of the wilderness in which he survived so long.

Also the definition of CE from the rulebook (emphasis mine):

Chaotic evil creatures act with arbitrary violence,
spurred by their greed, hatred or bloodlust.

Kills people because he's hungry? Sounds like our boy.

That said - is there a particular reason you care what your character has written on the alignment box on his character sheet? Just have the world react to him as it would. I would assume if he's being consistently roleplayed as clueless as you suggest he will be instantly incarcerated/killed when he steals/murders something he shouldn't.

Honest Tiefling

2017-10-19, 06:13 PM

That said - is there a particular reason you care what your character has written on the alignment box on his character sheet? Just have the world react to him as it would. I would assume if he's being consistently roleplayed as clueless as you suggest he will be instantly incarcerated/killed when he steals/murders something he shouldn't.

I get the feeling it is not so much the DM, but the other players. Perhaps I am reading into the situation a tad, but I assume that the other players might not be enjoying Feast's antics so much and wish for him to be labelled evil as a way to establish BY THE WAY YOU VIOLENTLY MURDERED A CHILD. If the party can label him as evil, the argument that they should really be trying to circumvent his violent tendencies and stop bringing him to the tavern. But that's really just a guess.

Contrast

2017-10-19, 06:16 PM

Snip

How exactly does the alignment box on his character sheet stop them doing that?

If the other players characters think his actions make him evil, he is evil to them (regardless of if his character sheet says Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Good).

When I said have the world react to him as it would, that includes the other players.

Kuulvheysoon

2017-10-19, 06:16 PM

I have to admit, I'm (morbidly) curious as to these "extenuating circumstances" that the OP was talking about that didn't instantly label Feast as CE.

Honestly, if he's made no effort to change after the first time that the party (presumably) flipped out, then yeah, it's his choice to remain that way and he's definitely Chaotic Evil in my books. If he's making the effort, then he MIGHT be able to cling to Chaotic Neutral.

EDIT: 95% of these situations, if you have to ask, you already know the answer and you're just trying to justify thinking that she/he/it isn't evil.

Honest Tiefling

2017-10-19, 06:18 PM

How exactly does the alignment box on his character sheet stop them doing that?

Probably doesn't, but I imagine some people, even experienced role players, getting a little annoyed at someone insisting that the guy who ate the last quest giver be allowed to have a say in what the party does and not be treated as a danger/giant hindrance.

War_lord

2017-10-19, 06:19 PM

War_lord, it seems like the player's entire argument to remain neutral is that they are 100% acting on instinct and cannot tell right from wrong. If I am mistaken, another alignment is more valid, but from what I can tell, Feast really is on par with a tiger.

If Feast is refusing to learn right from wrong...That's a different matter entirely. I'd say that is more evil, because they just don't want to learn that their actions to satisfy their own impulses are somehow wrong. In this case, I also think there is the argument that they would probably know something is wrong because the party is screaming at them.

And my argument is that if Feast is so unintelligent that he acts 100% on compulsion with no ability to restrain himself or consider the consequences, he's an invalid character akin to wanting to play as a wild lion. You can't play was a wild animal. Even Hill Giants, a race of sentients literally defined by an unending hunger are classed as evil, because they have the ability to tell right from wrong and choose wrong. The average Lizardfolk is Neutral, because although they have a reptile's cold mindset and COULD kill and eat others to survive, they abstain because they're able to understand objectively why said behavior is wrong.

Kane0

2017-10-19, 06:23 PM

Have you tried selling him on the idea of trading shinies for raw meat at the market? It’s far less effort than hunting/killing for it all the time.

If he chooses to go with the most painful option rather than the easiest one then yeah, he’s probably motivated by more than just hunger and register as evil.

Sigreid

2017-10-19, 06:24 PM

I'd say it depends. If over a couple of sessions the character shows signs of learning empathy for others, especially strangers, I'm ok with him not being evil. He's just being an animal really.

If, however, he does not show any signs of developing empathy, he's the unwitting evil.

Honest Tiefling

2017-10-19, 06:25 PM

And my argument is that if Feast is so unintelligent that he acts 100% on compulsion with no ability to restrain himself or consider the consequences, he's an invalid character akin to wanting to play as a wild lion.

I agree with the former, that if Feast is 'so dumb' he cannot tell right from wrong, yes, he is like an animal.

The latter? That part I disagree with. If everyone at the table is enjoying his child-munching antics, then what's the harm in him playing a wild animal? He should however, be aware that doing such is likely to have a lot of consequences. Through if I signed up for a plot-driven game and was expected to cart around Murder McMurderface I'd probably just quit the game as I would find it very hard to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why you're hanging around with a wild lion that actively has displayed a desire to eat your kind.

War_lord

2017-10-19, 06:32 PM

I agree with the former, that if Feast is 'so dumb' he cannot tell right from wrong, yes, he is like an animal.

The latter? That part I disagree with. If everyone at the table is enjoying his child-munching antics, then what's the harm in him playing a wild animal? He should however, be aware that doing such is likely to have a lot of consequences. Through if I signed up for a plot-driven game and was expected to cart around Murder McMurderface I'd probably just quit the game as I would find it very hard to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why you're hanging around with a wild lion that actively has displayed a desire to eat your kind.

Well the question was "Is it evil", and my position is that either Feast lacks that ability to distinguish right from wrong on even a basic level and thus is an unaligned non-sentient that can't logically exist in the party. Or rather could exist with copious handwaving but not rationally in a consistent manner. Or he does possess basic reasoning skills and chooses not to use them, making him consistent but evil.

Contrast

2017-10-19, 06:35 PM

Probably doesn't, but I imagine some people, even experienced role players, getting a little annoyed at someone insisting that the guy who ate the last quest giver be allowed to have a say in what the party does and not be treated as a danger/giant hindrance.

Yeah sure (I probably would as well).

I just find the whole idea of forcing someone to change their alignment somewhat silly.

Lets say I'm playing a goody two shoes and I find out one of the other characters is defrauding an orphanage.

1) The DM rules the character keeps their neutral alignment. Does that mean my character now has to be ok with it? No.

2) The DM rules the character shifts to an evil alignment. Does that mean they suddenly have to start being even more 'evil' to live up to their alignment or act different in any fashion whatsoever? No.

'Forcing' someone to change their alignment like OP suggests does nothing. You need to convince them to change their behaviour out of game if its problematic out of game. If the behaviour isn't problematic - again, why do you care whats written on their character sheet - the occupants of the world don't know what their character sheet says so they should just react based on what they've seen.

I'm normally a proponent of allowing evil characters because when they're not played as the evil equivalent of lawful stupid they can add a very compelling twist to the narrative. In this case it sounds like the DM should have the guards called immediately and that's assuming the PCs aren't willing to do that job themselves.

Tanarii

2017-10-19, 06:35 PM

My opinion*:
By 5e Alignments, this player absolutely should have select the Chaotic Evil Alignment for the PC. Chaotic Evil's typical behavior is "act[s] with arbitrary violence, spurred on by their greed, hatred or bloodlust."

This character is clearly arbritrarily violent and spurred on by their bloodlust.

Note that why the PC does it isn't important to 5e Alignment. PC intent is irrelevant. What matters is the Player using it as a motivation to correctly represent the appropriate in-game behavior they want to represent. In other words, it's objective from the players point of view of "I want to play a character that murders creatures violently, specifically in a manner that is arbitrary and bloodthirsty", not the PC's "but it's so I can eat them afterwards".

If this player wants to represent a bloodthirsty and arbritrarily violent Orc PC, and clearly they do, then the appropriate Alignment to select Chaotic Evil for their Alignment. IMO if they selected anything else they didn't review the 5e Alignments and select the one that fits the persona they wanted to represent in-game.

*Its my opinion because Alignment behaviors are left open to the player, possibly with DM recommendations based on what's appropriate for their game, as to what 'arbritrarily violence' and 'hatred, greed and bloodlust' mean. But I'm hard pressed to see how indiscriminately slaughtering as he sees fit, including civilians and children, is anything else. That's doing it arbritrarily and bloodlust-ily as far as I am concerned.

(Edit: it'd be a totally different matter if it were a Human Barbarian slaughtering Orc children of course. That's saving the world. :smallamused: )

Honest Tiefling

2017-10-19, 06:41 PM

I just find the whole idea of forcing someone to change their alignment somewhat silly.

Oh, no arguments here. I just assumed that's why several players were mentioned as believing it should be changed, not that it would fix a problem that we perceive. I mean, maybe they're all evil PCs and find the idea of having a near-uncontrollable beast they can malipulate into grotesque and violent acts really funny, but sorta want the player aboard the evil train or think that if their characters murder children and are evil, so should Feast.

Asmotherion

2017-10-19, 06:44 PM

That's up to a lot of things.

One thing is for sure, the PC has to start from somewere. So, I'd say that you can start by, for arguement's sake putting him the "Chaotic Evil" alignment, and then, depending on what the player shows you, you can change it; Just because he starts evil, it does not mean he is irependably evil... as you said, he might be evil, because he didn't know how else to act, but influence from the PCs might change him into a chaotic neutral character eventually. Or maybe his RP will suggest he was indeed that dumb that he never had any negative emotion inside of him when he commited those attrocities, and he literally just did them "for food", meaning you can safelly change his alignment to "unaligned". On the other hand, if he shows to enjoy (unessesary) bloodshed a bit too much, you know you went right on the alignment.

Finally, a piece of advice: Don't worry about starting Alignment too much... In game RP matters the most, and character development will eventually show what Alignment each character really is as sessions progress. Even if a character starts with the wrong alignment, it's not the end of the world, as long as he has an interesting Character development, and contributes to the plot (and not just to combat encounters). This Paralel Universe Orc (Warcraft Inspired I suppose?) can give you a lot of adventure hooks, and make for a very interesting story besides being just the muscles of the party. :)

alchahest

2017-10-19, 06:45 PM

It's also important to note that any good aligned character would probably by their very nature be extremely opposed to these actions. most neutral characters too. You can be neutral and not want to see little kids get eaten. There's even an argument to be made that many or even most evil characters don't want to see that, outside of cartoonish evil-for-evil's sake characters.

This type of element is similar to the ages old chaotic evil rogue stealing all the party's gold then saying "What I'm just roleplaying my character". Sure - but none of the other characters have to stick around or abide by it. In the case of child mutilation and consumption, There are many characters across all the alignments who would probably draw their weapons upon witnessing this. I can't imagine a non-evil campaign where this type of behaviour goes unchecked by the other characters. even if the players are for some reason not at all bothered by it.

War_lord

2017-10-19, 06:45 PM

Forced alignment change isn't an attempt to punish the player. Ideally a player should say "well I've done X thing, I better correct my alignment" The concepts of Good verses Evil and Law verses Chaos are actual cosmic forces in the ruleset. A Fairy can still look at your character and tell your character that they're Evil and Chaotic, the sentient races have documented contact with the literal embodiment of the concepts. Alignment isn't words on a sheet, it's not an abstract roleplaying aid, it's as much a part of that character as Gold: 20. It's an objective part of that character that is modified based on their behavior.

Honest Tiefling

2017-10-19, 06:47 PM

It's also important to note that any good aligned character would probably by their very nature be extremely opposed to these actions. most neutral characters too.

I'd think that most evil characters are morally opposed to being some creature's dinner. And he probably doesn't even extend his pinky while eating, the despicable fiend.

Tanarii

2017-10-19, 06:48 PM

Finally, a piece of advice: Don't worry about starting Alignment too much... In game RP matters the most, and character development will eventually show what Alignment each character really is as sessions progress.
That's back to front. Worry about starting Alignment, then use it as one of the five personality motivation to drive in game making of decisions for the character (aka roleplaying).

Alignment is not supposed to be determined by what happens in the game. It's supposed to be part of the persona for the character that inform what the player has them do.

Edit: one of the problems with these kinds of threads is, they are inherently bass-awkward so. We're being asked to look at actions, and determine the appropriate Alignment motivation. As opposed to look at an alignment and personality motivations, a given scenario, and say "now what actions would I likely have these motivations prompt me to have my PC do in this situation, if it were my PC".

Even my post upthread suffers from that. I'm looking at the actions and saying this behavior looks like it results from a player using the motivation of "arbritrarily violence" and "bloodthirsty"

SharkForce

2017-10-19, 06:56 PM

Feast is presumably Sapient enough to not try to eat the other PCs. he is also presumably sapient enough to figure out who is an enemy, and who is not. so yes, it is evil. it would also be evil for the rest of the party to just allow him to murder other people or to in any way interfere with the consequences of Feast's actions (by which i mean, when the villagers form a mob with pitchforks and torches and slaughter him) if he is *not* sapient enough to have any conception of good and evil.

so frankly, it doesn't matter. whether he's evil or not (and again, on the basis that he knows enough to not murder the other PCs on sight for food, i would argue that he is sapient enough to be evil), he is completely unsuited as a player character. throw the character sheet in the garbage, give the character a suitable end (probably the other PCs and everyone else in existent gang up on him and slaughter him on the spot, or at best capture him, give him a very brief trial, and then execute him. or, if the other PCs have been helping him do this for long enough by protecting him from the consequences, they also die at the hands of an angry mob or at the very least cannot show their faces anywhere nearby for the next hundred years or so until the last of the people traumatized by their actions finally dies off), and tell Feast's player to make a new character and this time don't be a disruptive jackass.

Rabbitfox

2017-10-19, 07:02 PM

Some in my group say yes, but Feast’s player insists that Feast is only doing what he has done his entire life. Feast isn’t preforming these actions out of malice or spite or any form of negative emotion. He merely is VERY dumb and a total savage who has never know another sentient creature.

In my opinion, Feast would still be considered "Chaotic Evil" (as others have suggested). To me the "Good", "Neutral", "Evil" alignment describe the type of actions that you can expect from the given character. "Lawful", "Neutral", "Chaotic" describe their approach/motivation for their actions.

The characters actions are judged within some moral framework. As you said yourself, you consider killing civilians as evil (and many of your players seem to agree). Therefore one can expect Feast to perform actions that are considered "evil". His motivation for it might not be out of malice, but out of self-interest/impulse which is why his approach/motivations for the action are "chaotic".

The problem I have with Feast's player argument is that if you classify a moral alignment based on motivation instead of resulting actions you can excuse a lot of "evil" behavior as "neutral" or even "good". For example, a "villain" could be doing things that are "evil" thinking/believing that he is actually helping people/accomplishing a greater good. Many villains in fiction don't see themselves as "evil", but only because they think they are good doesn't make them "good" characters.

I guess this leaves the argument of "What about animals, he is acting like an animal and they are not considered evil?" Well, Feast has been with the party some time now and they have been trying to teach him not to do these types of actions. A dog for example can be trained to exhibit "good" or "bad" behavior. A dog that would attack/kill people in my opinion be classified as "evil". Because he has been with the party for some time and they have tried to "train" him to no avail he would still be "bad/evil" in my eyes. I think after a prolonged exposure & interaction with the rest of the party Feast's player can no longer claim that his character is ignorant of expectations and therefore "Chaotic Neutral".

That's just my opinion though. The problem with morality is that everybody has their own sense of it so it can be hard to comfort "group morality" to everyone's individual sense of it.

alchahest

2017-10-19, 07:04 PM

I'm just amazed that tearing apart and eating a little girl means "oh we should talk to him and educate him" instead of like ejecting him from the party at a minimum.

Dr.Samurai

2017-10-19, 07:05 PM

Honest Tiefling

2017-10-19, 07:06 PM

I'm just amazed that tearing apart and eating a little girl means "oh we should talk to him and educate him" instead of like ejecting him from the party at a minimum.

Hey, maybe they're fighting demons who kill at least 100 children a day, so keeping Feast around might have some purpose even with the collateral damage.

Also, did the OP mention Feast NOT eating the PCs, or did I miss something?

Citan

2017-10-19, 07:16 PM

Also, to answer your question, this is most definitely evil. Just because the dumb Orc doesn't know what he's doing is evil, that doesn't make it not evil. It's as Glen said, this Orc came from a place where evil is accepted. I would drop the alignment from CN to CE.
Absolutely not.
Confer PHB: "Most creatures that lack the capacity for rational thought do not have alignments - they are unaligned."
AND: "Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutraI), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral)."
Otherwise said, having alignment requires to be able to understand the concept of morality and the consequences of actions.

If Feast is presented as a creature that, although humanoid, never lived in any other way than a beast, and has no education that could help it gain superior self-awareness and rationale, it cannot be considered as "an Evil creature".

Hence the questions of others: "should a shark be considered evil because it kill to eat?" Definitely not. It has no awareness of "bad" or "good", it's not like it thinks "I don't care about killing a creature, my interest comes first", it just thinks "Must.Survive".
So, no, Feast is NOT a "creature with Evil alignment". It's unaligned.

This does not mean that its actions should be brushed off though: obviously to the view of most world characters, it would be considered as evil, because its actions are directly harmful.

This and that are different things. A character can be of Good alignment but still do bad things. Or he may do things that are legitimately "good" by all accounts in his opinion, but would certainly be regarded as bad from other creatures. Opposite and everything in-between being equally viable situation.

For example, a Paladin killing a group of Orcs that were harassing a village will certainly feel confident he "did good". But for the Orc tribe from which this band came, do you *really* think this would be viewed as good?

Another example, a Chaotic Evil Druid douses flames that threatened to extend to the village, maybe on a whim, or maybe because he planned to ask things from villagers and liked the idea of them being indebted (maybe he started it himself through conjuring a Fire Elemental, then bluffing the ignorant people in being just someone that speaks with a local weather deity to call the rain). How do you think he would be considered in that village? Yeah, that's right, "good".

The notion of "alignment" is a helper for DM and players alike to help them roleplay creatures ("how will I determine my character's course of action") and consequently determine hypothetical "by default" relationships to one another, not a judgment sword put on every creature.

That's why why have to distinguish Evil (as in alignment, the way a creature consciously drives itself between "morality shores") and evil (as in judgement made by other creatures on someone's behaviour/actions).

--------
NOW, with that said, I strongly agree with others that find the whole story a bit suspicious. I mean, if really the player roleplays as he should, his character should follow the basic survival logic: eat/sleep. And have no further interaction required.
Which seems extremely boring to me, for him first and most, but also his allies and the DM... But hey, if it's his taste and not a big problem around the table, whatever works.

HOWEVER...
If his character is using a weapon in a martial (read: trained, smart and precise) way, if he is capable of intelligible speak*, if he has normal interactions with people, and if other party members roleplay that they babysit him into developing his mind...
Then, at best (if you want to be very lenient), he will end as Chaotic Evil (as his mind develops) if he continues...
Or, at worse (what I'd say immediately), he is already Chaotic Evil, and an eminent one at that, because he is actually a smart enough Orc to have devised a tearing story to justify all his killing, and managed to convince his party of his innocence, for which I commend him. :smallbiggrin:

* This is totally a preconception of my part, I admit, but I don't see how a creature could be able of intelligent communication through language without having developed enough awareness to at least perceive when it is hurting other creatures.

Dr.Samurai

2017-10-19, 07:24 PM

I am *highly* skeptical that Feast is played as an animal with no ability to discern right from wrong.

I mean... even dogs know when they've done something wrong. And he had a village before it was destroyed. So... unless he was an infant that magically grew to adulthood without a parent, he has some idea of right and wrong. Even if he was raised by wolves he'd have some idea of right and wrong, even if it was different to what humans think.

Put Feast down, just as you would any other feral animal tearing children apart in the streets...

Gryndle

2017-10-19, 07:27 PM

yeah, basically what the OP has described is not very different from a serial killer raised in a horrible environment. Feast unquestionably commits evil acts.

Whether or not Feast is CE depends on his understanding of his actions. If he understands, then he is SOOO CE. IF he doesn't understand, he MIGHT not be evil, but that leads to other problems that might not make him acceptable as a PC. An emotionally or intellectually challenged character could be interesting if well played and in the right setting. But one so far gone as to not know that killing & eating the helpless is wrong, that is another tale altogether.

Regardless, if the other PCs aren't evil, their association with Feast sorta obligates them to put a stop to his murder and cannibalism; either by educating Feast or dealing with him in a more permanent manner. Otherwise if they continue to travel with him and accept his actions, sooner or later they become complicit.

Sigreid

2017-10-19, 07:29 PM

Feast's alignment isn't your real issue anyway. The real issue is that the player is using the character's lack of upbringing as a free pass to go full murder hobo. Full murder hobo is fine if the group and DM are game for that, but this character is going to be hell on the party with the trouble he causes. Truthfully, they'd be better off murdering him in his sleep.

gloryblaze

2017-10-19, 07:51 PM

Asmotherion

2017-10-19, 07:56 PM

That's back to front. Worry about starting Alignment, then use it as one of the five personality motivation to drive in game making of decisions for the character (aka roleplaying).

Alignment is not supposed to be determined by what happens in the game. It's supposed to be part of the persona for the character that inform what the player has them do.

Edit: one of the problems with these kinds of threads is, they are inherently bass-awkward so. We're being asked to look at actions, and determine the appropriate Alignment motivation. As opposed to look at an alignment and personality motivations, a given scenario, and say "now what actions would I likely have these motivations prompt me to have my PC do in this situation, if it were my PC".

Even my post upthread suffers from that. I'm looking at the actions and saying this behavior looks like it results from a player using the motivation of "arbritrarily violence" and "bloodthirsty"

That's a variable situation; Someone might have a very specific character concept in mind, and (as a DM) I would not like them to limit themselves from playing their character because "their alignment is not 100% representing that behaviour". I'd rather correct the alignment as the DM if I think it is needed later on, than force role play on my players.

On the other hand, if someone starts with no character concept in mind, I do value giving them a guideline through Alignment, a non-customised Backround etc. That said, I'm always happier to see something original on the table, than something I forced on the player.

Tanarii

2017-10-19, 08:02 PM

(probably the other PCs and everyone else in existent gang up on him and slaughter him on the spot, or at best capture him, give him a very brief trial, and then execute him. or, if the other PCs have been helping him do this for long enough by protecting him from the consequences, they also die at the hands of an angry mob or at the very least cannot show their faces anywhere nearby for the next hundred years or so until the last of the people traumatized by their actions finally dies off)Yeah the thing that seems to get skipped a lot in games is logical consequences.

I mean ... If a party slaughter Orc villages in the woods and burns the evidence and there were no other orcs around to miss them ... they can probably get away with it. Orcs aren't usually organized.

Similarly if Feast-like characters (or any Evil PCs) murder frontier villagers and loot (or for a Feast-like character eat) their bodies, burn the village down, and make it look like rampaging orcs did it, they might get away with it.

But if they're low level and they knife a shopkeeper for gold they should expect law and order. If they're higher level and no one can stop them and they're not concealing their activities ... well, they just became the villains / BBEG. Old Man Quest Givers are probably handing giving lower level NPC adventuring parties scrolls and healing potions and promising phat payouts for taking them out. The campaign just changed tone.

(Single party campaigns can rapidly shift from murder-hobo to villains when alignment restrictions or campaign theme aren't put in place. Especially for sandboxes. IMO for open-table multi-party sandbox campaigns, it's even more important. Either that or you're going to end up with PvP for sure, as good guy parties try to take out evil parties. Supposedly there was some of that in Gygax's campaign.)

That's a variable situation; Someone might have a very specific character concept in mind, and (as a DM) I would not like them to limit themselves from playing their character because "their alignment is not 100% representing that behaviour". I'd rather correct the alignment as the DM if I think it is needed later on, than force role play on my players.
Your response indicates backwards thinking still, your statement is impossible if behavior flows from alignment + personality. Either that or you're talking about a DM that, like me, has banned certain alignments and defined that banning as (for example) "no evil characters, defined as in my judgement behaving consistently in line with a evil alignment typical behavior."

For example, the OP's Feast would be banned at my table. Because in my judgement it is consistently behaving in line with the Chaotic Evil typical behavior. That is my house rule (using the term in the classical meaning rule of my house).

To be clear on why your statement seems backwards: there's no point in a DM changing the characters alignment, unless the player agrees and uses the new alignment behavior as a motivation going forward. In short, changing the Alignment IS (attempting to) force RP on the players.

Finieous

2017-10-19, 08:27 PM

He's either sufficiently cognitively developed that he's chaotic evil, or he's literally a wild man-eating animal. Wild man-eating animals don't go on adventures, but they usually do get put down...so he could be an adventure.

Laserlight

2017-10-19, 09:10 PM

If he's an indiscriminate murderer and cannibal, the question is not ”is he evil or nonsapient”, but ”how about you make a new character? And this time make one that can function in a group.”

Easy_Lee

2017-10-19, 09:31 PM

From a legal standpoint, ignorance of the law is not a defense. And if you study morality, you realize that it comes from practical concerns. Morality is something you can derive from thinking about how people should behave in a group. Going down from the big ones, like do not kill and do not steal, to the smaller ones, like do not harass and do not slander, morals typically make sense.

Someone who does not adhere to morals is evil.

Asmotherion

2017-10-19, 09:34 PM

Yeah the thing that seems to get skipped a lot in games is logical consequences.

I mean ... If a party slaughter Orc villages in the woods and burns the evidence and there were no other orcs around to miss them ... they can probably get away with it. Orcs aren't usually organized.

Similarly if Feast-like characters (or any Evil PCs) murder frontier villagers and loot (or for a Feast-like character eat) their bodies, burn the village down, and make it look like rampaging orcs did it, they might get away with it.

But if they're low level and they knife a shopkeeper for gold they should expect law and order. If they're higher level and no one can stop them and they're not concealing their activities ... well, they just became the villains / BBEG. Old Man Quest Givers are probably handing giving lower level NPC adventuring parties scrolls and healing potions and promising phat payouts for taking them out. The campaign just changed tone.

(Single party campaigns can rapidly shift from murder-hobo to villains when alignment restrictions or campaign theme aren't put in place. Especially for sandboxes. IMO for open-table multi-party sandbox campaigns, it's even more important. Either that or you're going to end up with PvP for sure, as good guy parties try to take out evil parties. Supposedly there was some of that in Gygax's campaign.)

Your response indicates backwards thinking still, your statement is impossible if behavior flows from alignment + personality. Either that or you're talking about a DM that, like me, has banned certain alignments and defined that banning as (for example) "no evil characters, defined as in my judgement behaving consistently in line with a evil alignment typical behavior."

For example, the OP's Feast would be banned at my table. Because in my judgement it is consistently behaving in line with the Chaotic Evil typical behavior. That is my house rule (using the term in the classical meaning rule of my house).

To be clear on why your statement seems backwards: there's no point in a DM changing the characters alignment, unless the player agrees and uses the new alignment behavior as a motivation going forward. In short, changing the Alignment IS (attempting to) force RP on the players.

Here is the differance in our approache to DMing: I would never ban any alignment on my table, just inform the player that there is no such thing on my table as "plot armor", and if he acts on a way that would get himself killed, it will. From that point on, I won't dirrectly Ban anyone from playing something, except if it ruins the fun of other players; Why would I do that? I would only do that if we were playing a specific party concept, and everyone agreed on that.

Ivor_The_Mad

2017-10-19, 09:35 PM

I don't think its "Evil" It's just morally wrong. It's neutral because he's doing it for his own good not to be evil.

Finieous

2017-10-19, 09:52 PM

From a legal standpoint, ignorance of the law is not a defense.

But both incompetence and absence of criminal responsibility due to mental defect are (in the U.S.). Not that the man-eating wild animal is likely to encounter a modern criminal justice system, unless he continues dimension-hopping.

Tanarii

2017-10-19, 09:55 PM

Here is the differance in our approache to DMing: I would never ban any alignment on my table, just inform the player that there is no such thing on my table as "plot armor", and if he acts on a way that would get himself killed, it will. From that point on, I won't dirrectly Ban anyone from playing something, except if it ruins the fun of other players; Why would I do that? I would only do that if we were playing a specific party concept, and everyone agreed on that.
That's fine. I do it because it cuts down on problems when I have an open table campaign, when I started the campaign I only knew three players out of the current twenty or so that play at least once a week, plus others that are less frequent, and I don't know who is going to be bringing which characters to the table on which days. "No evil characters" was simple.

But that doesn't change that in 5e, if you as a DM change the characters Alignment, you are telling the player how to roleplaying. Because alignment is used by the player to help make decisions about actions going forward, which is roleplaying. It's not some score-keeping system so ou as the DM can let the player know your moral and ethical opinion is of the actions they've had their PC take so far.

As a DM, the appropriate reaction to PC actions definitely is consequences. If you don't want to have to deal with certain types of in-game behavior, the second best is to let them know in advance that they shouldn't make characters that behave that way. The last option should have to be to tell them to stop doing it moving forward.

The most pointless thing to do is change their alignment to evil ... that just tells they need to be playing their character moving forward as an evil character. (Even if they were already, in your opinion.)

Easy_Lee

2017-10-19, 09:58 PM

But both incompetence and absence of criminal responsibility due to mental defect are (in the U.S.). Not that the man-eating wild animal is likely to encounter a modern criminal justice system, unless he continues dimension-hopping.

Those more affect what happens to you after conviction. Maybe you end up in a mental hospital instead of a jail. Either way, I doubt that'll fly in FR.

Finieous

2017-10-19, 10:16 PM

Those more affect what happens to you after conviction.

Nope. If you're found incompetent, you can't even be prosecuted. You can't stand trial. Absence of criminal responsibility is a defense, and if successful, the defendant will not be convicted. I agree it isn't relevant to the FR, and said so in the post you quoted, but you're the one who brought up "the legal perspective." Let's just move on...

Dr.Samurai

2017-10-19, 10:16 PM

The most pointless thing to do is change their alignment to evil ...
I disagree. But also, the alignment itself ends up being "the most pointless thing" if it's just written on a character sheet and then not followed.

Much like the "greater good" paladins that kill orphans but have Lawful Good stamped on their sheets, this guy Feast is ripping little girls apart in the street and claiming his motivations are in line with a Chaotic Neutral person.

I mean... he may as well put Potato on the line next to Alignment, no?

It's funny how in these threads there are all these characters that are "motivated" to *not* be cold-blooded murderers, but somehow they all manage to be cold-blooded murderers..... :smallamused:

...that just tells they need to be playing their character moving forward as an evil character.
It tells them "Oh, my DM thinks I'm playing someone motivated by Evil intentions or sympathies, what's that about?" It's a check. It's saying "Hey, you have this really super cool backstory about being an absolute ****, and you think that justifies your actions, but it doesn't really, so just know that what you're doing is actually EVIL, kthnx!"

Tanarii

2017-10-19, 10:43 PM

I disagree. But also, the alignment itself ends up being "the most pointless thing" if it's just written on a character sheet and then not followed.
yes. Amended statement, the two most pointless things are, in order:
- for the player to ignore their characters Alignment and constantly have their PC act like another Alignment's typical behavior.
- for the Dm to change the PC's Alignment when the player has no intention of changing their character's overall/typical behavior.

But for the first, it's important to note a player having their character go against the typical behavior of character's Alignment in favor of another personality trait for a specific circumstance or situation is 5e Alignment working as intended. That's precisely the reason Alignment behaviors are described as typical, that no creature is perfectly consistent.

Much like the "greater good" paladins that kill orphans but have Lawful Good stamped on their sheets, this guy Feast is ripping little girls apart in the street and claiming his motivations are in line with a Chaotic Neutral person.

I mean... he may as well put Potato on the line next to Alignment, no?Also agreed. But there's no point in the DM changing the characters Alignment to Chaotic Evil. What's that going to do? Absolutely nothing. The player is already (in my opinion) using that motivation. Why does the DM want to tell them they should use it moving forward? What good does that do?

I mean, the DM or other players can point out that hey, in their opinion this isn't Chaotic Neutral, it's Chaotic Evil. Or the DM can say 'this character is disruptive'. But there's no point to actually forcing it to be changed against the players will, unless your goal is to start an argument.

It's funny how in these threads there are all these characters that are "motivated" to *not* be cold-blooded murderers, but somehow they all manage to be cold-blooded murderers..... :smallamused:Yeah I find it pretty funny too. The only reason I can see people do it is because they think DMs will say no evil characters. That's one reason I make it clear how I define evil character in advance, and make it clear I don't allow them: in my judgement (ie check with me if you're not sure), and general behavior (not specific actions).

It tells them "Oh, my DM thinks I'm playing someone motivated by Evil intentions or sympathies, what's that about?" It's a check. It's saying "Hey, you have this really super cool backstory about being an absolute ****, and you think that justifies your actions, but it doesn't really, so just know that what you're doing is actually EVIL, kthnx!"You mean it makes telling them that "official" or something? Why don't you just tell them that?

Hrugner

2017-10-19, 11:20 PM

None of the creatures in the monster manual are protected from the good/evil axis simply because they aren't from a moral culture. If he's self aware enough to be a PC, then he aught to be judged on the moral path he's chosen. He sounds like an evil outsider, and spells and abilities that effect evil outsiders would probably work on him. We could go full on Officer Krupke (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7TT4jnnWys) here of course, but since we're talking about in game mechanics of morality, we should probably stick to with in game mechanics.

sir_argo

2017-10-19, 11:34 PM

I don't think Feast is a PC. He's an animal under the control of the DM. The player only has the illusion of control. Since Feast has no morality, the DM should demonstrate by having Feast attack and eat a party member the next time he gets hungry. Remember, he has no self control and does not know right from wrong. He's hungry. There's food right in front of him. Once this sinks in that Feast is not really a PC, the player can make a new character. Maybe he can play the paladin's horse next time.

Malifice

2017-10-20, 12:42 AM

He has killed several civilians and even ripped a little girl in half in order to obtain the food he desires.

Are you freaking serious?

He's very, very, very CE.

How is this even a freaking question?

Coidzor

2017-10-20, 01:05 AM

Probably doesn't, but I imagine some people, even experienced role players, getting a little annoyed at someone insisting that the guy who ate the last quest giver be allowed to have a say in what the party does and not be treated as a danger/giant hindrance.

:smallconfused:

I think you mean especially experienced role players.

Unless they're also roleplaying characters who approve of feeding random people to a crazed savage.

War_lord, it seems like the player's entire argument to remain neutral is that they are 100% acting on instinct and cannot tell right from wrong. If I am mistaken, another alignment is more valid, but from what I can tell, Feast really is on par with a tiger.

Horse Pucky. He's an orc. They're not rocket scientists, but they're not so dumb that they're actually just clever animals.

If Feast is refusing to learn right from wrong...That's a different matter entirely.

That is exactly what is going on, yes, and it's pretty darn obvious, too. Both in and out of game, for that matter.

The latter? That part I disagree with. If everyone at the table is enjoying his child-munching antics

Then we wouldn't have a thread. At least not with this OP.

It'd be more like "Is this guy evil enough for our villainous party or do we need to up the evil by having him do something even worse to people before killing them and eating them? Or should he just start eating pieces off of them while they're still alive and ask the cleric to keep them alive for as long as possible during and between feedings?"

Assuming that the thread was made with good intentions instead of to start an alignment debate while the OP is laughing at us.

Because this all smells funny to me.

OP has posted this thread and then never replied at all, after all.

lebefrei

2017-10-20, 01:38 AM

I don't entirely ban alignments in my game for good roleplayers, but you have to have a hell of a hook to play CE at my table. NPC villager-eating savage is not one. I remind my table that this is a cooperative game, and I ban the scapegoat phrase "It's what my character would do"... Somehow that's always the first answer from a bad, disruptive roleplayer.

Now, why is this character being compared to sharks? Sharks have an Int of 1. Orcs have an Int of 7+. This is an absurd comparison. Mentally disabled people aren't eating children. A shark that is hungry will bite a human. Has this hungry orc bitten any of its party members? No? I suppose that is because he knows that they benefit them, and that they have some mutual goals. He instead kills the weak and helpless, to satiate his bloodlust. Does this world lack in other raw meat? I doubt it. He's a brutal, semi-cannibalistic murderer that should be treated as such. Not only is he evil, but he's a monster. He's likely worse than many of the foes the party has faced. When a character goes that far off the rails in my games they cease to become PCs. This is a villain, and unless you're playing a villain-centric campaign he doesn't belong.

90sMusic

2017-10-20, 01:44 AM

Welcome to D&D. Players love to do evil, destructive, and disruptive actions then insist they're just playing out their character properly and not actually some other alignment that isn't allowed.

Some asshat being a "savage barbarian" and killing everyone he lays eyes on is no less disruptive or obnoxious as a hardcore paladin that will go out of his way to screw over his own party to ensure no one ever lies, steals, cheats, or any of the other things adventurers tend to do now and then. It is no different than someone acting like it is "dishonorable" to hide or sneak around, so he gives away the party's position willingly every single time to "stick to his code".

This is disruptive behavior. Doesn't matter how a player tries to weasel his way around it and try to justify or excuse it, bottom line is if it is making the other players unhappy it needs to stop. If the player is unwilling to stop, then the DM needs to put a stop to it, and if the player continues to try to be disruptive they just need to get the boot out the door.

I've seen plenty of players like this guy who tries 500 ways to justify murdering of innocent bystanders for 500 different reasons they think sounds reasonable.

Ultimately your own sense of morality doesn't matter at all because your alignment doesn't mean a damn thing in 5e unless they happen upon a talisman of ultimate evil or something along those lines. It is meaningless. The question you should be asking is "is this person disrupting the game or making other players unhappy?" and if the answer is yes then you need to deal with it.

All the debate about alignment is ultimately meaningless. Disruptive players need to be smacked down. And if the other players don't care, then it doesn't really matter which 2 letters are scribbled onto his character sheet because it changes nothing in game.

Spacehamster

2017-10-20, 02:07 AM

It turns evil as soon as his party companions tells him that it's not okay behavior and he keeps doing that when he could just buy food or hunt game animals like a normal PC.

StoicLeaf

2017-10-20, 02:12 AM

I'd break this up into two parts.
1) Which god's portfolio is he boosting?
2 What does society say about his actions?

Part 1)
For me, it's a mix of Bane (might makes right) and Karaan (cannibalism). These are both evil gods. Therefore his actions on a cosmic scale are evil, regardless of what the humans around him think.

Part 2)
Most civilisations will rate him as "evil". His own personal "how I view myself" is complete irrelevant.

Feast is a bad person. With an int of 8, he isn't dumb enough to be able to use cognitive impairment as an excuse.
This does not exclude the possibility that Feast might be an otherwise nice guy.

imanidiot

2017-10-20, 02:37 AM

The Orc is 8 feet tall

Of course he is. Yes this Orc is clearly, indisputably, Chaotic Evil. Alignment in D&D is not subjective. There are established rules of behavior. This behavior is obviously Chaotic Evil. Not only that he has displayed a complete lack of empathy so he's also a sociopath. But, that's not important.

He isn't just doing what he needs to do to get food. He's going out of his way to kill and consume sentient creatures. Even though it would be much easier for him to consume livestock and he could without a doubt afford to buy as much raw meat as he could possibly consume.

This is a cartoon monster not a player character.

imanidiot

2017-10-20, 02:42 AM

I'm just amazed that tearing apart and eating a little girl means "oh we should talk to him and educate him" instead of like ejecting him from the party at a minimum.

Summary execution at the very least.

imanidiot

2017-10-20, 02:49 AM

I don't think its "Evil" It's just morally wrong. It's neutral because he's doing it for his own good not to be evil.

"Morally wrong" is literally the exact definition of Evil. In D&D someone who harms others for their own benefit is Evil. That's what makes them Evil. Do people actually think that only people who believe "I am Evil. I must go commit some evil acts." are Evil?

They really should just get rid of alignment entirely. Almost no one understands it.

imanidiot

2017-10-20, 02:52 AM

Are you freaking serious?

He's very, very, very CE.

How is this even a freaking question?

How is this seemingly a question every day? If you have to ask if your character is Evil, then Yeah it probably is. Just put CE on your character sheet and move on.

Spacehamster

2017-10-20, 03:20 AM

Would be funny if the party attempted to better him by smacking him with a rolled up newspaper going "That's a bad Orc, baaaaad Orc! We don't eat little girls! Baaaaad!". 😂

oxybe

2017-10-20, 03:22 AM

Is a tiger evil for eating a human, or is evil just the views of what society dislikes and will not tolerate?

<argument about D&D black and white alignment ensues>

A tiger would not go out of it's way to kill a human if it knows an easier source of food exists in the area and the human is not particularly threatening it's domain, especially if that tiger has human-like average or slightly below average brainpower, which makes it smart enough to understand that the locals do not appreciate you indiscriminately eating their young when a butcher exists explicitly to provide meat and the society may return your killing their future generations by taking advantage of your liver, kidney & heart's deadly allergy to repeated swording, arrowing and hanging.

If you're going "gee i'm hungry" and just indiscriminately tear up the first toddler you see instead of waiting a few minutes and going for a big mac just a little bit further down the road, yes you're evil. This is not a life or death survival situation, you actively knew there were other sources of food that are just as easy to obtain and won't be missed.

You explicitly went out of your way to cause harm to another intelligent creature. That's textbook D&D evil.

Here is how the conversation will go in-universe

"This portal hopping Orc is just misundersood!"

"No, he's wrist-deep into little Becky Finnegan's stomach and trying to find a juicy liver. Although experienced in pan-dimensional traveling, he didn't try to acclimate himself to our society or try to get a feel for how we work before doing his thing. He went strait for the Toddler Tenders... look, he's even bringing out the breadcrumbs!

He is clearly dangerous and doesn't care for local customs: we will insert sword until he stops moving then find and block off whatever portal he was spat from on the off-chance more come out. We cannot afford a Welcome to Urth study buddy session when that means it'll cost us another kid because the Orcs are special and need our.... aaaaaand now Donny McGuffin is being stuffed into an oven."

Hyde

2017-10-20, 03:23 AM

Where this debate exists is ultimately the purview of the DM. The root question you have to ask yourself is "How do the governing forces of my world operate?" The default assumption tends to be that good and evil are absolutes, and certain actions are, without question or qualification, good or evil.

Historically, all deities of murder have been evil. The game assumes that you're killing "evil" races, such as goblins and orcs, so on and so forth. As a being that murders other clearly sentient creatures (You would need some near-nonexistent mental scores to not be able to differentiate sentient creatures from animals, regardless of upbringing and environment), regardless of motivation, the orc is evil.

If you want your universe to run on "moral relativism" where you could even begin to make the argument, you would then have to answer for yourself what alignment even is in such a world- Is it just an abstract of how society would view the creature in question(still evil)? Is it the codification of a higher power that isn't concerned with absolutes? What does alignment mean in this world? You, the DM, has to decide.

Anonymouswizard

2017-10-20, 04:06 AM

Yes, these actions are evil. They are also disruptive, and there is a major difference between the two, as has been pointed out.

To compare it with a theoretical character, let's take the vengeance freak. The vengeance freak's [family member] was [horrible thing]ed by [group of people] who are now all over the world, and VF wants to hunt them down and make them pay for what they did. So every time the party enters a city or town VF tries to discover if any members of [group who did thing] are in the area and if so he sneaks out at night, kills them, skins their corpse, and burns the skin. VF is pretty solidly evil (probably Neutral Evil, but I can see a good argument for Chaotic Evil), the fact he has a reason for his behaviour doesn't stop it.

Now unlike VF, who probably has good stealth skills and the ability to get out of a sealed area, Orcy McMurder sounds like a pretty standard barbarian. That means Orcy can at least theoretically be contained, and it would be even easier to do so if you can make a convincing argument for unaligned. If you want to do it in a good way you put him in a large enclosed area and every day put meat in for him to eat, make sure there's no ability to climb over the walls with convenient trees, and let him live out his life relatively happy. If you want to be evil about it you stick him in a cell and occasionally throw in a live sheep. I'll agree that the safest solution is a knife to the back of the neck, but not taking the safest solution won't ding the alignments of the people trying to contain him.

Therefore, I'd argue that if the rest of the party doesn't attempt to contain him they start looking neutral rather than good. Not definitively, but enough to make the BNGG (Big Nice Good Guys) dislike them.

Lombra

2017-10-20, 04:17 AM

I just don't get why people worry about alignment really. As if every possible personality can be rpunded down in 8 categories.

Citan

2017-10-20, 04:54 AM

Unoriginal

2017-10-20, 06:06 AM

To OP: That Orc is Evil as **** and will probably be killed pretty quickly if he tries this in a civilized area.

The only exception to this I can think of are the basic corporal undead, who could be considered unaligned but are evil because they're animated by inherently evil forces.

Actually, no, even the dumbest basic corporal undead is smart enough they cannot be considered unaligned.

They're evil spirits who know they are malevolent, omnicidal beings, and who gleefully and knowingly kill and maim all what is living giving the chance.

For example, a Paladin killing a group of Orcs that were harassing a village will certainly feel confident he "did good". But for the Orc tribe from which this band came, do you *really* think this would be viewed as good?

Actually the orc tribe would probably find it funny how a group of weaklings got killed by a superior opponent, although they would also be a bit pissed they didn't get loot from the group's sadistic rampage.

NOW, with that said, I strongly agree with others that find the whole story a bit suspicious. I mean, if really the player roleplays as he should, his character should follow the basic survival logic: eat/sleep. And have no further interaction required.
Which seems extremely boring to me, for him first and most, but also his allies and the DM... But hey, if it's his taste and not a big problem around the table, whatever works.

HOWEVER...
If his character is using a weapon in a martial (read: trained, smart and precise) way, if he is capable of intelligible speak*, if he has normal interactions with people, and if other party members roleplay that they babysit him into developing his mind...
Then, at best (if you want to be very lenient), he will end as Chaotic Evil (as his mind develops) if he continues...
Or, at worse (what I'd say immediately), he is already Chaotic Evil, and an eminent one at that, because he is actually a smart enough Orc to have devised a tearing story to justify all his killing, and managed to convince his party of his innocence, for which I commend him. :smallbiggrin:

* This is totally a preconception of my part, I admit, but I don't see how a creature could be able of intelligent communication through language without having developed enough awareness to at least perceive when it is hurting other creatures.

That Feast guy is basically a serial killer.

Send the team from Criminal Minds after him.

the_brazenburn

2017-10-20, 06:46 AM

He's pretty clearly CE. Killing and eating a child for no reason other than hunger is absolutely an evil act if there is some understanding of a conventional way to get food (i.e. buying it). If, on the other hand, he's just never understood how any part if civilization works and acts only because he is too stupid to grasp any sort of morality, then he's unaligned and you should have a talk with the player.

smcmike

2017-10-20, 07:17 AM

He has reskinned a Gnoll. You are letting a player play a Gnoll. Gnolls are chaotic evil monsters. Don’t let players play Gnolls.

D.U.P.A.

2017-10-20, 07:21 AM

Unaligned PC is even worse than chaotic evil. At least chaotic evil has some personality and some reason behind the acts. Unaligned go for instinct, basically have no free will, at least from player's perspective. Some creatures are not for roleplaying, like beasts, undead minions, constructs, etc. since they cannot really make choices, which is a point for roleplaying. If you like controlling such creatures, go DMing instead.

Dr.Samurai

2017-10-20, 07:29 AM

But for the first, it's important to note a player having their character go against the typical behavior of character's Alignment in favor of another personality trait for a specific circumstance or situation is 5e Alignment working as intended. That's precisely the reason Alignment behaviors are described as typical, that no creature is perfectly consistent.
Sure. I agree with that. Truthfully, these conversations with you have made me realize the utility of this system.

I think we disagree on what part a DM plays in all this.

Also agreed. But there's no point in the DM changing the characters Alignment to Chaotic Evil. What's that going to do? Absolutely nothing. The player is already (in my opinion) using that motivation. Why does the DM want to tell them they should use it moving forward? What good does that do?

I mean, the DM or other players can point out that hey, in their opinion this isn't Chaotic Neutral, it's Chaotic Evil. Or the DM can say 'this character is disruptive'. But there's no point to actually forcing it to be changed against the players will, unless your goal is to start an argument.
Ok, so you don't force an alignment change on paper. But when the party triggers a trap that only hurts Evil people, Feast gets zapped. When they realize how the trap works, Feast's player throws a fit, saying that he is CN, not CE. Now what?

What's your take on a discrepancy like in the OP, where some of the group think the alignment is one way, and others think it isn't. Especially the DM, what's your take on a difference of opinion on this between the player and the DM?

Yeah I find it pretty funny too. The only reason I can see people do it is because they think DMs will say no evil characters. That's one reason I make it clear how I define evil character in advance, and make it clear I don't allow them: in my judgement (ie check with me if you're not sure), and general behavior (not specific actions).
But note the difference between someone doing evil things, and someone being motivated by evil inclinations/sympathies.

When I'm applying to a PBP game, and in the Big 16 it says "no evil characters please", the DM isn't saying "I don't want your character to be motivated by an evil alignment", he is saying "I don't want a PC that is going to be cruel, traitorous, murderous, etc."

It's the *actions*, not the *motivations* that are important here.

You mean it makes telling them that "official" or something? Why don't you just tell them that?
I mean... why put any alignment down if it isn't "official"? It sounds like they did tell Feast's player that and he is disagreeing with them. The DM is an arbiter, no? I mean... there are things in the game that interact with you based on your Alignment. And I think this is where we disagree. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that you would say only the player determines what their alignment is. Whereas I would say if the PC's actions deviate enough from their written alignment, the DM can determine the alignment is different.

2D8HP

2017-10-20, 07:44 AM

I've only skimmed this thread, so sorry if I'm just repeating someone else.

Feast McOrky is either Evil or a wild animal, and the other PC's are guilty at the very least of "ends-justify-the-means" evil by not stopping it's behavior.

What to do about it?

Depending on what kind of game it is (Toon/Paranoia like wackiness? World of Darkness like angst?), don't bother changing the "Alignment" entry on anyone's character sheet (since that's just a historical artifact of what the players original image of their PC but otherwise is meaningless), instead take a page out of Gygax's playbook (http://themagictreerpg.blogspot.com/2008/09/history-of-alignment-in-d-part-i.html?m=1) and apply game effects for being Evil on all the PC's.

Ant-Evil amulets?

They burn.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/iefsdoqwe3dsqwlcpkqwpsd03l969.png

Anonymouswizard

2017-10-20, 07:51 AM

I just don't get why people worry about alignment really. As if every possible personality can be rpunded down in 8 categories.

Short answer? Because holy cows.

Medium answer? Because some people have got used to it as either a roleplaying aid or part of a game setting. This works fine as long as alignment is kept loose.

Long answer? Because alignment means multiple things. It is normally used as a roleplaying aid, even though in 5e it is less of a useful one than Ideals. However some settings or systems use it to represent where characters stand in the great universal conflict, in which case it is normally a single axis law-chaos system. In Lamentations of the Flame Princess all Clerics are Lawful and all Magic-Users are Chaotic, which allows us to know that supportive and destructive magic come from two separate sources. This allows us to know that there is a universal conflict between law and chaos, but that they aren't actually at war (as Clerics can adventure with Magic Users), or that PC's sponsors are at least from more moderate factions. Alignment works if used as a 'what supernatural faction are you allied with' rather than a description of personality.

Plus ten categories. Nine 'aligned' categories and Unaligned.

Avigor

2017-10-20, 10:41 AM

Recently I’ve brought a group of new players into the D&D world and have, as of last week, made the official jump into the fifth edition. One of my new players is a full blooded Orc Barbarian who was pulled from a parallel universe into our own. His name is Feast and before his unintentional dimensional travel he lived a simple life of hunting and foraging in the woods he called home. He killed and ate whatever he could in order to survive and has never known any sort of community as his village was destroyed when he was very young.
I pose the title question: “Is it REALLY evil?” because I have recently confronted a mental hurdle that I’m unsure how to approach. You see, Feast kills indiscriminately as he sees fit in order to obtain food. The Orc is 8 feet tall and has quite a gut so is often hungry. His favorite food? Raw meat. He has killed several civilians and even ripped a little girl in half in order to obtain the food he desires (the latter situation has more variables that make it a somewhat confusing argument. I have details if they are desired).
Now, normally it would be NO QUESTION if those actions were “evil” because of the heartlessness a person would have to possess in order to conceive of that in the first place. However, because of his 100% feral background can these actions be considered evil enough to change Feast’s alignment from Chaotic Neutral to some form of Evil? Some in my group say yes, but Feast’s player insists that Feast is only doing what he has done his entire life. Feast isn’t preforming these actions out of malice or spite or any form of negative emotion. He merely is VERY dumb and a total savage who has never know another sentient creature.
So, I pose the question to the D&D community: should Feast be forced to change his alignment to some level of Evil? Or is his otherworldly ignorance enough to keep him within the grey area of Chaotic neutrality?
Talk it up, argue if you must, I want to hear literally everything that anyone has to say on his matter. My group and I are very curious to hear more experienced opinions.

P.S.
This is not my first time DMing, but his is my first time that I’ve ever been faced with this quandary.

To me, this sounds like the character isn't learning. Yes, he's always just eaten whatever he could get his hands on and didn't really understand the difference between sentient and non-sentient meat at character generation, but once he joined the party he should've started learning that (at least hunting innocent) humanoid meat is off-limits, and not just as a rule imposed by the party but by seeing people's reaction to the deaths of loved ones and such and realizing that death hurts people in ways that it doesn't hurt animals.

Assuming there weren't any potential tipping points earlier on and depending on the circumstances, that little girl situation would have been the tipping point for me if I was DM'ing here: I'd have talked to the player about it, maybe even given him an intense dream for an in-character RP trigger if he wanted one (whether divinely inspired or just his own subconscious), and basically laid down an ultimatum to stop killing innocent humanoids for food or become evil and either become an NPC or deal with intraparty conflict, his choice. Cannibalism of evil humanoids would've been a different issue I'd let him hash out with the party, but hunting innocents for food I'd have already stomped my foot down on.

Mikal

2017-10-20, 10:50 AM

If this Orc is capable of telling right from wrong, and this Orc has been shown that it is considered wrong to eat sentient beings in the society he is currently in, yet continues to do so because he wants to, he should be considered Evil.

If this Orc can't tell right from wrong after being shown examples and reasons. He's a sociopath, and yes, should be considered Evil.

If this Orc can tell right from wrong, and chooses not to eat sentient beings after it's explained to him, then he isn't Evil.

Tanarii

2017-10-20, 11:31 AM

Ok, so you don't force an alignment change on paper. But when the party triggers a trap that only hurts Evil people, Feast gets zapped. When they realize how the trap works, Feast's player throws a fit, saying that he is CN, not CE. Now what?If a DM is designing traps like that in 5e, he's not understood the purpose of Alignment.

What's your take on a discrepancy like in the OP, where some of the group think the alignment is one way, and others think it isn't. Especially the DM, what's your take on a difference of opinion on this between the player and the DM?My take is it doesn't matter. Why do the other players and DM care if the PC is evil or not evil in the player mind and on paper. What matters is their characters, and NPcs, reactions to the PCs actions. Action are what matters, not the PCs alignment.

Now if you're like me as a DM, and you find certain categories of actions objectionable, you can ask players not to bring them to the table. And that can be as simple as 'nothing that regularly matches an evil behavior description'.

But note the difference between someone doing evil things, and someone being motivated by evil inclinations/sympathies.No. There is a difference between doing things that have consequences (ie in game actions), the Pcs in game beliefs, and the player using an evil alignment as one of five motivations to roleplay the character they want to play.

"Evil" actions is a concept that needs to be tossed in the trash heap of bad interpretations of Alignment with the 5e approach. Alignment is about overall moral social attitude, which tends to result in typical behaviors. Individual actions do not carry Alignment-level morality.

When I'm applying to a PBP game, and in the Big 16 it says "no evil characters please", the DM isn't saying "I don't want your character to be motivated by an evil alignment",Yes he is, unless he defines it more specifically. That's why I did. I agree with you in the Dm's likely intent however, because ...

It's the *actions*, not the *motivations* that are important here.The actions stem from the motivations being used to roleplay. The DM is attempting to cut them off with an appeal to the root, at the character motivations level.

(Remember, I'm talking about player's motivations to make decisions for the PC. Not the PC's motivations. Those are two different things. Think of them as subconscious motivations (player motivations for character) and conscious motivations (pc's intent) if that helps.)

I mean... why put any alignment down if it isn't "official"?The player 'puts it down' for the same reason he 'puts down' Personality traits, Ideal, a Bond and Flaw. So he can reference it as needed before playing a session, to get back into that particular character. If you're only playing one PC and play several times a week, you might be able to keep it all memorized. But with multiple PCs or time in between sessions, a refresher is always nice.

It sounds like they did tell Feast's player that and he is disagreeing with them. The DM is an arbiter, no? I mean... there are things in the game that interact with you based on your Alignment. And I think this is where we disagree. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that you would say only the player determines what their alignment is. Whereas I would say if the PC's actions deviate enough from their written alignment, the DM can determine the alignment is different.Thats because they tried to tell the player what his Alignment is. They made a mistake. They objected to the player's motivations for the PC.

Yes, those are the player's decision. They should have objected to the results. Who cares if the Player thinks the character is CN when the table thinks it's CE. What matters is the actions at the table. Are they disruptive? Does this character's actions or likely actions raise objections or even hostile action from the other PCs and or players? Is it not going to fit campaign tone of 'heroes', 'murderheroes', 'murderhobos', 'villains' etc.

That's the problem. What the player thinks his alignment is isn't a problem at all. Trying to 'correct' a player on their alignment is a mistake, plain and simple.

(Edit: But also yes, the DM can set table rules for allowable player motivations at his table, to stop likely resulting actions. But if you object to it as 'that action is evil' you're going to cause an argument, because you're trying to tell them how to play their character. Explain the problem is the actions, and why, not the alignment itself. If you ban alignments, define what you mean by that.)

Short answer? Because holy cows.

Medium answer? Because some people have got used to it as either a roleplaying aid or part of a game setting. This works fine as long as alignment is kept loose.

Long answer? Because alignment means multiple things. It is normally used as a roleplaying aid, even though in 5e it is less of a useful one than Ideals. Good summary. Especially that last one. Everyone always tries to focus on Alignment, but I consider it the least important trait, even though it's the most often in play. As in ... it's the baseline way the character behaves when nothing else is going on. The other personality traits always take precedence for me, if both are in place. Alignment behavior is the fallback when it applies, and nothing else applies.

MadBear

2017-10-20, 01:07 PM

Well:

Most creatures that lack the capacity for rational thought do not have alignments - they are unaligned. Such a creature is incapable of making a moral or ethical choice and acts according to its bestial nature. Sharks are savage predators, for example, but they are not evil; they have no alignment.

Does this character lack the capacity for rational thought? If so, he's unaligned.

If he is capable of making moral choices? If so, then what he's doing is evil, the moment he learns that his actions are cruelly unnecessarily harming other sentient creatures. If not, how is he a PC at all?

I'd also wonder why the Player wants to make a character that rips children in half and eats them. I mean, you're describing how a feral creature might act, but why would they want to play that character? I mean, that character might not be aware of how evil it is, but the player sure does.

GlenSmash!

2017-10-20, 01:40 PM

I'd also wonder why the Player wants to make a character that rips children in half and eats them. I mean, you're describing how a feral creature might act, but why would they want to play that character? I mean, that character might not be aware of how evil it is, but the player sure does.

I wonder this too. if a player wanted to make this character, and I said "wow that's Evil" and they said "I know, it will be really different for me to paly" I'd roll with it.

But if I said "wow that's Evil" and they said "No it's Not! That's all he knows so that makes it neutral!" I'd really be questioning whether or not I wanted to play with that player. I wouldn't want to deal with the sociopathy of the character (and possibly player).

Tanarii

2017-10-20, 02:03 PM

Assuming that the thread was made with good intentions instead of to start an alignment debate while the OP is laughing at us.

OP has posted this thread and then never replied at all, after all.

I'd also wonder why the Player wants to make a character that rips children in half and eats them. I mean, you're describing how a feral creature might act, but why would they want to play that character? I mean, that character might not be aware of how evil it is, but the player sure does.

I wonder this too.I generally assume first and only posts of a perfect straw man argument by a brand new account are designed to start a debate, not be an actual game table experience looking for real feedback.

After all, this is a perfect example to highlight the flip-side: If the PCs slaughter Orc children out of hand, but they have "good" reason, is it still evil? But taken to an extreme.

I mean, it might be an actual request for feedback, but it seems unlikely, given how often it happens.

GlenSmash!

2017-10-20, 02:08 PM

I generally assume first and only posts of a perfect straw man argument by a brand new account are designed to start a debate, not be an actual game table experience looking for real feedback.
I think you are very likely right.

After all, this is a perfect example to highlight the flip-side: If the PCs slaughter Orc children out of hand, but they have "good" reason, is it still evil?
I think so.

I mean, it might be an actual request for feedback, but it seems unlikely, given how often it happens.

A very good point.

Tanarii

2017-10-20, 02:23 PM

I think so.
Which is why Gygaxian Naturalism campaigns are problematic for 'just fun' play, and modern modules and video games almost never include them.

I adapt old adventures and material a lot. I usually just strip out children / whelps. But I left them in for a new one party campaign I've started out with Keep on the Borderlands. Before the party went into the caves, I explicitly asked them their policy on kids, since they were supposedly all Good except the wizard (neutral). The Taraladan wizard's player sighed, and said in his best pseudo-eastern European accent "I give them ONE round to run! This is very generous, yes?" So I just had the whelps all run for it in every encounter with them except one.

That one, the wizard had learned fireball, and they'd cornered the bugbears. They got a renegade bugbear with them to negotiate the kids coming out first, so the teenage whelps come out all boisterous ... then shut up when they see the Pcs waiting there weapons out. Then wizard fireballed the entire 'home' cave with the adults in it.

If I wanted a morally-judgmental game, I could tell the 'good' Pcs that fireballing trapped bugbears in their own cave is clearly evil, and now they have to change their alignments to match my judgement, or some BS like that. I don't want that kind of game. I just don't want them to run around slaughtering NPCs and eating them. And the 'let the humanoid kids go first' thing with the bugbears actually established the game flavor as classic murderhero.

smcmike

2017-10-20, 02:34 PM

Funnily enough, the players at my table who generally want to kill all evil races in sight usually do it as Good-aligned characters - they seem to play Good as genocidal crusaders, eliminating evil. It’s the Neutral and Evil characters who usually stop them, out of lack of commitment to their ideology.

One time we wiped out an Orc encampment somewhere in the underdark, leaving the women and children alive after some debate. Naturally, the DM decided that a tribe of unprotected women and children in the underdark wouldn’t last long, so when we came back that way we found their horribly mangled remains. This did not strike me as a good or fun plot point.

Tanarii

2017-10-20, 02:51 PM

One time we wiped out an Orc encampment somewhere in the underdark, leaving the women and children alive after some debate. Naturally, the DM decided that a tribe of unprotected women and children in the underdark wouldn’t last long, so when we came back that way we found their horribly mangled remains. This did not strike me as a good or fun plot point.This is why when the PCs wiped out most of the adults in the Hobgoblin and Goblin caves, I had those remaining flee in the night with the whelps, before the Pcs ever encountered them. The first Orc cave the Pcs did encounter whelps, who they let flee and went to the second Orc cave, and the Orcs sent them away with their own whelps that night, so there are none in that cave any more. Only the Bugbears and Gnolls had any left, and the Bugbear renegade took those in hand and left the area. (The PCs turned the Kobolds into allies, which is not the first group I've had do that.)

GlenSmash!

2017-10-20, 02:56 PM

Which is why Gygaxian Naturalism campaigns are problematic for 'just fun' play, and modern modules and video games almost never include them.

I adapt old adventures and material a lot. I usually just strip out children / whelps. But I left them in for a new one party campaign I've started out with Keep on the Borderlands. Before the party went into the caves, I explicitly asked them their policy on kids, since they were supposedly all Good except the wizard (neutral). The Taraladan wizard's player sighed, and said in his best pseudo-eastern European accent "I give them ONE round to run! This is very generous, yes?" So I just had the whelps all run for it in every encounter with them except one.

That one, the wizard had learned fireball, and they'd cornered the bugbears. They got a renegade bugbear with them to negotiate the kids coming out first, so the teenage whelps come out all boisterous ... then shut up when they see the Pcs waiting there weapons out. Then wizard fireballed the entire 'home' cave with the adults in it.

If I wanted a morally-judgmental game, I could tell the 'good' Pcs that fireballing trapped bugbears in their own cave is clearly evil, and now they have to change their alignments to match my judgement, or some BS like that. I don't want that kind of game. I just don't want them to run around slaughtering NPCs and eating them. And the 'let the humanoid kids go first' thing with the bugbears actually established the game flavor as classic murderhero.

Yep. I tend to talk about this thing in my sessions zeroes. We've never really played that kind of moral quandary game, and we may never. The Orcs and Goblins we encounter are more "bandits" than "homesteaders" for this very reason.

We did have a quandary when our monk chose to do non-lethal damage and knocked out a city thug in Phandalin. But it was more of a Lawful vs Chaos thing when our Paladin wanted to turn him over to the city guard (who were widely corrupt) and our Spy Fighter wanted to let him go on the promise he would never do anything again. Ultimately they left him in the care of a local church, which both sides found agreeable.

I was forced to admit it would have been much *easier* to just kill him. Maybe that's the true lure of evil, how easy it it.

Still my games rarely have children, and I've never had them be children of "the enemy".

Tanarii

2017-10-20, 03:03 PM

I was forced to admit it would have been much *easier* to just kill him. Maybe that's the true lure of evil, how easy it it.
Checks out.

Certainly Star Wars, the lure of the Dark Side (ie cartoonish evil) is easy to access raw power, but ultimately in the end it's not as something something. (In d20 Star Wars the Dark Side was more powerful early on, and the Light Side more powerful later. And the Dark Side was ultimately corrupting to boot.)

kyoryu

2017-10-20, 03:10 PM

I wonder this too. if a player wanted to make this character, and I said "wow that's Evil" and they said "I know, it will be really different for me to paly" I'd roll with it.

But if I said "wow that's Evil" and they said "No it's Not! That's all he knows so that makes it neutral!" I'd really be questioning whether or not I wanted to play with that player. I wouldn't want to deal with the sociopathy of the character (and possibly player).

Yes, this.

The backstory seems to be more of an excuse to be, basically, chaotic nuts and bypass a restriction on evil characters than anything.

If you don't want characters in your game that rip little girls in half, just say so directly.

Temperjoke

2017-10-20, 04:20 PM

He has reskinned a Gnoll. You are letting a player play a Gnoll. Gnolls are chaotic evil monsters. Don’t let players play Gnolls.

I agree. Time to take Lennie down to the river, and tell him about the bunnies as you put him down.

This player is doing this deliberately to create problems, and it's telling if the rest of your group is not having problems with this character.

I was forced to admit it would have been much *easier* to just kill him. Maybe that's the true lure of evil, how easy it it.

The path to murderhobo-ism is usually faster and easier than other options, assuming the DM doesn't change things to react to it.

GlenSmash!

2017-10-20, 04:33 PM

The path to murderhobo-ism is usually faster and easier than other options, assuming the DM doesn't change things to react to it.

To clarify, i don't mean easier for the characters, I meant easier/quicker for the people at the Table. It's just easier in the Metagame.

Temperjoke

2017-10-20, 04:55 PM

To clarify, i don't mean easier for the characters, I meant easier/quicker for the people at the Table. It's just easier in the Metagame.

I know, that's what I was referring to! :smallbiggrin:

Tanarii

2017-10-20, 05:21 PM

Yeah.

Dealing with Gygaxian Naturalism, encumberance, logistics (rations, torches, ammunition), lack of consequences for in-game actions ... these are the ways that lead to combat-as-sport murderhobo-ism. Be wary newcomer, for your first forays into RPGs have almost certainly been shaped by video game designers or DMs who hand you instant gratification on a plate, and you already have your feet on the first steps of that dark path ...

Something something GROG NARD

2D8HP

2017-10-20, 05:53 PM

...Something something GROG NARD

Well I, for one, would not have used bluetext!

Tanarii

2017-10-20, 05:56 PM

Well I, for one, would not have used bluetext!
Eh, some comments in the past aside, I don't really judge others for not playing a combat as war logistics campaign. So the blue text is poking fun at myself. :smallwink: It's just easy to get on your high horse about a style of play when it's what you're really excited about. Or really used to.

Like 5e Alignment being all about being a player roleplaying tool, and not a scorekeeping system for the DM to tell you what his judgement of your actions are. :smallbiggrin:

ZorroGames

2017-10-20, 08:16 PM

Recently I’ve brought a group of new players into the D&D world and have, as of last week, made the official jump into the fifth edition. One of my new players is a full blooded Orc Barbarian who was pulled from a parallel universe into our own. His name is Feast and before his unintentional dimensional travel he lived a simple life of hunting and foraging in the woods he called home. He killed and ate whatever he could in order to survive and has never known any sort of community as his village was destroyed when he was very young.
I pose the title question: “Is it REALLY evil?” because I have recently confronted a mental hurdle that I’m unsure how to approach. You see, Feast kills indiscriminately as he sees fit in order to obtain food. The Orc is 8 feet tall and has quite a gut so is often hungry. His favorite food? Raw meat. He has killed several civilians and even ripped a little girl in half in order to obtain the food he desires (the latter situation has more variables that make it a somewhat confusing argument. I have details if they are desired).
Now, normally it would be NO QUESTION if those actions were “evil” because of the heartlessness a person would have to possess in order to conceive of that in the first place. However, because of his 100% feral background can these actions be considered evil enough to change Feast’s alignment from Chaotic Neutral to some form of Evil? Some in my group say yes, but Feast’s player insists that Feast is only doing what he has done his entire life. Feast isn’t preforming these actions out of malice or spite or any form of negative emotion. He merely is VERY dumb and a total savage who has never know another sentient creature.
So, I pose the question to the D&D community: should Feast be forced to change his alignment to some level of Evil? Or is his otherworldly ignorance enough to keep him within the grey area of Chaotic neutrality?
Talk it up, argue if you must, I want to hear literally everything that anyone has to say on his matter. My group and I are very curious to hear more experienced opinions.

P.S.
This is not my first time DMing, but his is my first time that I’ve ever been faced with this quandary.

One word answer to your op title.

Yes!

Two words.

Hell Yes!

The NPC powers that should be hiring adventurers (hint, hint) to bring in the “monster’s head” for reward. Or sending high level professionals to sanction him.

Ronnocius

2017-10-21, 10:55 PM

Recently I’ve brought a group of new players into the D&D world and have, as of last week, made the official jump into the fifth edition. One of my new players is a full blooded Orc Barbarian who was pulled from a parallel universe into our own. His name is Feast and before his unintentional dimensional travel he lived a simple life of hunting and foraging in the woods he called home. He killed and ate whatever he could in order to survive and has never known any sort of community as his village was destroyed when he was very young.
I pose the title question: “Is it REALLY evil?” because I have recently confronted a mental hurdle that I’m unsure how to approach. You see, Feast kills indiscriminately as he sees fit in order to obtain food. The Orc is 8 feet tall and has quite a gut so is often hungry. His favorite food? Raw meat. He has killed several civilians and even ripped a little girl in half in order to obtain the food he desires (the latter situation has more variables that make it a somewhat confusing argument. I have details if they are desired).
Now, normally it would be NO QUESTION if those actions were “evil” because of the heartlessness a person would have to possess in order to conceive of that in the first place. However, because of his 100% feral background can these actions be considered evil enough to change Feast’s alignment from Chaotic Neutral to some form of Evil? Some in my group say yes, but Feast’s player insists that Feast is only doing what he has done his entire life. Feast isn’t preforming these actions out of malice or spite or any form of negative emotion. He merely is VERY dumb and a total savage who has never know another sentient creature.
So, I pose the question to the D&D community: should Feast be forced to change his alignment to some level of Evil? Or is his otherworldly ignorance enough to keep him within the grey area of Chaotic neutrality?
Talk it up, argue if you must, I want to hear literally everything that anyone has to say on his matter. My group and I are very curious to hear more experienced opinions.

P.S.
This is not my first time DMing, but his is my first time that I’ve ever been faced with this quandary.

Yes, Feast is evil. It is an evil act to kill intelligent sentient beings who have done no harm, even if it is for food. Since he has done this multiple times, he should obviously change his alignment. If his character is only based on the hunt for food, he is probably unaligned.

Dr.Samurai

2017-10-22, 12:23 AM

If a DM is designing traps like that in 5e, he's not understood the purpose of Alignment.
I think you're overstating your case here, if I'm understanding your implication correctly.

Yes, alignment is one motivation of several that you can use when making PC choices. But it's not only that. We know this because there are mechanics in the game that interact with you based on your alignment.

So no, I don't think the trap is a misunderstanding.

My take is it doesn't matter. Why do the other players and DM care if the PC is evil or not evil in the player mind and on paper. What matters is their characters, and NPcs, reactions to the PCs actions. Action are what matters, not the PCs alignment.
Because the game itself cares what your alignment is. Why write down an alignment if it doesn't fit the character? There are items in the game that care. There are spells in the game that care (see Curse of Strahd). So yes, of course people might care that the alignment on the sheet matches the alignment being played.

Actions do matter. So does the alignment.

No. There is a difference between doing things that have consequences (ie in game actions), the Pcs in game beliefs, and the player using an evil alignment as one of five motivations to roleplay the character they want to play.

"Evil" actions is a concept that needs to be tossed in the trash heap of bad interpretations of Alignment with the 5e approach. Alignment is about overall moral social attitude, which tends to result in typical behaviors. Individual actions do not carry Alignment-level morality.
I don't agree with you, but I also don't think you're really disagreeing with my point. At least, not with these two statements. So, even if I pretend we're not talking about D&D and avoid using the term "evil action", my point still stands.

Yes he is, unless he defines it more specifically. That's why I did. I agree with you in the Dm's likely intent however, because ...

The actions stem from the motivations being used to roleplay. The DM is attempting to cut them off with an appeal to the root, at the character motivations level.
You keep arguing that point...

Tanarii, the actions are not stemming from the motivations in the OP's example. They usually aren't in these threads. I feel like I'm arguing about how games go down at an actual table, and you're arguing from a theoretical parallel universe where everyone plays exactly as they are supposed to play according to the PHB.

The neverending alignment threads that spring up on this forum should indicate to you that there are many tables out there where actions do not align with the "motivations" written on the character sheet. When a DM says "no evil", the DM is referring to actions. Because players will find any way to justify all sorts of evil stuff in the game. He's saying "don't even think about doing x,y,z" as opposed to saying "please make sure your intentions are pure of heart".

When a DM says "you can be evil, but no PVP" or "... but no chaotic stupid" they are clamping down on actions, not motivations. They are avoiding disruptive actions, not preventing in-game thought crimes.

The player 'puts it down' for the same reason he 'puts down' Personality traits, Ideal, a Bond and Flaw. So he can reference it as needed before playing a session, to get back into that particular character. If you're only playing one PC and play several times a week, you might be able to keep it all memorized. But with multiple PCs or time in between sessions, a refresher is always nice.
I understand that part of it. How is it a refresher if you don't abide by it? And if it doesn't matter whether you abide by it or not, and you don't, why put it down?

I will tell you the reason you put down "lawful good" on your character sheet. It's because you are coming to the table with a character that will act in a lawful good way. Not always. Not 90% of the time. But in general. But if you don't... then you have put that alignment down for no reason. If you're CN, but you're slaughtering any townsfolk you see when you're hungry, even though you know better, then it doesn't matter that you wrote CN on your sheet, because you're simply not checking that part of your "motivation". But then when you come across a Talisman, well then it does matter, but now we have to come up against the fact that your alignment on the sheet is one thing, but in your actions it's another.

Thats because they tried to tell the player what his Alignment is. They made a mistake. They objected to the player's motivations for the PC.

It's not a mistake. It's objective observation. "Hey, you say you're motivated by X but your actions align with Y."

If I claim to be Lawful Good, and then I play a sociopath with no regard for order, stability, law, human life and dignity, etc... I can't take umbrage if someone calls me out on it, because I'd be getting offended that other people know what words mean and don't like people misusing them.

Yes, those are the player's decision. They should have objected to the results. Who cares if the Player thinks the character is CN when the table thinks it's CE. What matters is the actions at the table. Are they disruptive? Does this character's actions or likely actions raise objections or even hostile action from the other PCs and or players? Is it not going to fit campaign tone of 'heroes', 'murderheroes', 'murderhobos', 'villains' etc.

That's the problem. What the player thinks his alignment is isn't a problem at all. Trying to 'correct' a player on their alignment is a mistake, plain and simple.
There is more than one problem here. The actions are the major problem.

The discrepancy in alignment and actions is another. They are different problems, but they are not exclusive to each other.

(Edit: But also yes, the DM can set table rules for allowable player motivations at his table, to stop likely resulting actions. But if you object to it as 'that action is evil' you're going to cause an argument, because you're trying to tell them how to play their character. Explain the problem is the actions, and why, not the alignment itself. If you ban alignments, define what you mean by that.)
You're too hung up on alignment as motivation that now you're arguing we can't argue that ripping a girl in half to eat her is evil. That's not trying to tell someone how to play they're character.

Let's just assume that the OP tells Feast "Hey, it's fine that you go around eating whoever you want without a care in the world. No problem there. However, your alignment is Evil."

That's not telling him how to play his character. That's reflecting how he is already playing his character. You'll say that it is telling him how to play, because you are deciding his "motivation" by changing his alignment. Except, he wasn't motivated by his alignment anyway when he was tearing people apart to eat them. As the thread demonstrates, many here are skeptical that the character is animal enough to be blameless, while also being an adventurer.

Feast is clearly, to me, evil. The solution to the problem is to get rid of the "character" completely. Changing the alignment on the sheet will do nothing to solve the problem at the table.

However, in another situation where the character was not completely disruptive and can be salvaged, yes, the alignment should match the character. Why shouldn't it? Where else do you get to write down an aspect of your character on your sheet and then play against that aspect in-game?

"My sheet says I have 40hp but I really have 65hp."
"According to my sheet I have Disadvantage on Stealth checks but in-game I don't."
"Yeah, my sheet says I'm a Good person but, it'd be much easier if I just kill this kid in cold blood so..."

Tanarii

2017-10-22, 01:51 AM

It doesn't matter what the sheet says if the player is playing with a different motivation / behavior consistently in the first place. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to try and force them to change what it says on paper.

Look, there's really a few ways this can go down:

1) player is using the typical alignment behavior as they interpret it when it applies, and nobody else has a problem with it.

2) player intentionally changes alignment as part of their character development, and starts using the new behavior going forward.

3) player is using the typical alignment behavior as they interpret it when it applies, DM tells them they need to change it because in-game thing X has changed it (optional planar environment rules, lycanthropy), player agrees because awesome role player willing to work with what's happening to their character, and starts using the behavior.

4) DM explains what kind of behavior is acceptable for characters in the game in session 0, and possibly excludes regularly behaving as per typical behavior in line with certain alignments. Ie bans an alignment but explains its regularly acting in line with one of the typical behaviors that is the issue.

5) DM and other players have a problem with how the character is behaving in game, and talk to the player about it, and request they stop. Alignment is irrelevent, the problem is the behavior.

6) DM bans an alignment, but doesn't explain what he means by that.

7) DM and other players suggests to the player they are not acting in accordance with their alignment, but understand that alignment is the players choice. Player either agrees and amends behavior, agrees and changes alignment, disagrees and nothing changes.

8) DM tells player they are not acting in accordance with their alignment, and they must change their alignment. Player either agrees and changes alignment, or disagrees and argument ensues.

6 is bad, because it sets up the last two in the future. 7 isn't great, but at least it's not a dictate. Of course, if there's also a game problem with the actions, they've not addressed the problem unless the player agrees and amends their PC's behavior to be more in line with what everyone else feels is appropriate to their alignment.

The last one can only be a problem if the goal is not to have problem actions occur in the game. Specifically in the case of characters acting Evil being an issue, the player now playing an evil character if they agree. If they disagree, the DM and player are arguing about if X is Evil behavior. Or more commonly if X is an Evil action, even though Alignment is supposed to be about overall behavior, not individual actions. They've completely failed to address preventing problem behavior or actions, specifically ones in line with an Evil Alignment.

Edit: interestingly, I once was part of an Evil party game where Alignment arguments ensued because some players and the DM felt another player's PC was acting out of Alignment being too Good too often. :smallamused:

Malifice

2017-10-22, 03:10 AM

It doesn't matter what the sheet says if the player is playing with a different motivation / behavior consistently in the first place. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to try and force them to change what it says on paper.

Yes there is.

And if it doesnt matter what it says on the character sheet, why do you care so much what it says on the character sheet? Why does it matter what if the DM points out your mistake (you're not actually good) and tells you to fix it?

I assure you, if your 'LG Paladin' was murdering and eating children, I'd ask you to change what you had in the Alignment section of your character sheet. Obviously you've made a mistake.

I'm not prepared to mess with player agency. Eat those babies if you want.

Same deal if your 'Paladin' started casting wizard spells instead of paladin spells. I don't care if they're written on your character sheet; you've obviously done so in error. Rub them out and put the correct spells on your sheet please.

You dont have to rub them out, but when you try and cast those wizard spells, they fail and nothing happens. Just like you dont have to rub out your alignment, But when your 'LG' Paladin picks up a talisman of ultimate good, his hand gets very badly burnt for a ton of necrotic damage, and when he casts a healing spell near a unicorns lair, they dont get maximized. And so forth.

He's evil. I dont care what you say. Your actions speak louder than the words written on your character sheet.

lebefrei

2017-10-22, 03:37 AM

It doesn't matter what the sheet says if the player is playing with a different

Are you a DM? It matters. It matters if you have any interest in a realistic world, that has consequences for actions. It matter what the sheet says and how that correlates to roleplaying. When I have a player that dumps their int and then has a brilliant tactical solution to every problem I tell them that their character is over in a corner staring at something shiny. If they don't like it, don't dump int. If they want to murder and eat random children then put chaotic evil on their sheet, and still expect to get hunted down by bounty hunters if the town can afford to deal with the problem. If not, expect to deal with issues from the party. If not, guess what, in a moral world you other players are complicit in the crime and better all drop your alignment, too. If it doesn't matter, then WotC can drop it from the PHB. Until then, it's part of the game and counts for something.

Coidzor

2017-10-22, 05:07 AM

Most people would know enough from being told not to make an evil character to get the broad strokes, even without exhaustive elaboration, and wouldn't deliberately set out to be "cute" and make an edge case or try to get around it or troll.

Malifice

2017-10-22, 05:38 AM

Unoriginal

2017-10-22, 08:16 AM

Malifice

2017-10-22, 09:39 AM

If a player writes "Flaw: is an hardcore penny-pinching miser" on their PC's shee then keep having them spend all their money on various thing without complaining, would you say that it's appropriate to tell the player to take a different Flaw?

Id certainly raise it with the player. I suggest they take a different flaw because I was never going toward them inspiration.

But that's the only mechanical effect that flaws have. Alignment is an entirely different kettle of fish, including where you go when you die.

Dr.Samurai

2017-10-22, 09:55 AM

It doesn't matter what the sheet says if the player is playing with a different motivation / behavior consistently in the first place. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to try and force them to change what it says on paper.
The motivation is not the only interaction that alignment has in the game, so this doesn't follow.

If they disagree, the DM and player are arguing about if X is Evil behavior. Or more commonly if X is an Evil action, even though Alignment is supposed to be about overall behavior, not individual actions.
The OP is describing behavior, not an individual action. In another thread where a guy said he murdered all the people that came after his Evil serial killer friend, including paladins, he was describing behavior, not an action.

They've completely failed to address preventing problem behavior or actions, specifically ones in line with an Evil Alignment.
That's because they're dealing with the other problem. You stop the actions by either banning them beforehand, and having consequences occur that either prevent the actions in the future or give a strong enough incentive to not do them again.

Also, change the alignment so that it matches the behavior, or change the behavior so that it matches the sheet. Words mean things. The alignments mean things. Actions have meaning. Etc.

Edit: interestingly, I once was part of an Evil party game where Alignment arguments ensued because some players and the DM felt another player's PC was acting out of Alignment being too Good too often. :smallamused:
Precisely why I do not apply to Evil-only games on PBP. Because I know I won't be able to roleplay it well. I'll end up playing a good guy that, for whatever reason, is hanging out with sadistic sociopaths. Exploring that nonsense is not for me. I don't slap Evil on my sheet and then go ahead and play a saint and pretend everything is okay though. I know I can't play evil very well as a PC.

Im just sick to death of this same bloody thread every week.
QFT.

My PC is a monster who stalks the woods and eats children...
My PC is a genocidal sociopath who slaughters captured noncombatants for her village...
My PC is a sado-masochistic poison master who gets his kicks from merciless torture...
My PC murders babies for the greater good...
My PC slaughters people for minor sins against his faith...

Yes you're evil.
Yeah but... they're motivated by good and neutral ideals though...

If a player writes "Flaw: is an hardcore penny-pinching miser" on their PC's shee then keep having them spend all their money on various thing without complaining, would you say that it's appropriate to tell the player to take a different Flaw?
If the game cares what your Flaw is, then yes.

Let's say you come to a celestial layer in Heaven, and the gate only opens for those that are not greedy and do not hoard their wealth. Should the gate open for you? You are a miser literally only on paper. Your actions suggest otherwise. Does the gate open or not?

If it does open for you, your flaw, as written, is meaningless. If it does not open for you, then your flaw, as written, overrides your actual actions/behavior in game.

Why shouldn't there be some consistency between the two?

Tanarii

2017-10-22, 01:40 PM

I'm not prepared to mess with player agency. Eat those babies if you want.

He's evil. I dont care what you say. Your actions speak louder than the words written on your character sheet.If actions speak louder than words, and you're not prepared to mess with player agency, hen why are you trying to tell them to change their RP aid that the player uses to make choices about their character actions, instead of having appropriate consequences for in game actions?

Are you a DM? It matters. It matters if you have any interest in a realistic world, that has consequences for actions. It matter what the sheet says and how that correlates to roleplaying.I am a DM and a palyer, but more often a DM.

It matters what alignment it says on the character sheet to the player, provided they decide to use it as a roleplaying aid. If they ignore it, it doesn't matter at all.

It does not matter to the DM at all. Alignment is completely unnecessary for any reason to a DM. Instead, there should be realistic consequences for actions. That does not require a player's RP aid tool being used 'properly' in the DM's eyes.

When I have a player that dumps their int and then has a brilliant tactical solution to every problem I tell them that their character is over in a corner staring at something shinyI find that an appalling robbing of player agency, both as a DM and a player. Call for Int checks for stuff where here's a chance of failure even handedly from all players, which results naturally in lower Int characters failing more often? Sure. Singling out low Int players for more checks? Not so hot. Telling a player what their character does because of a Int 8 (which in 5e is a dumped stat)? Total garbage.

Most people would know enough from being told not to make an evil character to get the broad strokes, even without exhaustive elaboration, and wouldn't deliberately set out to be "cute" and make an edge case or try to get around it or troll.You'd think, right? Sadly not the case. I mean, it's not common.

Far more common is DMs & players not bothering to read the Alignment behavior descriptions, or understand that Alignment is about behavior and not individual actions, and bringing old edition thinking to the table ... and then jumping on someone else's case about based on their assumptions about how failing to play their Alignment. Or for DMs taking one evil action. Because we all know one evil action damns you forever to be evil, right?

Those same assumptions hold in Alignment forum threads, but the difference is we regularly have clear trolls posting extreme and obviously silly "real table situations" to rile up the next weeks multi-page threads. I tune out that aspect of the alignment debates, because they're clearly not real examples of alignment gone wrong.

The motivation is not the only interaction that alignment has in the game, so this doesn't follow. Its the only important one, and only one likely to come up in the vast majority of games.

The OP is describing behavior, not an individual action. In another thread where a guy said he murdered all the people that came after his Evil serial killer friend, including paladins, he was describing behavior, not an action.The exxagerated specifics of troll posts designed to start alignment debates are irrelevent. There's no point in trying to treat them like they're a real table situation.

Here's a real table situation I ran into: 2nd level Party is in a seek and destroy mission against bandits, that raid caravans and kill people in the process. Neutral Good Life Cleric grapples the last bandit alive, and demands their surrender. Bandits falls to his knees and starts blubbering about "don't kills me please!" Bandit spills the beans in about where sir leader is. Chaotic Good Vengeance Pally tells me he stabs Bandit in the back, and I say "okay, he's dead". Life cleric and rest of table is stunned for a second.

Next session, I started by asking the pally what alignment he was, which was a mistake. When told it was CG, I asked about he bandit, and got {justification}. That was a mistake on my part.

So I told them okay that doesn't matter. " Take into account if this becomes a game where you guys regularly kill interrogated prisoners, and it becomes known, they can't expect any mercy in return. And I'd also prefer this game not go down the path to brutality. And that if they want, the two characters (life cleric and vengeance pally) can have a huge in-game shouting match about it. But please don't make it an OoC argument. And we moved on.

That's because they're dealing with the other problem. You stop the actions by either banning them beforehand, and having consequences occur that either prevent the actions in the future or give a strong enough incentive to not do them again.In game consequences have nothing to do with changing the characters alignment. They should always happen.

(Edit: for example, the pally stabbed a interrogated man, and only the party knows about it. In game Consequences: one dead bandit, and two PCs have a rip-roar shouting match about it. Out of game consequences: I let them know actions have consequences and give an example, Ask them to consider the tone of the game.)

Also, change the alignment so that it matches the behavior, or change the behavior so that it matches the sheet. Words mean things. The alignments mean things. Actions have meaning. Etc.Im guessing this means you read all my situations, and don't agree that this will either result in an evil character (which may be what's trying to be avoided) or a table argument. Or you're being stubborn because this is the right way for alignment to be used, so by golly it should be done right?

I understand how Alignment should be used, and I agree that a player ignoring it and acting in a obviously opposite way isn't using Alignment correctly. I don't care about the right way for Alignment to be used if it's going to cause table problems. I care about fixing the problem at the table. Forcing the player to change the alignment on their character doesn't fix any table problems, and likely causes them instead, even if it feels like 'fixing' things so they're being done right"

Dr.Samurai

2017-10-22, 03:38 PM

It does not matter to the DM at all. Alignment is completely unnecessary for any reason to a DM.
We keep saying this isn't true and you're not really responding to that part of the conversation. How do you deal with mechanics that check for PC alignments?

Instead, there should be realistic consequences for actions. That does not require a player's RP aid tool being used 'properly' in the DM's eyes.
You can do both.

I find that an appalling robbing of player agency, both as a DM and a player. Call for Int checks for stuff where here's a chance of failure even handedly from all players, which results naturally in lower Int characters failing more often? Sure. Singling out low Int players for more checks? Not so hot. Telling a player what their character does because of a Int 8 (which in 5e is a dumped stat)? Total garbage.
Interesting. I routinely avoid playing characters with a dump stat for precisely this reason. If I roll for a PbP game and I get an 8 or a 9, chances are I won't finish a character and apply unless I'm playing a small creature and can easily justify an 8 or 9 strength.

Otherwise, I feel like playing an 8 or 9 Int/Wis/Cha character limits what I can bring to the table in situations relevant to those scores. I want the freedom to contribute in social conversations, or tactics without feeling like I'm not being true to what's on my sheet.

Because we all know one evil action damns you forever to be evil, right?
I think you're the only one saying this...

Its the only important one, and only one likely to come up in the vast majority of games.
I'm just not sure how you're saying this. I don't recall if I already mentioned the PbP game I'm in where the butterflies had to escort our LE tiefling through a celestial forest. That's one example. My friend is DMing SKT and has included a sentient helmet that interacts with the party differently based on alignment.

Good and Evil are things in D&D and DM's use them. I fully admit that you've educated me on the way Alignment is used for roleplaying in 5th edition, but I wouldn't say that that is it's exclusive role in 5th edition.

The exxagerated specifics of troll posts designed to start alignment debates are irrelevent. There's no point in trying to treat them like they're a real table situation.

Here's a real table situation I ran into: 2nd level Party is in a seek and destroy mission against bandits, that raid caravans and kill people in the process. Neutral Good Life Cleric grapples the last bandit alive, and demands their surrender. Bandits falls to his knees and starts blubbering about "don't kills me please!" Bandit spills the beans in about where sir leader is. Chaotic Good Vengeance Pally tells me he stabs Bandit in the back, and I say "okay, he's dead". Life cleric and rest of table is stunned for a second.

Next session, I started by asking the pally what alignment he was, which was a mistake. When told it was CG, I asked about he bandit, and got {justification}. That was a mistake on my part.

So I told them okay that doesn't matter. " Take into account if this becomes a game where you guys regularly kill interrogated prisoners, and it becomes known, they can't expect any mercy in return. And I'd also prefer this game not go down the path to brutality. And that if they want, the two characters (life cleric and vengeance pally) can have a huge in-game shouting match about it. But please don't make it an OoC argument. And we moved on.
I don't agree at all that it was a mistake to understand why the paladin thought killing the bandit was in line with his principles/oaths/ideals/etc. Why is that conversation off the table?

I think you handled it great. You nipped it before it could go anywhere. But if the conversation didn't happen and the paladin continues to execute people that have surrendered to him... well, we already know we'd disagree lol.

In game consequences have nothing to do with changing the characters alignment. They should always happen.
Agreed. No one is arguing that.

(Edit: for example, the pally stabbed a interrogated man, and only the party knows about it. In game Consequences: one dead bandit, and two PCs have a rip-roar shouting match about it. Out of game consequences: I let them know actions have consequences and give an example, Ask them to consider the tone of the game.)
Right. For others, down the line is another consequence --> your alignment has shifted to match your behavior.

Im guessing this means you read all my situations, and don't agree that this will either result in an evil character (which may be what's trying to be avoided) or a table argument. Or you're being stubborn because this is the right way for alignment to be used, so by golly it should be done right?
I think you're not appreciating that having a dip**** at the table trying to pass his character off as a normal person while he's playing a sociopath will result in an argument either way. I'm not concerned with an argument at the table. If it happens, it happens. I can assure you it won't be the first or last argument to happen at the table. It's not a good enough reason for me. And in actuality, I don't see the character changing his alignment to Evil. I see the character realizing that he can't get away with his actions, and adjusting the behavior accordingly. It's just a different way to have the conversation.

2D8HP

2017-10-23, 07:35 AM

. ...I routinely avoid playing characters with a dump stat for precisely this reason.....
.....Otherwise, I feel like playing an 8 or 9 Int/Wis/Cha character limits what I can bring to the table in situations relevant to those scores. I want the freedom to contribute in social conversations, or tactics without feeling like I'm not being true to what's on my sheet.....

Yeah about that, if INT and WIS need to match how PC's are actually played (or their players real-life intelligence and wisdom), then it would be extremely rare for any PC to have an INT or WIS above 11.

I usually "dump" INT, both because I'm just not very smart in RL and because I seldom play Wizards.

I often have PCs with high Wisdom because I want to play characters that are good at Perception and Survival, but there is no way that I can Role-play wise, because I'm me not my PC!

If PC's "Mental"/"Social" stats have to match their players real-life charisma, intelligence, and wisdom than 9/10th's (or more) of PC's would have those stats be between 8 and 12, BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE ARE PRETTY AVERAGE and if it based on how they're usually played? Mostly 7 or less, as chasing after Red Dragons instead of running away is neither smart or wise.

Also I think you are discounting how clever someone with the equivalent of an 8 INT in RL actually is, I'd be very surprised if I had an IQ above 90, but I'm able to do my job better than most people could for example.

See the
Mapping real world IQ to D&D INT stat? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?528027-Mapping-real-world-IQ-to-D-amp-D-INT-stat&highlight=IQ)
.thread for some speculations on this.

Dr.Samurai

2017-10-23, 08:10 AM

Yeah about that, if INT and WIS need to match how PC's are actually played (or their players real-life intelligence and wisdom), then it would be extremely rare for any PC to have an INT or WIS above 11.
I'm not saying they have to match "real world" scores.

I usually "dump" INT, both because I'm just not very smart in RL and because I seldom play Wizards.
Can you explain why your first sentence is complaining about matching real life intelligence to your game intelligence, and your second sentence is admitting that you dump intelligence because of your perceived real life score.

I often have PCs with high Wisdom because I want to play characters that are good at Perception and Survival, but there is no way that I can Role-play wise, because I'm me not my PC!
This has always been a matter of contention with skills and mental stats. Do you just roll a Persuasion check and beat the DC, or do you roll and then try to come up with a persuasive line of reasoning to actually roleplay the interaction?

I try to play my characters as clever and cunning if I'm playing someone with positive mods in those scores. Likewise, I try to play charismatic characters if my charisma score is high.

It's not to say that I have any of those qualities. But I try to roleplay it. If I have an 8 or 9 in those scores, I don't bother. Because my scores reflect that I'm below average in reasoning/mental acuity, perceptiveness/intuition, and/or confidence/eloquence.

If PC's "Mental"/"Social" stats have to match their players real-life charisma, intelligence, and wisdom than 9/10th's (or more) of PC's would have those stats be between 8 and 12, BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE ARE PRETTY AVERAGE and if it based on how they're usually played? Mostly 7 or less, as chasing after Red Dragons instead of running away is neither smart or wise.
No one is suggesting they have to match real life scores. Adventurers are daring, not necessarily stupid.

There is a gray area between what requires ability checks, and what doesn't. I typically wouldn't require a check for the PCs to huddle and come up with a plan of attack if they're going to attack a dragon or something. But I wouldn't expect the player, in-game, with an 8 intelligence to be the one leading the conversation on tactics, strategy, etc.

There is point-buy for a reason. You decide what traits you excel in naturally. Then you choose skill proficiencies. Maybe you grab Expertise in something, so maybe even though you're something a dunce, you're very knowledgeable about nature and animals and stuff. But you're still below average intelligence.

Also I think you are discounting how clever someone with the equivalent of an 8 INT in RL actually is, I'd be very surprised if I had an IQ above 90, but I'm able to do my job better than most people could for example.
You've never struck me as stupid 2D8HP, so I think you're just being needlessly modest, for no reason, unnecessarily, to be humble or something. Regardless, the rules are pretty clear on what the individual ability scores represent, and that 10 or 11 is average, and stats below that are below average with negative modifiers.

Contrast

2017-10-23, 08:24 AM

We keep saying this isn't true and you're not really responding to that part of the conversation. How do you deal with mechanics that check for PC alignments?

How do I deal with it in my games? By not including/reframing how things which mechanically key off alignment work.

It is really that much of an issue that instead of sensing 'chaotic good who just murdered an innocent person so the DM forced them to bump down to chaotic neutral' the sentient sword or sprite will instead sense 'a swirling light with a recent dark wound'? It seems likely that's how you would already be describing it in game anyway. That said - things which key off alignment are purposefully few and far between in 5E. Literally never encountered one in any game I've played yet.

I'm not saying there's zero value in having the sheet and actions match up. I'm saying I don't think its really worth the hassle of the DM keeping track of when they have more important things to be doing. I've played in other systems and never felt the loss when alignment wasn't one of the things written on my character sheet.

To me alignment is like filling in the player name on your character sheet. Probably helpful in the first session when you're still getting used to the characters but after that everyone should know who everyone is and it doesn't really matter.

Tanarii

2017-10-23, 08:59 AM

Yeah about that, if INT and WIS need to match how PC's are actually played (or their players real-life intelligence and wisdom), then it would be extremely rare for any PC to have an INT or WIS above 11.hahahhaa #Truth and that includes me too :smallbiggrin:

But it's not the player's choice on roleplaying a minorly low ability score as a slight hinderance that made me cry foul. It is the DM telling the player how their character acts in-game in the first place. Then in the second, having it be like they are mentally or physically disabled, because of an 8 'dump' stat.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-10-23, 09:03 AM

hahahhaa #Truth and that includes me too :smallbiggrin:

But it's not the player's choice on roleplaying a minorly low ability score as a slight hinderance that made me cry foul. It is the DM telling the player how their character acts in-game in the first place. Then in the second, having it be like they are mentally or physically disabled, because of an 8 'dump' stat.

Agreed. A stat of 8 is still near the top of the bell curve. It's within normal variation. 8 STR is not a weakling, 8 DEX is not incurably clumsy, 8 CON is not an invalid (although it might not make a good character), 8 INT is not a drooling moron, 8 WIS is not a cloud-kookolander, 8 CHA is not repulsive. It's just slightly lower than average.

A score of 6 is going to noticeably impact behavior. 4 is almost unplayable. 2 is unplayable (animal level intelligence, for instance). 8 or 9? That's within the bounds of normal variation. Of course, don't play it as if it's a 20 (super-genius), but certainly not drooling moron/illiterate bumpkin status.

Tanarii

2017-10-23, 09:38 AM

We keep saying this isn't true and you're not really responding to that part of the conversation. How do you deal with mechanics that check for PC alignments?I don't. They exist on paper, but I've never ever seen them happen in a 5e game. That I run or that others have run.

If DMs are running games with their own mechanical effects added in based around Alignment, that's on them for causing their own problems.

You can do both.DMs enforcing players properly using RP aids isn't my schtick. Inspiration is a good carrot to encourage that already. If players don't want free advantage handed out like candy, that's on them.

(As a side note: It blows my mind when players forget they've got inspiration. They're aware it's a huge bonus. They see it change a miss into a hit all the time. I hand inspiration out like candy when it has been used.

I've taken to giving a poker chip along with it each time. I even let inspiration be used after the fact when they miss. And still some players forget they have it. I can see it sitting right in front of them, I will have handed out a chip to another player not 5 minutes before combat, and they still forget it. /smh )

I think you're the only one saying this...Not really. Lots of posters and players and DM think not only that individual actions carry morality, but that they have some kind of scale of moral weight, that generally "evil" actions > "good" actions, and that "evil" actions damn you more than "good" actions redeem you. It is evident in their treatment of the matter. They are Fall-from-Grace thinkers.

It's hardly surprising though. The vast majority of IRL moral beliefs, especially ones stemming from IRL religions, either hold this view, or are commonly misinterpreted by people to hold this view.

I don't agree at all that it was a mistake to understand why the paladin thought killing the bandit was in line with his principles/oaths/ideals/etc. Why is that conversation off the table?I didn't need to motivation. That's not my business as a DM. As a DM, I need to know declared action, Approach and Intented Result for it, and determine Outcomes and Consequences. I don't care about their reasoning, outside of intended result and approach.

(Also a 2nd level Paladin doesn't have Tenets or an Oath. So technically he's not yet a vengeance pally.)

I think you handled it great. You nipped it before it could go anywhere. But if the conversation didn't happen and the paladin continues to execute people that have surrendered to him... well, we already know we'd disagree lol.It went great because I dropped Alignment from the issue.

Another situation came up in my current game: The Wizard stepped around the corner and Fireballed a cave full of Gnolls. He knew they were waiting with bows. He lost initiative, survived three arrows, and BOOM dead Gnolls. Unfortunately he forgot to check about whelps. Three dead. The two previous times they had an encounter with them, they let the whelps flee / walk out first. The Life Cleric is upset and morose, the two mercs with him took the pov that war has casualties.

No reason to touch Alignments here IMO. But I've seen tons of DMs who would be all like, that's a Evil action, you're Evil now. Murderers of children! (Both in games, and on these boards.)

(Next session I'm going to tell the group I'm done with this whelps BS and they won't have to deal with it in the future. I was running the module as is, it added an interesting element, but it's not something they're going to have to deal with regularly, because that's just not fun for them. I can tell. They're a eat-popcorn-throw-dice-kill-orcs group of players, not an explore-moral-quandaries group.)

I think you're not appreciating that having a dip**** at the table trying to pass his character off as a normal person while he's playing a sociopath will result in an argument either way. I'm not concerned with an argument at the table.Why would I appreciate that? First, I've only ever seen in once in thirty years. Player was kicked from the table. Second, a player like that will indeed cause an argument either way. Can't disagree on that.

But why invite arguments for other players NOT* doing that by judging their roleplaying? Because that's what a DM telling them they have to change their alignment is doing. Acting like the final arbiter of morality-based roleplaying. And this I've seen many times in thirty years of TRPGs.

Dr.Samurai

2017-10-23, 09:47 AM

How do I deal with it in my games? By not including/reframing how things which mechanically key off alignment work.
If you're not including it, that's fine. Your choice. But they exist in the game. The point is that if your argument is "RAW, alignment works this way, so all the stuff you're talking about literally doesn't matter", then you're wrong, because the game uses alignment in other ways as well.

It is really that much of an issue that instead of sensing 'chaotic good who just murdered an innocent person so the DM forced them to bump down to chaotic neutral' the sentient sword or sprite will instead sense 'a swirling light with a recent dark wound'? It seems likely that's how you would already be describing it in game anyway.
I don't think you go evil after one time, depending on circumstances. I haven't argued that. I've consistently been talking about people who have one alignment written down, but routinely ignore it and engage in overall behavior contrary to the alignment.

That said - things which key off alignment are purposefully few and far between in 5E.
I don't know this to be true, despite you and Tanarii claiming it.

I'm not saying there's zero value in having the sheet and actions match up. I'm saying I don't think its really worth the hassle of the DM keeping track of when they have more important things to be doing. I've played in other systems and never felt the loss when alignment wasn't one of the things written on my character sheet.
I'm not sure what kind of hassle it really is, but perhaps for some that's the case. I've played characters without an alignment written down as well. It works fine. But no one is making the claim that you *must* have an alignment on your sheet.

8 or 9? That's within the bounds of normal variation. Of course, don't play it as if it's a 20 (super-genius), but certainly not drooling moron/illiterate bumpkin status.
Yeah. Don't play it as a 20, for sure. Or a 19, or a 18, or a 17, or a 16, etc. Don't play it as anything except for what it is; below average. You're not as smart as *most people*. Or as intuitive or perceptive, or confident, etc. If you want to be, put a higher score there.

Contrast

2017-10-23, 10:34 AM

I don't think you go evil after one time, depending on circumstances. I haven't argued that. I've consistently been talking about people who have one alignment written down, but routinely ignore it and engage in overall behavior contrary to the alignment.

I'm going to argue that actually weakens your argument. By forcing the change on a player you're making an artificial tipping point. Yesterday the sprite would have read their alignment as chaotic good but today it reads as chaotic neutral even though nothing much has changed its just been a general shift. If you accept alignment is a nebulous things which is difficult to pin down on a day to day basis, why does the sprite get to ignore that? :smalltongue:

I don't know this to be true, despite you and Tanarii claiming it.

Off the top of my head there are sprites which can detect alignment. One of the potential purposes for a sentient magic item is to hunt down opposed alignments. I think there are one or two magic items which require a specific alignment. Some of the werecreatures set your alignment differently.

That's it as far as I'm aware.

I'm not sure what kind of hassle it really is, but perhaps for some that's the case. I've played characters without an alignment written down as well. It works fine. But no one is making the claim that you *must* have an alignment on your sheet.

If you're not arguing that a character must have an alignment written down, why are you arguing that its worth a DMs time to force a character to change what is written down :smallconfused: If you told a player to change their alignment and they just rubbed it out and left it blank, how is that different from not bothering to tell them to change it at all?

I'm not saying players and DMs shouldn't discuss their characters thoughts and actions, what I'm saying is its pointless for a DM to force an unwilling player to change the alignment on their sheet. That approach isn't going to do anything to alter their roleplaying. As a DM it is within your prerogative to have an item which dislikes chaotic people dislike my neutral character if you feel I have been particularly chaotic of late. If the player is amenable then you can probably just agree with them what their alignment is when it comes up (which, per the above, is basically never in 5E) - if they're not amenable you're just getting into an argument for no reason.

With regard to the hassle - you have to keep track of all players alignments, keep in mind when they're acting in a way that you perceive is against that alignment and how often they're doing it and to what extent and then potentially get into a debate with your player if they don't feel that your personal moral assessments are correct. The return on that investment is...what exactly? What improvement to play experience is gained?

MadBear

2017-10-23, 11:10 AM

I'm going to argue that actually weakens your argument. By forcing the change on a player you're making an artificial tipping point. Yesterday the sprite would have read their alignment as chaotic good but today it reads as chaotic neutral even though nothing much has changed its just been a general shift. If you accept alignment is a nebulous things which is difficult to pin down on a day to day basis, why does the sprite get to ignore that? :smalltongue:

Off the top of my head there are sprites which can detect alignment. One of the potential purposes for a sentient magic item is to hunt down opposed alignments. I think there are one or two magic items which require a specific alignment. Some of the werecreatures set your alignment differently.

That's it as far as I'm aware.

If you're not arguing that a character must have an alignment written down, why are you arguing that its worth a DMs time to force a character to change what is written down :smallconfused: If you told a player to change their alignment and they just rubbed it out and left it blank, how is that different from not bothering to tell them to change it at all?

I'm not saying players and DMs shouldn't discuss their characters thoughts and actions, what I'm saying is its pointless for a DM to force an unwilling player to change the alignment on their sheet. That approach isn't going to do anything to alter their roleplaying. As a DM it is within your prerogative to have an item which dislikes chaotic people dislike my neutral character if you feel I have been particularly chaotic of late. If the player is amenable then you can probably just agree with them what their alignment is when it comes up (which, per the above, is basically never in 5E) - if they're not amenable you're just getting into an argument for no reason.

With regard to the hassle - you have to keep track of all players alignments, keep in mind when they're acting in a way that you perceive is against that alignment and how often they're doing it and to what extent and then potentially get into a debate with your player if they don't feel that your personal moral assessments are correct. The return on that investment is...what exactly? What improvement to play experience is gained?

I'd say that at least to me, that i'd prefer them to write down the alignment that best matches where they're at, so that when the LG paladin who routinely murders children and eats them for fun, tries to wield the blade that only good characters can wield, he isn't surprised when it burns him every time he touches it.

To me, it's the same reason that someone can erase the 8 strength and write a 20 on their strength score, but when they roll an attack, they still don't get a +5 even though that's what they wrote.

Alignment wouldn't come up nearly as often, so the analogy isn't perfect, but that's the main reason why.

Then again, my group has a more rigid and coherent definition of alignment and we agree to how it's used before hand, so there's never any surprise.

Tanarii

2017-10-23, 11:48 AM

I'd say that at least to me, that i'd prefer them to write down the alignment that best matches where they're at, so that when the LG paladin who routinely murders children and eats them for fun, tries to wield the blade that only good characters can wield, he isn't surprised when it burns him every time he touches it.Outside of trolling forum posts and straw man arguments and the like, this has happened in exactly how many games you've played in?

Like ... it's not even a real issue as far as I'm concerned. The real issue is DMs (and sometimes other players) that have a stringent personal definition of Good and Evil in real life, and try to port that into the game, and then apply it to other player's decisions on how to play their character.

That's why I argue that taking the attitude of forcing alignment change can only ever be a bad thing. Because in actual table play situations that arise, the vast majority of the time the person causing the problem is the person insisting that a player isn't playing their alignment correctly. Occasionally the problem is the in-game actions are disruptive, killing NPCs or captured prisoners out of hand, starting PvP, etc. But it's almost never a problem with a player intentionally misrepresenting their alignment motivation to get a psychopath past the DM-Alignment-radar.

2D8HP

2017-10-23, 12:06 PM

.....Can you explain why your first sentence is complaining about matching real life intelligence to your game intelligence, and your second sentence is admitting that you dump intelligence because of your perceived real life score....

I can Role-play dumber than I am, but more intelligent? I guess maybe if I'm allowed more time to consider events (and take notes) then the PC has, otherwise it's not happening!

The only 5e character that I've played that had a higher INT than 10 (because I rolled stats) was a moron because I as a player made some dumb mistakes

...I try to play my characters as clever and cunning if I'm playing someone with positive mods in those scores. Likewise, I try to play charismatic characters if my charisma score is high.
It's not to say that I have any of those qualities. But I try to roleplay it. If I have an 8 or 9 in those scores, I don't bother. Because my scores reflect that I'm below average in reasoning/mental acuity, perceptiveness/intuition, and/or confidence/eloquence....

That's cool, except 8 and 9 are not that dumb!

Check it out:

A "Commoner" (common human) on page 345 of the Monster Manual has a ten in all stats, so that's average. We may infer that it's derived from the most likely result of rolling 3d6 for "stats" (as in the 1974 Dungeons & Dragons volume 1, Men & Magic).
The nearly actual odds for rolling each and every 3d6 sum, from 3 to 18 (rounded numbers) are:

3: 0.5% (actually 0.46, or 1 in 216, but rounded off for this table)
4: 1.4%
5: 2.8%
6: 4.6%
7: 6.9%
8: 9.7%
9: 11.6%
10: 12.5%
11: 12.5%
12: 11.6%
13: 9.7%
14: 6.9%
15: 4.6%
16: 2.8%
17: 1.4%
18: 0.5% (as 3’s note above)

So someone with a 10 INT is at least as smart as about 49.96% of humans.
Someone with a 9 is as at least as smart as about 37.46% of people.
And someone with an INT of 8 is at least as smart as 25.86% of folks.

Not too shabby!

...But I wouldn't expect the player, in-game, with an 8 intelligence to be the one leading the conversation on tactics, strategy, etc...

Why not if they're experienced in that area?

Besides dumb folks bloviate, and pontificate all the time (like what I'm doing now)!

....There is point-buy for a reason. You decide what traits you excel in naturally. Then you choose skill proficiencies. Maybe you grab Expertise in something, so maybe even though you're something a dunce, you're very knowledgeable about nature and animals and stuff. But you're still below average intelligence...

By definition half of all people are below "average intelligence", I just don't buy that "Adventurers" are mostly in the "smart" half.

Besides this "Adventurers are exceptional" claptrap has gone too far!

How can you "go from zero to hero" if you don't start as a zero?!

From page 19 of 1974's Dungeons & Dragons Book 1 "Men & Magic" - "Normal men equal 1st-level fighters"

:furious:

(They were slightly better than commoners, not "exceptional" dagnabbit!)

...You've never struck me as stupid 2D8HP, so I think you're just being needlessly modest....

:redface:

That's very kind but I'm well aware that I simply don't have the "Mental acuity, information recall, and analytical skill" that I had in my youth, and since most people who are now living are younger than me, it's easy to conclude that I'm below average, especially when I try to remember where I left my dang-blast reading glasses!

Also my wife reminds me weekly how poor my "Awareness, intuition, and insight" are.

...I've consistently been talking about people who have one alignment written down, but routinely ignore it and engage in overall behavior contrary to the alignment....

Yeah, they're being bogus or they're delusional. I wouldn't press it though, arguments over ethics get heated without anyone changing their minds (see Forum banned topics for examples)

...I'm not sure what kind of hassle it really is, but perhaps for some that's the case. I've played characters without an alignment written down as well. It works fine. But no one is making the claim that you *must* have an alignment on your sheet.

Good, I prefer the @AnonymousWizard/LotFP way of dealing with Alignment, otherwise use it for Ideals.

...Yeah. Don't play it as a 20, for sure. Or a 19, or a 18, or a 17, or a 16, etc. Don't play it as anything except for what it is; below average. You're not as smart as *most people*. Or as intuitive or perceptive, or confident, etc. If you want to be, put a higher score there.

I've never seen people playing smarter than their stat, quite the reverse. If at best average people pretend to play genius Wizards, why not allow the reverse?

Or do we take away all player agency, and just do endless dice rolls to see how the PC's act (there actually is a good game like that Pendragon which has both more "role" and "roll" playing than D&D, but I don't think that's what most people playing D&D have signed up for).

MadBear

2017-10-23, 12:07 PM

Outside of trolling forum posts and straw man arguments and the like, this has happened in exactly how many games you've played in?

Like ... it's not even a real issue as far as I'm concerned. The real issue is DMs (and sometimes other players) that have a stringent personal definition of Good and Evil in real life, and try to port that into the game, and then apply it to other player's decisions on how to play their character.

That's why I argue that taking the attitude of forcing alignment change can only ever be a bad thing. Because in actual table play situations that arise, the vast majority of the time the person causing the problem is the person insisting that a player isn't playing their alignment correctly. Occasionally the problem is the in-game actions are disruptive, killing NPCs or captured prisoners out of hand, starting PvP, etc. But it's almost never a problem with a player intentionally misrepresenting their alignment motivation to get a psychopath past the DM-Alignment-radar.

My example is an exaggeration to make the point clear.

And while that may be your experience, I've never had an issue with talking to a PC about changing their alignment to more closely match what they're playing.

alchahest

2017-10-23, 12:13 PM

outside of the in-game consequences of obviously evil actions, we don't tend to see enforcement of alignment, background, flaws, ideals, bonds, etc.

these items, however, are the main place characters earn inspiration from. If you act to character (or, have a legitimate reason for acting against character) in a meaningful way you'll often be awarded with inspiration.

Dr.Samurai

2017-10-23, 01:16 PM

I'm going to argue that actually weakens your argument. By forcing the change on a player you're making an artificial tipping point.
To be clear, the change is on the sheet. The player is already roleplaying the character however they have been.

Yesterday the sprite would have read their alignment as chaotic good but today it reads as chaotic neutral even though nothing much has changed its just been a general shift.
I think the way you described it is fine. But the "one action and you're evil" point is arguing a point I'm not making.

However, I don't think it's true that "nothing much has changed", even if it's been gradual and over time.

So, if we're talking about someone that is *actually* shifting alignments, over time their motivations and the things that matter to them are changing, so that they are willing and more likely to take actions they wouldn't have before.

If you accept alignment is a nebulous things which is difficult to pin down on a day to day basis, why does the sprite get to ignore that?
I don't know that it's so difficult to pin down. Your description was fine, as it makes note of the overall leaning, with a bit of something else in there.

If that matches, great. If it doesn't, I think that's a problem.

Off the top of my head there are sprites which can detect alignment. One of the potential purposes for a sentient magic item is to hunt down opposed alignments. I think there are one or two magic items which require a specific alignment. Some of the werecreatures set your alignment differently.

That's it as far as I'm aware.
Right. When you say "purposefully", the implication is that they are trying to avoid using alignment in some way other than as a motivational tool. I don't know that to be the case.

If you're not arguing that a character must have an alignment written down, why are you arguing that its worth a DMs time to force a character to change what is written down :smallconfused: If you told a player to change their alignment and they just rubbed it out and left it blank, how is that different from not bothering to tell them to change it at all?
That's a different argument, or point to make. Here's the thing... you and Tanarii are arguing that it doesn't matter if the alignment on the sheet matches the behavior in the game. So my response is that then the alignment written on the sheet doesn't matter.

Then you and Tanarii respond that the alignment not mattering also doesn't matter. So we're all just kind of throwing our hands in the air.

I'm not saying players and DMs shouldn't discuss their characters thoughts and actions, what I'm saying is its pointless for a DM to force an unwilling player to change the alignment on their sheet. That approach isn't going to do anything to alter their roleplaying.
Right. As I've said before, changing it on the sheet does absolutely nothing to correct the behavior (unless the conversation itself ends up with a new understanding or something).

As a DM it is within your prerogative to have an item which dislikes chaotic people dislike my neutral character if you feel I have been particularly chaotic of late. If the player is amenable then you can probably just agree with them what their alignment is when it comes up (which, per the above, is basically never in 5E) - if they're not amenable you're just getting into an argument for no reason.
Why is the argument for no reason though? I just saw Tanarii's response to me (sorry Tanarii, I think you posted right before I did and I missed it). He seems to have a problem with the DM being a moral arbiter. But... the DM roleplays *everyone else* in the game. So now everyone and everything in the game has to treat you as Good just because you say you're Good, even though your actions say otherwise? I think it's grounds for a conversation. I don't think it's pointless at all, and I'm fine with the DM being the arbiter on that, because the DM is literally roleplaying the entire rest of the world that the PC is playing in.

With regard to the hassle - you have to keep track of all players alignments, keep in mind when they're acting in a way that you perceive is against that alignment and how often they're doing it and to what extent and then potentially get into a debate with your player if they don't feel that your personal moral assessments are correct. The return on that investment is...what exactly? What improvement to play experience is gained?
I don't think it's as much a hassle as you think it is to "keep track" of actions that are evil, let's say (since that's usually what we're talking about).

Again, I get that you think it doesn't matter. But, I think it does, lol.

TheTeaMustFlow

2017-10-23, 02:00 PM

I don't. They exist on paper, but I've never ever seen them happen in a 5e game. That I run or that others have run.

Really? Not even a single casting of Spirit Guardians?

Tanarii

2017-10-23, 02:13 PM

Really? Not even a single casting of Spirit Guardians?
Not in a game where there was any doubt about alignment. No.

Like, you have your way for someone else's role-playing of alignment behavior to become a mechanical issue.

Contrast

2017-10-23, 02:34 PM

To be clear, the change is on the sheet. The player is already roleplaying the character however they have been.

So for clarity, if you think someones alignment has changed but you either haven't had a chance to discuss it with the character or they are resistant you will DM as if their alignment was different to that on their sheet?

Right. When you say "purposefully", the implication is that they are trying to avoid using alignment in some way other than as a motivational tool. I don't know that to be the case.

...so they accidentally made alignment a lot less mechanically important and also introduced backgrounds, motivations, bonds and ideals to flesh out characters? That's an odd stance to take but ok.

That's a different argument, or point to make. Here's the thing... you and Tanarii are arguing that it doesn't matter if the alignment on the sheet matches the behavior in the game. So my response is that then the alignment written on the sheet doesn't matter.

Then you and Tanarii respond that the alignment not mattering also doesn't matter. So we're all just kind of throwing our hands in the air.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. My stance is that alignment is as useful as me writing a hand written not to myself 'gets angry easily' to remind me my character gets angry easily. If I resolve my anger issues should my DM care that I forgot to rub out my note? Sure theoretically I should but...

Why is the argument for no reason though? I just saw Tanarii's response to me (sorry Tanarii, I think you posted right before I did and I missed it). He seems to have a problem with the DM being a moral arbiter. But... the DM roleplays *everyone else* in the game. So now everyone and everything in the game has to treat you as Good just because you say you're Good, even though your actions say otherwise? I think it's grounds for a conversation. I don't think it's pointless at all, and I'm fine with the DM being the arbiter on that, because the DM is literally roleplaying the entire rest of the world that the PC is playing in.

I'm here to play games not argue philosophy with the DM. Also if a DM has everyone in the world use their own moral compass then they should probably be looking at their own roleplaying, not the players. Edit - and for clarity, NPCs have no idea whats written on your character sheet - they react to what they know of your actions, nothing else.

I don't think it's as much a hassle as you think it is to "keep track" of actions that are evil, let's say (since that's usually what we're talking about).

This is another issue. Someone mentioned above about playing in an evil party and being told they were being too good but I'm willing to bed 99% of the time a DM has forced an alignment change on someone its towards the evil end of the spectrum (and likely someone playing a cleric or paladin). No-one cares if your chaotic character acts lawful but if your good character acts evil you better bet the DM will be all up in your grill :smallbiggrin:

Again, I get that you think it doesn't matter. But, I think it does, lol.

Cool - as I said, why does it matter? What are the benefits you're getting in your game I'm not getting in mine. If there's an upside I might change my mind :smallwink:

Dr.Samurai

2017-10-23, 02:36 PM

I don't. They exist on paper, but I've never ever seen them happen in a 5e game. That I run or that others have run.

If DMs are running games with their own mechanical effects added in based around Alignment, that's on them for causing their own problems.
This is bizarrely dismissive and contrary to reality... :smallconfused:

DMs enforcing players properly using RP aids isn't my schtick.
In this case, the DM isn't forcing the player to abide by his written alignment.

I didn't need to motivation. That's not my business as a DM. As a DM, I need to know declared action, Approach and Intented Result for it, and determine Outcomes and Consequences. I don't care about their reasoning, outside of intended result and approach.
If you purposefully avoid mechanics in game that check for alignment, then this is fine. The statement "that's not my business as a DM" is true enough in that case.

It went great because I dropped Alignment from the issue.
No you didn't. I really feel like we're just playing word games at this point. You said "don't be evil" without saying it, and without calling their actions evil. But that's the exact thing that you're getting at.

What prompted the conversation? Killing a surrendered enemy in cold blood. What don't you want to happen anymore? More senseless killing. So what do you say? "And I'd also prefer this game not go down the path to brutality."

You think you're taking alignment out of it but you're not. You're still telling them "I don't want you to play an evil character", you're just not using the word "evil".

Another situation came up in my current game: The Wizard stepped around the corner and Fireballed a cave full of Gnolls. He knew they were waiting with bows. He lost initiative, survived three arrows, and BOOM dead Gnolls. Unfortunately he forgot to check about whelps. Three dead. The two previous times they had an encounter with them, they let the whelps flee / walk out first. The Life Cleric is upset and morose, the two mercs with him took the pov that war has casualties.

No reason to touch Alignments here IMO. But I've seen tons of DMs who would be all like, that's a Evil action, you're Evil now. Murderers of children! (Both in games, and on these boards.)

(Next session I'm going to tell the group I'm done with this whelps BS and they won't have to deal with it in the future. I was running the module as is, it added an interesting element, but it's not something they're going to have to deal with regularly, because that's just not fun for them. I can tell. They're a eat-popcorn-throw-dice-kill-orcs group of players, not an explore-moral-quandaries group.)
I agree with both your call, and your choice to avoid the whelp nonsense. We expect to storm caves and kill monsters, and adding children to the mix makes it a different type of game.

Really? Not even a single casting of Spirit Guardians?
Any DM that uses this spell as written clearly has no idea how Alignment is supposed to work in 5E :smalltongue:.

War_lord

2017-10-23, 02:39 PM

If you've got Lawful Good on your sheet, but you're playing your character as a murderous Psychopath, why do you care about a "forced" alignment change? Good and Evil and Law and Chaos in D&D are not abstract concepts derived from subjective moral positions, they're cosmic forces that have actual avatars representing them. If you take issue with that, you're playing the wrong system. If anything dropping alignment from your game makes things more about the DM's subjective opinions on certain issues then keeping it.

Dr.Samurai

2017-10-23, 02:52 PM

So for clarity, if you think someones alignment has changed but you either haven't had a chance to discuss it with the character or they are resistant you will DM as if their alignment was different to that on their sheet?
I'd always speak with the player even beforehand so that we're on the same page. But in theory, yes, if for some reason the player was in the dark I'd treat the alignment they way I, as the DM, believe it actually is.

...so they accidentally made alignment a lot less mechanically important and also introduced backgrounds, motivations, bonds and ideals to flesh out characters? That's an odd stance to take but ok.
Not sure what's so odd. Tanarii (and you? maybe) are treating Alignment as strictly a guide to roleplaying, and blaming DMs for utilizing it in a mechanical way. And to do this, you imply that 5th edition is purposefully phasing Alignment out.

But... we know there are mechanical uses of Alignment in the game. A simple one was just brought up, Spiritual Guardians.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. My stance is that alignment is as useful as me writing a hand written not to myself 'gets angry easily' to remind me my character gets angry easily. If I resolve my anger issues should my DM care that I forgot to rub out my note? Sure theoretically I should but...
.... but it doesn't matter. Yes, that's my point. It doesn't matter. You're just shrugging. "Sure, it doesn't match but... it doesn't matter."

In other words, to use your analogy:

You: It doesn't matter if I resolved my anger issues but my sheet says I have anger management problems.
Me: But then it doesn't matter that your sheet says you have anger management problems. Why write it there?
You: It doesn't matter that it doesn't matter that my sheet says anger management problems even though I don't.

I'm here to play games not argue philosophy with the DM.
If you're implying that a discussion about alignment is a matter of philosphy, and you're not interested in that, I'm not sure why you care what your alignment is in the first place. We've already established that you don't care if it even matches your in-game behavior or not, and now you're not even interested in talking about it. So... accept the alignment shift :smallcool:.

Also if a DM has everyone in the world use their own moral compass then they should probably be looking at their own roleplaying, not the players.
That's not required for the point to stand. Good and evil are objective in the game. Someone has to make that call in the case of a dispute.

This is another issue. Someone mentioned above about playing in an evil party and being told they were being too good but I'm willing to bed 99% of the time a DM has forced an alignment change on someone its towards the evil end of the spectrum (and likely someone playing a cleric or paladin). No-one cares if your chaotic character acts lawful but if your good character acts evil you better bet the DM will be all up in your grill :smallbiggrin:
Usually because evil characters are super disruptive to the game.

Cool - as I said, why does it matter?
Right. Why does it matter? Why write it down if it has no bearing? Why include it on the character sheet?

2D8HP

2017-10-23, 03:16 PM

....Why include it on the character sheet?

Good question!

Honestly it's tradition, and writing "good" on the sheet is often the only plausible reason I think of for my PC to follow the adventure "hook" ("Why are we risking our necks to save the villagers from the Hobgoblin again? Gorobei Katayama expected to at least be paid!")

Honest Tiefling

2017-10-23, 03:20 PM

Right. Why does it matter? Why write it down if it has no bearing? Why include it on the character sheet?

Tradition is probably the right answer, but I use alignment to get everyone on the same page for making characters. Not all Chaotic/Neutral Goods are going to get along enough to make a coherent choice, but it's going to work a whole heck of a lot better then a Chaotic Good/Lawful Evil spread.

Tanarii

2017-10-23, 03:45 PM

If you purposefully avoid mechanics in game that check for alignment, then this is fine. The statement "that's not my business as a DM" is true enough in that case.okay, that's fair enough. My position is the mechanics that require alignment are so far and few between as to have little to no chance to arise in the standard game. But that's definitely a YMMV, so I can see where you would take issue with it.

No you didn't. I really feel like we're just playing word games at this point. You said "don't be evil" without saying it, and without calling their actions evil. But that's the exact thing that you're getting at.

What prompted the conversation? Killing a surrendered enemy in cold blood. What don't you want to happen anymore? More senseless killing. So what do you say? "And I'd also prefer this game not go down the path to brutality."

You think you're taking alignment out of it but you're not. You're still telling them "I don't want you to play an evil character", you're just not using the word "evil".No. I absolutely don't think it was an "evil" action, nor an evil character. In my personal judgement, if I needed to be some kind of moral arbiter. And that's the problem right there. Apparently you DO consider it an evil action, or you wouldn't make that claim. I consider what he did merciless. Not good, but not evil.

If I was going to argue for an Alignment change, I would have told the player they probably should consider a Neutral character, not an evil one. And I'm fine with merciless, but it comes with consequences. Often players don't think about that, and these ones are so warned. And there is a danger of going from merciless to outright brutality, and that's something I don't want.

But if I start in with that conversation, now the table is trying to define what is Good and Neutral and Evil, and I'm not here to play "philosophy of Alignments" at the table. That's not the point. It doesn't matter what our philosophical disagreements are, or how we define alignments, or whatever. What matters in the game is the facts of the action and consequences. And by removing Alignment from the discussion, I focused on making clear what I'm talking about, with no chance of disagreement on what I meant.

I agree with both your call, and your choice to avoid the whelp nonsense. We expect to storm caves and kill monsters, and adding children to the mix makes it a different type of game.Pretty much.

Contrast

2017-10-23, 04:15 PM

Not sure what's so odd. Tanarii (and you? maybe) are treating Alignment as strictly a guide to roleplaying, and blaming DMs for utilizing it in a mechanical way. And to do this, you imply that 5th edition is purposefully phasing Alignment out.

I would say blaming is the wrong word. I am suggesting alignment is not worth the hassle associated with it and a DM who spends their time worrying about alignment (edit - more specifically, worrying if players have crossed some arbitrary line between arbitrary categories of alignment) could be more profitably spending that time thinking about other things.

.... but it doesn't matter. Yes, that's my point. It doesn't matter. You're just shrugging. "Sure, it doesn't match but... it doesn't matter."

In other words, to use your analogy:

You: It doesn't matter if I resolved my anger issues but my sheet says I have anger management problems.
Me: But then it doesn't matter that your sheet says you have anger management problems. Why write it there?
You: It doesn't matter that it doesn't matter that my sheet says anger management problems even though I don't.

I see it more like this:

DM: Hey, I notice you still have that 'gets angry' note on your character sheet.
Player: Yeah?
DM: Well you haven't been roleplaying that since Y - you should probably change it to 'doesn't get angry'.
Player: Oh sure, I've got a better handle on it but I still get angry.
DM: What about that time X and Z when you didn't get angry?
Player: What do you mean? I totally got angry at X and Z shouldn't have made me angry anyway.
DM: I don't think the way you roleplayed showed that you were angry though and Z should have made you angry.
Player: I disagree.
DM: Look I'm the DM and you didn't seem angry to me. Change it on your character sheet.
Player: ...

If you're implying that a discussion about alignment is a matter of philosphy, and you're not interested in that, I'm not sure why you care what your alignment is in the first place. We've already established that you don't care if it even matches your in-game behavior or not, and now you're not even interested in talking about it. So... accept the alignment shift :smallcool:.

In what way isn't alignment a matter of philosophy? :smallconfused: I don't mind discussing such things with my friends - I also don't really mind characters getting into debates about philosophy and the relative merits of certain actions (as long as the players are sensible and remember the RL/IG split).

I think its a terrible idea to try and impose philosophy (an area where definitive answers or even just consistent opinions are...elusive at best) mechanically in the game.

That's not required for the point to stand. Good and evil are objective in the game. Someone has to make that call in the case of a dispute.

Good and evil can certainly be definitive in the context of the game - objective though? Lets take the Faerun setting. Ao doesn't care to define good and evil. A load of the gods do but how do you weigh the opinion of one god over another?

Right. Why does it matter? Why write it down if it has no bearing? Why include it on the character sheet?

I answered this question - somewhat useful (like bonds and motivations, etc) when you're settling in to the character, afterwards can be ignored as by that point the question should always be 'what does my specific character think' not 'what would a generic chaotic good character think' (hence my argument that getting people to change it is a waste of time and effort).

Anonymouswizard

2017-10-23, 07:02 PM

Good, I prefer the @AnonymousWizard/LotFP way of dealing with Alignment, otherwise use it for Ideals.

Heh, I've completely switched from 5e to LotFP for GMing. Alignment in my world is specifically if you're a piece of the angels (and by association the gods) or the Gribbly Demon Things* (who caused the sapients to arise), which is just standard for Lamentations. Learning to cast magic-user spells literally involves summoning a demon and bargaining for the knowledge (elves are half demon, which is why magic is so natural to them).

Note that this is a world split in a divine conflict between very strict Law and rather carefree Chaos, it's just neither wants to destroy the world because it's binding the various planes of existence together.

Because if I want I can add in Ideals and Bonds and such easily, what 5e doesn't give me is a small number of classes that fit 90% of character concepts. There's no real need for a rules difference between a wizard and a warlock, just change what spells they get (if you can really care). Plus I'll never miss Fireball. Making a 1st level 5e character still takes me the better part of an hour, LotFP is just ten minutes (roll stats, pick class, jot down alignment, roll hp, roll sp and buy equipment, roll three spells for MUs or assign four skill points for specialists). I like 5e's personality traits, they just make traditional alignment redundant.

* Look like Lovecraftian horrors, act more like traditional demons with bargains and everything.

Tanarii

2017-10-23, 09:50 PM

Making a 1st level 5e character still takes me the better part of an hour,
More like 15 minutes, including adding up the weight of your gear and writing down Personality Traits. Unless your a newcomer. I know from personal and recent experience it takes about an hour with me working with 4 players who have never played before, all making characters at the same time.

2D8HP

2017-10-24, 12:06 AM

...Making a 1st level 5e character still takes me the better part of an hour, LotFP is just ten minutes (roll stats, pick class, jot down alignment, roll hp, roll sp and buy equipment, roll three spells for MUs or assign four skill points for specialists).....

More like 15 minutes, including adding up the weight of your gear and writing down Personality Traits....

Wow, you guys are both faster than me in both games!

Allocating and calculating stats using point buy in 5e takes me some time, but mostly it's just all the "I dotting" (filling in all the entries).

For LotFP (and Labyrinth Lord, and TSR D&D) it selecting and budgeting equipment that is the real time suck.

Both take me less time than HERO or GURPS.

Tanarii

2017-10-24, 12:37 AM

Wow, you guys are both faster than me in both games!Pretty sure at this point I could create any PHB character from memory, especially if it's standard array. Fairly sure I've got all the racials, level 1 class features & starting gear, and background features/skills/tolls/languages memorized. Not personality traits though, I'd have to make those up on the fly.

Help enough newcomers create characters for your games, and it kinda sticks.

Anonymouswizard

2017-10-24, 04:09 AM

More like 15 minutes, including adding up the weight of your gear and writing down Personality Traits. Unless your a newcomer. I know from personal and recent experience it takes about an hour with me working with 4 players who have never played before, all making characters at the same time.

Yeah, it varies quite a bit, I did once make one in like five minutes. But because of so many classes and races it takes me a while to go through them. Literally doing one now, it's taken five minutes to assign my stats and pick vHuman, but that's because I've been trying to avoid people.

It's not as bad as 3.5 or GURPS, but it's not as easy as Lamentations of the Flame Princess. The one I'm generating now has taken over half an hour for level 10, and I haven't completed backgrounds (so for level 1 it would have been ten minutes so far).

Wow, you guys are both faster than me in both games!

Allocating and calculating stats using point buy in 5e takes me some time, but mostly it's just all the "I dotting" (filling in all the entries).

For LotFP (and Labyrinth Lord, and TSR D&D) it selecting and budgeting equipment that is the real time suck.

Both take me less time than HERO or GURPS.

Yeah, equipment can be a time sink :smallwink:

Dr.Samurai

2017-10-24, 09:23 AM

That's cool, except 8 and 9 are not that dumb!
And they're not that bright either!

We have scores for people that are smarter than average. Those are 12-20.

Why not if they're experienced in that area?
Yes, when we add conditions things change.

Besides dumb folks bloviate, and pontificate all the time (like what I'm doing now)!
Clearly not what we're talking about...

By definition half of all people are below "average intelligence", I just don't buy that "Adventurers" are mostly in the "smart" half.
They're not, unless they are. What does it mean if your intelligence is below average? It means your mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and ability to reason are below the average person's. That's not me saying that, that's the books saying that.

Besides this "Adventurers are exceptional" claptrap has gone too far!

How can you "go from zero to hero" if you don't start as a zero?!
I take "zero" to mean "unknown" or "not a hero". As opposed to "he had a strength of 10 but then he fought some goblins and suddenly he could crush boulders". That doesn't make sense to me.

Yeah, they're being bogus or they're delusional. I wouldn't press it though, arguments over ethics get heated without anyone changing their minds (see Forum banned topics for examples)
Oh I don't know about how heated they get. I mean... Tanarii still talks to me :smalltongue:.

I've never seen people playing smarter than their stat, quite the reverse. If at best average people pretend to play genius Wizards, why not allow the reverse?
Again, it's not about the actual person. It's about the character. If your character is below average intelligence, it stands to reason he would be portrayed that way. What that entails will differ between people, obviously. But if you don't think the actual score means anything other than mechanically (ability checks), then it's sort of a moot point to begin with.

No. I absolutely don't think it was an "evil" action, nor an evil character. In my personal judgement, if I needed to be some kind of moral arbiter. And that's the problem right there. Apparently you DO consider it an evil action, or you wouldn't make that claim. I consider what he did merciless. Not good, but not evil.
Rereading the situation, that's fair. Certainly non-good. I think, based on your next paragraph, it's worth mentioning that I don't think only evil actions matter, or that evil actions turn the character evil. I see it as a gradient. I think we may have gone over this before. So even if killing the bandit is not necessarily evil ((since the bandit is a killer and I agree with you, he's essentially at the group's mercy), it's not good, as you say, and continued behavior like this can result in an alignment shift that isn't necessarily Good->Evil.

But if I start in with that conversation, now the table is trying to define what is Good and Neutral and Evil, and I'm not here to play "philosophy of Alignments" at the table. That's not the point. It doesn't matter what our philosophical disagreements are, or how we define alignments, or whatever. What matters in the game is the facts of the action and consequences. And by removing Alignment from the discussion, I focused on making clear what I'm talking about, with no chance of disagreement on what I meant.
Sorry, but it is the point if you have Alignment written down on your sheet. Because you're already determining what that alignment means to you, and, supposedly, it's going to influence your behavior and motivate you to some degree. So the philosophy/discussion/conversation has already happened in some sense. And if there isn't an agreement on what those alignments mean, and it manifests in-game, you're having that discussion one way or another.

Honestly, all I can gather from your posts, and Contrast's, and 2D8HP's and Honest Tiefling's is that Alignment just simply doesn't matter. Which is a fine position to hold.

I would say blaming is the wrong word. I am suggesting alignment is not worth the hassle associated with it and a DM who spends their time worrying about alignment (edit - more specifically, worrying if players have crossed some arbitrary line between arbitrary categories of alignment) could be more profitably spending that time thinking about other things.
I really think your experiences have been different to mine. I don't understand why it's now a hassle for the DM to simply be cognizant of the actions his players have taken in the game. Like, I don't think Tanarii is going to forget that his player was merciless with that bandit. If the player keeps being brutal, Tanarii will take notice. He's already taken measures to prevent that, so if it's happening he'll be aware.

I don't know, I don't see it as a big deal to be honest.

I see it more like this:

DM: Hey, I notice you still have that 'gets angry' note on your character sheet.
Player: Yeah?
DM: Well you haven't been roleplaying that since Y - you should probably change it to 'doesn't get angry'.
Player: Oh sure, I've got a better handle on it but I still get angry.
DM: What about that time X and Z when you didn't get angry?
Player: What do you mean? I totally got angry at X and Z shouldn't have made me angry anyway.
DM: I don't think the way you roleplayed showed that you were angry though and Z should have made you angry.
Player: I disagree.
DM: Look I'm the DM and you didn't seem angry to me. Change it on your character sheet.
Player: ...
Correct. That is the scenario that you and Tanarii are concerned about avoiding, yes. The perspective you've taken to avoid that situation is "it doesn't matter what alignment is on your sheet".

I think its a terrible idea to try and impose philosophy (an area where definitive answers or even just consistent opinions are...elusive at best) mechanically in the game.
I don't think you do, since you like Ideals. Philosophy is in the game, mechanically. You can play your games in such a way as to avoid it, and that's fine as well.

Good and evil can certainly be definitive in the context of the game - objective though? Lets take the Faerun setting. Ao doesn't care to define good and evil. A load of the gods do but how do you weigh the opinion of one god over another?
Contrast, all you're saying here is that, as the DM, you play your games so that there isn't a Good or Evil, but just... lots of opinions on the matter. That's fine. But given that the game has alignment-based mechanics, at some point you'll have to decide what is actually good and what is actually evil. If for you that determination is made simply be reading what's on a character sheet, that's fine. That probably works most of the time.

Tanarii

2017-10-24, 09:59 AM

Oh I don't know about how heated they get. I mean... Tanarii still talks to me :smalltongue:.You're one of the most reasonable people to ever tell me I'm wrong. :smallbiggrin:

Honestly though, I respect your stubborn willingness to try and hammer my thick skull long enough for me to see what you're talking about, with just the right combination of willingness to strongly disagree without crossing the line into being rude yourself, or pushing my buttons to make me go super-invested-in-my-argument rude on my side. That's a skill, especially in extended forum discussions. I wish I had it. :smallwink:

Rereading the situation, that's fair. Certainly non-good. I think, based on your next paragraph, it's worth mentioning that I don't think only evil actions matter, or that evil actions turn the character evil. I see it as a gradient. I think we may have gone over this before. So even if killing the bandit is not necessarily evil ((since the bandit is a killer and I agree with you, he's essentially at the group's mercy), it's not good, as you say, and continued behavior like this can result in an alignment shift that isn't necessarily Good->Evil.Yeah, but the impression I got was what you're thinking of is closer to a point system tracking it than how I look at it. I think overall it's fair to say, assuming Alignment and player roleplaying of the character are in sync, we actually look at Alignment behavior and it shifting very similarly.

We just disagree on if the DM (or other players) has any significant need to ever give the player direct feedback and/or forced change in regards to Alignment. I think the DM only has cause to focus on actions and resulting consequences in general, and overall behavior if it's disruptive to the table or campaign tone. And none of that requires Aligment, and making it about Alignment carries the danger of moral and ethical disagreement with it.

That's precisely why 5e put Alignment in the hands of the player as a roleplaying aid in the first place, and is worded with broad strokes so that players can interpret it how it makes sense to them personally. A DM or other players putting their foot in with regards to Alignment is reversing that entire concept back to the bad old days of Alignment as a moral scorecard, and hurting its intended purpose.

Sorry, but it is the point if you have Alignment written down on your sheet. Because you're already determining what that alignment means to you, and, supposedly, it's going to influence your behavior and motivate you to some degree. So the philosophy/discussion/conversation has already happened in some sense. And if there isn't an agreement on what those alignments mean, and it manifests in-game, you're having that discussion one way or another. It matters a lot to the player. It shouldn't matter at all to the DM unless it's disruptive at the table or to the campaign tone.

Honestly, all I can gather from your posts, and Contrast's, and 2D8HP's and Honest Tiefling's is that Alignment just simply doesn't matter. Which is a fine position to hold.my position is: Alignment matters more in 5e than it ever has in any previous edition of 5e. It's primary purpose is very clear now: a roleplaying aid. It's secondary purpose remains: to divide the DnD universe into us vs them*.

And if DMs or other players try to tell a player how they need to use it to roleplay, or force alignment changes, they risk destroying the usefulness of Alignment, and put us back in the bad old days of older editions, where it was a useless moral scorecard thats primary purpose was to cause philosophy arguments. That's why I object to that happening.

*If you want to, you can easily just use Personality traits for the primary purpose, and for the secondary purpose make Alignment choices: Hero, Muderhero, Murderhobo, Villain.

KorvinStarmast

2017-10-24, 03:54 PM

Im just sick to death of this same bloody thread every week.
Seriously; we've had:
My PC is a monster who stalks the woods and eats children...
My PC is a genocidal sociopath who slaughters captured noncombatants for her village...
My PC is a sado-masochistic poison master who gets his kicks from merciless torture...
My PC murders babies for the greater good...
My PC slaughters people for minor sins against his faith...

Yes you're evil. You're more evil than Charles Manson or the Son of Sam. Deal with it. If you're asking any of these questions and its not immediately apparent to you what the answer is, seek professional help. Straight talk is not always welcome at gaming tables. :smallcool: (But I like it).

Id certainly raise it with the player. I suggest they take a different flaw because I was never going toward them inspiration. But that's the only mechanical effect that flaws have. it's a bit of a carrot, when people finally begin to see what a second roll can do for them . . .
It matters what alignment it says on the character sheet to the player, provided they decide to use it as a roleplaying aid. If they ignore it, it doesn't matter at all.
I guess we'll part company there. It is my positin that alignment, to be useful in play, needs to be something that DM and player have a dialogue about. It's not purely mechanical by any means. It has the potential to help make a character more 3 dimensional, when handled well by both player and DM. And it can be an arglebargled mess.

It does not matter to the DM at all. Alignment is completely unnecessary for any reason to a DM. See above.

Instead, there should be realistic consequences for actions.Yeah.

outside of the in-game consequences of obviously evil actions, we don't tend to see enforcement of alignment, background, flaws, ideals, bonds, etc. these items, however, are the main place characters earn inspiration from. If you act to character (or, have a legitimate reason for acting against character) in a meaningful way you'll often be awarded with inspiration. It's a nice carrot.

If you've got Lawful Good on your sheet, but you're playing your character as a murderous Psychopath, why do you care about a "forced" alignment change? Obviously, it goes a bit deeper than that. DM's will get the kind of behavior from players that they put up with. Without a dialogue, and a bit of effort to be on the same page, dysfunction can occur. Seen it.
Good question!

Honestly it's tradition, and writing "good" on the sheet is often the only plausible reason I think of for my PC to follow the adventure "hook" ("Why are we risking our necks to save the villagers from the Hobgoblin again? Gorobei Katayama expected to at least be paid!") We applaud your Seven Samurai reference. :smallbiggrin:

Contrast

2017-10-24, 06:59 PM

I don't think you do, since you like Ideals. Philosophy is in the game, mechanically. You can play your games in such a way as to avoid it, and that's fine as well.

I'm inclined to say I prefer ideals and the like because they get you to flesh out your character in a way that integrates them into the world. That said, I would also be very bemused if my DM forced me to change an ideal again my assessment because they thought I wasn't living up to it and I would argue that was wasting a DMs time as well :smalltongue:

Sure a DM could keep tracks of everyones ideals and traits etc and update them as the game goes on but...what are we achieving here?

Keep in mind here I'm not saying DMs shouldn't discuss their players characters thoughts etc - I'm saying in a case where a DM and player have a disagreement about a characters motivations its pointless for the DM to 'force' a player to change them against their will because in reality all you've done is changed some words on a page. You haven't changed anything in the players head and that's where the character really is.

Contrast, all you're saying here is that, as the DM, you play your games so that there isn't a Good or Evil, but just... lots of opinions on the matter. That's fine. But given that the game has alignment-based mechanics, at some point you'll have to decide what is actually good and what is actually evil. If for you that determination is made simply be reading what's on a character sheet, that's fine. That probably works most of the time.

I would argue everyone plays in a game where there are just opinions on the matter. Even if there's an all powerful creator god, theirs is still really just an opinion even if its a really well informed one :smallbiggrin:

If you think I'm suggesting whats written on someones character sheet is the be all and end all then I've clearly been explaining myself incredibly poorly as that's basically the opposite of the argument I've been trying to make :smalleek: See my initial post on the topic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22493494&postcount=23).

If the game forces you to mechanically rule on alignment, DM should make a call and game should move on. I think its a mistake for the game to force you to mechanically rule on alignment (and it very rarely does so) and the best solution available to resolve that is to spend as little time focusing on it as possible as I don't see it adding anything much constructive to the game outside of character creation. I don't think it'll intrinsically make your game worse spending time on it but I'm of the opinion it will increase the chance of arguments about alignment and draw the DMs attention away from more useful things like how the surrounding world actually reacts to what they know of their actions.

Vogonjeltz

2017-10-24, 09:04 PM

Tigers aren't moral entities in D&D alignment, so they're irrelevant.

I think they were making the point that, if the subject in question is incapable of comprehending moral choices, aka an animal (and, yes, I know animals have demonstably shown the capacity to judge unfairness, but for D&D's alignment purposes we have to pretend that research doesn't exist).

Basically the question is: Does Feast now know what he's doing is wrong?

Unless Feast is entirely incapable of communication (in which case there's no plausible basis for having them be anything but an NPC), there's little doubt that Feast knows what they are doing is wrong. Ergo, Feast is Chaotic Evil (killing based purely on his, literal, blood lust).

If, on the other hand, the claim is being made that Feast simply can't comprehend any of this, he should be turned into an NPC accordingly and have the alignment set to Unaligned, as with the Shark/Tiger, whatever, examples, because at that point no claim to sapience can be made.

I have to admit, I'm (morbidly) curious as to these "extenuating circumstances" that the OP was talking about that didn't instantly label Feast as CE.

Honestly, if he's made no effort to change after the first time that the party (presumably) flipped out, then yeah, it's his choice to remain that way and he's definitely Chaotic Evil in my books. If he's making the effort, then he MIGHT be able to cling to Chaotic Neutral.

EDIT: 95% of these situations, if you have to ask, you already know the answer and you're just trying to justify thinking that she/he/it isn't evil.

Unless the entire party is made up of Chaotic Evil characters, I literally can not imagine another character not attempting to kill him there and then. That behavior is so transgressive, so beyond the pale, it almost certainly would force an alignment change on the part of anyone who condoned it through inaction upon learning of it.

'Forcing' someone to change their alignment like OP suggests does nothing. You need to convince them to change their behaviour out of game if its problematic out of game. If the behaviour isn't problematic - again, why do you care whats written on their character sheet - the occupants of the world don't know what their character sheet says so they should just react based on what they've seen.

A very few effects in the game actually depend on alignment. So, although I'm entirely sympathetic to your idea of not worrying about alignment as a term, in practice it actually does matter, sometimes.

And, failing to act based on alignment is just bad roleplay anyway. Especially when your alignment gets changed from external factors, which necessarily indicate a shift in personality/behavior going forward.

Absolutely not.
Confer PHB: "Most creatures that lack the capacity for rational thought do not have alignments - they are unaligned."
AND: "Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutraI), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral)."
Otherwise said, having alignment requires to be able to understand the concept of morality and the consequences of actions.

If Feast is presented as a creature that, although humanoid, never lived in any other way than a beast, and has no education that could help it gain superior self-awareness and rationale, it cannot be considered as "an Evil creature".

Feast demonstrably has the capacity for rational thought, he can make choices. That those choices are demonstrably evil is an indicator of what the correct alignment choice should be. None of this really matters though, the player chose the wrong alignment in the first instance, and the correction would be to write the appropriate alignment down instead (in this case, Chaotic Evil fits the character by definition).

There's no harm in that at all. The real question is: Why have the other players not killed him already? If unwilling to control his impulses then he's no better than any other dangerous monster. If the party isn't made up of people willing to reform every creature they encounter that would attempt to slaughter their young, why would they tolerate the existence of Feast? That presents a super-sized double standard, and it simply doesn't track.

I don't think its "Evil" It's just morally wrong. It's neutral because he's doing it for his own good not to be evil.

The word "evil" means "morally bad or wrong; wicked."

Also, if we look to the various alignment descriptions in the PHB, he is Chaotic Evil.

Malifice

2017-10-24, 11:26 PM

Unless the entire party is made up of Chaotic Evil characters, I literally can not imagine another character not attempting to kill him there and then.

Plently of CE characters would find a character that kills and eats children reprehensible.

For mine they would actually be the most likely to kill the Orc there and then (remember: Chaotic evil PCs are actually the most likley to react with arbitrary violence to something they dont like).

There are many shades of CE. Titus Pullo, Rick Sanchez, Ramsay Bolton and Darth Vader are all examples of people who consider themselves above the law, are entirely capricious, self centred, unconventional and unpredictable, and act with arbitrary violence (rape, murder, torture, genocide) frequently.

Of course you also have your 'psychopath' CE who go around killing people for next to no reason, and when not in their own best intrests. You generally see a lot of this with new or inexperienced players when given the opportunity to play evil PCs.

Malifice

2017-10-25, 04:35 AM

My LG Paladin encountered a Devil the other day, and he told me that unless I killed an orphanage full of babies, the world was going to be destroyed at midnight.

I wasnt sure if he was lying or not, so I cast Zone of Truth. Turns out he was telling the truth.

Accordingly, I duly followed his directions and headed directly to the orphanage. Once there I stalked from room to room, hatcheting those orphans to death. Sadly the nuns guarding the orphanage tried to stop me, so I had to kill them as well. I didnt want to, and I got no pleasure out of it, but it had to be done.

One of the nuns had hidden the last orphan. With little time remaining, and her stubbornly refusing to tell me where the child was, I was left with no option but to torture her till she told me. She was stubborn Torm bless her, so I really had to get medieval and go full Dexter on her. Eventually she caved, and I found the baby, and stabbed it to death in the nick of time. I then killed the nun, as a mercy killing as she was in pretty bad shape and begging for death.

The Devil thanked me for the slaughter and innocent souls I provided him, and told me that thanks to my actions, the world was duly saved.

Now the DM is telling me that my Spirit Guardians spell deals necrotic damage for some reason.

What gives?

oxybe

2017-10-25, 05:40 AM

Tanarii

2017-10-25, 09:14 AM

What gives?The DM set up a strawman situation.

Malifice

2017-10-25, 09:57 AM

The DM set up a strawman situation.

Or I'm a ****ing idiot, and just did what the devil told me to do.

Coffee_Dragon

2017-10-25, 10:54 AM

Or I'm a ****ing idiot, and just did what the devil told me to do.

You saved the world. In a parallel universe, the paladin who didn't save the world is a hapless petitioner along with everyone else who died when the world ended. But his player's DM assures him that if he could still cast Spiritial Guardians, it would show sparkly bunnies, so there's that.

Anonymouswizard

2017-10-25, 11:08 AM

Tanarii

2017-10-25, 11:27 AM

You saved the world. In a parallel universe, the paladin who didn't save the world is a hapless petitioner along with everyone else who died when the world ended. But his player's DM assures him that if he could still cast Spiritial Guardians, it would show sparkly bunnies, so there's that.Plus he gets to be a helpless petitioner in the Seven Heavens or other appropriate afterlife, morally lording it over the other petitioners you let die. Of course, that's assuming the DM doesn't tell you that your PC is actually in the nine hells being tortured by the devil or the abyss with demons. After all, you did choose to do nothing and let everyone die when you could have acted ...

As a DM or player, and not being even close to a moral philosopher, I'd put this down as a pretty clear cut case of Doing the Right Thing isn't always Doing the Good Thing.

It's also the perfect and typical Malifice post, taking 'examples' to a place no actual table play will ever go. The fallacy of ridiculous extremes. A common fallacy among those that think they're illustrating their point by taking things to a so-called logical end point. Also see the Trolley Problem, which is basically what this is.

2D8HP

2017-10-25, 11:29 AM

....if he could still cast Spiritial Guardians, it would show sparkly bunnies, so there's that.

I like bunnies.

Tell me about the rabbits?

I agree. Time to take Lennie down to the river....

PhantasyPen

2017-10-25, 11:31 AM

Dr.Samurai

2017-10-25, 11:50 AM

the_brazenburn

2017-10-25, 11:54 AM

It might be a troll post, but it's lots of fun.

2D8HP

2017-10-25, 12:12 PM

Hey guys? How do I contact a mod to have a thread locked or something? Considering the content of this thread and the fact that other than posting this thread the OP has done absolutely nothing I'm a bit suspicious this is just a troll post.

:confused:

What's wrong with the content?

Seems like one of the best and most rancor-free "Alignment" threads we've had lately.

But if you feel the itch, you "report" by clicking on the little triangle symbol on the lower left of the post you want the mods to look at.

Malifice

2017-10-25, 12:36 PM

Anonymouswizard

2017-10-25, 12:39 PM

:confused:

What's wrong with the content?

Seems like one of the best and most rancor-free "Alignment" threads we've had lately.

Yeah, there's been a bit of argument but even that's been relatively civil. I think it's because we've mainly filtered down to the 'alignment dictating your personality is rubbish' crowd though.

Malifice

2017-10-25, 12:45 PM

I know!

I mean, I'd argue that this is a case of 'fallen paladin, maybe move to lawful neutral, can probably atone with a quest' level, but this is a case where I think where we'll still disagree on the degree while we all agree on the result.

What the ****? LN?

I just tortured and murdered babies and nuns! I butchered an entire orphanage. With a ****ing axe.

I'm ****ing evil.

****s sake. You people think it's 'morally neutral' to kill children and nuns because the devil told you to?

I just can't be ****ed dealing with this anymore.

Ciao

Tanarii

2017-10-25, 12:45 PM

And even if he was, the forces of cosmic good are strengtned because the Paladin that resisted doing evil goes to heaven. Good wins.He did evil. He made a decision to allow billions of people to die, intentionally. He went to the Nine Hells and is being punished by Devils. If you rule otherwise as a DM, clearly you're not running good and evil right.

Your example is just the trolley problem all over again. And as with that problem, the moral assumptions about good and evil involved will vary drastically from person to person. Not the least of which because neither your example nor the trolley problem are realistic scenarios.

If I recall correctly, last time the Trolley Problem was brought up, you took the stance that Good will always find a different way to save the lives of the people. What's changed that in your example this is no longer the case?

Edit: to be clear, because of your last post, I am in NO WAY claiming that doing what the Devil said in your example was a Good Action. It sounds like a fall-from-grace for the Paladin to me.

Malifice

2017-10-25, 12:51 PM

He did evil. He made a decision to allow billions of people to die, intentionally. He went to the Nine Hells and is being punished by Devils. If you rule otherwise as a DM, clearly you're not running good and evil right.

Your example is just the trolley problem all over again. And as with that problem, the moral assumptions about good and evil involved will vary drastically from person to person. Not the least of which because neither your example nor the trolley problem are realistic scenarios.

If I recall correctly, last time the Trolley Problem was brought up, you took the stance that Good will always find a different way to save the lives of the people. What's changed that in your example this is no longer the case?

Jesus Christ. You do 'morally good' wrong man.

Like really really wrong.

PS the devil made his wisdom save. He was lying.

Not that it ****ing matters.

Tanarii

2017-10-25, 12:53 PM

Jesus Christ. You do 'morally good' wrong man.

Like really really wrong.

PS the devil made his wisdom save. He was lying.

Not that it ****ing matters.Your really should stay out of morality/alignment discussions for your own not blowing your top health. :smallwink: You're clearly an IRL idealist for morality. And I mean that in the best way.

Malifice

2017-10-25, 12:59 PM

Your really should stay out of morality/alignment discussions for your own not blowing your top health. :smallwink: You're clearly an IRL idealist for morality. And I mean that in the best way.

Sue me for thinking torturing and murdering an orphanage full of kids and nuns (because the devil tells you to) is unambiguously evil. With a capital E.

I mean come on man. Seriously?

Tanarii

2017-10-25, 01:01 PM

Sue me for thinking murdering kids and nuns (because the devil tells you to) is unambiguously evil. With a capital E.

I mean come on man. Seriously?
Read my edit. I make no claim as to the morality of murdering kids and nuns being good, or for that matter not being evil.

I'm saying that under your Trolley Problem example given, the Paladin ALSO could easily be seen to be doing unambiguously evil, with a capital E, by letting billions die. It's entirely possible to view it as a lose-lose scenario for the Paladin.

Edit: I know what I, as a player of said Paladin, would do in this situation. I'd assume the Devil was lying to me. But if the DM flat out told me it was the truth, and there was no way around it, I had to choose one or the other, I'd do the Right thing: quit that game.

smcmike

2017-10-25, 01:01 PM

Oh man, are we doing trolley problems again? Meh.

I did get around to reading a good fantasy series that plays with this idea a little - NK Jemisin’s Inheritence series, where the ruling family of the world is pretty explicitly evil, despite bringing about hundreds of years of world peace through brutal magic dictatorship. Anyways, I recommend it.

Malifice

2017-10-25, 01:06 PM

Read my edit. I make no claim as to the morality of murdering kids and nuns being good, or for that matter not being evil.

I'm saying that under your Trolley Problem example given, the Paladin ALSO could easily be seen to be doing unambiguously evil, with a capital E, by letting billions die. It's entirely possible to view it as a lose-lose scenario for the Paladin.

Edit: I know what I, as a player of said Paladin, would do in this situation. I'd assume the Devil was lying to me. But if the DM flat out told me it was the truth, and there was no way around it, I had to choose one or the other, I'd do the Right thing: quit that game.

He's not letting anyone die man.

He's just not murdering people on the orders of freaking Satan.

Friv

2017-10-25, 01:08 PM

I have only one thought when I hear about the Trolley Problem now...

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2017/10/NUP_178287_0528/lead_960.jpg?1508599132

Tanarii

2017-10-25, 01:16 PM

He's not letting anyone die man.

He's just not murdering people on the orders of freaking Satan.
If the world ends, and he knows for an absolutely fact that it will end if he takes no action, and knows for an absolute fact that it will not end if he takes action, it is a fact that the Paladin is letting them die by his inaction. This is a fact of the Trolley Problem scenario, and it sure read like what was happening in your scenario.

And it's what makes the Trolley problem scenario ludicrous. There's no way to know that for an absolutely fact.

Now if your scenario didn't include knowing it for an absolute fact, then yeah, I made a bad assumption about the example you're proposing. And the Paladin in question is both foolish and stupid for taking a Devil's obvious lie as truth.

Anonymouswizard

2017-10-25, 01:19 PM

What the ****? LN?

I just tortured and murdered babies and nuns! I butchered an entire orphanage. With a ****ing axe.

I'm ****ing evil.

****s sake. You people think it's 'morally neutral' to kill children and nuns because the devil told you to?

I just can't be ****ed dealing with this anymore.

Ciao

I didn't say the action was LN, I was saying that this one incident wouldn't drop you down to evil. Plus you believe that the ends are good (I don't care if the demon made his save, I'm assuming that the paladin has a WIS of 4), good ends via evil means sounds neutral to me.

But this is exactly why I dislike the good/evil axis.

Malifice

2017-10-25, 01:23 PM

If the world ends, and he knows for an absolutely fact that it will end if he takes no action, and knows for an absolute fact that it will not end if he takes action, it is a fact that the Paladin is letting them die by his inaction. This is a fact of the Trolley Problem scenario, and it sure read like what was happening in your scenario.

And it's what makes the Trolley problem scenario ludicrous. There's no way to know that for an absolutely fact.

Now if your scenario didn't include knowing it for an absolute fact, then yeah, I made a bad assumption about the example you're proposing. And the Paladin in question is both foolish and stupid for taking a Devil's obvious lie as truth.

He CAN'T know for an absolute fact mate. You can't even know for an absolute fact that you're not living in the matrix.

And even if he did ****ing know, he doesn't go about murdering, raping and torturing babies.

He finds another way.

And if that way doesn't work, he didn't kill anyone. The freaking devil did.

How are you not seeing this? How are you defending rape, child murder and torture? They are ****ing evil. I don't care what your reasons are. No good person murders rapes and/ or tortures children.

For any cause or reason, let alone simply because a Devil tells them to.

Jesus. The fact I have to explain this to you scares the crap out of me, and not in a good way.

smcmike

2017-10-25, 01:26 PM

How are you not seeing this? How are you defending rape, child murder and torture? They are ****ing evil. I don't care what your reasons are. No good person murders rapes and/ or tortures children.

For any cause or reason, let alone simply because a Devil tells them to.

Jesus. The fact I have to explain this to you scares the crap out of me, and not in a good way.

How many times do you have to repeat this hyperbole? That’s not what he was doing.

Also, no one here has ever defended rape. In fact, you are the only poster who has ever even mentioned rape, to my knowledge, since it is not a subject that your average RPG player would touch with a ten foot pole.

The fact that you are so obsessed with rape scares the crap out of me. (Not really, and don’t take offense - this is a demonstration of how offensive your rhetoric is).

Malifice

2017-10-25, 01:36 PM

How many times do you have to repeat this hyperbole? That’s not what he was doing.

Also, no one here has ever defended rape. In fact, you are the only poster who has ever even mentioned rape, to my knowledge, since it is not a subject that your average RPG player would touch with a ten foot pole.

The fact that you are so obsessed with rape scares the crap out of me. (Not really, and don’t take offense - this is a demonstration of how offensive your rhetoric is).

Let me get this straight.

Murder and torture of an entire orphanage of babies and nuns to save the world at the behest of the Devil is OK. See post above.

But rape is out? The world can burn?

Just so were clear" I'm drawing no distinction here. All those acts are evil and reprehensible.

It's just weird how you can condone baby murder for Satan as being 'not evil when the devil asks you to in order to save the world' but other crimes are somehow beyond the pale.

Again. If the devil asks me to murder children, torture nuns or rape someone, I don't ****ing do it. I don't care what the ramifacartions are. I'm a good person. The devil (cosmic evil) loses and (cosmic good) wins.

See how it works yet? You (and the forces of good) win by being good. Not by engaging in acts of depraved evil on the request of a damn devil.

Anonymouswizard

2017-10-25, 01:39 PM

He CAN'T know for an absolute fact mate. You can't even know for an absolute fact that you're not living in the matrix.

And even if he did ****ing know, he doesn't go about murdering, raping and torturing babies.

He finds another way.

And if that way doesn't work, he didn't kill anyone. The freaking devil did.

The weird thing is, 'the world might be destroyed' is the one time I'd recommend a paladin listening to a devil. Few devils want the world to end, otherwise they can't get anything from it.

Secondly, the original brief said nothing about rape and torture, which would have put this to evil because it is literally outside the 'must be done' the Paladin has been told. We've just been murdering children with a battle axe and searching the body for loot (one of the nine virtues of the avatar), which while it's not good it's in pursuit of a good goal, so it's textbook averaging neutral.

He should fall (assuming a 2e/3.5 paladin) because he willingly caused an evil act, but one evil act does not make evil, otherwise characters would ping pong around the alignment grid with every other action (it's like an extreme version of Fable, murdering a kid is fine as long as you throw some coppers to an orphan).

How are you not seeing this? How are you defending rape, child murder and torture? They are ****ing evil. I don't care what your reasons are. No good person murders rapes and/ or tortures children.

For any cause or reason, let alone simply because a Devil tells them to.

Jesus. The fact I have to explain this to you scares the crap out of me, and not in a good way.

The fact we have to explain that you can perform an evil action without being evil is worrying me, and not in a good way. Which is why I said neutral should be his new alignment, and he should have a chance to redeem himself (ideally with a quest lasting a couple of years, because Ultima jokes aside killing kids with a battle axe is horrific).

smcmike

2017-10-25, 01:42 PM

Let me get this straight.

I’ll see if I can help!

Murder and torture of an entire orphanage of babies and nuns to save the world at the behest of the Devil is OK. See post above.

Yeah no one said that.

But rape is out? The world can burn?

Rape is certainly out, but I think it’s genuiniely strange how often you drag it back in.

It's just weird how you can condone baby murder for Satan as being 'not evil when the devil asks you to in order to save the world' but other crimes are somehow beyond the pale.

I didn’t! Straight yet?

Malifice

2017-10-25, 01:44 PM

The weird thing is, 'the world might be destroyed' is the one time I'd recommend a paladin listening to a devil. Few devils want the world to end, otherwise they can't get anything from it.

Secondly, the original brief said nothing about rape and torture, which would have put this to evil because it is literally outside the 'must be done' the Paladin has been told. We've just been murdering children with a battle axe and searching the body for loot (one of the nine virtues of the avatar), which while it's not good it's in pursuit of a good goal, so it's textbook averaging neutral.

He should fall (assuming a 2e/3.5 paladin) because he willingly caused an evil act, but one evil act does not make evil, otherwise characters would ping pong around the alignment grid with every other action (it's like an extreme version of Fable, murdering a kid is fine as long as you throw some coppers to an orphan).

The fact we have to explain that you can perform an evil action without being evil is worrying me, and not in a good way. Which is why I said neutral should be his new alignment, and he should have a chance to redeem himself (ideally with a quest lasting a couple of years, because Ultima jokes aside killing kids with a battle axe is horrific).

Look man. You think mass baby axe murder, torture and rape can be 'morally neutral' as long as the Devil tells you to do it or else the world ends... and you're pretty sure he means it.

Let me put it to you that if that's true...

...the devil has already won.

Tanarii

2017-10-25, 01:45 PM

How are you not seeing this?Because you presented it in a way that made me assume you were giving a Trolley Problem, and that the Paladin was being given a devil's choice between two things he knew for a fact.

How are you defending rape, child murder and torture?I am not doing this, and HOW DARE YOU SAY I AM! Seriously. That pissed me off. :smallfurious:

mrumsey

2017-10-25, 01:49 PM

These threads always remind me of my freshman philosophy course.

Good times.

Malifice

2017-10-25, 01:53 PM

Because you presented it in a way that made me assume you were giving a Trolley Problem, and that the Paladin was being given a devil's choice between two things he knew for a fact:

You can't know anything for a fact. Ever.

You have a Devil in front of you. Saying 'murder orphans'. You cast zone of truth, he doesn't ping as lying, and off you go to murder kids. And murder nuns. And torture them.

That was the example. Multiple posters are trying to argue 'morally neutral' FFS

I mean, even if you can be sure the devil is telling the truth (and this is impossible) you're still committing an act of evil.

You haven't saved anyone's souls or aided the cosmic good in any way. All you've done is damn your own soul.

Evil wins. Good loses.

By telling the devil to go get ****ed, cosmic good wins.

See it yet?

smcmike

2017-10-25, 01:58 PM

Just for fun, here’s an example of a similar dilemma from a story I’ve been listening to:

The city is under the thumb of a monstrous regime. An evil inquisitor has tortured a man for possession of illegal books, and has him on the gallows for execution. He has brought the PC along, in an effort to impress the PC with his power. He has also brought the prisoner’s daughter, who is pregnant and traumatized by her father’s plight. He demands that the daughter pull the lever to execute her father, in order to prove her loyalty, and her father begs her to do so, concerned only with her life.

The PC has few options. If he attacks the inquisitor, he will die without accomplishing anything. If he sits back and does nothing, the daughter will be forced to execute her own father, something that will haunt her forever. In order to spare her that pain, he defies the inquisitor and pulls the lever himself, ending the psychological torture of the daughter, but killing the man. As he does, he begs the man’s forgiveness.

Now, I’m not going to argue that this is an act of pure Good. He has something to beg forgiveness for, certainly. But it seems to me that it may have been the best option available.

Malifice

2017-10-25, 01:59 PM

If cosmic good condones wilfull baby murder at the machinations of the devil, then cosmic good has a lot to answer for.

The LG person doesn't do evil. Hell claims one less soul. People go to their ordained afterlife, good wins and Ao sorts out what happens next.

Malifice

2017-10-25, 02:00 PM

Or maybe the devil is just lying.

You know. Because devil.

smcmike

2017-10-25, 02:00 PM

If cosmic good condones wilfull baby murder at the machinations of the devil, then cosmic good has a lot to answer for.

Cosmic good always has a lot to answer for. That’s why many people don’t think it’s a coherent concept.

Anonymouswizard

2017-10-25, 02:01 PM

Look man. You think mass baby axe murder, torture and rape can be 'morally neutral' as long as the Devil tells you to do it or else the world ends... and you're pretty sure he means it.

Taking what I said out of context.

What I'm saying is that it's generally agreed that somebody doing Evil for a Good reason ends up Neutral, in an 'ends justify the means, but not completely' viewpoint. This doesn't have to be true, but you have to realise that these arguments exist because we disagree.

Let me put it to you that if that's true...

...the devil has already won.

Please, he lost out to Azatoth long ago.

EDIT: loving the logic. 'You think the devil is lying, so you use lie detecting magic and it seems like he's telling the truth' many posts later 'maybe the devil was lying, you can't tell'. Uh, I cast lie detecting magic, it means I'll likely believe what he says unless I can tell he resisted the magic.

Malifice

2017-10-25, 02:04 PM

Cosmic good always has a lot to answer for. That’s why many people don’t think it’s a coherent concept.

Irrelevant what people's subjective thoughts are.

I mean - feel free to justify baby murder all you want.

All the way to hell.

It'll all become clear to you eventually I assure you.

smcmike

2017-10-25, 02:05 PM

Irrelevant what people's subjective thoughts are.

I mean - feel free to justify baby murder all you want.

All the way to hell.

It'll all become clear to you eventually I assure you.

What even is this? Like, what are you doing here? Condemning people to hell for things you are imagining they’ve said?

Malifice

2017-10-25, 02:05 PM

Taking what I said out of context.

What I'm saying is that it's generally agreed that somebody doing Evil for a Good reason ends up Neutral, in an 'ends justify the means, but not completely' viewpoint. This doesn't have to be true, but you have to realise that these arguments exist because we disagree.

Please, he lost out to Azatoth long ago.

It's not generally agreed on that doing evil for a good reason makes you neutral

It makes you evil.

Malifice

2017-10-25, 02:08 PM

What even is this? Like, what are you doing here? Condemning people to hell for things you are imagining they’ve said?

No. You go for baby murder on the urging of the devil.

We on agreement that this sends one to hell (or abyss etc) in Faerun? Where cosmic good and evil exist?

Unoriginal

2017-10-25, 02:14 PM

Saving the world doesn't mean you're doing something for the cosmic good.

Malifice

2017-10-25, 02:14 PM

'You think the devil is lying, so you use lie detecting magic and it seems like he's telling the truth' many posts later 'maybe the devil was lying, you can't tell'. Uh, I cast lie detecting magic, it means I'll likely believe what he says unless I can tell he resisted the magic.

No. I'm saying:

1. It doesn't matter if the devil is lying, and
2. You can't know for sure if he is or not.

The devil killing people doesn't increase cosmic evil. It just sends good people to heaven and bad people to hell.

You killing babies on the request of the devil sends a soul bound for heaven (yours) to hell instead.

Do nothing and evil cant win.

Kill and torture nuns and babies and cosmic evil wins.

This is the case regardless of if the devil is lying or telling the truth.

Malifice

2017-10-25, 02:19 PM

Saving the world doesn't mean you're doing something for the cosmic good.

Exactly.

Evil people die and go to hell. Good people die and go to heaven.

For a reason. Whatever Ao created cosmic good and evil for in the first place.

Maybe they count heads at the end times. Beats me.

You're a good man. You're committed to stopping the devil. But not by committing acts of evil.

Maybe the devil only wants you to kill babies because the score is currently even, and evil only needs the one more soul.

Yours

smcmike

2017-10-25, 02:21 PM

The devil killing people doesn't increase cosmic evil. It just sends good people to heaven and bad people to hell.

This is an interesting position, particularly since the stakes here weren’t just “some people,” but “the entire world.”

Let’s say that, instead of having to do evil in order to stop the devil, the Paladin must fight the devil. Is it morally acceptable to shrug his shoulders and say “well, if the Devil kills the entire world, it won’t increase cosmic evil?”

Friv

2017-10-25, 02:29 PM

No. I'm saying:

1. It doesn't matter if the devil is lying, and
2. You can't know for sure if he is or not.

The devil killing people doesn't increase cosmic evil. It just sends good people to heaven and bad people to hell.

You killing babies on the request of the devil sends a soul bound for heaven (yours) to hell instead.

Do nothing and evil cant win.

Kill and torture nuns and babies and cosmic evil wins.

This is the case regardless of if the devil is lying or telling the truth.

Under this argument, killing babies is in fact the greatest act of cosmic good you can do. If you kill every good person, you save them the possibility of turning evil, thereby sending them to an eternity of bliss. Aren't a few moments of pain worth an eternity of bliss, especially if the alternative is that some of those children will grow up to become evil and thus will be tortured forever?

In fact, sacrificing your own soul to save the souls of hundreds or thousands of people seems like a huge win for cosmic good, as long as you don't kill any evil people along the way (after all, an evil person might be redeemed).

Malifice

2017-10-25, 02:33 PM

This is an interesting position, particularly since the stakes here weren’t just “some people,” but “the entire world.”

Let’s say that, instead of having to do evil in order to stop the devil, the Paladin must fight the devil. Is it morally acceptable to shrug his shoulders and say “well, if the Devil kills the entire world, it won’t increase cosmic evil?”

Good people go out of their way and engage in self sacrifice to help others.

By attempting to stop the devil (without committing an evil act) we're advancing the cause of cosmic good.

Even better if we can redeem the devil. One less soul for hell and one more for heaven.

And it does happen. Much easier to fall the other way (good to evil). Erinyes were all angels once remember. As was Asmodeus himself.

Reason being they fool themselves into thinking evil becomes justified when done 'for the greater good.'

It never is.

Very few examples of devil's redeeming. There was a succubus in 3E. Not sure if still cannon.

Certainly Grazzt was once a LE devil that is now a CE demon.

Laurefindel

2017-10-25, 02:37 PM

It's not generally agreed on that doing evil for a good reason makes you neutral

It makes you evil.

I agree that doing evil for the sake of Good doesn't make you less evil. Simply opposing and battling a villain doesn't make you good either. It makes you evil opposing villain.

I'm no so sure "doing evil for good = neutral" is a general consensus.

Malifice

2017-10-25, 02:39 PM

Under this argument, killing babies is in fact the greatest act of cosmic good you can do. If you kill every good person, you save them the possibility of turning evil, thereby sending them to an eternity of bliss. Aren't a few moments of pain worth an eternity of bliss, especially if the alternative is that some of those children will grow up to become evil and thus will be tortured forever?

In fact, sacrificing your own soul to save the souls of hundreds or thousands of people seems like a huge win for cosmic good, as long as you don't kill any evil people along the way (after all, an evil person might be redeemed).

You're missing the point.

At the instant you decide to murder the babies, you don't aid anyone other than cosmic evil by condemning your own soul to hell.

The tally only changes by 1. Your own.

Of course maybe 'more evil' souls count more. Its not necessarily a 1 for 1 thing.

Being a saint your whole life might count for more than being a dude who is simply pretty good for most of it.

Cosmic good doesn't care about your subjective reasons. It just cares about cosmic good.

smcmike

2017-10-25, 02:46 PM

You're missing the point.

At the instant you decide to murder the babies, you don't aid anyone other than cosmic evil by condemning your own soul to hell.

The tally only changes by 1. Your own.

Of course maybe 'more evil' souls count more. Its not necessarily a 1 for 1 thing.

Being a saint your whole life might count for more than being a dude who is simply pretty good for most of it.

Cosmic good doesn't care about your subjective reasons. It just cares about cosmic good.

In other words, cosmic good is only concerned with the state of your soul, and has no actual interest in the fate of the babies? If they die in an accidental fire, for instance, the forces of “Good” are indifferent?

Plantae

2017-10-25, 03:04 PM

To the OP, with all respect, you're asking entirely the wrong question here.

The question you need to be asking is: does this character (and player's) behavior disrupt my game? Is it making the game less fun for my other players and for me?

The details of this scenario (specifically that there is so much disagreement about the alignment issue) suggest that the problem here runs deeper than a box on a character sheet.

I can't imagine many campaigns where this type of character would be acceptable (regardless of alignment). We're talking about an orc that indiscriminately attacks and eats people, including children. I'm finding it hard to see how this type of character could meaningfully contribute to an adventuring party or to an ongoing adventure or campaign in any way. It sounds like more of an unnecessary distraction that detracts from the type of experience most DMs and players want to have when they sit down for a game of D&D.

This might not be the case for your group, but if it is, then Feast's player needs to retire the character and make a new one that can play nice with the rest of the party and with the campaign.

MadBear

2017-10-25, 03:25 PM

Malifice, you're making a lot of assumptions here about cosmic good, cosmic evil, and just about everything people have said on this thread. You're also trying to cram multiple ideas into a single topic, which makes parsing it out basically impossible.

However, if we make the assumption for the sake of the argument that: The devil was in fact telling the truth

We can have a conversation about what the correct course of action is. Now, in your original example, you already have the problem of the paladin unnecessarily killing and torturing people, so that's already out and evil. So up to this point I agree with you what he did was "*****ing evil"

Now if we add the assumption: he didn't kill any other people, and he did his best to ensure no pain to his victims

With this added assumption, I still wouldn't call what he did anything near good. In fact it was still supremely evil. However, you can make the case that it may have been the right thing to do. In the cosmic balance of saving lives, you just saved the entire world while damning yourself forever for an evil act. This even fits your sacrifice motiff you made earlier, as we now have a paladin who sacrificed his soul to save the world.

Now, this entire conversation breaks down without the first assumption. Because I agree with you that if the devil said this you have no good reason to believe him. In that case, you can't possibly make the argument to follow through with what he said. Even with lie detecting magic, I wouldn't trust him. The only way you get to the edge case where I can see it being argued for is a scenario where you possess absolute knowledge on the matter (Something that again, I agree is not possible except in a hypothetical scenario like this one).

I could easily create a world where there was no afterlife at all. Where when you died, you simply ceased to exist. In that particular world, there would be no cosmic good/evil scale to tip. And in that world, assuming the previous assumptions you were taking the only action that would save as many people as you could. (again, I get that there's no practical way outside of hypothetical scenarios where this would be the case, but here we are, in a hypothetical scenario where this is assumed).

2D8HP

2017-10-25, 03:33 PM

My LG Paladin encountered a Devil the other day, and he told me that...

...What gives?

Frankly @Malifice if I were playing a LG Paladin and a "Devil" (the DM) presented me with such a scenerio I'd do what @Tanari said:

....I'd do the Right thing: quit that game.

I'd just quit the game.

But if you want to discuss "Alignment" in depth, sure my very first post to this Forum was on the subject, and I will repeat myself again (lucky you).

But before we do since your example mention a "LG Paladin" let's look at the Paladin class.

In previous threads I've ranted a bit about 5e Paladins, basically:

Oath of Devotion = good
Oath of Ancients = cool
and
Oath of Vengeance = jerk.

But let's go back to the other D&D I've played, originally there were three classes; "Cleric", "Fighting-Men", and "Magic-User" (as in "wake up the user, it's time to cast the daily spell"). Clerics didn't have any spells at first level, but they could "turn" some undead (a bit like a 5e Paladin really).
The Paladin class was introduced in La Chanson de Roland the 1975 "Greyhawk" supplement (which also introduced Thieves hmm... what a coincidence funny that). From "Greyhawk":
Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for the character. If such fighters elect to they can become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained. The paladin has a number of very powerful aids in his continual seeking for good......".
(Ok this is the fun part the special powers which include......PSYCH! Back to the restrictions)
"Paladins will never be allowed to possess more than four magically items, excluding the armor, shield and up to four weapons they normally use. They will give away all treasure that they win, save that which is neccesary to maintain themselves, their men and a modest castle. Gifts must be to the poor or to charitable or religious institutions , i.e.not tho some other character played in the game. A paladin's stronghold cannot be above 200,000 gold pieces in total cost, and no more than 200 men can be retained to guard it. Paladins normally prefer to dwell with lawful princess of patriarchs, but circumstances may prevent this. They will associate only with lawful characters"
Huh? What's lawful? What's chaotic? What's associate? And what is this charitable? I don't believe PC's know this word. :smallwink:
Well...helpfully there are some clues:
" Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that - chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederate in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place".
OK Paladins are "continual seeking for good", "All thieves are either neutral or chaotic - although lawful characters may hire them on a one-time basis for missions which are basically lawful" "Patriarchs" (high level Clerics) "stance" is "Law", and "Evil High Priests" "stance" is "Chaos". So we can infer that Law = Good, and Chaos = Evil in early D&D, which fits how the terms were used in novels Gygax cited as "inspiration", first in Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions", and than later in Moorcock's "Stormbringer" (though Moorcock eventually in his novels show that too much "Law" is anti-human as well, which is probably why Gygax added the separate Good-Evil axis so you could have "Lawful Evil" and "Chaotic Good" alignmemts later).
How did this actually play out?
The characters:
Swingy McStabbySword - Fighter,
Sparky McBigBooms - Magic User,
and
Pally McLayOnHands - Paladin:
The scene: Private room at village Inn "The Inn":
Sparky: Time to pay our tavern tab methinks (authentically like medieval style dialogue)
Swingy: Aw dude that sucks, I won't have enough left to get that awesome plate armor forsooth (again real authentically medieval speachifyin' thats just how we rolled),
Sparky: Hey lets just sneak out and bail on the tab methinks in truth.
Swingy: Ye spake most awesomely, that would be badass!
Pally: Hark! If you do that I can't hang with you dudes!
Swingy: Sucketh to be ye then!
Sparky: Don't let the door hit ye!
Swingy: Hey! How will we survive the Dungeon without Pally!, hark ye etc.
Sparky: Dude! We will loot the village instead! That will be way safer methinks!
Swingy: Awesome! Um.. thou spake most badass!.....

Swingy and Sparky went on to live happily until they got smoked by pitchfork wielding villagers. Pally got help in building her castle from the villagers, and lived happily until going to lay some smackdown on a Red Dragon.

:smallfrown:

So what did we learn?
1) Fighters really like Plate Mail armor.
2) Magic Users are jerks!
3) Sometimes Paladins must travel a lonely road.

Okay, in the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions) by Poul Anderson,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg/220px-ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg
which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict, it was only sometimes "Law", and usually it was indeed "Order" vs. "Chaos", and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

To learn what is ment by "chaotic/good", "lawful/evil" etc. ask the DM of that particular table, it means what the DM says it means

If you want you can also read the article which first had the term.

I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which is next to me. It reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/TSvlWfi0wuI/AAAAAAAAC5E/kwE-DYf3GtU/s1600/alignmentchart.jpg

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KYLvpKSI/AAAAAAAAGrk/gxPmMlYaDIQ/s1600-h/illus1%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KaWTQKmI/AAAAAAAAGrs/EY_aYEhHcvs/s1600-h/n1%5B5%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KcgaWCfI/AAAAAAAAGr0/cZZSquIxTn4/s1600-h/n2a%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KfERen3I/AAAAAAAAGr8/Sb0VAeS3nKM/s1600-h/N2b%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KifB_yhI/AAAAAAAAGsI/O4eV2OSXAng/N3_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KhU85a1I/AAAAAAAAGsE/nnA-2gMCFyI/s1600-h/N3%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600-h/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KmQCwDXI/AAAAAAAAGsU/_suYkwtUadA/s1600-h/Illus3%5B2%5D.jpg)

Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined. In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil. Before going into the definitions of these four terms, a graphic representation of their relative positions will help the reader to follow the further discourse. (Illustration I)

Notice first that the area of neutrality lies squarely athwart the intersection of the lines which divide the four behavioral distinctions, and it is a very small area when compared with the rest of the graph. This refers to true neutrality, not to neutrality regarding certain interactions at specific times, i.e., a war which will tend to weaken a stronger player or game element regardless of the “neutral” party’s actions can hardly be used as a measure of neutrality if it will benefit the party’s interest to have the weakening come about.

Also note that movement upon this graph is quite possible with regard to campaign participants, and the dungeonmaster should, in fact, make this a standard consideration in play. This will be discussed hereafter.

Now consider the term “Law” as opposed to “Chaos”. While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e., a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

Basically, then, “Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification various creatures is shown on Illustration II.

Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that selfseeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category. What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration. Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are not subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-orkrl_JCxGo/VKMvSEOdLCI/AAAAAAAAC30/BVIa-CwK4Gg/s1600/531001_400433280025300_1590190270_n.jpg

"As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil"

- Gary Gygax

http://hilobrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/gygax-futurama.jpg

From:
Feet of Clay by Terry Pratchett

'They think they want good government and justice for all, Vimes, yet what is it they really crave, deep in their hearts? Only that things go on as normal and tomorrow is pretty much like today.'

- Lord Vetinari

http://www.ealasaid.com/fan/vetinari/images/vetport.jpg

Some graphs:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LDbDeU_0i1g/TfJNFmcn4mI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/txjRi0uJHqE/s1600/Alignment.jpg

https://retrorpg.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/screen-shot-2011-03-10-at-4-43-37-pm.png

Made simple-
https://1d4chan.org/images/thumb/4/45/Alignment_Demotivational.jpg/350px-Alignment_Demotivational.jpg

From Pratchett's Discworld-
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/71/47/1c/71471c4a84496bb6ae3cb129d35b036c.jpg

And from
THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL
by Gary Gygax

http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg

But the "rules" on alignment and everything else are up to each individual table:

Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."

AD&D 2E, DMG, p. 3: "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone, I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question -- what do you feel is right? And the people asking the question discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

D&D 5e DMG, p. 263:: "As the Dungeon Master, You aren't limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual

I will note that this doesn't fit my own lived experience in that how I fall on the graph changes with how much coffee or tea I've recently injested, and whether I lately heard harsh or soft words!

Maybe other people are more consistent and I'm an outlier in having a fluid "alignment"?

Or just maybe consistent "alignments" are a game contrivance and don't actually apply to realistic characters?

Anyway for even more fun lets look some more at the history of D&D "Alignment":

Dave Arneson wrote that he added "alignment" to the game he made up because of one PC backstabbing another (http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/Archive_OLD/rpg2.html)

"We began without the multitude of character classes and three alignments that exists today. I felt that as a team working towards common goals there would be it was all pretty straight forward. Wrong!

"Give me my sword back!" "Nah your old character is dead, it's mine now!"

Well I couldn't really make him give it to the new character. But then came the treasure question. The Thieves question. Finally there were the two new guys. One decided that there was no reason to share the goodies. Since there was no one else around and a +3 for rear attacks . . .. well . . Of course everyone actually KNEW what had happened, especially the target.

After a great deal of discussion . . . yes let us call it "discussion" the culprit promised to make amends. He, and his associate did. The next time the orcs attacked the two opened the door and let the Orcs in. They shared the loot and fled North to the lands of the EGG OF COOT. (Sigh)

We now had alignment. Spells to detect alignment, and rules forbidding actions not allowed by ones alignment. Actually not as much fun as not knowing. Chuck and John had a great time being the 'official' evil players.
They would draw up adventures to trap the others (under my supervision) and otherwise make trouble"

Now in the 1961novel (based on a '53 short story) Three Hearts and Three Lions (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/12/pulp-fantasy-gallery-three-hearts-and.html), we have this:

"....Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them were almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants--an actual creation of Chaos. Wars among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and extend their own shadowy dominion....."

.which suggests that Law vs. Chaos is about "teams" in a cosmic struggle rather than personal ethics/morality, which is how the terms are used in the old Stormbringer RPG, and would be my preference.

1976's Eldrich Wizardry supplement added the Mind Flayers which were the first monters that were explicitly both "lawful" and "evil" and Gygax in The Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf) article added the "good and evil axis", but he made clear in this graph:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg

.that creatures don't just exist on one of nine points of ethics/morality, there's a range:

Also in the article (http://themagictreerpg.blogspot.com/2008/09/history-of-alignment-in-d-part-i.html?m=1) Gygax states:

"Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity....

....Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things."

What I infer from that "Alignment" doesn't control the PC's actions, PC actions are a guide to what "Alignment" the DM rules a character is for game effects.

So leave the entry blank, and let the DM deal with the alignment claptrap (frankly as a player I'd rather keep a character possessions inventory sheet and foist the "stats" on the DM anyway)!

Before D&D, Gygax had Law vs. Chaos in the Fantasy appendix to the Chainmail wargame:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wb-QFUiuEqk/T_x0sXHILMI/AAAAAAAAFME/rEhioR7Tw3I/s280/ch☆nmailalign.jpg

..and there it's 'bout sides in a battle.

Arneson and Gygax got Law vs. Chaos from stories by Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock, and it could be a coincidence but Michael Moorcock in A Quest for Tanelorn wrote:

"Chaos is not wholly evil, surely?" said the child. "And neither is Law wholly good. They are primitive divisions, at best-- they represent only temperamental differences in individual men and women. There are other elements..."
"
..which was published in 1975 in the UK, and 1976 in the USA, and '76 was when Gygax added "good" and "evil" to D&D Alignment.

Also:

a portrait of me
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSpnhA6GfrR-_AfSeGN2Sp644hMIIsj1L3TVQ1Nz-_QUL-33bwa

https://www.thehairpin.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/0NeaWLE3SWGxsYvlW.jpg

http://68.media.tumblr.com/273b8013ecbd0898b2dc844a79b685f2/tumblr_mtnbujvGFo1rv3w77o5_r1_250.gif

https://kithmeme.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/evil.jpg?w=584

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2080/2418979372_08cd8af49d_o.jpg

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_talQIilzbfQ/SnmYcLF0Q3I/AAAAAAAAAUQ/Q9RWFIUpBz8/s320/2509ccca24c0760.jpg

Waterdeep Merch

2017-10-25, 09:47 PM

ULTRA SNIP
That was the most confusing, enormous, and rambly response I have ever seen in any forum to date, on any matter.

It's also pretty good and I agree. Alignment only means what you want it to mean. And that's always been true.

2D8HP

2017-10-25, 10:38 PM

That was the most confusing, enormous, and rambly response I have ever seen in any forum to date, on any matter.

It's also pretty good and I agree. Alignment only means what you want it to mean. And that's always been true.

:redface:

Sorry and thanks!

:smile:

(I wrote during stolen minutes at work, and the effects of the tea I drank wore off when it was time to edit, maybe I'll re-write it and use for another thread, another time. Also may I use your quote for my extended Sig?)

Malifice

2017-10-26, 01:40 AM

Frankly @Malifice if I were playing a LG Paladin and a "Devil" (the DM) presented me with such a scenerio I'd just quit the game.

If a Devil (or Demon) tried to turn you to evil, by convincing you it was 'good' to murder children and nuns, you would quit the game?

Good lord.

Anakin didnt quit the game when the Devil (Emperor) presented him with the same option.

He just marched on down to the Jedi temple and slaughtered the kids. All of them. He did what needed to be done. For peace.

Then he headed over to Mustafar and slaughtered the Confederate leaders as they begged for mercy and peace.

It was for the 'greater good' remember.

Contrast

2017-10-26, 03:38 AM

At the instant you decide to murder the babies, you don't aid anyone other than cosmic evil by condemning your own soul to hell.

The tally only changes by 1. Your own.

So would you say condemning your own soul to hell to save the world was an act of extreme self sacrifice? As the one being sent to hell is you.

Good people go out of their way and engage in self sacrifice to help others.

If you refuse the devil (if you've looked for and are certain there are no other outs), you're saying 'me personally going to heaven is more important to me than saving the world'. That's pretty selfish isn't it?

In fact, can any act truly be considered good except an evil one when you know you will be rewarded in an eternal afterlife for it? If you are certain of the reward of an eternal afterlife (which intrinsically outweighs any temporary discomfort on the moral plane) then any good act immediately becomes selfish and self-serving. So the only really altruistic acts are the ones that hurt your own moral character to the benefit of others!

I've always been bemused by evil people in settings with confirmed afterlives as the most selfish, self serving thing you can do in such a world is be pious and good :smalltongue:

I'm not saying I fully endorse the logic outlined above (alignment is all grey areas) but this is why alignment is a dumb thing to try and hinge things on mechanically.

Unoriginal

2017-10-26, 06:29 AM

From Pratchett's Discworld-
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/71/47/1c/71471c4a84496bb6ae3cb129d35b036c.jpg

That chart is hot garbage.

Nobby is NOT evil. He avoids most fights, is a petty thief, and can be lazy at work, but he never did anything in the books that could qualify as worse than "mean-spirited" (aside from maybe when he was implied to have killed soldiers who were dying from their wounds on battlefields when he was in the army/to steal their stuff). The Dean is a pompous jerk, but he never did anything that'd indicate he's chaotic evil (he arguably was lawful evil when Wizards were in their "fill the pointy shoes of the dead" era). Death went out of his way to save several people and the world on several occasions, often risking a lot while doing so. And Lord Vetinari, despite being relatively benevolent, or at least reasonable, dictator, still has artists he doesn't like tortured routinely.

Also, applying alignments to outside D&D or works that explicitly use an alignment system is ill advised.

hamishspence

2017-10-26, 07:19 AM

And Lord Vetinari, despite being relatively benevolent, or at least reasonable, dictator, still has artists he doesn't like tortured routinely.

A good example:

https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Daniellarina_Pouter

though the artist ended up being not especially upset by it - apparently.

TheTeaMustFlow

2017-10-26, 07:32 AM

MadBear

2017-10-26, 07:35 AM

If a Devil (or Demon) tried to turn you to evil, by convincing you it was 'good' to murder children and nuns, you would quit the game?

Good lord.

Anakin didnt quit the game when the Devil (Emperor) presented him with the same option.

He just marched on down to the Jedi temple and slaughtered the kids. All of them. He did what needed to be done. For peace.

Then he headed over to Mustafar and slaughtered the Confederate leaders as they begged for mercy and peace.

It was for the 'greater good' remember.

you do realize that no one is arguing for the scenario's you're presenting right?

Unoriginal

2017-10-26, 07:37 AM

A good example:

https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Daniellarina_Pouter

though the artist ended up being not especially upset by it - apparently.

She's among the few who survived. The mimes he sends to the scorpion pits aren't that lucky

Anakin didnt quit the game when the Devil (Emperor) presented him with the same option.

He just marched on down to the Jedi temple and slaughtered the kids. All of them. He did what needed to be done. For peace.

Then he headed over to Mustafar and slaughtered the Confederate leaders as they begged for mercy and peace.

It was for the 'greater good' remember.

No, the Emperor never did that, and no, Anakin did not kill those people for this.

The Emperor went all "support me and do those awful things, and maybe we'll manage to save your wife and kids" and Anakin agreed to it because of his self-interested motivation.

It was never for the "greater good", and was never presented as such when they schemed in private.

Also Anakin was already a mass murderer by the time, and he had already abandoned a man to be killed/tortured by the Separatists after said man risked his life to save Padme, out of jealousy/anger the man was a traitor to the Senate.

He was not some kind of innocent Paragon of justice.

KorvinStarmast

2017-10-26, 07:46 AM

TheTeaMustFlow

2017-10-26, 07:54 AM

you do realize that no one is arguing for the scenario's you're presenting right?

Accusing people of supporting horrible things no-one but him has ever mentioned when they disagree with him on any moral question is Malifice's thing.

Dr.Samurai

2017-10-26, 07:56 AM

You're one of the most reasonable people to ever tell me I'm wrong. :smallbiggrin:

Honestly though, I respect your stubborn willingness to try and hammer my thick skull long enough for me to see what you're talking about, with just the right combination of willingness to strongly disagree without crossing the line into being rude yourself, or pushing my buttons to make me go super-invested-in-my-argument rude on my side. That's a skill, especially in extended forum discussions. I wish I had it. :smallwink:
It's mutual Tanarii :smallsmile:. I'm pretty easy to get riled up and I've been called out on my vitriol before, so if it's been this cordial, it's partially because you haven't goaded me (which would be very easy :smalltongue: ) to escalate things lol.

Yeah, but the impression I got was what you're thinking of is closer to a point system tracking it than how I look at it. I think overall it's fair to say, assuming Alignment and player roleplaying of the character are in sync, we actually look at Alignment behavior and it shifting very similarly.
I agree. I think outside of these... interesting... threads, we'd probably run things very similarly.

We just disagree on if the DM (or other players) has any significant need to ever give the player direct feedback and/or forced change in regards to Alignment. I think the DM only has cause to focus on actions and resulting consequences in general, and overall behavior if it's disruptive to the table or campaign tone. And none of that requires Aligment, and making it about Alignment carries the danger of moral and ethical disagreement with it.
So it's mostly a pragmatic argument. I understand that.

That's precisely why 5e put Alignment in the hands of the player as a roleplaying aid in the first place, and is worded with broad strokes so that players can interpret it how it makes sense to them personally. A DM or other players putting their foot in with regards to Alignment is reversing that entire concept back to the bad old days of Alignment as a moral scorecard, and hurting its intended purpose.
I suspect this runs deeper than what we're getting at here. So, when you or Contrast ask about why it matters that the alignment matches the actions, I think, for me at least, it's a sort of tic that things should be... proper or "correct". I was thinking about this when responding to another poster in another thread about the Eberron campaign setting. I've noticed that, and I'm guilty of this, it seems important to many Eberron fans to portray the setting "properly" when DMing or playing there. They really want to be sure to capture the spirit of the setting and play it "true", so to speak. We love to listen to the "word of god" and hear about how Keith Baker runs things or what his take is on x mechanic in z circumstance in the setting.

I'm not suggesting that this is true only of Eberron fans (or all Eberron fans), that's simply a group that I've noticed this in. But I think for some people there's a sense of "correctness", that everything should be where it belongs. Stay within the lines, so to speak.

I could be way off base for others, but I think for me that's where it comes from. There are mechanics in the game that look to alignment, whether it's spells, items, monsters, or planes. So it makes me want the alignment to be "correct". The alignments are described, even if vaguely, but it makes me want the alignments to be "correct". The problem of course is that any person's idea of "correct" might and will differ from someone else's. We have a good idea of alignment, but it gets dicey and tricky, obviously as these threads demonstrate, when the conversation goes further than "I'm lawful good" lol.

my position is: Alignment matters more in 5e than it ever has in any previous edition of 5e. It's primary purpose is very clear now: a roleplaying aid. It's secondary purpose remains: to divide the DnD universe into us vs them*.
LMAO

I'd probably switch those priorities...

*If you want to, you can easily just use Personality traits for the primary purpose, and for the secondary purpose make Alignment choices: Hero, Muderhero, Murderhobo, Villain.
Hmm... thats not a bad idea...

Also...

This thread is fun, and we're all getting along and it's been cordial.

Hold my beer...

CrazyCrab

2017-10-26, 11:29 AM

I really don't see why it's been 8 pages of discussion, the answer is really simple. Yes. His actions are exactly what Chaotic Evil is and no, he is not unaligned.

That said, there are two ways you can really go about this, @OP. One, play along with it and run a comedy game. Have the paladin wiggle his finger at the child-murdering orc and not lose his oath, have a laugh track and have the NPCs bring him food in fear for their lives - the more outlandish the better. "I rubbed my firstborn with spices for you, Mr Orc, please let me go, I have one more day until my retirement." I mean, there's nothing wrong with running a comedy game and they're often actually a lot more fun than the hyper-realistic "let me count encumbrance for my copper pieces" games, especially if run at a pub etc.

However, if you're running classic DnD then no, the orc HAS to be Chaotic Evil and be treated as such by supernatural elements. Why? Well, let's look at a couple of examples:

1) Page 122 of the Player's Handbook describes the alignments available to the players. "Unaligned" is not one of them. Unless you homebrew an additional alignement, it simply does not exist. It's like showing up to a table and asking to play a zucchini. It's not in the book, it has never been in a book as a player option. "Unaligned" only shows up on page 7 of the Monster Manual, where it is described as the alignement of creatures of low intelligence who have no comprehension of law or chaos, good or evil. Unless Feast has around 3 or less intelligence (which is not doable in 5e, the minimum an orc can realistically be is an 6 without rolling), he is not that stupid. If he is, he is more of an NPC than a PC.

2) Most smart animals feel guilt, and that's around INT 3. He, despite being of, most likely higher INT, does not. Even a hungry dog does not bite its master or random people when it knows that it will eventually be fed. Just by watching other party members Feast should understand that he will also be fed. He acts without remorse, not feeling bad about his actions, whenever he feels like it. Textbook chaotic evil (page 122, player's handbook).

3) Final and best example: Monster called Mouth of Grolantor (page 149, Volo's guide to monsters). It's a half-starved, literally insane giant who eats everything he can find. He is not really responsible for his actions, as he is simply insane. Still, with an INT of 5, WIS of 7 and CHA of 5 he is classified as chaotic evil, as he is too smart to be an animal and cannot be unaligned. Classifying him as such is like classifying my underwear as "sweater". It doesn't work. Likewise, Modrons have no free will and don't get to make moral choices. What alignment are they? Lawful neutral, not unaligned.

I think your player just wants to be **** and kill things and is using "unaligned" as an excuse to not be called evil. A lot of people get really defensive and offended when you call them that. I'd say that if you're willing to go with it just, like I said, run a comedy game or say "yeah, sure, you're unaligned", just like you'd say "yeah, sure, you're a zucchini" and then describe them as a mentally unstable human to the rest of the party.

pwykersotz

2017-10-26, 12:14 PM

See, this is why, despite disagreeing with Malifice on many issues, I still really appreciate his posts. Because once you take away the thought exercise and just consider the situation for what it is, it's really, really screwed up. Like, hyper Evil screwed up, and he's the only one who is saying that the emperor has no clothes. Who other than a pedant will watch a Barbarian rip a child in half and consume them and then try to justify that the Barbarian is anything other than an evil monster who needs to be put down?

Bravo, Malifice. You called it like it is.

My 2cp: Feast is a monster at best and CE at worst. Either way he needs to be put down for the good of society. He is a rabid dog who endangers the people he's around, regardless of other factors. Changing the alignment to Evil has less to do with armchair philosophy and more to do with what he does and is willing to do to people. Is there room for a game where this whole thing exists as a thought exercise that tests the limits of game-world morality? Sure! But I'd wager that's a low percentage of games that are played.

awa

2017-10-26, 12:26 PM

I think your player just wants to be **** and kill things and is using "unaligned" as an excuse to not be called evil. A lot of people get really defensive and offended when you call them that. I'd say that if you're willing to go with it just, like I said, run a comedy game or say "yeah, sure, you're unaligned", just like you'd say "yeah, sure, you're a zucchini" and then describe them as a mentally unstable human to the rest of the party.

Consider theironcorpse has only a single post to his name i dont think there is a player

"Total Posts

Total Posts
1

Posts Per Day
0.15

General Information

Last Activity
2017-10-19 06:31 PM

Join Date
2017-10-19"

Tanarii

2017-10-26, 12:33 PM

Wrong agency. Whomever killed those billions was the evil one. There's a one remove involved here. In the case of the nuns, it's direct agency. The agency behind "destroy the planet" was something/someone else.Yes, that's the precise sticking point of the morality debate inherent in the Trolley Problem. Some people agree with you. Others disagree strongly. And I'm over here going: these kind of scenarios are stupid, unrealistic and contrived situations that don't "illustrate" anything other than some people's willingness to trot out the extreme-examples-that-are-ludicrously-irrelevant fallacy.

And for Malifice, this fallacy goes hand in hand with putting words in other people's mouths, and then getting righteously indignant about it.

Edit: "Feast" is also another example of this. There's no point in addressing this so-called character, especially since is now clear the OP was a troll. It's ludicrous and wouldn't ever happen at a table.

I suspect this runs deeper than what we're getting at here. So, when you or Contrast ask about why it matters that the alignment matches the actions, I think, for me at least, it's a sort of tic that things should be... proper or "correct".(read your entire post, I like it, just commenting back on a few things)

Yes, obviously I like Alignment to be "correct" too. In my case, I like the player to make a sincere effort to keep their Alignment's typical behavior in mind, along with other personality traits, when making decisions for their character (aka roleplaying). I also like the player to consider changing alignment when appropriate. Which includes accepting the rare in-game forced alignment changing things and rolling with them. It also includes changing it if the character will be moving in a new direction going forward.

It shouldn't have to include changing it if the player decides their actions so far don't match the alignment behavior, because that means alignment was not "correct" in the first place. But if the player believes that there is a mismatch, they should be willing to change it.

I just happen to think that last is the players business and no one else's. I mean, like anything it's always good to listen to others opinions and not be hard headed. If you're so off base that it's forcing others to speak up, there may be something to it. But it's not others business to 'tell' you you're doing it wrong. And all too many players and DMs think it is.

People tell other people they're doing it wrong on the forums all the time, and for out of game things too, obviously. I think we can all understand nobody likes feeling like they're being told that. Even though we all tell people that from time to time. :smallwink: (Or in my case far too often on the forums)

LMAO

I'd probably switch those priorities...Fair. IMO it's truer to Alignments original intent to have it be mostly about what "Team" you're on rather than idealism, morality, ethics, etc etc. At the very least, a lot of people forget or don't know that the entire reason it's called "Alignment" is because it was about which "Team" you were aligned with.

smcmike

2017-10-26, 12:49 PM

2D8HP

2017-10-26, 01:14 PM

I’m pretty sure that Malifice’s position on the original question is the position of an almost unanimous majority.

I'm pretty sure that most everyone has declared the "Feast" character in the OP's post either a wild non-sentient beast or Evil, we're mostly just theory-crafting and/or bloviating.

I suppose the Alignments, thought and choices? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?539217-Allignments-thought-and-choices) thread may be a more appropriately titled thread for what we're doing, but it's in the "General Role-playing" Forum instead of in the WotC 5e D&D Sub-Forum, so here we are.

Contrast

2017-10-26, 01:40 PM

I think, for me at least, it's a sort of tic that things should be... proper or "correct".

To give my perspective its context - I'm often the person at the table who knows the rules best (on a pretty frequent basis, better than whoever is DMing the game). A number of the people I play with play for the role playing and don't really have any interest or desire to learn the rules fully (including some of the people who DM). This means a lot of the time I'm correcting people on the rules. Now if a player does something they think is cool and the DM thinks is cool, I have to weigh up - should I chime in with the actual rules here or just let them have fun? Some of the players are so poor with the rules that I'd basically have to play for them to get everything right (I can't count the number of times I've said 'add your stat modifier and proficiency' when I notice someone just reading their dice roll as their hit...) which would really stagnate the game and wouldn't really be fun for everyone.

As a result, while I'm pretty strict with the rules for myself, I tend to have a very pragmatic approach to playing the game 'properly'. I'll take what works and causes the minimum amount of disruption :smalltongue:

I really don't see why it's been 8 pages of discussion

Bravo, Malifice. You called it like it is.

We've managed to have a reasonably calm exchange of opinions on alignment, by tacit agreement to mostly ignore OPs original post and discuss something else instead :smallwink:

Anonymouswizard

2017-10-26, 02:24 PM

...Just get the children resurrected. World saved, no permanent harm done except to your diamond dust stocks, easy peasy. Next!

Good point. Most high level clerics of good goods will be willing to spend a few minutes a day for a year or two raising/resurrecting the kids, if you don't have enough on hand. It even cut into their 'useful eight hours'.

But yeah, everybody has said 'Feast is evil and/or not appropriate as a PC', and we mostly moved onto discussing the role of alignment. Apart from Malfice, who seems to think I believe murder, torture, and rape are neutral (I don't, but for murder I can see causes where the net effect would be a neutral character).

Tanarii

2017-10-26, 02:29 PM

As a result, while I'm pretty strict with the rules for myself, I tend to have a very pragmatic approach to playing the game 'properly'. I'll take what works and causes the minimum amount of disruption :smalltongue:

That's pretty much my attitude too, for the same reason. That goes double when I'm a player. Everyone appreciates someone that knows the rules well and they can double check the rules with if there's a question without looking it up. No one appreciates a rules lawyer that gets in the way of fun.

MadBear

2017-10-26, 02:42 PM

Yes, that's the precise sticking point of the morality debate inherent in the Trolley Problem. Some people agree with you. Others disagree strongly. And I'm over here going: these kind of scenarios are stupid, unrealistic and contrived situations that don't "illustrate" anything other than some people's willingness to trot out the extreme-examples-that-are-ludicrously-irrelevant fallacy.

And for Malifice, this fallacy goes hand in hand with putting words in other people's mouths, and then getting righteously indignant about it.

Edit: "Feast" is also another example of this. There's no point in addressing this so-called character, especially since is now clear the OP was a troll. It's ludicrous and wouldn't ever happen at a table.

(read your entire post, I like it, just commenting back on a few things)

Yes, obviously I like Alignment to be "correct" too. In my case, I like the player to make a sincere effort to keep their Alignment's typical behavior in mind, along with other personality traits, when making decisions for their character (aka roleplaying). I also like the player to consider changing alignment when appropriate. Which includes accepting the rare in-game forced alignment changing things and rolling with them. It also includes changing it if the character will be moving in a new direction going forward.

It shouldn't have to include changing it if the player decides their actions so far don't match the alignment behavior, because that means alignment was not "correct" in the first place. But if the player believes that there is a mismatch, they should be willing to change it.

I just happen to think that last is the players business and no one else's. I mean, like anything it's always good to listen to others opinions and not be hard headed. If you're so off base that it's forcing others to speak up, there may be something to it. But it's not others business to 'tell' you you're doing it wrong. And all too many players and DMs think it is.

People tell other people they're doing it wrong on the forums all the time, and for out of game things too, obviously. I think we can all understand nobody likes feeling like they're being told that. Even though we all tell people that from time to time. :smallwink: (Or in my case far too often on the forums)

Fair. IMO it's truer to Alignments original intent to have it be mostly about what "Team" you're on rather than idealism, morality, ethics, etc etc. At the very least, a lot of people forget or don't know that the entire reason it's called "Alignment" is because it was about which "Team" you were aligned with.

To be fair, the trolley problem isn't a fallacy. It's a really useful tool when evaluating and discussing the creation of a societies morality and/or set of ethics. It's can be something interesting to discuss, especially and finding and discussing the boundary of what is moral.

Still, "feast" isn't interesting. He's evil. There's no nuance there.

IShouldntBehere

2017-10-26, 02:54 PM

Yes. Killing people is evil. Ripping children in half is evil.

It's evil.
It's evil in the general real world sense.
It's evil in the weirdo morality-as-physical force of the 3.P era of D&D.
It's evil in the vague-guidelines 5e D&D sense.

On what planet is ripping a child in half to get at their delicious vital internal organs not evil?

Seriously. How is this even a question. How is this even a thread?

This sounds like the kind of character someone makes as a joke. Something that when it somehow gets approved they run with and see how far they'll take it before the GM stops them as a freakin' prank.

awa

2017-10-26, 03:46 PM

its not a question cause he was a troll, its just an alignment debate now.

GlenSmash!

2017-10-26, 04:03 PM

its not a question cause he was a troll, its just an alignment debate now.

It was an alignment discussion for about 5 or 6 pages. But yes this is the truth now.

2D8HP

2017-10-26, 04:13 PM

MadBear

2017-10-26, 05:05 PM

GlenSmash!

2017-10-26, 06:59 PM

For my games I've stopped asking if something is good or evil, because asking "How would the inhabitants of the game world react to this?" is more beneficial to me.

But if somebody asks me if eating children is evil. i'm going to give an honest answer.

Twizzly513

2017-10-26, 09:17 PM

If I were playing a campaign with this player, we would have killed this guy by now. Players kill a lot more stuff for much smaller reasons. If really is essentially an animal, he just needs to be put down, and any group of respectable heroes would have done that...

As for the question, this is definitely evil. I'm sure at some point someone told him that eating people and tearing apart little girls is wrong. In fact, this has probably happened multiple times. If he continues to do it, then it's evil. If he cannot communicate in a meaningful way that he could learn from, he shouldn't be a player character.

Malifice

2017-10-26, 11:55 PM

It was never for the "greater good", and was never presented as such when they schemed in private.

End the war. Bring peace. The Jedi will try and stop us. Do what 'needs to be done'.

He was trying to save the lives of his wife and unborn children, end the war, stop a civil war with the Jedi, and resore peace and order to the galaxy after decades of war and millions (billions) of lives lost.

Clearly Darth Vader was a good guy in Episode III right?

Heck; he said as much to Obi Wan ('From where I stand, the Jedi are ones who are evil!')

smcmike

2017-10-27, 07:19 AM

End the war. Bring peace. The Jedi will try and stop us. Do what 'needs to be done'.

He was trying to save the lives of his wife and unborn children, end the war, stop a civil war with the Jedi, and resore peace and order to the galaxy after decades of war and millions (billions) of lives lost.

Clearly Darth Vader was a good guy in Episode III right?

Heck; he said as much to Obi Wan ('From where I stand, the Jedi are ones who are evil!')

Anakin’s moral arc in the prequels didn’t make a lick of sense anyways.

MadBear

2017-10-27, 07:28 AM

End the war. Bring peace. The Jedi will try and stop us. Do what 'needs to be done'.

He was trying to save the lives of his wife and unborn children, end the war, stop a civil war with the Jedi, and resore peace and order to the galaxy after decades of war and millions (billions) of lives lost.

Clearly Darth Vader was a good guy in Episode III right?

Heck; he said as much to Obi Wan ('From where I stand, the Jedi are ones who are evil!')

The only thing that's clear, is that you're ok misrepresenting others positions.

Anonymouswizard

2017-10-27, 07:31 AM

Seems to me that they're three parallel debates:

1) Is Alignment personal ethics and morality or allegiance to a side of a cosmic struggle?

2) Is it worthwhile for a DM to change the Alignment listed on a PC's character sheet when the DM perceives that the PC behaves contrary to the listed alignment?

and

3) Do evil actions commiteed for a good cause make a PC Evil or Neutral?

Yep, with a minor bit of 'can doing what a Devil asks ever be a Good action*'

For these, my answers are:
1) I prefer allegiance. Actually, I prefer Alignment to be 'who is sponsoring you', but in practice that's little different to allegiance to one side of the cosmic struggle.

2) depends on if it has game mechanic effects or not. If it is I will ask the PC to change it and tell them so, otherwise I don't care if it says 'chaotic good' or 'baby killing paladin' on the sheet.

3) depends on the exact cause, but neutral if committed in good faith and reasoning for how it can support the cause is provided. Definitely neutral for the first atrocity though, gotta let them descend slowly.

* Yes, under certain circumstances, especially if it doesn't put the Devil in a better position. That's my view at least.

Dr.Samurai

2017-10-27, 08:00 AM

Anakin’s moral arc in the prequels didn’t make a lick of sense anyways.
But I think that's Malifice's point. I don't think Malifice is promoting or supporting the arc in the prequels.

But I *DO* think that many people think about alignment arcs the way it happens in the prequels. Something bad happens to the good guy, someone sinister proposes a different perspective on things, WHAM BAM you're evil.

smcmike

2017-10-27, 08:26 AM

But I think that's Malifice's point. I don't think Malifice is promoting or supporting the arc in the prequels.

But I *DO* think that many people think about alignment arcs the way it happens in the prequels. Something bad happens to the good guy, someone sinister proposes a different perspective on things, WHAM BAM you're evil.

Yeah. I just found it so incoherent that I don’t think it’s worth engaging with. If the Dark Side corrupts people as it was portrayed in the prequels, I don’t think it has anything to do with actual human morality.

In a way, this goes back to the OP. Since we are talking about fictional characters, Good and Evil are secondary questions. The first question is whether the character makes any darn sense.

The OP offered a player that attempts to duck moral responsibility by making an unthinking animal of a character. My response is to point out that the player has failed the preliminary test of making a character at all. You don’t get to avoid subsequent tests by failing the first.

Malifice

2017-10-27, 09:44 AM

Yeah. I just found it so incoherent that I don’t think it’s worth engaging with. If the Dark Side corrupts people as it was portrayed in the prequels, I don’t think it has anything to do with actual human morality.

Of course it has to do with human (and alien) morality. You only fall to the dark side if you do evil things. And even evil people are capable of turning from the Dark side and being redeemed (as Anakin ultimately was).

Pretty much all the Star Wars RPG's ever mirror this with a dark side mechanic; do something evil (murder, torture etc) and you get a 'dark side point', your reasoning be damned. Jedi and force users are more susceptible as being force sensitive means they are closer to 'cosmic good and evil' and simply acting while touching or using the force and simultaneously feeling negative 'evil' emotions like (hatred and fear) also get you a dark side point.

In addition some force powers and techniques actively draw on the dark side (objective cosmic evil) and get you a dark side point just for using them , in an identical manner to how Necromancy works in 5E. It draws on cosmic evil (defined as 'unholy black magic' in the game) to create an evil undead monster powered by this cosmic evil/ negative energy.

Get too many dark side points and you become a dark side character.

The 'dark side' is just cosmic evil. Jedi (and other force users) are more sensitive to it and can actively call on cosmic evil to do neat things (but damn themselves in the process).

This is a trope that's repeated in many other genres and games.

Anakin turns to the dark side because he ignores (willfully or otherwise) the fact that [cosmic evil] doesnt care what your subjective reasoning is. If you murder, torture, kill children, engage in genocide, slaughter prisoners at your mercy, act with arbitrary violence etc, your reasons (save my children and wife, end the war, bring peace, avenge my mother etc) are irrelevant. You're evil.

He rationalizes that he's just doing what needs to be done. He's the good guy doing unsavory stuff such as: killing Dooku, wiping out the Sand people, ignoring his master and using his hatred, aggression and anger when he needs the strength, saving Palpatine from arrest, wiping out the Jedi and Separatist high command to save the Empire and countless lives from a second civil war, bring peace to a galaxy that's been at war since he was a child).

He's self deluded of course. Part of him knows what he's doing. He knows these things are wrong. He admits as much to Padme (the Sand people) and Palpatine (after killing Dooku) and eventually himself (when he is in tears after massacring the Separatist high command).

Of course, by then, its too late and (thanks to being a Jedi/ force sensitive) he has turned to the Dark Side.

When his Son acts out with anger and fear and beats him down 25 years later, and the Emperor tells him to kill his own father, Luke has two options:

1) Kill vader (evil act) gain a DSP, and turn to the dark side.
2) Refuse to engage in an act of evil (toss his light-saber and inform the Emperor that he has failed).

He does the latter, knowing that it means his certain death. He does it knowing it condemns the Alliance, and his friends on Endor to a certain death.

He does it because he is not evil. The choice is his, and when the Emperor gives him the choice of [do evil and possibly save your friends, and end Vaders evil] or [do good and die, along with everyone else]he chooses the good option.

Just like the ****ing LG Paladin should do when the Devil presents him with the same choice. Refuse.

smcmike

2017-10-27, 09:47 AM

I just meant that Anakin was so poorly written, he did not resemble an actual person with actual human motivations.

If I roll dice for every decision my character makes, and pick lines at random from a movie quote database for everything he says, it’s nonsense to describe my character as “good” or “evil,” because I haven’t made a character at all.

That’s how I feel about the prequels. I’m impressed by your wall of text on them though!

Malifice

2017-10-27, 10:01 AM

I just meant that Anakin was so poorly written, he did not resemble an actual person with actual human motivations.

I partly agree, but you're also naive.

Anakin wanted to end the war because he was sick of it. It had been raging since he was a child, and it had already cost him many friends, his apprentice, his hand and his face (cool guy scar). Many of his friends and allies had been killed. He wanted order, and peace for the galaxy.

Anakin also wanted to save his wifes life (and his children). He was powerless to stop his Mother dying because the Jedi forbade him from returning to see her and save her. He wasnt going to let the Jedi get in the way of him saving those he loved a second time.

Anakin viewed the Republic as inefficient and weak, and unable to properly cope with external threats. He hated bureaucracy and being told what to do. He also disliked the Jedi order for similar reasons (and because they held him back from achieving his potential, and prevented him from saving his own mother, and would have disapproved of how he 'avenged' her). He routinely ignored orders and directives from both organisations, despite being their greatest champion.

Anakin also wanted power. He was obsessed with being the strongest Jedi there ever was.

End the galactic war. Bring peace and order to the galaxy. End the bureaucracy and red tape of the old regime. Save his wife and unborn children. Become the most powerful Force user in the galaxy.

These are pretty darn strong motivations.

Note how none of them are inherently evil. Most are even noble in fact. But its how he chose to achieve these goals that led him to evil.

His actions were evil. Not his motivations.

the_brazenburn

2017-10-27, 10:03 AM

Anakin also wanted to save his wifes life (and his children).

If so, why did he strangle her? That's a pretty dang evil thing to do, no matter how you slice it.

Aett_Thorn

2017-10-27, 10:07 AM

Proposal: We let this thread die.

Can I get a second?

Malifice

2017-10-27, 10:14 AM

If so, why did he strangle her? That's a pretty dang evil thing to do, no matter how you slice it.

Because he had already turned to the dark side.

You may not have noticed the glowing yellow eyes in the scene prior.

Force users are closer to [the cosmic evil]. They do too many evil acts [justification be damned] the eventually turn to the dark side [become a thrall to cosmic evil].

'Cosmic evil' literally flows through Anakin now. He is evil. Hatred, anger, fear.

Remember force users arent like everyone else. You still get a Dark side point for doing evil stuff if you're not force sensitive, but you cant actively call on this cosmic evil as an energy source unless you're force sensitive.

Ultimately force sensitives who call on or empower cosmic evil via acts of evil, become dependent on cosmic evil, and it corrupts them and dominates them. Its only though a supreme act of will [in the RPGs via an act of dramatic heroism, involving self sacrifice, and in pursuit of galactic good] that they can turn away from the dark side and shut out this cosmic evil.

smcmike

2017-10-27, 10:19 AM

I partly agree, but you're also naive.

No need to get personal, Mal! You seem to have enjoyed these movies, but I don’t think disliking them makes me naive!

His actions were evil. Not his motivations.

The second part of this doesn’t seem true. From what I recall, his first truly evil act (“I killed them all!”) was motivated by rage and a desire for revenge.

But, again, my entire point is that those movies were turds, and that basing your arguments on turds can make for squishy arguments.

Malifice

2017-10-27, 10:23 AM

In Star wars the dark side is 'cosmic evil' (anger, hatred, killing, harming others, destruction). The light side is 'cosmic good' (life, creation, peace, calm, defense).

Non force sensitives are still affected by the dark side (just like they are affected by the force generally as it flows through all things). In RPGs they can gain dark side points for acts of evil. Enough DSP (or evil acts) makes them evil.

Force sensitives can actually manipulate this cosmic force (including the dark side) flowing through everything, and they're more susceptible to it. Simply using the force while angry or afraid gets the DSP (accidental use of the dark side). Intentional use (channeling it via force lightning) draws them closer to the dark side rapidly.

Once a force sensitive falls to the darkside, they're literally a living conduit for cosmic evil energy. It corrupts them, physically, mentally and emotionally, and cuts off or heavily impedes their connection to the light side.

Malifice

2017-10-27, 10:32 AM

The second part of this doesn’t seem true. From what I recall, his first truly evil act (“I killed them all!”) was motivated by rage and a desire for revenge.

Of course. But he also saw them as animals and not people; specifically as murderous dangerous animals. And he slaughtered them like animals.

To his mind he was doing an act of good. Vengeance for his mother was a good thing. They got what they deserved. They wont harm anyone ever again.

Heck; Gary Gygax would also say this was an act of LG (He was the one that said 'Nits make lice' remember?).

Many on this (http://boards.theforce.net/threads/anakin-was-right-to-kill-the-tusken-raiders.6932384/)forum also think it was a good act.

It obviously wasnt. It was an act of mass murder and genocide. It was evil, and clearly portrayed as such. But it just goes to show how dangerous subjective justifications can be.

Note: What is far more worrying is Padme. Anakin literally confesses his genocide and mass child murder about 3 days into his relationship with Padme... and she has nothing to say to him about this, other than to be sympathetic to him with a: 'You'll be OK, forget about it.'

It was such a jarring betrayal of her character. I'd like to think if I was 3 days into seeing someone, and they confessed to murdering a bunch of kids I'd get as far as ****ing possible away from them.

But, again, my entire point is that those movies were turds, and that basing your arguments on turds can make for squishy arguments.

On this we agree!

Aett_Thorn

2017-10-27, 10:35 AM

This argument will really go nowhere, and is completely absurd in the first place. Just let this thread die.

Contrast

2017-10-27, 10:44 AM

1) Kill vader (evil act) gain a DSP, and turn to the dark side.
2) Refuse to engage in an act of evil (toss his light-saber and inform the Emperor that he has failed).

He does the latter, knowing that it means his certain death. He does it knowing it condemns the Alliance, and his friends on Endor to a certain death.

He does it because he is not evil. The choice is his, and when the Emperor gives him the choice of [do evil and possibly save your friends, and end Vaders evil] or [do good and die, along with everyone else]he chooses the good option.

Honestly this has always been one of the things that bugged me most about the movies. I'm not saying Luke should have killed Vader, but throwing away his lightsaber and giving up the fight? That's not good. That's dumb (and arguably a betrayal of the people currently fighting and dying while that discussion is taking place). I mean...Luke was a soldier in a war. He'd already killed a lot of people to overthrow the Empire. He had personally killed hundreds of thousands of people when he blew up the Death Star but apparently suddenly even offering any resistance at all was evil? What?

Of course this may be in part because, in the context of the setting light =/= good and dark =/= evil (or at least not how I imagine most people typically describe them). I don't think most people would describe falling madly in love with someone as evil yet its much more closely aligned with the passion of the dark side than the placidity of the light side. I personally don't really see a solider laying down his weapon and leaving his comrades to die in the middle of a fight as a good act but it was clearly a light side one.

Malifice

2017-10-27, 10:49 AM

This argument will really go nowhere, and is completely absurd in the first place. Just let this thread die.

The thread can be summarized as a bunch of people advocating a position that blatantly and unambiguously evil acts [child murder, cannibalism, wanton slaughter, genocide, torture, rape] can be 'not morally evil' as long as [the murderer] has a good reason to do it.

Several people were even arguing that in a universe containing 'objective cosmic good' that [Running around axe murdering and torturing an orphanage full of children and nuns at the request of the Devil] 'isnt evil' as long as you purport to have 'a good reason' to do it.

Seriously. Why do I bother?

smcmike

2017-10-27, 10:53 AM

The thread can be summarized as a bunch of people advocating a position that blatantly and unambiguously evil acts [child murder, cannibalism, wanton slaughter, genocide, torture, rape] can be 'not morally evil' as long as [the murderer] has a good reason to do it.

Several people were even arguing that in a universe containing 'objective cosmic good' that [Running around axe murdering and torturing an orphanage full of children and nuns at the request of the Devil] 'isnt evil' as long as you purport to have 'a good reason' to do it.

Seriously. Why do I bother?

More recently, this thread appears to be one person repeatedly claiming that other people were making these arguments while arguing with people who were not making anything even remotely similar to these arguments.

To answer your question, I assume it’s because you enjoy it.

MadBear

2017-10-27, 10:56 AM

The thread can be summarized as a bunch of people advocating a position that blatantly and unambiguously evil acts [child murder, cannibalism, wanton slaughter, genocide, torture, rape] can be 'not morally evil' as long as [the murderer] has a good reason to do it.

Several people were even arguing that in a universe containing 'objective cosmic good' that [Running around axe murdering and torturing an orphanage full of children and nuns at the request of the Devil] 'isnt evil' as long as you purport to have 'a good reason' to do it.

Seriously. Why do I bother?

I'm sorry, but at this point I'm assuming you're just purposefully misrepresenting others positions....

Malifice

2017-10-27, 11:01 AM

Honestly this has always been one of the things that bugged me most about the movies. I'm not saying Luke should have killed Vader, but throwing away his lightsaber and giving up the fight? That's not good.

It was good. It was an act of heroic self sacrifice to save his fathers life.

Luke wasn't there to kill the Emperor (or anyone else). He was there to save his fathers life (and soul) and redeem him. It was save his father, or be destroyed.

He told his father as much on Endor.

By doing what he did, he was showing his father that the Emperor can be defeated simply be being defied.

Ultimately this led the Emperor to try and kill (the now) unarmed Luke. This evil act by the Emperor, in turn motivated Anakin to complete an act of heroic self sacrifice himself in defense of his son, by pegging the Emperor down the shaft.

If Luke had have attacked the Emperor he would have died, and the rebellion and his friends with him (he stood no chance against the Emperor). Instead he did the 'good' thing and demonstrated (to the Emperor; but especially to Anakin) that he was prepared to die, in order to save the life of his father.

'You have failed your highness. I am a Jedi, like my father before me.'

Those words, and those two acts of heroic self sacrifice (by Luke, and then by Vader) ultimately saved the galaxy.